Live Free or Die Trying
Home Forum Articles
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!

Search

Main Menu

Who is Online
193 user(s) are online (6 user(s) are browsing Article)

Members: 4
Guests: 189

TracyLesli, CoulombeMarcy, AbleClaudette, PaulinaBog, more...



PHP File Browser for the Web
JavaScript Tree Menu
Article :: Simple Overview

Court Records


summary

The factual proofs in this section are moot, just to prove that the courts had sufficient evidence and warnings at the time, which they chose to ignore. All lies become refuted and truths verified with the passage of time. The actual results of the courts choosing to ignore fact and break the law are far worse than was predicted at the time. The most disturbing aspect of these facts is that the social cost we (meaning ALL Canadians) have been forced to pay in this matter, is actually profit and a desireable outcome from the perspectives of the intellectual "stakeholders" in this matter. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that bringing these criminals to account will again make it "necessary" to wield force and guns on the part of the people, or, at a minimum, some very determined civil disobedience.

History (prior to November 25, 1994):

ZERO domestic incidents, police involvement or allegations of improper behavior against husband by any party, including ex-wife prior to ex-wife concluding (after her petition for divorce) that husband intended to fight and had evidence posing a serious threat to her objectives.

In response to this, ex-wife and her lawyer changed strategy to husband was abusive, a harsh parent and about to go postal . In support of this a flurry of false affidavits, "expert" psychiatric and police reports were generated repeating ex-wife's false allegations (hearsay) to create the impression that husband was a very dangerous perpetrater. There is and was absolutely ZERO evidence that husband's behavior was other than beyond reproach.

All information submitted to the court is here (can be verified at Ottawa court records office and by looking at the Index record for each motion). Personal information which risks identity theft such as Social Insurance and bank account numbers has been removed. I will let you decide what is pertinent, you be the judge. Here's the evidence/facts, as "considered" by the courts:

Ex-wife filed for divorce on May 17, 1994. Husband filed answer and counter petition on June 16, 1994.

Petition For Divorce by ex-wife (May 16, 1994)

Petition For Divorce

  • Petition For Divorce
  • Claims to be primary caregiver for daughters, husband irrelevant
  • Demands full custody of daughters
  • Demands $2,800.00 per month in support
  • Demands exclusive possession of home and all contents
  • Claims no allegations of abuse or unfit parent against husband

Answer and CounterPetition by husband (June 16, 1994)

  • Answer and CounterPetition
  • Demands full custody of daughters
  • Demands $800.00 per month in child support
  • Demands exclusive possession of home and all contents
  • Claims wife is an unfit mother and alcoholic
  • Claims wife is unable to be affectionate with daughters, does not know them and pushes them away
  • Claims wife unable to manage children or child support, which will be wasted, not benefiting children
  • Claims wife is now trying to alienate daughters from father
  • Claims husband was primary caregiver of children during marriage, due to disinterest and irresponsibility on wife's part
  • Claims wife has been and is recklessly financially irresponsible, keeping family poor by selfish spending on herself
  • Demands unequal division of family property, since wife did not contribute, any assets achieved by husbands efforts and loans from his parents, despite wife's financial irresponsibility

Summary of litigant's claims

  • Ex-wife claims to have been primary caregiver for two daughters during entire marriage. Wants sole custody of children, $2,800.00 per month in support and exclusive possession of home. Makes no allegations of abuse or unfit parent against husband.
  • Husband claims to have been primary caregiver for two daughters during entire marriage. Wants custody of children, 800.00 per month in support and exclusive possession of home. Makes allegations that ex-wife is disinterested in children, an unfit parent, irresponsible, a chronic alcoholic and has impoverished family by reckless spending. Husband wants unequal division of family property to compensate for the fact that all assets due to his productivity, despite ex-wife's refusal to be a partner, irresponsibility, non-contribution and financial waste.
  • Next court date: June 23, 2004

Court Records evidence, arguments, conclusions (June 23, 1994)

Summary of Litigation (June 23, 1994)

  • Ex-wife now alleges that husband is abusive, has made rape threats and poor little helpless her is terrified and in need of judicial assistance. Now alleges that husband is unfit parent and a harsh disciplinarian of daughters. Provides hearsay police and security reports regurgitating her allegations, with ZERO involvement of husband. Provides affidavits from acquaintances with no insight. Provides affidavit from her mother who still advises maximal involvement of husband in children's lives. Has no affidavits from close friends, since she has none. Provides medical report from Dr. Selwyn Smith alleging husband is a mortal threat to ex-wife and daughters and that ex-wife is excellent mother, with ZERO alcohol problems, all based on ex-wife's word only. Ex-wife's arguments are confused, contradictory and emotional. Her position appears to be an attempt to give the impression that husband is a very dangerous perpetrator indeed, a hazard to all civilized people, and should be preemptively smited by the court before he goes postal , just like Iraq. Predatory Algorithm: demonize, socially isolate, move in for the kill, feed from the carcass.
  • Husband's claims unchanged. Provides statements from ex-wife's step father, her two sisters, various family friends and neighbors outlining their observations supporting husbands and refuting ex-wife's positions. Provides letters from employer stating husband can work at home, if single parent. Provides analysis of ex-wife's 1993 finances by chartered accountant indicating that ex-wife putting family in debt at rate of $10,700.00 per year. At this point in time husband foolishly believed that courts were objective , fact oriented and bound by the law. Husband presented evidence and argued in rational terms and assumed that judges were rational players, as they claim.
  • Results: Adjourned on consent, without prejudice, pending "expert" appraisal of situation and recommendations. Husband and ex-wife care for daughters equally, in marital home, vacating home when other present. Husband bribed ex-wife with support to achieve this and to give time to prove ex-wife and her witnesses, including Dr. Smith as liars.
  • Results: This consent agreement was later turned into a court order by ex-wife's lawyer which fraudulently implies that the evidence was considered by the judge, whem in actual fact, it could not have been, by law, without husband's lawyer present.
  • Game Score:
    • Children: highly stressed, psychiatric counseling required, education affected
    • Husband: extremely pissed off, negative $25,000.00 dollars to lawyer (increasing debt)
    • Husband: negative $700.00 per month in child support, despite fact that ex-wife had more discretionary income than husband without it. (increasing debt)
    • Husband: had to live in a friends basement, on charity, no money for living expenses
    • Ex-wife: highly stressed, became addicted to tranquilizers trying to hide chronic alcoholism
    • Ex-wife: positive $700.00 per month in child support, major profit, a raise
    • taxpayers (legal aid): negative $40,000.00 to ex-wife's lawyer
    • taxpayers: (shrinks for ex-wife and children) negative $1,000.00 dollars
    • taxpayers: (bogus police report) unknown
    • economy: (husband and ex-wife unproductive due to stress) unknown
    • Legal Profession: positive $64,000.00 dollars
    • Psychiatric Profession: positive $1,000.00 dollars
    • Winner: Legal Profession
    • Losers: Everyone Else
  • Next court date: November 25, 2004, no judge has yet considered evidence

Initial Motion by ex-wife (May 16, 1994)

Motion Index

Notice of Motion

  • Notice of Motion
  • Demands custody of children
  • Demands assessment of children's best interests be conducted by professionals
  • Demands $2,800 per month ($33,600 per year) in support. Ex-wife earned $28,000 per year in full time employment. This would be a very profitable outcome, a raise for ex-wife, making employment unnecessary, which she subsequently and still does choose, at taxpayers expense.
  • Demands posession of house and all contents.
  • Demands restraining order against husband.
  • Demands police be ordered to enforce restraining order.
  • Demands order prohibiting husband from disposing of any property.

Affidavit of ex-wife (May 16, 1994)

  • Affidavit of ex-wife
  • Claims husband lacking in organizational skills required for parenting
  • Claims husband works too hard and travels extensively. Refuted here and here.
  • Claims children view her as most important parent, serious disruption to their lives without her
  • Claims she is a loving and patient parent
  • Claims husband alleging that she is a drunk and consumes nine to ten ounces of rum per day which she denies. True, husband measured her alcohol consumption and further proven by ex-wife's own admission here.
  • Claims husband abusing her by stating "go find another man to leach off", "if you think I am a threat to you, you're right", "am probably going to court and you're going to hate me when I am finished because I will destroy you" and "am going to use every talent that I have to bring you down".

Letter to Board of Education regarding school tax transfer (April 29, 1994)

  • Letter to Board of Education
  • Wants to know if possible to re-direct school taxes to Catholic school board, so children can remain in same school.

Letter from ex-wife's employer confirming employment

Performance Reviews by ex-wife's employer

Statement of Diane Nicol for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (May 11, 1994)

  • Statement of Diane Nicol
  • Diane attests to quality daycare for her daughter by ex-wife.
  • Diane initially believed ex-wife and was hostile to husband.
  • Diane subsequently became roommates with ex-wife and was morally compelled to call Child Protection Services on April 13, 1995 to protect daughters from ex-wife.
  • Diane subsequently approached husband and insisted on providing husband an affidavit in support (June 19, 1996) of his bid for custody. Note the date of the second affidavit. It is in the future and thus, could not have been considered in 1994, the period under discussion.
  • Ex-wife ended up living with Diane Nicol after being granted by the courts full possession of home (kicking husband out of his home that was achieved by loans from his parents and paid for by himself, despite ex-wife's financial irresponsibility, including after he was forced out), which ex-wife was incapable of managing and chose to leave, another symptom of her general incompetence, in all areas, including parenting.

Statement of Susan L. Perry for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (May 10, 1994)

  • Statement of Susan L. Perry (May 10, 1994)
  • Ex-wife cared for her two daughters one, before and after school, the other full time from September 1990 to June 1991
  • Considered ex-wife reliable, responsible and caring.

Statement of Lorene Rolfe for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (May 11, 1994)

  • Statement of Lorene Rolfe
  • Ex-wife cared for her daughter from August 1989 to August 1991
  • Husband: Lorene was the last client, daycare ended at this time, ex-wife went to work full time. All opinions regarding daycare at least three years old.
  • Considered ex-wife reliable and was happy with care.

Statement of Dr. Ron Rushforth, G.P. (May 11, 1994)

Statement of Dr. Bruce Johnston children's chiropractor (May 12, 1994)

Letter from husband to wife attempting to address marital issues (June 18, 1993)

  • Letter from husband to wife
  • Written well before marital breakdown, husband attempting to address marital issues.
  • Husbands points are heavily scratched out (by ex-wife), denial.
  • Alcohol is not mentioned, since this was an attempt by husband to deal with some issues and alcohol was a major hot button for wife during marriage.
  • Any attempt to address alcohol issues resulted in immediate hostility, blaming husband, immediate inebriation on wife's part and an end to any possibility of discussion.
  • Alcohol was seriously discussed during marriage counselling, but access to records was denied by ALL judges, due to "privacy concerns".

Financial Statement and proposed budget of ex-wife (May 16, 1994)

  • Financial Statement
  • Ex-wife proposes to run a monthly deficit (income minus expenses) of $2,963.00. In other words spend this much more than her income. Ex-husband was expected to pay for the basic "unfairness" that Ex-wife wanted to spend $35,550.00 per year more than she earned.
  • Ex-wife in personal debt $17,000.00 (no family benefit, against husband's wishes and in spite of his opposition during marriage), with a gross (pre-tax) income of $26,000.00 for her out of control, frivolous spending and credit card excesses.
  • Ex-wife disposed of (stole) $12,200.00 worth of joint property to her mother, claiming to be repaying a debt that could not have existed, since her mother was poor and just as financially incompetent as ex-wife.

Response Motion by husband (June 20, 1994)

Motion Index

Notice of Cross Motion (June 23, 1994)

  • Notice of Cross Motion
  • Requests custody of children
  • Requests $800.00 child support per month
  • Request posession of home and all contents

Affidavit of husband (June 20, 1994)

  • Affidavit of husband
  • Claims ex-wife has little interest in children, husband shoulders most childcare responsibilities.
  • Claims that husband had to "pay" ex-wife to care for children, so she would allow him to work for family benefit.
  • Claims that school reporting older daughter "starved for affection"
  • Claims that ex-wife abusing alcohol during the day while caring for children in her daycare.
  • Claims to have measured ex-wife's daily rum consumption over a 23 day period, averaging 8.94 ounces per day.
  • Claims that ex-wife is trying to mask her drinking by using tranquilizers
  • Claims that ex-wife very verbally abusive and demeaning of husband, in front of children.
  • Claims that ex-wife totally irresponsible and in denial of her problems

Copies of two cheques totaling $1,000.00 for bathing children (Oct, 1993)

  • Copies of two cheques
  • Ex-wife demanded $1,000 for giving daughters evening baths for one month (husbands responsibility) so he could work with a friend at home, on a joint venture, for family benefit.
  • The real issue was not childcare, it was that, as a condition for not being argumentative and disruptive when husband tried to earn extra income for family survival, ex-wife demanded a large "cut", to be spent on herself as she saw fit. This was not the first, but certainly the last time that husband tolerated this "extortion" by ex-wife.
  • Ex-wife's rationale is very similar to the state's: Comply or we will make your life a living hell until you do. Exactly what do you not understand about "Over my dead body!" ?

Two prescription receipts for ex-wife's tranquilizers hiding alcohol addiction (April/May 1994)

  • Tranquilizer prescription receipts
  • Alprazolam. Husband believes this was an attempt by ex-wife to mask her alcohol addiction.
  • Subsequent evidence proves that ex-wife abused this drug, became addicted, the pharmacist cut her off and medically managed withdrawal treatment was required.
  • For the purposes of argument, this prescription indicates that ex-wife was unable to cope without chemical aid, very pertinent to the "Best Interests of Children", the stated highest concern (and pretext for many illegal acts against parents) by the law.

Letter from husband's employer states 42 hours of overtime worked by husband in 1993 (June 10, 1994)

Letter from husbands manager states husband can work at home, if necessary (May 27, 1993)

  • Letter from husbands manager
  • States that husband can work at home
  • States that husband has flexible hours and can attend to doctor's and other appointments for children and has in the past
  • States that mandatory overtime is limited to 8 hours per week and no need for it, since husband can think (his job) anywhere
  • States that travel can be refused, unless it is in husbands job description, which it is not

Statement of Alan and Marion Kidd ex-wife's stepfather and his spouse (May 17, 1994)

  • Statement by Alan and Marion Kidd
  • Both very opposed to ex-wife (and supportative of husband) having custody of daughters for children's best interests by reasons/observations outlined within.
  • Husband first described to them by ex-wife as "A rich university graduate with a Corvette, whom she intended to marry", both were firmly convinced marriage was for money and status.
  • Husband has common sense and appears to think of children before self. Husband has good sense of humor and not abusive.
  • Ex-wife extremely selfish and irresponsible. Has adopted her mother's misguided, irresponsible parenting methods (expect rewards without effort) which produced ex-wife and will destroy children in the same way.
  • Ex-wife seems to have no emotional or any other connection with daughters, treats them as things, inconveniences in her life.
  • Ex-wife behaves as if she is special, better than other people, deserving and demanding of special consideration with no basis in reality.
  • Ex-wife a lavish spender, totally financially irresponsible, spending faster than husband can earn.
  • During children's early years, both parents negligent, too busy bickering and arguing. Husband's parenting has substantially improved over the years, ex-wife has not.
  • Witnessed ex-wife smoking cigarettes and consuming alcohol during both pregnancies.
  • Both strongly believe ex-wife is not mother material and strongly suspect her interest is purely child support and the house. Believe husband far better parent.
  • Both believe husbands patience, ability to communicate with children and personal responsibility values will assure good future for children. Believe ex-wife will achieve the opposite.
  • Believe that, if ex-wife achieves custody, she will drive husband out of children's lives, to their detriment (just like her mother), waste any settlement she may get and end up on social services.
  • Have observed no abuse of ex-wife, husband or children.
  • Strongly suspect ex-wife of alcohol problems for years, she always has a drink on the go. She is antisocial and goes off and drinks alone.
  • Suspect that ex-wife's claimed debt to her mother is a fabrication, since her mother is incapable of accumulating such an amount or retaining it.

Statement of Anita Cox one of ex-wife's two sisters (May 18, 1994)

  • Statement by Anita Cox
  • Seen no evidence that ex-wife has changed or learned anything since adolescence
  • Ex-wife is a prima donna, believing she is special, unable to compromise, be a team member, or acknowledge the point of view of others.
  • Ex-wife is completely and utterly selfish and antisocial
  • Ex-wife shares her mothers contempt for establishment beliefs and objective people (such as doctors, engineers...), considering them smug, arrogant and unable to see beyond "reality"
  • Could never understand why ex-wife would marry an engineer, given her utter contempt and disdain for people of the logical persuasion, whom husband certainly is.
  • Ex-wife is extremely adept at skirting around issues and blame shifting to others. She is a very good actress and liar in the short haul when she is trying to get something.
  • Ex-wife's sense of self-worth appears to be based on what she has, who she is superior to or can dominate.
  • Ex-wife appears to have no connection with daughters and treats them as annoyances, with no interaction.
  • Ex-wife unstable, incompetent and incapable of parenting, dooming children's future. Believes husband's stability, skills and responsibility values will result in children being successful adults.
  • No opinion on whether ex-wife has alcohol problems, but unfit parent, even if not.

Statement by Laura Harris other of ex-wife's two sisters (May 17, 1994)

  • Statement by Laura Harris
  • Husband and ex-wife, tense relationship, arguments usually initiated by ex-wife. Husband did not back down
  • Appears that ex-wife has replaced Laura with husband as "sparring partner"
  • Ex-wife very territorial, always insists on having things her way, unwilling to compromise.
  • Initially, both parents disasters and negligent, too busy arguing.
  • Husband has improved over the years, has quality times, activities with daughters, treats them as people and plays with them.
  • Ex-wife has no connection or quality interaction with daughters, pushes them away, needs a great deal of alone time.
  • Ex-wife is very irresponsible in all areas, including financial.
  • Ex-wife assumes that her opinions and desires are more valid than anyone else's.
  • No opinion on whether alcohol being abused, but did see ex-wife smoking and consuming alcohol, during both pregnancies.
  • Ex-wife seems to be mimicking what she observed during her parents divorce: Trying to drive husband out of children's lives.
  • Strongly opposed to sole custody for ex-wife or children living together with ex-wife and her mother (children's grandmother), since they will not acquire life survival skills in this environment.

Statement by Garnet Ross husband's father (May 30, 1994)

  • Statement by Garnet Ross
  • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's father
  • Ex-wife treated husband with contempt, not liked by entire family for this reason.
  • Believed ex-wife was an opportunist, due to lack of respect for husband, her children, lack of partnership awareness, unreasonableness and financial irresponsibility, impoverishing her family.
  • Spent 3 day weekend with family in 1993, Ex-wife inebriated entire weekend, husband did all childcare.
  • Father made the mistake of trying to reason with ex-wife
  • Ex-wife stated "I pretend to be what men want enough to keep them happy and take what I want from them and that is how it is and should be"
  • Very concerned about granddaughters due to verbally abusive ex-wife, tense environment, alcohol abuse and ex-wife's complete lack of attending to daughters emotional and environmental needs.
  • Ex-wife completely unfit mother and unable to compromise with husband (or anyone) on any issue, including raising children in a joint custody situation.

Statement by Bernice Ross husbands step-mother (May 31, 1994)

  • Statement by Bernice Ross
  • From the perspective of a woman who cared for many children from Children's Aid, helping 42 in all. Read and decide whether biased for yourself.
  • Husband was the one caring for daughters - ex-wife disinterested
  • Ex-wife would not let anyone, including husband correct or discipline her daughters
  • Children very easy to manage in ex-wife's absence
  • Only one rule enforced by ex-wife: children stay away from her.
  • Other grandchildren do not like ex-wife at all.
  • Ex-wife is inconsistent, threats, but no follow-through. Children ignore her
  • Ex-wife does not attend to children's emotional needs or treat them as little people. She does adequately meet their physical needs.
  • Ex-wife admitted she was not being financially honest with husband.
  • Considers husband far more attentive to children's needs and better parent.

Statement by John Ross husband's brother (May 30, 1994)

  • Statement by John Ross
  • Many valid and true observations, but, assume to be biased, since is husband's brother
  • Did not like ex-wife due to verbal abuse of husband, neglect of children's emotional and social needs
  • Ex-wife is not open and acts like a prima donna, better than everyone else
  • Ex-wife would not help out, refused to be a partner and expected husband to do everything
  • Ex-wife constantly accused husband of being an asshole, with a useless career that was unable to meet her needs, and being an engineer was "beneath the dignity of quality people, such as herself"
  • Claims tried to talk some sense into husband regarding being used by ex-wife and was met with "I'm trying to be patient, win to her over to reason and also have the children to consider".
  • All arguments were started by ex-wife who used vindictive character assaults and emotional bickering, while husband stuck to the facts, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
  • Both parents attentive to children's physical needs.
  • Husband better parent because he treats girls as little people, attentive to their emotional and interaction needs. Ex-wife negligent/incompetent in this area.
  • Ex-wife expected others to relieve her of the burden of childcare (while she became inebriated) when husband not around.
  • Ex-wife really likes to drink alcohol.

Statement by Sherry Skater husband's common law sister (May 30, 1994)

  • Statement by Sherry Skater
  • Ex-wife and Sherry got along well and confided in each other.
  • Decide bias or not yourself.
  • Ex-wife drinks to excess
  • Ex-wife demands that husband do all childcare responsibility, refused to participate
  • Ex-wife was a terrible mother, insensitive to children's needs
  • Ex-wife referred to husband as a possession providing money and security.
  • Ex-wife did not play or interact with children and pushes them away. She won't let children play in dirt "you're young ladies" or be kids.
  • Ex-wife confided she couldn't handle motherhood, which was why she drank so much alcohol.
  • Ex-wife claimed children "really get on her nerves". She blamed husband for having children and "it was his responsibility to deal with them"
  • Ex-wife confided she had bottles hidden all around house, unknown to husband. Admitted to drinking at least two 1.75 Liter bottles of rum per week.
  • Observed on weekends that ex-wife would get up in the morning and make several half rum / half coffee's, which she took to her room to drink alone.
  • Ex-wife confided that some friends were getting divorced, with similar economic circumstances. She claimed that $1000.00 per month per child was a fantastically good deal. When Sherry pointed out that it is unfair to impoverish the father, leaving him unable to care for his children, ex-wife's response was: "its the man's job to pay".

Statement by Gary Browne husbands nephew (June 14, 1994)

  • Statement by Gary Browne
  • Stayed with spouses for several weeks in summer 1991.
  • No interaction or activities by ex-wife with daycare children.
  • No rules for children, except don't go upstairs
  • Ex-wife screamed at children often
  • No opinion regarding alcohol, wasn't paying attention

Statement by Richard and Beth Beange contractor, spent extensive time at Ross's (May 11, 1994)

  • Statement by Richard and Beth Beange
  • Did extensive renovations at spouses home in 1991
  • Spent a month and a half plus more weekends at Ross residence. There during daycare hours.
  • Ex-wife never interacted or did activities with daycare or her own children.
  • Right after lunch (children napping) ex-wife would start drinking rum and cokes and sometimes offered to share.
  • Ex-wife and husband argued a lot.
  • At times, when over socially, ex-wife drank to excess and passed out right after dinner.
  • When not working, husband did all child activities, including taking them shopping and for their activities on the weekend.
  • They could have saved substantial renovation costs if husband had helped with renovations and ex-wife cared for the children, rather than husband.

Statement by Brian Alexson friend and engineering classmate of husband (May 26, 1994)

  • Statement by Brian Alexson
  • Known ex-wife as long as husband. Met at same time.
  • Ex-wife has serious alcohol problem, some times passed out at the dinner table, during dinner.
  • Ex-wife drank double rum and cokes.
  • Ex-wife was often yelling at children to "keep out of her space"
  • It was husband who had all childcare duties when not working.
  • Worked on a project in summer 1993 with husband which ex-wife demanded a "cut" in exchange for taking over husbands childcare responsibilities.
  • While at Ross residence working for a month, ex-wife ignored and refused to take care of children so husband could work
  • Husband was constantly being interrupted to deal with children, which ex-wife refused to do.
  • Ex-wife spent weekends in bed watching TV, yelling out instructions to husband to deal with kids and refused to let them in the room with her.
  • Ex-wife was constantly demeaning and verbally abusive to husband, for entire project.
  • Have never observed ex-wife affectionate, playing with or paying attention to children.
  • Husband is the one that pays attention to children's emotional, attention and social needs.
  • Witnessed a very bad argument / verbal abuse on ex-wife's part against husband in January 1994.
  • Ex-wife always complaining husband is poor provider, an insane opinion, because their lifestyle met or exceeds his peers.
  • Very bad partnership. Ex-wife wants to be lazy, consume and be pampered, husband wants to build for his family and the future.

Statement by Jan Ladiges describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children (June 8, 1994)

  • Statement by Jan Ladiges
  • Describes Halloween 1992 visit of Ross's and children
  • Ex-wife refused to participate or help in child activities and very detached from everyone, missing the the whole social point of the evening
  • Ex-wife very liberal with helping herself to alcohol
  • Ex-wife expected husband to do all child stuff, including packing them up to go.

Statement by Robert Southby neighbor of Ross's (June 14, 1994)

  • Statement by Robert Southby
  • Described day/evening he was over helping with renovations in 1991
  • Ex-wife extremely verbally abusive to and demanding of husband, treated him like a puppet, in front of his children.
  • Husband did all childcare, don't remember ex-wife interacting with children at all
  • Balance of visit much more pleasant after ex-wife went to bed early

Statement by Garry Hammond family friend and co-worker of husband (May 18, 1994)

  • Statement by Garry Hammond
  • Ex-wife always drank double rums and refused husbands pleas to take it easy, since she refused to share paying restaurant bills.
  • When out, ex-wife always wanted to go home early and husband always drove, due to ex-wife's inebriated state.
  • On weekends, when stayed over, ex-wife refused to get up and was husband's responsibility to feed children and organize their day.
  • Did not observe what he would call abuse, but much arguing between spouses.
  • Only interaction observed between ex-wife and children was when she fed them. Ex-wife kept children out of "her space".
  • Ex-wife very annoyed if children persisted in asking for her attention.
  • Husband did all quality interaction with children, treating them as little people and meeting their needs and taking them to activities.
  • Husband did bath and story time with children, each evening and bike rides during the day.
  • Never observed husband angry with children.

Postmortem of My Marriage by husband (June 12, 1994)

Letter from Dr. Ron Rushforth, G.P. father and daughters seem to have a good relationship (May 18, 1994)

Letter from Dr. Ron Rushforth, G.P. states that chiropractic treatment is likely unnecessary (May 27, 1994)

Various cheques from husband to ex-wife totaling $1900.00 (1993)

Bill of sale for stocks totaling $10,003.08 (Oct 2, 1993)

  • Bill of sale for stocks
  • To a friend, but at then current market price
  • Husband had to sell these investments to recover from wife's financial irresponsibility and lack of contribution.

Copy of receipt for custom ring ex-wife had made for $1750.00 (Nov 18, 1993)

  • Copy of receipt for custom ring
  • Ex-wife had wedding ring butchered to make another ring without husbands consent
  • Wedding ring not good enough for ex-wife's inflated ego or self-esteem
  • Expense not agreed to and opposed after the fact when husband found out
  • Ex-wife basically took a ring worth $4500.00, added $1750.00 to achieve a ring worth $1950.00 (per ex-wife's financial statement)
  • Done on credit, a whim, by a financially irresponsible fool.
  • A completely selfish, irrational and anti-survival expense, given the dire financial straits of the family.

Financial Analysis of Ex-wife's 1993 accounts by chartered accountant (June 20, 1994)

  • Financial Analysis of Ex-wife's 1993 accounts
  • Ex-wife has more discretionary income (her income minus her areas of responsibility) than husband
  • Husband subsidized ex-wife's areas of financial responsibility $5385.00 in 1993
  • Despite husbands subsidization, ex-wife's debt increasing at rate of $5312.00 per year
  • In other words, ex-wife spending $10,700.0 more than her income per year, impoverishing family

Financial statement of husband (June 17, 1994)

  • Financial statement of husband
  • Husband had net worth of positive $36,500.00 on date of marriage
  • Husband, after eight years of marriage, strong career and salary growth, ex-wife's predations, net worth = negative $28,870.77
  • Husband's debt on separation date (including mortgage): $98,960.00
  • Husband's debt on statement date (including mortgage): $101,269.00
  • Husband claims a current monthly deficit of $894.00 and proposed monthly deficit of $579.00

Supplementary Motion by ex-wife (June 23, 1994)

Supplementary Affidavit of ex-wife (June 21, 1994)

  • Supplementary Affidavit of ex-wife
  • Claims that coexistence with husband in matrimonial home has gone from bad to intolerable
  • Claims that husband taunts her on a daily basis
  • Claims that husband is using fear to try to break her down
  • Claims that husband is stating that "there is nothing but destruction and despair in her future"
  • Claims to be so stressed that she has engaged a shrink to prepare a report of husband's effects on her
  • Admits to be taking tranquilizers, to deal with husband's "abuse"
  • Claims only solution to husbands alleged abuse is for court to remove him from her home and order him to be restrained
  • Claims that husband stating "he will destroy me in court and have me kicked out of MY home"
  • Claims that husband stating "she is poison, she poisons everything she touches"
  • Claims that husband stating "she is a defective human being and husband knows what, not who she is"
  • Claims that husband constantly tries to provoke arguments and she refuses to engage except through her liar (lawyer)
  • Claims that husband is demanding custody of the children and stating "she should find another man to leach off of"
  • Claims that husband is treating this as a sick game, as though we should compete to prove who is at fault for marital breakdown and the innocent party should win everything
  • Claims that husband has now physically abused her by physically restraining her wrists and threatening rape
  • Claims that husband stated "I know what you are and I know why you are the way you are, you have hurt me badly and I have done nothing to you. I want to know why."
  • Claims that husband stated "The children are screwed up because of her and she is a defective human being"
  • Claims that she reported husbands alleged physical abuse and rape threats to police
  • Claims that husband was threatening her with "consequences"
  • Claims that husband leaving her demanding notes to pay bills and transfer car ownership as promised
  • Claims that husband was screaming at her and threatening her to transfer vehicle and that he would waylay her at work
  • Claims that conflict in home, due to husband is negatively affecting children at home and school and husband must be removed to protect them
  • Claims that husband is making "horrific accusations" (unstated what they are) against her to the children, upsetting them
  • Claims that she is doing best to insulate the children from this "warfare" launched by husband. Recall whom filed for divorce and who refused to deal with things in a civilized manner.
  • Denies that she has done anything to malign husband in front of children, as stated in several of husband's witness statements
  • Claims that husband upset children by insensitively announcing to daughters "Mommy and Daddy are separating due to Mommy's drinking"
  • Alleges that husband demanded that older daughter tell him who she wants to live with: answer Mommy
  • Claims that husband is contacting her friends and relatives, alleging that she is an alcoholic and drug addict.
  • Claims that because of husband's allegations, friends and relatives are questioning her "honesty" (husband: this would seem to indicate that ex-wife has not earned or lost their trust)
  • Claims that husband is un-cooperative for day to day requirements such as schedule and childcare and refuses to discuss anything, contradicting her previous statement that she refuses to discuss anything with husband, except through lawyers.
  • Claims that husband uses every opportunity to threaten, denigrate or twist her words.
  • Claims that husband derailed a joint meeting with child psychologist regarding oldest daughter to try to discuss divorce issues.
  • Denies truthfulness of ALL of husband's witness statements, claims that they were done while poor little her was caring for her children. Fact is, husband was doing most childcare during this period, as ex-wife too busy out celebrating her "freedom" and assumed lifetime financial security, drinking and partying. Most witness interviews were done by phone, once husband had seen the children off to bed.
  • Claims that husband has changed his tune and once acknowledged her as the "hub" of the home during marriage.
  • Claims that husband is a harsh "disciplinarian" and gave the girls cold showers if they splashed water on the floor during bath. This is true, daughters, by splash fights, soaked the floor, damaging the ceiling below and it had to stop. Reason had failed, cold showers worked.
  • Claims that husband punished oldest daughter for urinating on the floor (Truth: it was intentional, daughter protesting for being locked in her room), by wrapping her in a towel as diaper, taking a picture and stating "what do you think your friends would think if they saw this?" The truth of the matter is that ex-wife was very upset by the urinating (it seriously offends ex-wife when people in general behave contrary to her expectations) and demanded that husband deal with it. Husband and ex-wife discussed what to do. It was a jointly arrived at punishment. The picture ex-wife presents as evidence has husband's hand on his daughters shoulder, while ex-wife took the picture. The photocopy presented to the court is not too clear. Husband has the original. This was a joint punishment, falsely attributed as due to husbands insensitive and harsh nature. Ex-wife also falsely claims that she opposed this "humiliating" punishment for our daughter, administered by her brute of a husband. It should also be noted that this behavior never happened again.
  • Claims that husband took all of older daughters (at age 2.5 years) possessions out of her room in response to dumping her dresser on the floor and made her earn them back by good behavior. Ex-wife claims she felt this punishment was too severe, but once again, it was jointly arrived at. In addition, with the benefit of hindsight, this was daughter protesting being locked in her room, to keep her out of her mother's "space" Once again, behavior improved.
  • Claims that husband's witness's perceptions that she ignores children was because she was too busy being cooking, being a good hostess. Does not explain when not entertaining, such as visiting friends or relatives, when friends or neighbors drop by just visiting, during renovations or when husband working with Brian Alexson for a month at home.
  • Claims that husband "acts" as a good father when others around, but inept otherwise. Does not explain how relationship between father and daughters could "appear" so good, if this were unusual behavior on fathers part and rare experience for children.
  • Claims that when entertaining, not unusual to have 3 or 4 alcoholic beverages in evening, or, when not entertaining to have one or two alcoholic beverages several times a week.
  • Claims that her alcoholic consumption recent, 5 to six months old, due to stress of having to announce divorce to husband. Claims she has now ceased drinking completely.
  • Claims much dispute over matters financial in marriage, due to husband's unreasonable position that, since he earned far more money than her, he should have more say than her in how OUR money was spent.
  • Admits that husbands expenditures for joint, family benefit, then contradicts herself by claiming she had no idea of husbands expenditures.
  • Admits to refusing to co-operate or share financial information with husband during marriage.
  • Alleges that husband kicked nursing dog outside, while poor little newborn puppies hungry inside whining and crying. The brute.
  • Now claims that debt to husbands parents, for downpayment of home, does not exist.
  • Claims that husbands witnesses seen only occasionally and have no insight.
  • Claims to have concerns about husbands parenting skills.
  • Claims that $12,200 in assets transferred to her mother per her financial statement is inaccurate, a typo. Should be $5500.00, receipt from "mother" presented as evidence.
  • Claims that custom ring she had made for $1750.00 against husbands wishes was a gift (since it was her butchered wedding ring) and therefore hers, but husband obligated to half of the ring debt, to pay for it.
  • Claims that phone bills excessive, due to husband "harassing", potential witnesses for statements. Provides list of people she claims refused husband. Truth is, some had no insight, and many just wanted to stay as far away as they could from involvement with this pointless, destructive conflict, and insane lawyers and courts.

Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith attesting to husband's abuse, ex-wife's perfection (June 20, 1994)

  • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
  • Has not met husband or children, making this report entirely hearsay, all information originates with ex-wife.
  • First seen ex-wife on April 22, 1994, seen her several times subsequently
  • Has seen Police Report "Confirmation of Domestic Occurrence" dated June 10, 1994
  • Cites TWO police reports, the second is fictional and does not exist.
  • Claims ex-wife seems to enjoy her work. Surprise to husband, ex-wife hates any work, considers it beneath her, something only lowlife's do.
  • Ex-wife claims to relate well with colleagues and superiors. Another surprise. Husband never met or heard of friends from work.
  • Claims that ex-wife is studying psychology on a part time basis at University of Waterloo. Yes, in a desultory manner. All of her educational endeavors petered out and failed. Husband forced to conclude it was not educational improvement ex-wife sought, but for ex-wife to be able to claim she was better and smarter than others, because she was in university.
  • Ex-wife has low self-esteem because brother suicided when he was 17.
  • Ex-wife describes marriage as emotionally abusive and that husband does not "trust her". Husband: for ex-wife, "trust" is a pre-requisite to ripping someone off. Been burnt too many times, so have our daughters. Trust must be earned and maintained. It was not.
  • Notes that there have been two police incidents regarding husbands "abuse".
  • Ex-wife claims marriage counseling "unhelpful" and wants divorce.
  • Ex-wife claims that husband of the opinion that they should reconcile.
  • Ex-wife on tranquilizers (Alprazolam) due to tension in home.
  • Ex-wife has in recent past, resorted to excessive quantities of alcohol, due to tension in home.
  • Ex-wife feels not in control of her life, mistreated and misused by husband and has remained in marriage due to feelings of dependency.
  • Ex-wife wants to overcome her dependency and not remain in an abusive home.
  • Claims: previously, ex-wife had hoped by remaining in marriage that further abusive incidents would not occur. Husband: This is odd, prior to filing for divorce, no "abuse" incidents reported by ex-wife. Of the "abuse" incidents subsequently reported by ex-wife, husband was not there and played no part, making these "reports" hearsay.
  • Concludes: No evidence of mental illness or depression in ex-wife.
  • Concludes: No evidence that ex-wife has alcohol problems. Previous short term problems due to anxiety and fear of husband.
  • Claims: Ex-wife has cut back on alcohol considerably and currently consumes one glass of wine with meals.
  • Concludes: Ex-wife shows no sign of stigma of alcoholism, performs social and work functions well.
  • Claims ex-wife is fearful that further assaults by husband will occur.
  • Concludes: Ex-wife has experienced physical, emotional and verbal abuse and threats from husband.
  • Concludes: Exposure of ex-wife and children to clearly hazardous presence of husband is not in their best interests.
  • Claims: ex-wife has been principle caregiver of the children and no reason she cannot continue.
  • Concludes: Ex-wife is a credible lady. She has not feigned, exaggerated or malingered any symptomology.
  • Husband: Ex-wife is excellent liar and manipulator. She convinced husband during courtship that she was honest, personally responsible, interested in partnership and working together for a good life and future. Empty words, actions speak the truth.
  • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
  • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

Police Report of Ex-wife Alleging physical abuse and rape threats by husband (June 8, 1994)

  • Police Report of Ex-wife's Allegations
  • Ex-wife claims to have bruises on her inner arms - no medical report
  • Ex-wife claims that husband woke her up, restrained her wrists and made repeated rape threats
  • Ex-wife claims that husband was trying to talk to her and making allegations
  • Husband: we did argue that night. Ex-wife has a habit of hitting people when they do not agree with her position and she becomes frustrated. Admits that he did restrain ex-wife by wrists, in self-defense. This was not an unusual incident, ex-wife is unable to deal with facts or reason rationally and becomes very frustrated and physically lashes out at those who do. No rape threats, this LIE was intended to push judicial hot-buttons, big bad brute husband abusing poor little innocent and helpless wife, and it is part of judges job it is to protect the weak from psychopaths such as husband.
  • Why should ex-wife not have lied? These LIES achieve major financial results and perjury is encouraged, not punished.
  • Some judges in Canada have publicly stated that, when confronted with unproven allegations of abuse, they dare not rule in favor of the alleged abuser
  • Note that these are allegarions by ex-wife against husband, her word only, no witnesses

Overdue Sears Bill "evidence" of husbands threats (June 7, 1994)

  • Overdue Sears Bill
  • Note this credit card bill is in husbands name
  • Note that husband never used this card and it was ex-wife's responsibility to pay
  • Note that husband did not have posession of card and ex-wife refused to give it to him
  • Note that ex-wife continued to use this card after separation, creating debt in husband's name
  • Sears would not let husband cancel this card or remove ex-wife's ability to use it until it was paid off
  • Note that it is not illegal to be justifyably angry, especially when provoked.
  • Ex-wife was provoking husband by taunting him regarding his powerlessness to stop her from using this credit card.
  • What is illegal is for judges (and stupidity in general) to assume that anger is a certain predictor of violence and to apply "pre-emptive" justice, to use force in reaction to an event that has not and may not happen.
  • This is what happened to Iraq and, soon, Iran. This is an IMPORTANT legal point and crucial to understanding how conflict is created for profit for those who "pretend" to deal with it.

Security Report from Ex-wife's Employer further "evidence" of husbands abuse (June 21, 1994)

  • Security Report from Ex-wife's Employer
  • Alleges that she was at home with husband who had just left
  • Alleges that had heated argument with husband over her refusal to sign some papers
  • Alleges that husband had threatened to camp out at her work to get her signature
  • Alleges she was afraid of husband and wanted security escort from car to office
  • Security states no problems or sightings of the perp.
  • Report states this is the 2nd occurance and refers to another report dated June 12, 1994.
  • Husband: Did have argument, ex-wife was delaying and refusing to sign over automobile ownership as she had promised, messing up husbands insurance company terms.
  • Husband: Ex-wife knows that broken promises, breach of trust and evasions by her was major hot button for husband
  • Husband: Unaware and not privy to any second "incident" Second report not submitted to court.
  • Husband: Ex-wife was deliberately delaying, just to provoke husband and admitted it during argument
  • Husband: Ex-wife was taunting during this and other arguments, "hit me, I dare you"
  • Husband: Ex-wife claimed she had ownership at work and asked him to meet here there. Husband had enough crap from ex-wife that day and chose to send fax instead. This fax was later used by ex-wife as evidence of husbands abusive and demanding nature.
  • Husband: This was a trap, set by ex-wife, for him to meet her at work, simultaneously placing security guards on hair-trigger alert for her abusive perp of a husband.
  • Husband: If not fed up with ex-wife's crap, would have unwittingly stepped into this trap. Unpredictable what would have happened if husband jumped by security for no reason.
  • Husband: Exactly why would husband be stupid enough to confront ex-wife at work, to try to force his will on her in front of witnesses when he already had her alone, at his mercy, at home, without witnesses? If husband was intent on using force, best choice would have been at home, making it a he said/she said issue to be sorted out, with no third party reports.

Fax From Husband re: vehicle papers, further "evidence" of husbands abusive nature (June 21, 1994)

  • Fax From Husband re: transfer
  • Husband states: "Please advise your client to stop being obstructive + give me the ownership now"
  • This is the same issue/argument ex-wife refers to in "Mitel Security Report" above
  • Claimed to be another example of husband threatening in ex-wife's supplementary affidavit above.
  • Note page 4. Ex-wife swore vehicle transfer affidavit on June 14, 1994
  • Note page 3. On June 21, 1994 (the day of dispute), ex-wife had still not signed vehicle ownership over to husband.
  • Ex-wife swore, in her supplementary affidavit that she had already given husband papers and this was another example of husbands "unreasonableness"
  • Husband: As stated previously, throughout this entire farce of a legal proceeding, ex-wife was going out of her way to try to provoke husband to violence, the only thing that could trump the irrefutable evidence against her parenting "ability". Unfortunately, non-violence is husbands highest principle and violence will not be used unless it becomes "necessary" defined as no factual alternative

Daughter in Towel claimed to be "evidence" of husbands harsh parenting (Age 6)

  • Daughter in Towel
  • Ex-wife claims that husband punished oldest daughter for urinating on the floor (Truth: it was intentional, daughter protesting for being locked in her room), by wrapping her in a towel as diaper, taking a picture and stating "what do you think your friends would think if they saw this?"
  • The truth of the matter is that ex-wife was very upset by the urinating (it seriously offends ex-wife when people in general behave contrary to her expectations) and demanded that husband deal with it.
  • Husband and ex-wife discussed what to do. It was a jointly arrived at punishment. The picture ex-wife presents as evidence has husband's hand on his daughters shoulder, while ex-wife took the picture.
  • The photocopy presented to the court is not too clear. Husband has the original, which is clear.
  • This was a joint punishment, falsely attributed as due to husbands insensitive and harsh nature.
  • Ex-wife also falsely claims that she opposed this "humiliating" punishment for our daughter, admisinstered against her wishes by her brute of a husband.
  • It should also be noted that this behavior never happened again.

Property Disposal by ex-wife to mother (Feb 1, 1994)

  • Property Disposal
  • Ex-wife, per supplementary affidavit correcting "typo" on initial financial statement where she claimed she owed her impoverished mother $12,200.00
  • Ex-wife now claims property transferred (and debt to mother) was now $5,500.00
  • Note the date. If ex-wife, and her mother are to be believed, ex-wife started consolidating her financial story on Feb 1, in preparation for divorce
  • Note that husband claims separation date was Feb 28, 1994, Ex-wife claims April 9, 1994
  • Note that husband and ex-wife's family believe this alleged "debt" to be fake
  • Note that husband believes this agreement was back dated to be prior to earliest separation date, an attempt by ex-wife to avoid eating this "fake" debt and have husband pay it by "equalization"

Ring Appraisal of custom ring (Jan 8, 1994)

  • Ring Appraisal
  • Ex-wife had wedding ring butchered to make this one without husbands consent
  • Wedding ring not good enough for ex-wife's inflated ego or self-esteem
  • Expense not agreed to and opposed after the fact when husband found out
  • Ex-wife basically took a ring worth $4500.00, added $1750.00 to achieve a ring worth $1950.00 (per this appraisal)
  • Done on credit, a whim, by a financially irresponsible fool
  • A completely selfish, irrational and anti-survival expense, given the dire financial straits of the family

Affidavit of Marguerite Day ex-wife's mother (June 17, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Marguerite Day
  • Claims to see children more than anyone else, except for parents
  • Claims ex-wife is organized, efficient, dependable and manages all aspects of the children's dietary, health, clothing and social needs.
  • Claims ex-wife is focussed on the reward, rather than punishment aspects of disipline
  • Claims that ex-wife "faciliatates" children's attendance at their activities. Meaning, someone else (husband) takes them.
  • Claims that ex-wife teaches children co-operative, rather than competetive methods of solving disputes
  • Husband: How can someone teach skills they do not have. Marriage failed die to lack of co-operation or reason. See what ex-wife's sisters said in this area.
  • Claims ex-wife has earned the children's trust and love is evident.
  • Claims husband unsuitable parent because he regards children and ex-wife as possessions, which is unhealthy for them.
  • Claims husband is inept at communication. does not listen to the opinions of others.
  • Claims husband regards his opinion as fact and all dissenting opinions as mistakes in the judgment of others.
  • Claims husband demands strict, unquestioning obedience and that disipline equals punishment.
  • Claims husband imposes severe, non-negotiable punishments on his children.
  • Claims husband's punishments are erratic, imposed without forethought and confuse the children who do not know what to expect from him.
  • Claims husband is teaching children to mistrust everyone, including each other and even questions whether they are cheating at games. Unwittingly admits that husband actually plays games with his daughters
  • Claims husband is teaching children to be overly competetive with each other and other people.
  • Claims husband does not understand the concept of co-operation
  • Claims husband treats children as if they must be controlled.
  • Claims husband lacks the organizational skills, consistency, dedication and focus required to manage a family in a short or long term.
  • Claims, despite her opinions indicating father bad, that children should spend as much time as their father as possible.
  • Husband: This is all opinion, with no examples, from a woman who is just as flakey as her daughter, her creation.
  • Husband: This woman knew full well that her daughter was incapable of parenting and was privy to many alcohol and personal responsibility related disputes of the spouses during the entire marriage, to which she advised husband that he was interfering in ex-wife's "freedom" and being "intolerant" by having alcohol issues. Mother stood to financially benefit from child support when her daughter's affairs fell apart due to mismanagement and ex-wife inevitably came running home again. This is exactly what happened.
  • Note that she does not mention her daughter with respect to alcohol.
  • Husband: do appreciate the fact that this woman insulated his daughters from some of the the worse effects of their mother's alcoholism and irresponsibility, in the early years before children matured enough to choose survival and live full time with father.

Affidavit of Diane Nicol for ex-wife re: quality daycare provided by ex-wife (June 7, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Diane Nicol
  • Statement of Diane Nicol (May 11, 1994), sworn as affadavit.
  • Diane attests to quality daycare for her daughter by ex-wife. Opinion three years old, based on ex-wife's child dropoff and pickup illusions, marketing for clients.
  • The reality was, daycare was an excuse for ex-wife not to work and to stay home and drink rum. There were no child activities except safety and feeding, during day, while drinking rum on job. This is evidenced by statements of Richard Beange, Garry Browne and Affidavit of Dianna Drynan.
  • Diane initially believed ex-wife and was hostile to "abusive" husband.
  • Adds that, ex-wife is very good mother, any suggestions otherwise: ridiculous.
  • Adds that, she has socialized with ex-wife, on occasion, any suggestion of alcohol problem: ridiculous.
  • Husband: If Diane has socialized with ex-wife, it was not during marriage, since husband's attempts in encouraging ex-wife to get friends and a life and go out were consistently unsuccessful. It appears that ex-wife put successful effort into manipulating Diane's perceptions, after divorce started, to achieve this affidavit.
  • Diane subsequently became roommates with ex-wife and was morally compelled to call Child Protection Services on April 13, 1995 to protect daughters from ex-wife.
  • Diane subsequently approached husband and insisted on providing husband an affidavit in support (June 19, 1996) of his bid for custody. Note the date of the second affidavit. It is in the future and thus, could not have been considered in 1994.
  • Ex-wife ended up living with Diane Nicol after being granted by the courts full possession of home (kicking husband out of his home that was achieved by loans from his parents and paid for by himself, despite ex-wife's financial irresponsibility, including after he was forced out), which ex-wife was incapable of managing and chose to leave, another symptom of ex-wife's general incompetence, in all areas, including parenting.

Affidavit of Donna Clement ex tenant and neighbor of Rosses (June 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Donna Clement
  • Lived in duplex next door from Ross's for fifteen months during time ex-wife was running daycare
  • Donna moved out in 1991, opinion three years old
  • Donna carpooled with ex-wife to work until 1993. Claims that children always happy to see ex-wife when picked up from daycare
  • Husband: Family only had one car, ex-wife was in Donna's car. It was husbands responsibility to drop off/pick up children from daycare, while ex-wife got an early start on supper (ie; start drinking rum, after a stressful day at work). There were occasional times, due to schedule that Donna/ex-wife picked up children, since ex-wife enjoyed "her space" before children got home and discouraged this.
  • Claims to have observed ex-wife and daycare children during the day.
  • Husband: above claim cannot be true, since Donna worked full time during the day and no daycare on weekends.
  • Disputes any opinion that ex-wife was not providing quality care or excellent environment for children.
  • Disputes and considers ridiculous any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems
  • Claims to have not seen ex-wife drink alcohol during day or inebriated at any time.
  • Doesn't want to be involved, but so shocked at husbands allegations against ex-wife, feels she must.

Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar ex tenant and neighbor of Rosses (June 20, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Jacqueline Bonnar
  • Lived in duplex next door from Ross's for one year, moved out in September 1992. Opinion two years old.
  • Claims to have heard fights through the walls (one foot thick, impossible) between Rosses's, on a weekly basis.
  • Husband: Not denying that fights occurred, on a regular basis. Ex-wife's irresponsibility was destroying family ability to survive. If survival threatened, fight or die. That's reality. If husband did not fight, courts would have claimed it was evidence of husband not caring for children as opposed to interperting it as spousal "abuse". It is a no win situation when judges are able to treat interpretation as FACT, in support of whatever agenda they may have.
  • Claims that ex-wife confided that husband was threatening to leave her and take the children, leaving ex-wife penniless.
  • Believes husband is very opinionated, controlling man who believes himself superior, making relationships difficult.
  • Believes any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems to be ridiculous.
  • Believes that having to deal with husband would drive many to drink.
  • Disputes and considers ridiculous any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol problems
  • Claims that ex-wife is excellent mother.
  • Claims that ex-wife did the bulk of childcare activities, husband occasionally participated.
  • Admits that husband is a good father and spends quality time with children.
  • Husband: Jacqueline was not around much and worked days, not present during daycare hours.
  • Husband: Ex-wife did not socialize with tenants, since ex-wife was lady of the manor and they were inferior serfs, in her opinion.
  • Husband: Later, after ex-wife managed to use the courts to kick husband out, she did become friends with one female tenant, mainly because tenant was friendly, liked children and was some one that ex-wife could "dump" the children on.
  • Husband: Jacqueline and husband were in a rental dispute, email records available, leaving Jacqueline bitter and biased against husband.

Factum of Ex-wife Claimed Facts of ex-wife and applicable law (June 22, 1994)

  • Factum of Ex-wife
  • Note that this document is supposed to be FACTS ONLY, for which evidence is available that you are prepared to prove in court.
  • Ex-wife repeats abuse allegations and rape threats against husband. Note that ex-wife's Petition for Divorce contains no allegations of abuse, cruelty or lack of parenting ability against husband and all such allegations started AFTER husband made it clear he intended to fight for his daughters.
  • Note that, there are is ZERO evidence to support these allegations against husband and all police reports and witness statements are repeating what ex-wife said to third parties after divorce commenced, making them hearsay.
  • Ex-wife reiterates Dr. Selwyn Smith's "professional" opinion that "to expose Mrs Ross and her children to such an environment is clearly hazardous and not in the best interests of Mrs Ross or her children". Referring, of course to her abusive, psychopathic husband.
  • Note that Dr. Smith's opinion, as stated by himself was rendered by solely considering ex-wife's allegations, augmented by "police reports" which also solely re-iterate ex-wife's allegations, of which husband played no part.
  • Ex-wife notes that it is also Dr. Smith's "professional" opinion that ex-wife requires tranquilizers to cope with husbands "abuse" (husband: and not her precarious legal position, or risk of being held to account by the law, or trying to hide her alcoholism from the shrinks.)
  • Ex-wife claims that all of husbands witnesses have very infrequent contact with the family and thus, no insight. This includes her two sisters and step-father whose views are fully consistent with husband's position and all of husband's other witnesses.
  • Ex-wife claims that her witnesses have much more insight and have been in contact with the family much more frequently (husband: this is true of her mother, who is biased and lied, but still stated that husband should have maximal contact with the children. All other of ex-wife's witnesses are infrequent acquaintances, since she is anti-social and has no friends). Contrast this to husband who has support of family, friends, including ex-wife's two sisters and step-father.
  • Ex-wife re-iterates Dr. Smith's "professional" opinion that ex-wife has no alcohol problems.
  • Ex-wife claims to have been children's primary caregiver, husband mostly irrelevant
  • Ex-wife claims that children's best interests served by them living in the matrimonial home under her care and husband should be evicted.
  • Ex-wife claims to have run daycare to provide better care for her daughters. (Husband: that is why she claimed to want to do it, but, apparently, it was to avoid work and to be able to consume alcohol during the day, as borne out by subsequent witness statements)
  • Ex-wife claims that husband has thwarted her educational and career ambitions, leaving her at a financial disadvantage because of the husband, for which she demands spousal support.

Factum of Husband Claimed Facts of husband and applicable law (June 21, 1994)

  • Factum of Husband
  • Claims that husband has assumed far greater proportion of childcare duties than ex-wife
  • Husband claims that, once he got home from work and on weekends that he assumed full responsibility for daughters, due to ex-wife's disinterest and refusals.
  • Claims that ex-wife is disinterested in her children and has been unwilling or unable to accept her parental responsibility, throughout the entire marriage.
  • Husband claims that, ex-wife refused to have family meals together with the children. Ex-wife cooked separate meals for the children, which they would eat alone in front of the TV. Ex-wife then cooked another, different meal for parents. Ex-wife spent all evening drinking alcohol and cooking or sitting alone in the dark, in the living room, drinking rum and cokes.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife would not allow him or children in "her space" and he did all evening and weekend activities with the children, including playing, walks, bike rides, bath time, bedtime story, taking them to activities and all child responsibilities except cooking the children's evening meal.
  • Husband built daughters a tree house in the yard which is also a magnet for neighborhood children.
  • Husband and virtually all witnesses, including ex-wife's two sisters and step father observe that ex-wife consistently demonstrated little interest in or affection towards her daughters and seems to regard them as "troublesome intrusions in her life".
  • Husband admits that tension in matrimonial home between spouses detrimental to children.
  • Husband seeks custody of the children and exclusive possession of matrimonial home.
  • Claims that ex-wife consumes excessive quantities of alcohol, on a daily basis, to the detriment of the children.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife appears incapable of putting her children's interests ahead of her own whims.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife, since divorce commenced, is trying to put on the appearance of a good mother and is also trying to manipulate daughters against him.
  • Husband claims that all witnesses, including ex-wife's two sisters and step father are unanimous in their opinion that ex-wife is not "mother material" by reason of alcoholism and/or disinterest in her children, lack of affection and misguided parental methods, which are very detrimental to the "best interests of the children", should ex-wife achieve custody.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife is irresponsible, financially reckless and has run up considerable debt in personal expenditures, for no family benefit.
  • Husband claims and presents analysis of ex-wife's accounts by chartered accountant that in 1993, ex-wife, despite having more discretionary income (her income minus her areas of financial responsibility) than husband, was putting the family in debt at the rate of $10,700.00 per year.
  • Husband claims, presents cancelled cheques as evidence and witness verifies that husband had to pay ex-wife $1,000.00 to bathe her own daughters for one month, so husband could work at home in 1993, engaged in a joint venture with a friend for family financial benefit.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife's financial irresponsibility and lack of contribution during the marriage has been reckless depletion of family assets, lack of partnership and that financial equalization should be in his favor, since whatever marital equity there may be was achieved by husband's efforts, pre-marital equity and loans from his parents, despite ex-wife's insatiable financial appetites.
  • Requests that court order interim custody of the children to husband.
  • Requests that court order interim child support in the amount of $800.00 per month.
  • Requests that court order ex-wife to designate husband and children as irrevocable beneficiaries of her insurance policies.
  • Requests that court order exclusive possession of matrimonial home and all contents to husband.
  • Requests that court order ex-wife to refrain from disposing of any property.
  • Requests that court order ex-wife to pay husbands legal costs,

What happened in Court? (June 23, 1994)

On June 23, 1994, the above motion and crossmotion came before Mr. Justice Binks. Present in court were the husband, his lawyer Vivian Russell (of Hamilton Appotive), ex-wife and her lawyer Katrina Prystupa. The parties were present from the early morning. The order in which judges deal with motions is unknown beforehand, a financial boon to lawyers, since they get to cool their heels and slack, possibly all day at their clients expense, waiting for the judge to get around to them.

The only way to verify husbands recounting of the judge's ineptness that day is by court transcripts, which he is sure will NEVER be available to the public.

Husband and his lawyer sat in court all day, watching Mr. Justice Binks dispense "justice". It was pathetic, the judge was inattentive and unable to focus and had to keep asking lawyers to repeat arguments or go over the evidence again. The husband, not a lawyer (and proud of it) was following cases better than the judge. It was clear that the judge would not be able to finish his cases, due to his inefficiencies in grasping and retaining facts and arguments. In general, this judge should have reclused himself that day, as a hazard to the lawful affairs of those he ruled for and against.

Another factor in this fiasco of a day is that ex-wife's lawyer had submitted, at the very last legally permissible instant, after office hours the day before, a supplementary motion and material, containing among other things a police report and a report from ex-wife's employer alleging that husband had behaved in an abusive manner, threatened ex-wife with rape and worse, backed up by a medical report from a Dr. Selwyn Smith stating that in his "professional" opinion the husband was definitely abusive and a mortal threat to the safety of ex-wife and children, implies the husband was about to go postal and that further, ex-wife had no alcohol problems and is a very responsible mother and fine human being in general. We had very little time to absorb this supplementary motion. These reports are presented and the lies are refuted in the links below:

Police Report of Ex-wife Alleging physical abuse and rape threats by husband (June 8, 1994)

  • Police Report of Ex-wife's Allegations
  • Ex-wife claims to have bruises on her inner arms - no medical report
  • Ex-wife claims that husband woke her up, restrained her wrists and made repeated rape threats
  • Ex-wife claims that husband was trying to talk to her and making allegations
  • Husband: we did argue that night. Ex-wife has a habit of hitting people when they do not agree with her position and she becomes frustrated. Admits that he did restrain ex-wife by wrists, in self-defense. This was not an unusual incident, ex-wife is unable to deal with facts or reason rationally and becomes very frustrated and physically lashes out at those who do. No rape threats, this LIE was intended to push judicial hot-buttons, big bad brute husband abusing poor little innocent and helpless wife, and it is part of judges job it is to protect the weak from psychopaths such as husband.
  • Why should ex-wife not have lied? These LIES achieve major financial results and perjury is encouraged, not punished.
  • Some judges in Canada have publicly stated that, when confronted with unproven allegations of abuse, they dare not rule in favor of the alleged abuser
  • Note that these are allegarions by ex-wife against husband, her word only, no witnesses

Security Report from Ex-wife's Employer further "evidence" of husbands abuse (June 21, 1994)

  • Security Report from Ex-wife's Employer
  • Alleges that she was at home with husband who had just left
  • Alleges that had heated argument with husband over her refusal to sign some papers
  • Alleges that husband had threatened to camp out at her work to get her signature
  • Alleges she was afraid of husband and wanted security escort from car to office
  • Security states no problems or sightings of the perp.
  • Report states this is the 2nd occurance and refers to another report dated June 12, 1994.
  • Husband: Did have argument, ex-wife was delaying and refusing to sign over automobile ownership as she had promised, messing up husbands insurance company terms.
  • Husband: Ex-wife knows that broken promises, breach of trust and evasions by her was major hot button for husband
  • Husband: Unaware and not privy to any second "incident" Second report not submitted to court.
  • Husband: Ex-wife was deliberately delaying, just to provoke husband and admitted it during argument
  • Husband: Ex-wife was taunting during this and other arguments, "hit me, I dare you"
  • Husband: Ex-wife claimed she had ownership at work and asked him to meet here there. Husband had enough crap from ex-wife that day and chose to send fax instead. This fax was later used by ex-wife as evidence of husbands abusive and demanding nature.
  • Husband: This was a trap, set by ex-wife, for him to meet her at work, simultaneously placing security guards on hair-trigger alert for her abusive perp of a husband.
  • Husband: If not fed up with ex-wife's crap, would have unwittingly stepped into this trap. Unpredictable what would have happened if husband jumped by security for no reason.
  • Husband: Exactly why would husband be stupid enough to confront ex-wife at work, to try to force his will on her in front of witnesses when he already had her alone, at his mercy, at home, without witnesses? If husband was intent on using force, best choice would have been at home, making it a he said/she said issue to be sorted out, with no third party reports.

Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith attesting to husband's abuse, ex-wife's perfection (June 20, 1994)

  • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
  • Has not met husband or children, making this report entirely hearsay, all information originates with ex-wife.
  • First seen ex-wife on April 22, 1994, seen her several times subsequently
  • Has seen Police Report "Confirmation of Domestic Occurrence" dated June 10, 1994
  • Cites TWO police reports, the second is fictional and does not exist.
  • Claims ex-wife seems to enjoy her work. Surprise to husband, ex-wife hates any work, considers it beneath her, something only lowlife's do.
  • Ex-wife claims to relate well with colleagues and superiors. Another surprise. Husband never met or heard of friends from work.
  • Claims that ex-wife is studying psychology on a part time basis at University of Waterloo. Yes, in a desultory manner. All of her educational endeavors petered out and failed. Husband forced to conclude it was not educational improvement ex-wife sought, but for ex-wife to be able to claim she was better and smarter than others, because she was in university.
  • Ex-wife has low self-esteem because brother suicided when he was 17.
  • Ex-wife describes marriage as emotionally abusive and that husband does not "trust her". Husband: for ex-wife, "trust" is a pre-requisite to ripping someone off. Been burnt too many times, so have our daughters. Trust must be earned and maintained. It was not.
  • Notes that there have been two police incidents regarding husbands "abuse".
  • Ex-wife claims marriage counseling "unhelpful" and wants divorce.
  • Ex-wife claims that husband of the opinion that they should reconcile.
  • Ex-wife on tranquilizers (Alprazolam) due to tension in home.
  • Ex-wife has in recent past, resorted to excessive quantities of alcohol, due to tension in home.
  • Ex-wife feels not in control of her life, mistreated and misused by husband and has remained in marriage due to feelings of dependency.
  • Ex-wife wants to overcome her dependency and not remain in an abusive home.
  • Claims: previously, ex-wife had hoped by remaining in marriage that further abusive incidents would not occur. Husband: This is odd, prior to filing for divorce, no "abuse" incidents reported by ex-wife. Of the "abuse" incidents subsequently reported by ex-wife, husband was not there and played no part, making these "reports" hearsay.
  • Concludes: No evidence of mental illness or depression in ex-wife.
  • Concludes: No evidence that ex-wife has alcohol problems. Previous short term problems due to anxiety and fear of husband.
  • Claims: Ex-wife has cut back on alcohol considerably and currently consumes one glass of wine with meals.
  • Concludes: Ex-wife shows no sign of stigma of alcoholism, performs social and work functions well.
  • Claims ex-wife is fearful that further assaults by husband will occur.
  • Concludes: Ex-wife has experienced physical, emotional and verbal abuse and threats from husband.
  • Concludes: Exposure of ex-wife and children to clearly hazardous presence of husband is not in their best interests.
  • Claims: ex-wife has been principle caregiver of the children and no reason she cannot continue.
  • Concludes: Ex-wife is a credible lady. She has not feigned, exaggerated or malingered any symptomology.
  • Husband: Ex-wife is excellent liar and manipulator. She convinced husband during courtship that she was honest, personally responsible, interested in partnership and working together for a good life and future. Empty words, actions speak the truth.
  • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
  • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

As the end of the court day approached, ex-wife and her lawyer were becoming ecstatic and smirking and husband's lawyer was becoming morose. Husbands lawyer explained to him that judges do not consider "civilians", ie; "the people" to have any credibility and will take the opinions of "experts", police and corporations to trump the dissenting opinions of any number of ignorant "civilians". Husband's lawyer explained that, even though the above reports are easily refuted, the judge did not appear to have the wit, time or patience to sort through the volumes of information and predicted that Dr. Selwyn Smith's opinion would trump.

Husbands lawyer predicted that he would lose, ex-wife would achieve custody and NO judge would dare upset the precedent (judges are very considerate, and do not dare to disagree with each other, at least when peers or to allow any hint that judges are human and may err, just like other mere mortals), dooming his daughters.

Husbands lawyer recommended that they try to delay the motion or come to some sort of consent agreement. Delaying the motion required the consent of ex-wife and her lawyer, which was refused, for obvious reasons. Another option was to dig into the issues far enough to convince the judge to delay, which involved, among other things, tactfully stating that, in our opinion, he was incompetent and further, that he should ignore an "expert" opinion that husband was a mortal threat to his ex-wife and daughters. This approach was not taken, for obvious reasons.

The only viable alternative was to compromise with ex-wife, whom husband had been unable to come to any reasonable terms with during the entire marriage. Ex-wife held all of the cards, could dictate terms and she knew it. This was due to lack of a "court of competent jurisdiction", one of the most basic requirements of law not being available. As previously stated, husband cannot prove that judge was incompetent, but what else can explain, with such overwhelming evidence favoring his position why he should not have proceeded?

Husband's lawyer explained that most important legal priorities are: do not give up equality rights with children, insist on a professional evaluation of the situation by competent professionals and the agreement must be "without prejudice". Husband knew that ex-wife's priorities were solely financial, so he basically bribed her to consent on this basis, and agreed to unaffordable child support until the professional evaluation was complete, expected to be several months, at most. This allowed husband to avoid going in front of this particular judge, who appeared to have neither the wit nor time to do a thorough job.

In all fairness to Justice Binks, husband knows nothing about him and husbands opinions were formed by one day of observation. It was speculation on both husbands and his lawyer's part what would have happened, had they proceeded. Husband dared not take the chance.

Here is the Consent Agreement:

Signed Consent Agreement without prejudice (June 23, 1994)

  • Signed Consent
  • Motions adjourned, sine die, 4 days notice of return, without prejudice to either party
  • Children shall remain in the home, husband and ex-wife shall alternate caring for them on an equal basis in the home.
  • Defined schedule for when which parent is at home with children and when other parent is absent
  • Husband shall pay interim interim child support in the amount of $700.00 per month.
  • An assessment regarding child custody shall be performed by a professional, whose identity shall be negotiated.
  • Neither party shall communicate directly or indirectly with the other except regarding matters pertaining to the children.
  • Husband shall receive all rental income and pay mortgage, insurance, utility and related expenses for the home.
  • Ex-wife shall pay telephone, grocery and daycare expenses.
  • Husband: agreed to pay ex-wife child support, in addition to all historical expenses.
  • Husband: Financial situation during marriage had left ex-wife with far more discretionary income than husband.
  • Husband: Had been carrying an unfair financial burden, during entire marriage, while ex-wife was financially irresponsible.
  • Husband: This agreement tipped husband over the financial edge and left ZERO money for living expenses, given debt load.
  • Husband: This agreement forced husband, with a very good income, a successful career, a major contributor to Canadian industry and the economy, to live on charity, in the basement of a friend.
  • Husband: Was forced to leave his home, that was paid for solely by his efforts and loans from his parents, to his fraudulent, grifter of an ex-wife.
  • Husband: Ex-wife did not need child support, husband paid ALL major expenses and ex-wife's income was adequate for her expenses.
  • Husband: Ex-wife made a large PROFIT by this agreement, at his expense.
  • Husband: Failure of the law to provide a "court of competent jurisdiction", inordinate judicial faith in the opinions of fraudulent "experts" as opposed to FACT and the arrogance of the law, acting as if it has the right to threaten the survival of husband and his daughters with ZERO evidence of husband breaking the law is what allowed ex-wife and her shyster lawyer to extort husband into an agreement to his and daughters detriments and ex-wife's advantage.

Court Order based on Consent agreement, without prejudice (September 28, 1994)

  • Original Signed Consent
  • Modified Court Order
  • Husband and lawyer notified that ex-wife's lawyer intended to have consent agreement entered as court order
  • Husband and lawyer had zero issues with this and were not at court, since it was represented by ex-wife's lawyer as as simple matter of transforming consent agreement verbatim to a court order, which we considered as a redundant waste of time and public legal aid tax dollars by ex-wife's lawyer.
  • Another goal of having the consent agreement entered as a court order was to make collection of child support actionable by the "Family Responsibility Office", which has the power to take away drivers licenses, seize assets, steal from bank accounts and throw deadbeat parents who do not pay child support in jail.
  • Preamble to court order is fraudulent and misleading, stating that Justice Sirois considered the evidence of the motion and crossmotion, which the judge could not have done, by law, without the presence of husband's solicitor to argue his position.
  • This was the first, but not the last time that ex-wife's lawyer mis-entered (forged) court orders to insert her subversions to give future judges the impression that previous judges had considered the facts and ruled against husband.
  • What actually must have happened is that ex-wife's solicitor went in front of judge with copy of consent agreement and the court order and asked him to endorse it, which he did. No arguments could have legally been made.
  • The following terms, from the consent agreement, were accurately entered.
  • Motions adjourned, sine die, 4 days notice of return, without prejudice to either party
  • Children shall remain in the home, husband and ex-wife shall alternate caring for them on an equal basis in the home.
  • Defined schedule for when which parent is at home with children and when other parent is absent
  • Husband shall pay interim interim child support in the amount of $700.00 per month.
  • An assessment regarding child custody shall be performed by a professional, whose identity shall be negotiated.
  • Neither party shall communicate directly or indirectly with the other except regarding matters pertaining to the children.
  • Husband shall receive all rental income and pay mortgage, insurance, utility and related expenses for the home.
  • Ex-wife shall pay telephone, grocery and daycare expenses.
  • Husband: agreed to pay ex-wife child support, in addition to all historical expenses.
  • Husband: Financial situation during marriage had left ex-wife with far more discretionary income than husband.
  • Husband: Had been carrying an unfair financial burden, during entire marriage, while ex-wife was financially irresponsible.
  • Husband: This agreement tipped husband over the financial edge and left ZERO money for living expenses, given debt load.
  • Husband: This agreement forced husband, with a very good income, a successful career, a major contributor to Canadian industry and the economy, to live on charity, in the basement of a friend.
  • Husband: Was forced to leave his home, that was paid for solely by his efforts and loans from his parents, to his fraudulent, grifter of an ex-wife.
  • Husband: Ex-wife did not need child support, husband paid ALL major expenses and ex-wife's income was adequate for her expenses.
  • Husband: Ex-wife made a large PROFIT by this agreement, at his expense.
  • Husband: Failure of the law to provide a "court of competent jurisdiction", inordinate judicial faith in the opinions of fraudulent "experts" as opposed to FACT and the arrogance of the law, acting as if it has the right to threaten the survival of husband and his daughters with ZERO evidence of husband breaking the law is what allowed ex-wife and her shyster lawyer to extort husband into an agreement to his and daughters detriments and ex-wife's advantage.

Court Records evidence, arguments, conclusions (November 25, 1994)

Supplementary Motion by ex-wife (November 25, 1994)

Motion Index

Notice of Motion

  • Notice of Motion
  • Asks courts permission to amend Petition for Divorce to seek an order for sale of the matrimonial home.
  • Asks the court to cite the husband in contempt of the court order of Justice Sirois (September 28, 1994) for husbands alleged failure to pay support of $700.00 per month for the months of September, October and November 1994 and other unspecified payments.
  • Asks the court to order husband to return various household valuables ex-wife claims as her own, such as "nail clippers".
  • Asks the court for litigation costs.

Affidavit of Ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Ex-wife
  • Alleges that husband's solicitor delayed entering of the consent agreement as a court order from end of June to late September.
  • Alleges that husband was manipulating, taunting and threatening to hit her every time she came in contact with him, since the consent agreement was reached to date.
  • Claims to have kept diary of husbands actions, attached as exhibit.
  • Alleges that husband improperly cared for children during his time.
  • Alleges that husband repeatedly removed belongings from the home, list attached as exhibit.
  • Alleges that husband refused or was unable to properly take care of the home when he was present.
  • Alleges that husband once "forgot" to pick up children from babysitter, so she had to "arrange" for him doing so.
  • Alleges that husband asked for and was granted extra time with the children on a July long weekend and then backed out, stating he was ill.
  • Alleges that husband slept all afternoon, leaving children unattended, instructed seven year old to look after five year old and forbade the children from contacting their mother.
  • Alleges that husband stole her bed and has refused to discuss division of household contents. Attaches photos showing "empty space" where missing items used to be.
  • Alleges that husband is stealing groceries from the home.
  • Alleges that husband is stealing pre-marital property belonging to ex-wife and her mother, including personal papers.
  • Alleges that husband leaves home in a "horrendous state of disrepair"when he leaves, requiring hours of cleaning his messes on her part.
  • Alleges that husband leaves dishes undone, garbage strewn around, husband refuses to clean up feces and urine from her untrained litter of eight puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the fenced yard.
  • Alleges that husband forced daughters to clean up puppy feces, after ex-wife complained via her lawyer.
  • Alleges that husband kicked nursing dog outside, while poor little newborn puppies hungry inside whining and crying. The brute.
  • Alleges that husband has not paid support of $700.00 per month for the months of September, October and November 1994.
  • Husband: These payments were unreasonable and impoverishing him, based on an extorted consent agreement that was not intended to last more than several months, while professional evaluation was completed (took until late November, 1994). Starting in September 1994, both children were in school full time and ex-wife's daycare costs were dramatically reduced. Ex-wife had more than adequate income, given that husband was still paying all of her major living expenses such as housing and utilities. Husband was unable to pay and courts do not acknowledge the fact they cannot get something from nothing. In fact, at the time, ex-wife was doing some major partying and enjoying the support, intended for her children.
  • Alleges that husband was late in paying property tax bill, 11 days late in paying hydro bill ($394.78) and has not paid phone long distance charges of $126.37.
  • Alleges that husband's financial irresponsibility has created hardship for her, exhibit for various children's expenses provided.
  • Advises court that on November 11, 1994, ex-wife lost her employment, letters from employer provided.
  • Husband: And it became husbands legal responsibility to make up for this.
  • Ex-wife advises court that she is on a waiting list for employment.
  • Ex-wife alleges that husband is claiming she was fired with two weeks notice and is trying to manipulate perceptions against her, stressing her.
  • Ex-wife alleges that husband is arranging to have relatives visit unexpectedly, which she finds stressful.
  • Ex-wife alleges that husband made overtures of peace in July 1994 and provides copy of letter from husband attempting reason, then alleges that husband broke his word when ex-wife choose not to accept any of the proposals except to proceed and lose everything to lawyers.
  • Ex-wife alleges that due to stress from husband's abuse, she had become addicted to tranquilizers, which Dr. Selwyn Smith is assisting her to deal with. Medical report from Dr. Smith attached.
  • Husband: Dr. Mclean, from the Family Court Clinic (agreed to by the parties and commissioned to provide independent, fact based custody assessment for children ), in his report dated November 21, 1994, attached, personally recounted ex-wife's description of going into withdrawal symptoms after the pharmacist cut her off of tranquilizers, due to excessive consumption.
  • Ex-wife asks the court to ignore the conclusions of the Family Court Clinic Report (six months study, by the best forensic psychological team in Ottawa, of extensive interviews, deep psychological testing of the parties, questioning parties on every issue, interviewing other knowledgeable professionals such as spouses marriage counselor, and observing parties interactions with the children), recommended custody to father and addiction treatment and counseling for ex-wife, for the following reasons:
  • Reason 1: It would be disruptive to the children if they were transferred from her care and control to the husbands. Ex-wife further states that due to the behavior she has ALLEGED against husband (ZERO proof or witnesses), it would stress her daughters too much to give a brute such as him custody.
  • Husband: Ex-wife and husband had EXACTLY the same amount of non-school and awake time with the children on an alternating day basis per consent agreement, later turned into a court order by Justice Sirois. Ex-wife LIES in this sworn affidavit, stating that the children were mostly under her care. It appears to be assumed by judges that women do and should have primary care and control of children (and men should be wallets and slaves), although, no democratic assembly would DARE (and did not) pass a law that actually states this.
  • Reason 2: Ex-wife strongly BELIEVES she is the best custodial parent and re-iterates allegations that husband has been stealing from home, neglecting children by sleeping instead of caring for them. States that she has been mindful of daughters needs. Repeats claim that she has been children's primary caregiver throughout the entire marriage.
  • Husband: This contradicts all of husbands witness statements including ex-wife's two sisters and father in-law. Since the observations of "civilians" appears to be judicially irrelevant, read the Mclean Report above, describing Dr. Mcleans observations of ex-wife's inept interactions with her own daughters. Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude, that, for at least the last several years, ex-wife and children have had no meaningful interaction and ex-wife's attempts to deal with her daughter's on a one to one basis were pathetic. Dr. Mclean concluded husband relevant parent with far better skills for dealing with his daughters. Mclean Report Page:
  • Reason 2: Ex-wife has lost job, and since November 11 (for 2 weeks) has been able to be with children on a full time basis. Claims to have more time to care for children, as a result.
  • Husband: In other words, ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by not working and husband strongly believes loss of employment was arranged, a strategic legal move, to gain this time as well as economic advantage (the more needy ex-wife is, the more husband has to pay, a major disincentive against being employed). This is a major point, which judges buy, claiming to equate parental time (with no consideration of whether or not it is quality time) with children's best interests. The social result is several generations of children of divorce who have minimal exposure to a working role model parent and thus, believe they are entitled to survival without effort (and vote for politicians who make this anti-survival, illegal promise) and learn no work ethic or economic survival skills. The corollary of this false argument is that ex-wife previously alleged husband worked too hard (disproven), making a family survival virtue into a legal disadvantage for the husband. Who benefits from this, and how?
  • Ex-wife claims to have "issues" with Dr. Mclean and his report recommending custody to husband.
  • Issue 1: Ex-wife disputes that she has an addictive personality and claims tranquilizer addiction is being medically dealt with, was caused by husbands abuse and the effective remedy is for the court to smite husband.
  • Issue 2: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her mother also has an addictive personality. Ex-wife admits that mother was long term addicted to Valium, requiring medical assistance. Claims Dr. Mclean has not met her mother and cannot conclude this, based on lack of evidence.
  • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes report contention that youngest daughter suffered from delayed development, in the area of walking. Submits series of photos of youngest daughter from creeping to walking.
  • Husband: During early years, youngest daughter (a very good natured child) confined to playpen by ex-wife too much, to keep her out of ex-wife's "space", a point ex-wife and husband argued about a lot. Dr. Mclean and husband discussed this and husband is still of the opinion that this slightly delayed walking development did occur, as a consequence.
  • Issue 4: Ex-wife disputes report contention she is unconcerned (based on discussions between ex-wife and psychological team) about oldest daughter's sexualized acting out behavior. Claims she is looking for a counselor to assist. Admits she does not "believe it is possible" that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
  • Husband: When it comes to fathers and young daughters, it is guilty of being a sexual abuser until proven innocent. Dealing with professionals in this area was like the Spanish Inquisition, they (especially females) appeared to husband as a bunch of anally retentive perverts who saw everything only in terms of predatory males and innocent young girls to protect, all of course, at very high, state funded wages. The truth is, that sexual (or any) abuse of children has highly visible effects that are immediately recognized by caring family friends, teachers, and neighbors. The reason abuse is so prevalent is that anyone who reports it is immediately sucked into a bureaucratic quagmire, legal liability issues and major hassle, reducing the likelihood of reporting it, increasing work for those who pretend to care and have have seized a monopoly in dealing with this and other social problems. This makes social problems far worse, since problem solvers in monopoly positions realized long ago that solved problems equals loss of income and it is far more prifitable to pretend to be solving problems while actually making them worse.
  • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her disciplinary (lack of) and parenting methods are to the detriment of the children's proper development. Claims to have started a task list and that it is husband who is lax in the area of discipline (contradicting her previous allegations that husband is a "harsh disciplinarian"
  • Issue 6: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's comment that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role that ex-wife can play in the children's lives and claims (LIES) that Dr. Mclean does not deal with this issue in his conclusions.
  • Husband: Dr. Mclean does deal with this and states that once ex-wife cleans up her act, deals with her addictions and other issues and actually behaves in a positive manner and is capable of playing a viable role, that husband may be more supportative of ex-wife's parental role.
  • Issue 7: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's observation that husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females and yet does not explain how this may affect young daughters under his care.
  • Husband: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
  • Issue 8: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean not addressing effect of husband's alleged "harsh disciplinary" measures on daughters, contradicting her allegation above that husband has become lax in discipline.
  • Issue 9: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating the children have no parental preference and states that daughter's, when asked, tell her that they want to live with mother. Presents a "love her mom" note from daughter's school work as evidence. Claims daughters have closer bond with her than father.
  • Issue 10: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating that one of husbands battery of personality tests came back as "invalid", a possible indication of defensiveness and did not address how this may affect the children.
  • Husband: How can anyone, when under major assault in a manufactured conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his childrens future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see. The fact that husband is intelligent was a major point against him in court, since judges appeared to feel threatened and wary of the possibility husband was manipulating them, as opposed to their view of the natural order, where judges are, by divine right, the manipulators. Husband stuck to the facts and truth, because facts cannot lie and objective minds are easily able to differentiate between fact and manipulation (biased interpretation of fact, posing as fact). For example, police reports in which husband played no part, being presented as a fact that husband was abusive and ex-wife terrified of him, in need of protection and pre-emptave justice. The only fact is that ex-wife called police and made allegations, which they documented.
  • Issue 11: Ex-wife claims that Dr. McLean is lying when he states the amount and period of alcohol consumption reported by her when asked. Ex-wife claims that she answered the alcohol consumption question with "I don't know"
  • Ex-wife claims that everyone she knows is "shocked" by the suggestion that she consumes alcohol to excess and is an unfit parent and may lose custody. Provides affidavits.
  • Ex-wife proposes to "continue" to care for the children in the home and asks for court to restrain husband from attending home.
  • Husband: Once again, at this point in time, ex-wife and husband cared for children EQUALLY, both had equal rights to the matrimonial home and any legal attempts to interpret this otherwise was prevented by a "without prejudice" consent agreement and court order.

Court Order based on Consent agreement, without prejudice (September 28, 1994)

  • Original Signed Consent
  • Modified Court Order
  • Husband and lawyer notified that ex-wife's lawyer intended to have consent agreement entered as court order
  • Husband and lawyer had zero issues with this and were not at court, since it was represented by ex-wife's lawyer as as simple matter of transforming consent agreement verbatim to a court order, which we considered as a redundant waste of time and public legal aid tax dollars by ex-wife's lawyer.
  • Another goal of having the consent agreement entered as a court order was to make collection of child support actionable by the "Family Responsibility Office", which has the power to take away drivers licenses, seize assets, steal from bank accounts and throw deadbeat parents who do not pay child support in jail.
  • Preamble to court order is fraudulent and misleading, stating that Justice Sirois considered the evidence of the motion and crossmotion, which the judge could not have done, by law, without the presence of husband's solicitor to argue his position.
  • This was the first, but not the last time that ex-wife's lawyer mis-entered (forged) court orders to insert her subversions to give future judges the impression that previous judges had considered the facts and ruled against husband.
  • What actually must have happened is that ex-wife's solicitor went in front of judge with copy of consent agreement and the court order and asked him to endorse it, which he did. No arguments could have legally been made.
  • The following terms, from the consent agreement, were accurately entered.
  • Motions adjourned, sine die, 4 days notice of return, without prejudice to either party
  • Children shall remain in the home, husband and ex-wife shall alternate caring for them on an equal basis in the home.
  • Defined schedule for when which parent is at home with children and when other parent is absent
  • Husband shall pay interim interim child support in the amount of $700.00 per month.
  • An assessment regarding child custody shall be performed by a professional, whose identity shall be negotiated.
  • Neither party shall communicate directly or indirectly with the other except regarding matters pertaining to the children.
  • Husband shall receive all rental income and pay mortgage, insurance, utility and related expenses for the home.
  • Ex-wife shall pay telephone, grocery and daycare expenses.
  • Husband: agreed to pay ex-wife child support, in addition to all historical expenses.
  • Husband: Financial situation during marriage had left ex-wife with far more discretionary income than husband.
  • Husband: Had been carrying an unfair financial burden, during entire marriage, while ex-wife was financially irresponsible.
  • Husband: This agreement tipped husband over the financial edge and left ZERO money for living expenses, given debt load.
  • Husband: This agreement forced husband, with a very good income, a successful career, a major contributor to Canadian industry and the economy, to live on charity, in the basement of a friend.
  • Husband: Was forced to leave his home, that was paid for solely by his efforts and loans from his parents, to his fraudulent, grifter of an ex-wife.
  • Husband: Ex-wife did not need child support, husband paid ALL major expenses and ex-wife's income was adequate for her expenses.
  • Husband: Ex-wife made a large PROFIT by this agreement, at his expense.
  • Husband: Failure of the law to provide a "court of competent jurisdiction", inordinate judicial faith in the opinions of fraudulent "experts" as opposed to FACT and the arrogance of the law, acting as if it has the right to threaten the survival of husband and his daughters with ZERO evidence of husband breaking the law is what allowed ex-wife and her shyster lawyer to extort husband into an agreement to his and daughters detriments and ex-wife's advantage.

Ex-wife's Diary of Husband's "Misbehavior" June to November 1994

  • Ex-wife's Diary of Events
  • Diary claims to document husbands daily misbehaviors from June 25 to November 18, 1994
  • Alleges that husband removed property from home
  • Alleges that husband tried to force ex-wife to promise to daughter that ex-wife would not break computer
  • Now claims that rape threats occurred April 8, as opposed to June 8, 1994 per police report.
  • Alleges that husband takes improper care of pets
  • Alleges that husband takes improper care of home, leaves messes and puppy feces everywhere
  • Alleges that husband takes improper care of children
  • Alleges that husband refused to give her a phone number where he is living and then alleges that husband does not return her calls
  • Alleges that husband rarely calls children (he sees them every second day, per consent agreement)
  • Alleges that husband always tardy picking up children
  • Alleges that husband does not fully utilize time with daughters and asks her to
  • Alleges that husband wanted discussion with third party present but no lawyers, which she refused
  • Alleges that husband made daughter clean up puppy feces
  • Alleges that husband refused vacation with daughters because "ex-wife had left him no money"
  • Alleges that daughters misbehave more with father than her
  • Alleges that oldest daughter complains that father treats them like slaves
  • Alleges that husband keeps daughters up late and they are always tired
  • Alleges that husband called her a "bitch"
  • Alleges that husband deprived oldest daughter of medication
  • Alleges that oldest daughter stated: "wished she did not have a father"
  • Alleges that husband is withholding the name of a doctor from Dr. Mclean
  • Alleges that older daughter is angry at mother for not being home all the time. Implies: angry that she is stuck with her father instead of her "wonderful" mother.
  • Alleges that husband stated he "objects to everything she does"
  • Alleges that husband sleeps and leaves older daughter in charge of younger and prohibits daughters from calling mother
  • Alleges that husband forgot to take children to dance class
  • Alleges that husband wrote "The Great Reckoning" on calendar, November 25 (court date), Attached (Page 11) to diary
  • Alleges that husband stated "you can bring in the booze now"

Letter ex-wife's to husband's solicitor complaining about husband's behavior (June 28, 1994)

  • Letter ex-wife's to husband's solicitor
  • Complaining about items husband took when he moved out of the home per consent order. Provides list.
  • Advises that her client called police to complain about husband stealing his own property.
  • Advises that her client has removed some property to protect from husbands "misappropriations". Provides list.
  • Alleges that oldest daughter challenged father on the phone regarding "stolen" property and was advised by father that he would have to sell it.
  • Alleges that husband tried to get oldest daughter to promise to oldest daughter (typo?: previously alleged that husband tried to force mother to promise) that she would not touch the computer, or father would have to take it and daughter would not be able to play games. Claims daughter was beside herself in tears. The brute.
  • Alleges that husband tried to get third party (Paul Wilson, a police officer!) to witness above promise.
  • Alleges that husband made unstated accusations and threats against ex-wife
  • Alleges that husband threatened to not see children unless ex-wife agrees to delete support from consent agreement
  • Requests that husbands solicitor agree to draft court order based on consent, to have it entered
  • Comments regarding rejected custody assessor

Response husband's to ex-wife's solicitor to letter (June 29, 1994)

  • Response husband's to ex-wife's solicitor
  • Points out that it was previously agreed that order based on consent would not be entered, due to unnecessary cost and the expected short time pending assessment.
  • Advises that husband is financially tapped out and paying support in a timely manner is problematic. Enquires regarding flexability.
  • Points out that assessor had been previously discussed and ex-wife's solicitor had no issues with Dr. Stevens and now apparently does. Asks for a list of acceptable assessors ASAP.
  • Points out that the "divorce business" is booming and must move quickly on assessors since they are snapped up quickly.
  • Asks for clarification regarding ex-wife's request to change access schedule.

Response ex-wife's to husband's solicitor to letter (June 30, 1994)

  • Response ex-wife's to husband's solicitor
  • Alleges that husband has threatened ex-wife to not pay $700.00 per month in support, as agreed on consent.
  • Claims that husbands alleged "threat" is reason she wants to enter consent as court order, so it becomes actionable, denying that any agreement not to in place.
  • Discusses assessors.
  • Clarifies ex-wife's request for access change.

List of household contents husband is alleged to have taken plus items claimed by ex-wife as personal property

Series of photo's "proving" that items husband accused of "stealing" are missing

  • Series of photo's
  • Fact: A negative cannot be proven. Only real things that leave evidence to be analyzed can be proven. This is why mankind is still struggling with GOD, there is no evidence, just belief and a lot of hype.
  • Husband Admits: Took his pre-marital property when forced to move out, including his bed.
  • Ex-wife of the opinion that she is entitled to everything, including YOUR tax dollars to pay her not to work and be "free" of personal responsibility. She votes for those who promise this.

Series of photo's "proving" that husband was trashing home and leaving feces all over the place

  • Series of photo's
  • OK, and exactly what prevented ex-wife from trashing home and taking photos, to manipulate perceptions against husband?
  • Husband: both parents worked. The puppies were left home alone all day. The puppy feces photo's could have been taken on any random day when either spouse got home.
  • Husband: The puppies were ex-wife's project, which she made perfectly clear that the profits were to be hers and husband would not share in, despite the fact that husband paid for mother and stud fees.
  • Factum of husband Letter husband's solicitor to ex-wife's solicitor complaint re: puppy feces (July 5, 1994)

    • Letter husband's to ex-wife's solicitor
    • Advises that husband wants the most qualified family assessor available.
    • Advises that husband is very concerned about the health risks of puppy feces, had already complained on June 23, 1994, nothing has been done and how does ex-wife intend to resolve this.
    • Enquires when puppies will be sold and when husband will receive his half of the proceeds, given his difficult financial situation.
  • Husband: ex-wife refused to keep the puppies outside in fenced yard or in the utility room. Fact: what goes in, comes out. The choices were ex-wife's and so was dealing with the consequences. Husband refused and did not clean up after puppies.
  • Husband denies that he forced daughters to clean up after puppies. It was not their doing and thus, also not their responsibility. To do otherwise would have violated husbands teachings of personal responsibility, actions have consequences and dealing with your own shit.
  • Husband: Judge fell for this crap, he was quite offended at husband's alleged behavior in this area, confusing manufactured illusion as fact.

Series of receipts "proving" that husband's failure to pay support since children are back in school and daycare expenses have been dramatically reduced, plus consent agreement left him no living expenses is causing ex-wife and the children financial hardship, despite the fact that ex-wife has far more discetionary income since husband continued to pay ex-wife's major expenses, including housing and utility.

Letter from ex-wife's employer confirming employment status (September 26, 1994)

Letter ex-wife's to husband's solicitor regarding husbands behavior (October 14, 1994)

  • Letter ex-wife's to husband's solicitor
  • Alleges that husband removing items from the home and leaving home in unacceptable state. Promises to provide photos.
  • Requests that husband make a proposal regarding division of household contents.
  • Complains that various parties, alleged to have been arranged by husband are dropping by home when ex-wife present, unannounced.
  • Requests that husband refrain from disrupting ex-wife by "arranging" unexpected visits.
  • Claims that ex-wife is under great financial hardship due to husband not paying September and October support.
  • Threatens a motion to have husbands claims dismissed, due to his deadbeat status (being unable to pay).

Letter from husband to ex-wife attempting to defuse conflict and deal with matters realistically (July 14, 1994)

  • Letter from husband
  • Husband proposed three possible courses of action.
  • Door 1: Frank and honest discussions, see where it leads. Knew this was a non-starter, husband tried and failed during entire marriage.
  • Door 2: Be adults, ex-wife stop the lies, assume the truth will come out, settle on the basis of law. Focus on children and common interest. Preserve as much as we can from the lawyers.
  • Door 3: Continue the impossible course of attempting to avoid reality and lose everything to lawyers.
  • Ex-wife chose Door 3. She eventually lost everything, including her daughters, even though the courts consistently ruled in her favor. Ex-wife's final settlement (her share of marital equity), the "loot" was $638.62, after four years of pointless conflict.
  • Husband learned that it does NOT take two to fight. All it takes is for corrupt law to be able to threaten your family survival in the absence of any lawbreaking, one manipulable idiot armed with infinite legal aid resources courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer, wielded by a totally unscrupulous, criminal and psychopathic lawyer (Agent of the Crown), facilitated by an equally corrupt and brain dead judiciary.

Dr. Selwyn Smith disputing Dr. Mclean's conclusions (November 21, 1994)

  • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
  • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
  • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
  • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
  • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
  • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
  • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
  • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
  • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
  • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
  • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
  • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
  • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
  • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
  • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
  • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
  • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
  • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
  • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
  • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

Family Court Clinic Report recommending custody to father (November 16, 1994)

    University of Ottawa Family Court Clinic

    • Family Court Clinic
    • Multidisciplinary team of forensic psychiatrists, headed by Dr. David Mclean.
    • The purpose of this investigative unit is to objectively consider issues pertaining to the intersection of psychiatry, law and children's best interests.
    • Services were agreed to and paid for by both parties, to insure unbiased results.
    • This clinic is the premier institution of its type in the region, with the best reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
  • Family Court Clinic Report
  • Custody recommended to father (Page 27).
  • Addiction treatment and psychiatric help recommended for mother (Page 27).
  • McLean Report Overview

    • Counseling help recommended for father to help deal with his hurt and to provide support (Page 27).
    • Ex-wife admits that violence was not an issue during the marriage. Admits that she would hit husband out of frustration and he would simply leave. Husband admits that when ex-wife hit him, he would just restrain her wrists in self-defense. Ex-wife repeats rape threat allegation she made to police against husband in June 1994 as now happening during marriage, as opposed to after separation (Page 5)
    • Marriage counseling since 1992, issues centered around control, finances and ex-wife's drinking. Counselor under the impression that ex-wife may have felt emotionally abused (implied, but not stated: by husband's issues with her irresponsibility and drinking) (Page 5).
    • Ex-wife caught in a lie by Dr. Mclean about her daily consumption of tranquilizers. Pharmacist cuts her off for abuse. Dr. Mclean recounts ex-wife's description of going into withdrawal with "shakes, fears and lightheadedness" (Page 7).
    • Ex-wife admits to drinking 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day. Ex-wife claims that her drinking started in January 1989, after birth of second daughter. Ex-wife claims to have cut back on drinking in April 1994, once she became aware husband was measuring her consumption. Ex-wife claims that she can be a controlled drinker and thus is in denial that there is a problem. Dr. Mclean concurs with husbands opinion that ex-wife is on tranquilizers to try to hide alcoholism (Page 8).
    • Ex-wife prone to emotional thinking and misperceiving situations. Ex-wife has considerable anger which she has trouble expressing and may project on other people. Ex-wife can be somewhat naive and self-centered, with a need to view herself positively. Ex-wife tends to be indirect and manipulative in meeting her needs. Ex-wife has difficulties in intimate and long term relationships due to immaturity and self-centerdness. No sign of any mental illness in ex-wife (Page 9)
    • Dr. Mclean describes disastrous one on one encounter between ex-wife and children, where ex-wife had no clue how to deal with them, from which he later concludes no meaningful interaction between ex-wife and daughters for at least several years (Page 10).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife has serious alcohol and/or drug addiction problems, which, if anything, she is downplaying the amount and period of consumption and does not admit it as a problem. Dr. Mclean concludes that primary focus in ex-wife's life at this time must be dealing with her addictions and would be happy to make a professional referral (Page 10).
    • Dr. McLean concludes that ex-wife's alcoholism has negatively affected her parenting and nurturing her daughters for at least the last several years (Page 10).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife's "free spirit" and lack of structure approach to parenting is not in children's best interests (Page 11).
    • Husbands natural mother is in long term care for schizophrenia and has been since husband very young (Page 11).
    • In discussing husbands childhood, husband indicated he associated with the "thinking crowd" and described himself as the "class delinquent" (Page 11).
    • Husband left home at age 16 and worked way through high school (Page 11).
    • Husband quit college electronics course because it was "far too easy" (Page 11)
    • Husband enrolled in University of Waterloo, Electronics Engineering, but failed third year due to frustrated "love" (Page 12).
    • Husband spent several years working in Africa and California, then returned to complete Engineering Degree (Page 12).
    • Husband moved to Ottawa to work for Norpak and was soon promoted to project leader (Page 12)
    • In 1985, husband moved to Nortel to date and keeps refusing management positions, since he is "happier that way" and has no intention of leaving current employment. (Page 12)
    • Dr. Mclean describes husband as down-to-earth and one "who tells it like it is" (Page 12).
    • Husband describes step-mother and acknowledges debt to her for not protecting him from bullies, forcing him to learn how to defend himself (Page 13)
    • Husband describes childhood with no one to intelligently answer his questions, making him feel stupid (Page 13)
    • Husband admits that, in rebellious teens he had minor difficulties with the law including impaired and several drunk and disorderlys (Page 14).
    • Dr. Mclean describes results of one of husbands personality tests (MMPI) as invalid, "characteristic of people who have an almost pathological intense need to present a perfectionist view of themselves" (Page 14).
    • Dr. Mclean elaborates on invalid test: "They are naively defensive and may use considerable repression to maintain their self-image. They may also be rigorously moralistic and self-rightous in a way which could be uncompromising." (Page 14)
    • Husbands profile was suggested to reflect a conventional and controlled man who can be self-centered, immature and manipulative in his relationships (Page 14).
    • Husband is likely to be hard working, achievement oriented, practical and easy-going in many aspects of his life. He is also likely to be friendly and outgoing in relationships (Page 14).
    • Husband does not show an above average potential to be an abusive parent. Responses did indicate unhappiness in relationships and lack of emotional support (Page 14).
    • Husband is able to express warmth and a good range of emotions. Husband appears to have a general negative bias coloring his perception of females (Page 15).
    • While major psychopathology cannot be ruled out because of husband's invalid MMPI test results, husband did present as a generally well functioning person whose authoritarian tenancies are exacerbated by the current conflict situation.
    • Dr. Mclean suggests that husband step back psychologically and consider his own contributions to family problems (unstated what they may be) (Page 15)
    • Dr. Mclean describes one on one interaction between daughters and father. Both daughters appeared comfortable, relaxed and far less aggressive than with mother. Father appears to have the skills to deal with his daughters behavior in a positive manner (Page 15).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband suffers from no major psychiatric illness, but is showing some stress of conflict related symptomology which is expected to dissipate, once matters are resolved (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband perceives ex-wife as the one to blame, or, the guilty party. Husband and ex-wife's personalities are so different that they tend to confuse each other (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that while under considerable stress, husband does have far more in the way of resources to deal with the demands. Husband certainly demonstrated better resources and skills than mother in dealing with his daughters at the clinic (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband would be open to any straightforward parenting suggestions and that husband was more nurturing with his daughters when observed in interaction. (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean has concerns about how husbands tenancy to paint things black and white extends to the potential role he could see the mother playing with the girls (Page 16).
    • Husband admits, that for first two years of oldest daughter's life he was "not the best father" (Page 17).
    • Ex-wife admits that sexual abuse of daughters "not possible" (Page 18).
    • Ex-wife admits that she is more of a "screamer" for discipline, while husband more in control (Page 19).
    • Ex-wife states that back and forth's under consent agreement going "relatively well" and then swears in Affidavit to court that husband has been very disruptive, conflictual and she is in terror and needs protection from him (Page 20).
    • Oldest daughter is noted to have very good intellectual resources (Page 20).
    • Oldest daughter notes that if she had a lot of money, she would live in a tree house (father built one), with no adults, just kids (Page 21).
    • Oldest daughter, when asked who she wanted to live with, stated "Mommy, because she buys them popsicles" (Page 21).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that oldest daughters stated preference to live with her mother is not based on any reasons that are in her long term best interests. (Page 22).
    • Dr. Mclean recommends that oldest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 22).
    • Husband and ex-wife disagree regarding youngest daughter's motor development. Ex-wife states normal, husband states delayed because of being kept in the playpen too much.(Page 22).
    • Youngest daughter states she wants to live with both parents in Dunrobin and, when asked to choose one said "mother" because father was bad and took mothers bed (Page 24).
    • Youngest daughter, when asked who loves her the most said father, then changed to mother and then back to father (Page 25).
    • Dr. Mclean is surprised, given that mother spent most time caring for youngest daughter while running a daycare, that youngest daughter does not have a strong preference for her mother. Speculates may be an indication that husband has been the one spending time with his daughters (Page 25).
    • Husband was more aware of and concerned by youngest daughter issues (Page 25).
    • Dr. Mclean recommends that youngest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 25).
    • Dr. Mclean summarizes discussions with spouses regarding access arrangements . (Page 25).

    Husband's Response To Report

    • Despite the fact that Dr. Mclean agreed with the facts and husband, still have major misgivings regarding the intellectual validity of the psychiatric profession in general. This profession appears to be in strategic denial of the basic fact that human motivation is to survive in the physical world which is ruled by the laws of action and consequence. To survive requires meeting goals. Further, they refuse to admit that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and, if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane from outside point of views. Husband, during the marriage had to deal with his ex-wife, who was insane by refusal to choose survival and husband and daughters were trapped by corrupt law. In husband's humble opinion, the strong possibility exists that this profession was historically created to prevent social and scientific acceptance of the logical implications of evolution and Charles Darwin. Besides, this report netted the psychiatric profession $10,000, who have a very large income by claiming they are "necessary" to provide insight into issues such as this. There was no discussion of motivation on the part of either parent. This is very similar, although far less profitable than current judge's strategic denial of legal equality between persons, requiring judges and politicians to construct elaborate rationalizations "explaining" why people cannot be treated equally in terms of rights and responsibility, making their very costly "services" appear "necessary" to deal with the inevitable conflict between perfectly legitimate and peaceful viewpoints. None of this social conflict would exist if people were free to peacefully live as they see fit, without having their survival threatened if they fail to comply with the demands of whichever political viewpoint has manipulated itself to the "top dog" position, able to wield the apparatus of state as a weapon against the people. When rationalizations fail and the public starts to become aware of the survival of civilization importance of the law being restrained to treat all persons equally and the mortal social danger of special privilege for some, other methods are used, as Martin Luther King Jr. and others have repeatedly proven, at great personal cost and honor to self and loss to civilization.
    • Dr. Mclean failed to consider (and husband suspects, lacked the courage to address) the crucial fact and effects on husband and his parenting ability of being in a trap, prevented from exercising his basic legal rights of not associating with ex-wife AND associating with his daughters to fulfill his parental obligations, of having to deal with and being married to an alcoholic who refused to be responsible as a mother, a partner or contribute, a nemesis, whose self-destructive behavior and financial irresponsibility was destroying the family's and her own daughters ability to survive. Current (illegal) judicial interpretations of law provide no way to hold this mad woman to account, or of influencing her behavior to allow family survival. When the law provides no remedies for very real, survival threatening problems, what is one to do? Husband suggests that domestic abuse statistics indicate the choices that lesser intellects conclude it is "necessary" to make. The fact that husband had issues with ex-wife's destructive behavior appeared to be interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on the husbands part. This was truly a trap, as subsequently proven by the courts. The basic problem is that corrupt courts have upset the balance of power between equal persons in relationships, making reasonable division of labor or compromise impossible in any relationship that has been mis-defined and thus, subverted as has marriage, with the effect of destroying families. Husband could have tolerated ex-wife if she had kept her marriage vows (verbal contract), behaved responsibly, as an equal partner, focused on family and common interest. The only way out is to legally impoverish self and STILL, with irrefutable evidence and law on your side, have the courts take away your children, place them in an environment detrimental to their development and learning survival skills, and attempt to make you a slave using the false pretext of "children's best interests". Husband suspected this during marriage, by equally bizarre legal experiences of family and friends. He was thus biding his time, teaching his daughters, so that when they became more aware, they would choose to leave with him thus avoiding ALL litigation. This they chose, when they became aware, despite the courts "considered opinion" to the contrary. In other words, daughters also disagree with the judicial definition of "in their best interests", and, in a sense, are just as guilty of defiance as their father.
    • Lessor minds choose beating some sense into or killing their spouses, which husband rejected as unjust since ex-wife was a pawn, tricked into lying to provide plausible deniability for the real guilty parties.
    • Regarding Dr. Mclean's statement that husband can be manipulative. Yes, so can we all. Husband realized at a very young age that use of force or fraud (manipulation is a method of fraud) can achieve goals, but the cost is too high to defend from the response of your victims and further, manipulation is antisocial, alienating potential friends and allies. Husband claims to be an honest man and is willing to be judged by his fellow persons on that basis.
    • Husband is in full compliance with the unstated, but very real social contract among rational people, the very basis of civilization "If you refrain from using force and fraud against me, I promise to do the same". Well, force and fraud has been used against husband and his daughters, causing major damage, releasing him from his promise. Husband's response has thus far been restrained, since he wants civilization back and, unrestrained by reason, conflict risks spiraling out of control, sending mankind back to barbarism and living in caves, or worse.
    • Regarding Dr. McLean's speculation on the meaning of husbands personality test (MMPI) being invalid characterizing a pathologically intense need to project perfection, use self-repression and be uncompromising: Or, perhaps some people actually exist who seek the reality, as opposed to the illusion of "being the best they can be" and hold themselves to that standard? (Page 14).
    • Further to the invalid MMPI, indicating defensiveness: How can anyone, when under major assault in a state created conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created and profit from the the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his children's future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see.
    • The fact that husband is intelligent was a major point against him in court, since judges appeared to feel threatened and wary of the possibility husband was manipulating them, as opposed to their view of the natural order, where judges are, by divine right, the manipulators. Husband stuck to the facts and truth, because facts cannot lie and objective minds are easily able to differentiate between fact and manipulation (biased interpretation of fact, posing as fact). For example, police reports in which husband played no part, being presented as a fact that husband was abusive and ex-wife terrified of him, in need of protection and preemptive justice. The only fact is that ex-wife called police and made allegations, which they documented.
    • Regarding husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females may affect his daughters: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
    • Things have not changed much for husband since childhood. He is still surrounded by mental midgets who act as if they have the moral right to forcefully compel him to behave to the detriment of himself, family, fellow citizens, civilization and species for their minority gain and majority loss. The only thing that has changed is that opponents are far more larger, powerful, dangerous and isolated from objective reality. They will be defeated by their own actions, by refusal to acknowledge the undeniable principle of physical reality, that all actions have consequences. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. History is very clear on this point. Husband will not even feel remorse, he always warns of the consequences of actions prior to reluctantly engaging in defensive conflict. From a very detached perspective, the sheer folly of this is amusing.

    Ex-wife's Response To Report

    • Ex-wife's response taken from her affidavit.
    • Ex-wife asks the court to ignore the conclusions of the Family Court Clinic Report, for the following reasons:
    • Reason 1: It would be disruptive to the children if they were transferred from her care and control to the husbands. Ex-wife further states that due to the behavior she has ALLEGED against husband (ZERO proof or witnesses), it would stress her daughters too much to give a brute such as him custody.
    • Husband: Ex-wife and husband had EXACTLY the same amount of non-school and awake time with the children on an alternating day basis per consent agreement, later turned into a court order by Justice Sirois. Ex-wife LIES in this sworn affidavit, stating that the children were mostly under her care. It appears to be assumed by judges that women do and should have primary care and control of children (and men should be wallets and slaves, with no parental influence), although, no democratic assembly would DARE (and did not) pass a law that actually states this.
    • Reason 2: Ex-wife strongly BELIEVES she is the best custodial parent and re-iterates allegations that husband has been stealing from home, neglecting children by sleeping instead of caring for them. States that she has been mindful of daughters needs. Repeats claim that she has been children's primary caregiver throughout the entire marriage.
    • Husband: This contradicts all of husbands witness statements including ex-wife's two sisters and father in-law. Since the observations of "civilians" appears to be judicially irrelevant, read the Mclean Report above, describing Dr. Mcleans observations of ex-wife's inept interactions with her own daughters. Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude, that, for at least the last several years, ex-wife and children have had no meaningful interaction and ex-wife's attempts to deal with her daughter's on a one to one basis were pathetic. Dr. Mclean concluded husband relevant parent with far better skills for dealing with his daughters.
    • Reason 2: Ex-wife has lost job, and since November 11 (for 2 weeks) has been able to be with children on a full time basis. Claims to have more time to care for children, as a result.
    • Husband: In other words, ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by not working and husband strongly believes loss of employment was arranged, a strategic legal move, to gain this time as well as economic advantage (the more needy ex-wife is, the more husband has to pay, a major disincentive against ex-wife being employed). This is a major point, which judges buy, claiming to equate parental time (with no consideration of whether or not it is quality time) with children's best interests. The social result is several generations of children of divorce who have minimal exposure to a working role model parent and thus, believe they are entitled to survival without effort (and vote for politicians who make this anti-survival, illegal promise) and learn no work ethic or economic survival skills. The corollary of this false argument is ex-wife previously alleged husband worked too hard (disproved), making a family survival virtue into a legal disadvantage for the husband. Who benefits from this, and how?
    • Ex-wife claims to have "issues" with Dr. Mclean and his report recommending custody to husband.
    • Issue 1: Ex-wife disputes that she has an addictive personality and claims tranquilizer addiction is being medically dealt with, was caused by husbands abuse and the effective remedy is for the court to smite husband.
    • Issue 2: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her mother also has an addictive personality. Ex-wife admits that mother was long term addicted to Valium, requiring medical assistance. Claims Dr. Mclean has not met her mother and cannot conclude this, based on lack of evidence.
    • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes report contention that youngest daughter suffered from delayed development, in the area of walking. Submits series of photos of youngest daughter from creeping to walking.
    • Husband: During early years, youngest daughter (a very good natured child) confined to playpen by ex-wife too much, to keep her out of ex-wife's "space", a point ex-wife and husband argued about a lot. Dr. Mclean and husband discussed this and husband is still of the opinion that this slightly delayed walking development did occur, as a consequence.
    • Issue 4: Ex-wife disputes report contention she is unconcerned (based on discussions between ex-wife and psychological team) about oldest daughter's sexualized acting out behavior. Claims she is looking for a counselor to assist. Admits she does not "believe it is possible" that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
    • Husband: When it comes to fathers and daughters, he is guilty of being a sexual abuser until proven innocent. Dealing with professionals in this area was like the Spanish Inquisition, they (especially females) appeared to husband as a bunch of anally retentive perverts who saw everything only in terms of predatory males and innocent young girls to protect, all of course, at very high, state funded wages. The truth is, that sexual (or any) abuse of children has highly visible effects that are immediately recognized by caring family friends, teachers, and neighbors. The reason abuse is so prevalent is that anyone who reports it is immediately sucked into a bureaucratic quagmire, legal liability issues and major hassle, reducing the likelihood of reporting it, increasing work for those who pretend to care and have have seized a monopoly in dealing with this and other social problems. This makes social problems far worse, since problem solvers in monopoly positions realized long ago that solved problems equals loss of income and it is far more prifitable to pretend to be solving problems while actually making them worse.
    • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her disciplinary (lack of) and parenting methods are to the detriment of the children's proper development. Claims to have started a task list and that it is husband who is lax in the area of discipline (contradicting her previous allegations that husband is a "harsh disciplinarian"
    • Issue 6: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's comment that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role that ex-wife can play in the children's lives and claims (LIES) that Dr. Mclean does not deal with this issue in his conclusions.
    • Husband: Dr. Mclean does deal with this and states that once ex-wife cleans up her act, deals with her addictions and other issues and actually behaves in a positive manner and is capable of playing a viable role, that husband may be more supportative of ex-wife's parental role.
    • Issue 7: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's observation that husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females and yet does not explain how this may affect young daughters under his care.
    • Issue 8: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean not addressing effect of husband's alleged "harsh disciplinary" measures on daughters, contradicting her allegation above that husband has become lax in discipline.
    • Issue 9: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating the children have no parental preference and states that daughter's, when asked, tell her that they want to live with mother. Presents a "love her mom" note from daughter's school work as evidence. Claims daughters have closer bond with her than father.
    • Issue 10: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating that one of husbands battery of personality tests came back as "invalid", a possible indication of defensiveness and did not address how this may affect the children.
    • Issue 11: Ex-wife claims that Dr. McLean is lying when he states the amount and period of alcohol consumption reported by her when asked. Ex-wife claims that she answered the alcohol consumption question with "I don't know"

    Dr. Selwyn Smith's Response To Report (November 21, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
    • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
    • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
    • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
    • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
    • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
    • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
    • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
    • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
    • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
    • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
    • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
    • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
    • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

Series of Photo's of youngest daughter age 8 months to 2.5 years, claimed by ex-wife to prove that daughter did not have delayed motor skill development.

Schoolwork of oldest daughter stating "I love my mom".

Statement of Laura Harris ex-wife's sister retracting her statement (November 21, 1994)

  • Statement of Laura Harris (MISSING)
  • Husband: ex-wife's mother put major pressure on daughters to do this
  • Husband: ex-wife put on a major show for her sisters, trying to prove she had changed.
  • Husband: ex-wife did best to demonize husband (who had earned sisters respect over the years) by repeating her allegations of rape, abuse...
  • Husband: basic argument was that loyality to family trumped truth and sisters had betrayed their sister and mother by taking husbands and children's best interest position.
  • TODO: Summarize Laura's statement when found.

Statement of Anita Cox ex-wife's sister retracting her statement (November 21, 1994)

  • Statement of Anita Cox
  • Husband: ex-wife's mother put major pressure on daughters to do this
  • Husband: ex-wife put on a major show for her sisters, trying to prove she had changed.
  • Husband: ex-wife did best to demonize husband (who had earned sisters respect over the years) by repeating her allegations of rape, abuse...
  • Husband: basic argument was that loyality to family trumped truth and sisters had betrayed their sister and mother by taking husbands and children's best interest position.
  • Anita: Wishes to retract her statement to the court of May 18, 1994.
  • Anita: Statement above was a collection of past observations and opinions.
  • Anita: Has observed ex-wife since May 1994 (how often not stated). Ex-wife has acted in children's best interests during this period, despite the stress.
  • Anita: From previous statement above: "Ex-wife is extremely adept at skirting around issues and blame shifting to others. She is a very good actress and liar in the short haul when she is trying to get something".

Statement of Victoria Ruitter friend of ex-wife's mother (November 18, 1994)

  • Statement of Victoria Ruitter
  • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1980 (ex-wife: age 23)
  • Claims to have seen ex-wife develop from a shy girl to a mature, responsible woman.
  • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
  • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
  • Claims, to the best of her knowlege that ex-wife has always been loving caring and supportative mother
  • Believes ex-wife fit parent and essential to children's healthy development.
  • Husband: Never met this woman and doubt she had seen ex-wife with children much, if at all.
  • Husband: Victoria was a friend of ex-wife's mother, called in to do a favor, with no insight.
  • Husband: This was necessary since ex-wife did not invest in personal relationships, was unable/unwilling to earn trust, was in denial of the need for reciprocity in healthy relationships and had only acquaintences, no close friends.

Statement of Bernard Wilson ex and future boyfriend of ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

  • Statement of Bernard Wilson
  • Claims to have known ex-wife for eleven years, mostly, and now living in England
  • Claims, during 1994, to have communicated with ex-wife by telephone once every six to eight weeks. Claims that, since September 1994, frequency of calls increased to once per week.
  • Claims to have lived together with ex-wife for several months and to have shared costs equally with the exception of rent which was shared proportional to income.
  • Husband: During entire marriage, while attempting to deal with ex-wife's financial irresponsibility, ex-wife refused both to share financial information or to agree to an equalization of discretionary income (allowance, budgeting) for spouses, with all else going into family expenses and investments. Ex-wife repeatedly contracted debt against husbands will, to which he was illegally obligated, by faulty law. Husband fought long and hard for any sort of financial discipline or compromise from ex-wife and failed miserably. Ex-wife of the opinion that she can do and spend according to whim and any restriction was interfering with her "freedom", and it was up to husband to deal with the consequences. Husbands position (demanding that ex-wife consider and behave consistent with family survival and her marriage vows) appeared to be later interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on husbands part. It appears that ex-wife was being reasonable with Bernard until she lured him into marriage when the gloves come off and demands for entitlements come into play. Husband experienced the same thing during courtship and "test" living together. Ex-wife was very reasonable and a "good" partner during courtship, until she became pregnant shortly after marriage, consummating her trap. Husband expected the same after marriage (and ex-wife made promises and marriage vows stating this) and was VERY unpleasantly surprised with this bait and switch tactic by both his ex-wife, and later the courts switching law and children's best interests to child abuse, tyranny and slavery.
  • Husband: During marriage, Bernard visited at most twice, when he and ex-wife went out for dinner, without the children. Any encounters between Bernard and ex-wife with children very brief.
  • Claims that ex-wife very responsible, and a loving mother, who tried very hard to keep the marriage together. Claims ex-wife was compassionate and cared for himself when he was ill and was helping her mother out financially.
  • Claims that ex-wife has shown no signs of alcohol or drug dependency. Claims the first he heard of substance problems was when husband called him in September, 1994.
  • Claims that during husbands call, husband asked if he had ever suspected alcoholism or of ex-wife being a "moneygrabber".
  • Claims that is aware of ex-wife's financial hardship when husband stopped paying support..
  • Husband: In fact, ex-wife used this claim of hardship and pity credit to get substantial financial support from Bernard over the years, including living with him for a year or so post separation (until he learned the truth and fled back to England, once subpoenaed by husband) and an all expense paid trip to England for herself and daughters.
  • Claims that ex-wife very upset due to the state of the children after being with husband.
  • Claims that cannot comment on children's environment, but did find the children "wonderfully bright and lively", a credit to their parents.
  • Claims that to recall that husband spent a lot of the time away from home working, concludes most childcare responsibility borne by ex-wife.

Financial Statement and proposed budget of ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

  • Financial Statement
  • Ex-wife claims the misfortune and hardship of "losing" her job, two weeks before this crucial court date and expects husband to pay for this "misfortune".
  • Ex-wife claims to be running a monthly deficit of $2,657.00 ($31,800.00 per year) and proposes to run a monthly deficit (income minus expenses) of $4,213.73 ($50,574.00 per year). In other words spend this much more than her income. Ex-husband was expected to pay for the basic "unfairness" that ex-wife "needed" to spend $50,574.00 more per year than she earned. Both the claimed actual and proposed far exceed husbands ability to pay, as did ex-wife's financial excesses during marriage.
  • Ex-wife claims her personal debt has risen from $17,000.00 on May 16, 1994 to $27,260.00 on November 21, 1994, due to personal loans from her impoverished mother and her past and future lover Bernard Wilson from England.
  • Ex-wife amends her claim that she disposed of (stole) $12,200.00 worth of joint property to her mother, claiming to be repaying a debt that could not have existed, since her mother was poor and just as financially incompetent as ex-wife. Value of "debt" to her mother reduced to $4,340.00.

Affidavit of Lisa Kennedy friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Lisa Kennedy
  • Claims to have known ex-wife for nine years, little contact with her during this period.
  • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
  • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
  • Claims her observations based on last four to five months (ie; since June/July 1994)
  • Claims also to have had several lengthy phone conversations with ex-wife in above interval
  • Invokes "expert" status with undergraduate psychology and M.Ed. in counseling. Claims specialty in treatment for female survivors of childhood trauma and other abuse. Currently employed at Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Social Services department.
  • Claims to be "appalled" at deterioration and condition of ex-wife who had lost 30 pounds after not seeing her for years.
  • Claims that ex-wife on the verge of tears and trembling and, when asked, indicated it was due to the stress she was under and the enormous difficulties she had to deal with during marriage.
  • Claims that ex-wife expressed concern about the harsh forms of discipline her children had to "endure" at the hands of their father.
  • Repeats older daughter's diaper incident, but this time it is for wetting her pants, as opposed to intentionally urinating on the floor in protest.
  • Expresses "expert" opinion of the profoundly negative long term effects that such humiliation and trauma can have on a sensitive little girl.
  • Repeats ex-wife's description of her helplessness to intervene against her brute of a husband and subsequent attempts to comfort her distraught daughter after this (proven) jointly arrived at and agreed to consequence for an intentional act.
  • Repeats ex-wife's version of cold shower punishment if the girls accidentally "spilled" water on the floor during bath
  • Husband: as opposed to the truth that they were having water fights, destroying the ceiling below, were pre-warned and reason had failed. After a while, this became a game for the girls, experimenting to see if father's threshold of "too much" water on the floor was consistent. It was.
  • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That husband would not let her bath the girls or take care of the children and instead demanded that ex-wife be doing cleaning and cooking, which were ex-wife's sole responsibilities, contradicting ex-wife's contention that she was the primary caregiver during entire marriage since husband was not interested.
  • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That she was afraid to disobey husband out of fear that he would take his wrath out on the children.
  • Re-iterates ex-wife's abuse and rape allegations against husband, except rape threats are now multiple.
  • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That husband has threatened to completely destroy her, physically and emotionally, leaving her unable to function.
  • Repeats ex-wife's allegations that husband has threatened to leave her penniless and that husband has stolen property, including her bed (husbands pre-marital property).
  • Repeats ex-wife's allegations that she had to sleep on the floor (OH?, husband left the couch, proven by ex-wife's photos of "missing property").
  • Claims that husband deprived her of child support. Claims this caused hardship, necessitating ex-wife to borrow money.
  • Husband: September, October, November 1994, $700.00 per month, since children were back in school and daycare costs reduced by same amount and ex-wife refused to negotiate. Meanwhile, husband continued to pay all of ex-wife's major expenses including housing and utilities, per consent. Ex-wife also made substantially more than this selling the puppies which were half husbands and she refused to share the proceeds, or even admit there were any.
  • Repeats ex-wife's allegations regarding husband and feces, alleges that husband "forced" older daughter to feed puppies.
  • Claims that she had to give away these puppies and beloved family pets due to husbands actions. This contradicts ex-wife's diary entries that she sold puppies on at least three occasions.
  • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband displayed a complete disregard for her sexual wishes and forced her to engage in sexual acts that were "abhorrent" to her.
  • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband threatened to abandon her and the children, from the time they were babies.
  • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, husband would frequently make sexual advances to her in front of the children.
  • Introduces new claim from ex-wife: That, during marriage, her fear of husband made her powerless to prevent his inappropriate behavior.
  • Claims she has observed ex-wife with children and, except for slight impatience and lack of discipline, feels that ex-wife is a nurturing, caring parent.
  • Claims to believe that children are more inclined to act out with ex-wife since they feel safe and are not afraid of her.
  • Claims to believe that children are more obedient with father (has never observed father with daughters) because they fear harsh punishments for even the most minor infractions.
  • Claims ex-wife has a good relationship with her own two children and engages in games and other appropriate activities.
  • Claims she trusted ex-wife enough to allow her to babysit her own two children.
  • Claims that ex-wife frightened by tranquilizer addiction and had dealt with problem promptly.
  • Claims that ex-wife claimed that she had dealt with her fear, stress and loneliness by abusing alcohol.
  • Claims that ex-wife claimed that husband had criticized and berated her during entire marriage for being financially dependent and this criticism, coupled with her low self-esteem left her feeling powerless.
  • Claims that ex-wife claimed since separation, she has found the strength and resources to stop abusing alcohol.
  • Believes that, once husbands abuse is stopped by removing him, that ex-wife will experience a renaissance and flower to her full potential.
  • Believes that ex-wife would benefit by joining a support group for abused women.
  • Believes that children require help to recover and deal with husbands "harsh" discipline.
  • Believes that Children's Aid should monitor husbands contact with children, should he foolishly be allowed to see them.
  • Husband: Children's Aid was called in, seven times, by various third parties and professionals, ALL times to investigate complaints against ex-wife. They are as useless as any other beurocracy, primarily focused on covering their own asses.
  • Husband: An "expert" has spoken, GOD help us all. Lisa is the kind of "professional" that courts rely upon for "plausible deniability" and scapegoats when caught in their machinations.

Affidavit of Marlon Kennedy husband of friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Marlon Kennedy
  • Claims to have known ex-wife for nine years, seen her on occasion during this period. Friend of ex-wife's mother.
  • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
  • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
  • Claims that observations primarily over last few months, has observed ex-wife for many hours each week.
  • Claims that ex-wife is intelligent and capable, more than able to care for her children.
  • Was appalled to see in summer, after many years of not seeing ex-wife to observe her loss of weight, state of anxiety and unconsciously expressed fear.
  • Compares ex-wife to a cowering dog after years of ill treatment, expecting to be beaten at any moment, in contrast to the strong, self confident woman he first met nearly ten years ago.
  • Husband: Proved the facts on her, all of ex-wife's chickens were coming home to roost, the culmination of years of husband warning (oops - being abusive) that her irresponsibility and self-destructive behavior could end only one way. She had seen the evidence, knew it was true, and was terrified. Her master plan of marrying a sucker, tolerate the jerk, bleed him dry for as long as she could then use the law to go for the jugular and be on easy street for life, just like her mother was failing. Of course, husband did not anticipate that the courts would ignore the evidence, not apply the law and worse, break the law. Do not believe for a moment that the courts bought that ex-wife's self-abuse was due to husband, they just pretended to. It is a fact that ex-wife appeared abused. It is assumption and manipulation to attribute it to husband without proof. Judges should know this. The real game is "pass the parasite" created by illegal laws which destroy families, honesty and the work ethic and husband was expected to pay. Husband will not apologize to anyone he may have disappointed by not fulfilling the role or fate arbitrarily deemed for him and his daughters. Husband, like all free and aware people is master of his own destiny and woe to those who act otherwise and refuse to get out of the way.
  • Describes ex-wife's recounting of the constant state of terror and fear of husband.
  • Claims to have observed a dramatic change in ex-wife's state of mind after each encounter with husband. Concludes this is the result of years of criticism, humiliation and being put down.
  • Claims that ex-wife had to struggle to maintain her self-control and composure, every time husband had to be, was or had been dealt with. Claims at other times, ex-wife's strength and composure back.
  • Claims that ex-wife had called on several occasions in a state of despair. Recounts allegations that husband wrote "the great reckoning" on the court date, on the calendar. Recounts allegations that husband had threatened to "rape her", "strip her bare of everything" and "cast her out as worthless".
  • Husband: What the courts do on a daily basis is worse than "rape", since at least the rapist goes away. They daily "strip men bare of everything", including their children and enslave them, forced to pay with no influence with their children. This is exactly what ex-wife was demanding the courts do to husband and this is exactly what the courts tried and failed to do.
  • Recounts allegations that husband had threatened to "punch her out", recounts ex-wife's terror of husband and concludes this can only come from sustained persecution.
  • Claims that, based on a few observations that ex-wife is a caring, nurturing mother.
  • Claims that he has discussed the children with ex-wife and she is concerned about their well-being and is seeking professionals.
  • Claims that he was present during several phone conversations between ex-wife and children when they were with husband who was claimed to be sleeping during the day while children ran amok.
  • Believes that ex-wife is able to put aside her feelings and foster a loving relationship between children and their father. States that on one occasion, the children said something negative about their father and ex-wife defended father.
  • Recounts new allegation by ex-wife: Observes that oldest daughter grabbed ex-wife's breasts in an extremely sexual way, totally shocking mother. Ex-wife alleges that daughter is mimicking husband, who constantly grabbed her breasts, making her feel like a toy.
  • Husband: This was at least four months after separation. Husband and ex-wife in each others presence, apart from turnovers was not a factor. If husband's behavior had been this crude during marriage and daughter was mimicking it, this is not the point in time that mimicking would first occur, "shocking" ex-wife, if true, an indication this was the first time. Daughters were starved for female attention, a fact remarked upon and noticed by many, including teachers. If husband had engaged in this behavior post separation, a police report would certainly have been made, since ex-wife was on hair-trigger alert, reporting even imaginary incidents.
  • Claims to have discussed with ex-wife the possibility of counseling to address daughters sexualized behavior and possibility that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
  • Husband: Both the affidavits of Marlon and his wife Lisa directly address and attempt to counter key issues raised in the McLean Report, such as ex-wife's unconcern with children's behavioral problems. It appears these two are not recounting observations, but trying to "help" their friends daughter, as indicated by their awareness of issues that could have only have come from the report. Raising the issue of husband sexually abusing his daughters is pure manipulation, raising a closed issue. Ex-wife admitted to Dr. Mclean the possibility was ridiculous and further, sexual abuse is such a hot button that many shrinks had interviewed the children looking for this.
  • Claims that ex-wife is such a wonderful mother that he entrusted the care of his own children to her.
  • Husband: Marlon was so impressed with ex-wife, that several months later husband found out ex-wife and Marlon were bed buddies and Marlon and Lisa's marriage was over. One can only speculate on whether there was a cost for this affidavit. With ex-wife, the costs are always hidden and high.

Affidavit of Nancy Campbell friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Nancy Campbell
  • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1982, seen her with children on occasion at their grandmother's during this period.
  • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
  • Husband: Have not met and do not know this person. Has never been to home during marriage.
  • Claims to be "shocked" that ex-wife may lose custody. Claims mother and daughters inseparable and very close.
  • Claims and enumerates qualities that ex-wife has the right motherhood stuff.
  • Claims that she has never observed any disipline problems with the children and they listened to her.
  • Cannot believe that ex-wife has any alcohol problems.

Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill acquaintance of ex-wife (November 18, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Kathy Sainthill
  • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1976, visited often at marital home during this period.
  • Husband: Finally, a person he actually knows. Met Kathy S. at the same party that ex-wife came to and never left. During the early years of the marriage, ex-wife went out with Kathy socially at most once per year and Kathy and her partner came over for dinner at most three times. During the latter three years of the marriage, ex-wife and Kathy were estranged due to a major difference of opinion. Claims to be a friend, but actually an acquaintance with limited insight.
  • Claims ex-wife to be an excellent mother and teacher, focused with her children.
  • Claims that ex-wife does discipline daughters by discussion and "time out".
  • Claims that she witnessed husband's harsh punishment by removing all of daughters possessions from room for a minor infraction and then making her earn them back by good behavior.
  • Husband: Kathy S. was not present for this "incident" of husbands "child abuse".
  • Claims that ex-wife is a very open, forthright individual, contrasts to husband as controlling and manipulative individual.
  • Recounts phone call from husband in the spring (ie; at time of divorce initiation) where husband told her that ex-wife was drinking a lot and needed a friend. Interprets goal of husband to be manipulative, an attempt to hurt ex-wife. States that husband called several more times asking her to be ex-wife's friend and help her. States that she advised ex-wife to get a lawyer.
  • Husband: Did call Kathy S. ex-wife needed a friend and was committed to a course that would hurt our children, myself and ex-wife very badly, and was beyond anyone's but her flakey mother's, corrupt lawyer's and corrupt shrink's influence. Kathy S. at this time must have been aware that divorce had started and would not have advised ex-wife to get a lawyer. Even so, it was very bad advice, as subsequent events have shown.
  • Husband: This is a typical manipulative absurdity. There were problems, husband is a problem solver and took real steps such as hoping that an old acquaintance may be able to help stabilize ex-wife, to provide some balance. To have this interpreted, or even to think that this act could be part of some Machiavellian plot on part of husband to hurt ex-wife is non-rational. If the intent was hurt, the best strategy on husbands part would have been to isolate ex-wife, deny her social support and weaken her, prior to moving in for the kill (ie; do what the law tried and failed to do to husband). This act was intended to help ex-wife and Kathy S. did not even try and failed miserably both to be the friend she claims to be and as a human being who are morally obligated to try to assist others in times of distress.
  • Alleges she witnessed a minor dispute between husband and ex-wife, where husband dismissed ex-wife's opinion by: "I'm a man, I'm and engineer, I've been around the world, what have you done?". Paraphrased: The arrogant, insensitive brute of a man and poor little ex-wifey, denied any respect.
  • Alleges she witnessed another incident where husband refused to change diapers: "Don't try to stuff that off on me, ...don't think you can get away with that in front of your friends".
  • Is "shocked" by any suggestion that ex-wife has alcohol difficulties that may interfere with her parenting.
  • Considers it to be "incomprehensible" that custody has been recommended to brute of a husband. Wonders what misinformation this can be based on.

Affidavit of Kathy Nehei friend of ex-wife's mother (November 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Kathy Nihei
  • Claims to have known ex-wife for twenty four years.
  • Husband: Another of ex-wife's mothers's friends, called in as a favor, to make up for ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters.
  • Husband: Have met and do not know this person. Believe she was at the wedding. Has never been to home during marriage. Doubt that she has seen ex-wife with children prior to divorce initiation.
  • Claims to be a friend of ex-wife.
  • Claims that ex-wife's strong points are energy, enthusiam, honesty, loyalty and common sense.
  • Claims that ex-wife is inclined to avoid confrontation and readily gives in to avoid hurting others and prefers that she, rather than others be hurt.
  • Claims that ex-wife has a strong sense of family and is a sensitive, supportive and nurturing mother.
  • Claims that ex-wife is stable, very personally responsible, strong, courageous, determined and caring.
  • Claims that children are ex-wife's life and very unjust to take them away.
  • No mention of alcohol.
  • Recommends custody to ex-wife.

Affidavit of Carol Taylor acquaintance of ex-wife (November 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Carol Taylor
  • Claims to have known ex-wife since 1980, met her while working for the Federal Government (student loans)
  • Claims to see ex-wife frequently and talks often on phone. Claims to have seen ex-wife interact with her children.
  • Claims to have visited ex-wife often at home and has seen her with the children there.
  • Husband: Yes, he actually knows this person. Met Carol at the wedding (1985) or shortly before. She was a maid of honor. During the early years of the marriage, ex-wife went out with Carol socially at most once per year and Carol and her partner came over for dinner at most three times. During the latter three years of the marriage, ex-wife refused to go out socially with any of her "friends" or invite them over, despite husband encouraging (oops - abusing) her to "get a life". Only friends that the spouses saw regularly or had over were initially husband's friends. Of those, only Dianna Drynan and ex-wife had what could be called friendship. Carol claims to be a friend, but actually is an acquaintance with limited insight.
  • Claims her motives for speaking up is her "shock" that ex-wife may have addiction problems and that custody has been recommended to the children's father.
  • Claims that she has never seen ex-wife drunk and has had numerous social opportunities to observe both out and at ex-wife's home when alcohol was being consumed.
  • Recounts ex-wife stating that her drinking increased in the months preceding separation, that she became concerned and intended to stop.
  • Claims that, from every indication she has, ex-wife has stopped drinking.
  • Claims the suggestion that ex-wife simply switched her addiction from alcohol to tranquilizers to be "ridiculous"
  • Regurgitates ex-wife's previous allegations against her brute of a husband, running amok, stressing ex-wife.
  • Recounts ex-wife claiming new allegation against husband: That he does not return the children at agreed time, nor call with new schedule, forcing ex-wife to track her daughters down.
  • Claims to have seen ex-wife interacting with children, a wonderful mother, who dotes on her daughters.
  • Husband: Carol did not see or communicate with ex-wife for at least three years, prior to being called to service for ex-wife's "dog and pony show" which started once ex-wife realized that success in court may not be as automatic as she had assumed.
  • Claims to have seen husband interact with the children and claims husband is a "relatively good" parent who plays games with and has fun with his children.
  • Claims that division of child labor was that husband got to do all the fun, interacting stuff, while ex-wife doing all the organizing work.
  • Husband: To have seen and concluded this, it would have been, at latest 1990.
  • Believes it to be "incomprehensible" that ex-wife is not able to discipline her children. Claims to have seen the contrary.

Supplementary Cross Motion by husband (November 25, 1994)

Motion Index

Supplementary Affidavit of husband (November 24, 1994)

  • Supplementary Affidavit
  • Claims the only reason husband agreed to pay any support in consent agreement, despite the fact ex-wife did not need it since he continued to pay all historical expenses such as housing and utilities on ex-wife's behalf was to buy time to refute Dr. Selwyn Smith's medical report which weighed unduly in ex-wife's favor and to have an assessment by competent professionals before the court prior to any judicial decisions. Points out that consent agreement was not intended to last long, but assessment took far longer than expected.
  • Reminds the court that the consent agreement was entirely "without prejudice", meaning the terms could not be considered and used to the legal detriment of either party. What this means is, on this court date, by law, both husband and ex-wife were in full posession of their equal parental and property rights.
  • Whines to the court that, starting from a budgetary deficit position, the additional support from the consent agreement had tripped him over the financial edge. This was further compounded by mounting legal bills and $2,625.00 for his half of the Family Court Assessment, expenses not borne by ex-wife since she had infinite legal aid resources. He also had to pay an extra $1,000.00 per month in living expences, since he was forced to vacate the marital home.
  • Alleges that, since consent agreement ex-wife appears to not be buying the quality and quantity of food for the children, to which they were accustomed. States he believes ex-wife is using the support to service her debtload and to purchase alcohol.
  • Claims that, due to mounting debt, attempted to have his solicitor negotiate support payments with ex-wife and her solicitor and was flatly refused.
  • Claims that, due to the consent agreement taking too long, husband unable to carry the burden of support payments and ex-wife's refusal to negotiate, husband was forced to stop paying support effective September 1, 1994 when children back in school and daycare costs for ex-wife dropped by an approximately equal amount.
  • Points out that lack of support during this period (total $2,100.00) could not have caused the children any hardship, since, during this period, husband continued to pay all major family expenses, as he had during marriage, ex-wife received a $1,500.00 tax refund and was selling puppies which netted ex-wife (by her estimate, per financial statement) $2,400.00 to $4,800.00. The puppies were joint marital property, half husbands which ex-wife refused to share. Ex-wife's event diary states she was selling puppies, as opposed to her later statements she gave them away.
  • After the fact: The amount of support arrears during this period was less than ex-wife ripped him off by refusing to share puppy venture proceeds, and, if you want to be pedantic, half of her tax refund from the previous year, during marriage. Judge apparently chose to interpret husband's actions as indicative of a budding deadbeat dad and chose to smite him, to nip the problem in the bud. This, as opposed to a "lets call it even" proposition and fact which it was. This, of course completely neglects the fact that judicial opinions regarding amount of support completely ignores expenses and debt load. The courts truly believe they can get blood from a stone, by arbitrary decree.
  • Points out that the Family Court Clinic Assessment was completed and concurs with virtually all of husbands witness's observations, and further, recommends custody to husband after a very thorough investigation for very good reasons, including that ex-wife is an addict, a chronic alcoholic, in denial of her problems. Other reasons including that ex-wife's parental philosophy and irresponsibility is to the children's detriment from the report enumerated.
  • Points out that virtually all of ex-wife's witnesses have no insight, their contact was sporadic at best and most had not seen ex-wife for years.
  • Points out that virtually all of ex-wife's witnesses recount recent experiences, once ex-wife realized her position was not as assured as she had assumed and ex-wife started a "dog and pony show" campaign for the benefit of these witnesses.
  • Points out that ex-wife has been claiming that she stopped drinking, yet when husband's nephew (Affidavit of Garry Browne) went to pick up his grandfather's camcorder on October 6, 1994, he found ex-wife drunk, screaming at the children and desperate for anyone to listen to her woes.
  • Husband states (for the nth time) that it is not his intent to hurt his ex-wife, as alleged, who has many good qualities and clearly loves her children. However, ex-wife's self-destructive behavior is to the detriment of herself and children, and her refusal or inability to make the choices required to address her problems make it impossible for her to parent, or to act according to the "children's best interests" (the highest and only consideration of written law in these matters) as was so blatantly obvious to the assessors.
  • After the fact: It is a FACT, long known by mankind, repeatedly proven by husband to and consistently rejected by the courts in this sorry affair: No amount of money from himself, the state, or any other source, and/or any amount of "expert" psychological or other "help" can alter the trajectory of someone who is determined to destroy themselves. Ex-wife's behavior has been psychopathic to the degree that ex-wife considers everyone, including her own daughters as acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of her vices and irresponsibility.
  • After the fact: The only possible explanation for the sheer commonness of this well known "mistake" by the courts, legal and psychiatric "professions" is that it is intentional and they and very powerful others are benefiting by preying on families and children. Destroying the ability of children to survive, to learn civilized values and be productive members of society is a direct attack on the future ability of our society to survive, an agenda that is no less than a "crime against humanity". No fault divorce laws were first passed in Canada in 1968. These laws and faulty judicial interpretation are an enabler for criminal spouses to marry under false pretences, exploit their productive partners for as long as they can, enrich the legal profession during divorce and enforce this exploitation and economic slavery for as long as children are dependents. All using the false pretext of in the "children's best interests". We are forty years or two generations into suffering the social effects of depriving children of exposure to working role model parents and their values: Increasing irresponsibility, lawlessness and youth violence. Decreased educational ability, faltering innovation and economy. Family institution nearly extinct. Decreased honesty, increasing state unaccountability, rampant government and corporate crime, reduced freedom. Need I continue?
  • After the fact: The fact that ex-wife is a psychopath does not contradict the statement above, that ex-wife loves her daughters. She believes she does, and ex-wife can and has made very convincing emotional arguments with great appeal, crocodile tears and sound and fury telling you so. But!, ex-wife does not love her daughters enough to alter her preferred course in life, which is to seek oblivion and non-awareness. Husband failed to solve this problem during marriage and has yet to see anyone more competent or caring try. If you do, watch out. Speaking truth as part of "reality therapy" is called "abuse" and husband has a year on probation to prove it.
  • After the fact: Husband was forced to conclude; the reason he failed during marriage to convince ex-wife that personal responsibility is necessary to survival, is that ex-wife's mother's divorce convinced ex-wife that behavior doesn't matter, ex-wife would be granted custody by virtue of being a "needy" female and she would be on easy street. Ex-wife was right about the divorce courts, but did not consider that the courts and governments do not pay, their victims do, under threat of forceful retaliation, should they fail to comply (governments cannot pay, they produce nothing that people would voluntarily pay for and therefore just shift other people's property around). Ex-wife and the courts forgot that a person is only a slave if they consent by being in sufficient terror and/or mis-educated. Husband is neither and refused to consent to behave in a manner detrimental to his daughters.
  • States that Dianna Drynan has been involved with the family all of the marital years, has some insight and provides an Affidavit.
  • Husband categorically denies that he is trashing the home, as alleged by ex-wife.
  • Husband states that puppy feces is due to ex-wife's unreasonable position that the puppies be kept in the house, as opposed to in the yard, as preferred by husband. Provides letter from his solicitor to ex-wife's solicitor complaining about the unsanitary puppy feces and asking how ex-wife intends to deal with it. Also enquires regarding husband's share of marital equity from sale of puppies.
  • Husband admits that he removed certain property from the premises, both to set up living elsewhere and to protect from ex-wife's thievery, since ex-wife had already disposed of some property to her "mother", in payment of a ficticious debt, of which husband only became aware of by ex-wife's last financial statement. Promises to provide a list of assets, for proper division per law.
  • Husband states he has already made appointments for the children to followup on Dr. Mcleans recommendations.
  • Husband states that he is prepared to care for his children, in their home and to try his best to work with their mother.
  • Husband states that he is the parent best able to provide the children structure and stability, as he has tried to do in the past, with great opposition from ex-wife (who is of the opinion that structure and rules are a form of slavery), as recommended by Dr. Mclean.
  • Husband points out that ex-wife remains in denial of both the fact of her addictions and that her parenting methods are inappropriate.

Family Court Clinic Report recommending custody to father (November 16, 1994)

    University of Ottawa Family Court Clinic

    • Family Court Clinic
    • Multidisciplinary team of forensic psychiatrists, headed by Dr. David Mclean.
    • The purpose of this investigative unit is to objectively consider issues pertaining to the intersection of psychiatry, law and children's best interests.
    • Services were agreed to and paid for by both parties, to insure unbiased results.
    • This clinic is the premier institution of its type in the region, with the best reputation for objectivity and accuracy.
  • Family Court Clinic Report
  • Custody recommended to father (Page 27).
  • Addiction treatment and psychiatric help recommended for mother (Page 27).
  • McLean Report Overview

    • Counseling help recommended for father to help deal with his hurt and to provide support (Page 27).
    • Ex-wife admits that violence was not an issue during the marriage. Admits that she would hit husband out of frustration and he would simply leave. Husband admits that when ex-wife hit him, he would just restrain her wrists in self-defense. Ex-wife repeats rape threat allegation she made to police against husband in June 1994 as now happening during marriage, as opposed to after separation (Page 5)
    • Marriage counseling since 1992, issues centered around control, finances and ex-wife's drinking. Counselor under the impression that ex-wife may have felt emotionally abused (implied, but not stated: by husband's issues with her irresponsibility and drinking) (Page 5).
    • Ex-wife caught in a lie by Dr. Mclean about her daily consumption of tranquilizers. Pharmacist cuts her off for abuse. Dr. Mclean recounts ex-wife's description of going into withdrawal with "shakes, fears and lightheadedness" (Page 7).
    • Ex-wife admits to drinking 9 to 10 ounces of alcohol per day. Ex-wife claims that her drinking started in January 1989, after birth of second daughter. Ex-wife claims to have cut back on drinking in April 1994, once she became aware husband was measuring her consumption. Ex-wife claims that she can be a controlled drinker and thus is in denial that there is a problem. Dr. Mclean concurs with husbands opinion that ex-wife is on tranquilizers to try to hide alcoholism (Page 8).
    • Ex-wife prone to emotional thinking and misperceiving situations. Ex-wife has considerable anger which she has trouble expressing and may project on other people. Ex-wife can be somewhat naive and self-centered, with a need to view herself positively. Ex-wife tends to be indirect and manipulative in meeting her needs. Ex-wife has difficulties in intimate and long term relationships due to immaturity and self-centerdness. No sign of any mental illness in ex-wife (Page 9)
    • Dr. Mclean describes disastrous one on one encounter between ex-wife and children, where ex-wife had no clue how to deal with them, from which he later concludes no meaningful interaction between ex-wife and daughters for at least several years (Page 10).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife has serious alcohol and/or drug addiction problems, which, if anything, she is downplaying the amount and period of consumption and does not admit it as a problem. Dr. Mclean concludes that primary focus in ex-wife's life at this time must be dealing with her addictions and would be happy to make a professional referral (Page 10).
    • Dr. McLean concludes that ex-wife's alcoholism has negatively affected her parenting and nurturing her daughters for at least the last several years (Page 10).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that ex-wife's "free spirit" and lack of structure approach to parenting is not in children's best interests (Page 11).
    • Husbands natural mother is in long term care for schizophrenia and has been since husband very young (Page 11).
    • In discussing husbands childhood, husband indicated he associated with the "thinking crowd" and described himself as the "class delinquent" (Page 11).
    • Husband left home at age 16 and worked way through high school (Page 11).
    • Husband quit college electronics course because it was "far too easy" (Page 11)
    • Husband enrolled in University of Waterloo, Electronics Engineering, but failed third year due to frustrated "love" (Page 12).
    • Husband spent several years working in Africa and California, then returned to complete Engineering Degree (Page 12).
    • Husband moved to Ottawa to work for Norpak and was soon promoted to project leader (Page 12)
    • In 1985, husband moved to Nortel to date and keeps refusing management positions, since he is "happier that way" and has no intention of leaving current employment. (Page 12)
    • Dr. Mclean describes husband as down-to-earth and one "who tells it like it is" (Page 12).
    • Husband describes step-mother and acknowledges debt to her for not protecting him from bullies, forcing him to learn how to defend himself (Page 13)
    • Husband describes childhood with no one to intelligently answer his questions, making him feel stupid (Page 13)
    • Husband admits that, in rebellious teens he had minor difficulties with the law including impaired and several drunk and disorderlys (Page 14).
    • Dr. Mclean describes results of one of husbands personality tests (MMPI) as invalid, "characteristic of people who have an almost pathological intense need to present a perfectionist view of themselves" (Page 14).
    • Dr. Mclean elaborates on invalid test: "They are naively defensive and may use considerable repression to maintain their self-image. They may also be rigorously moralistic and self-rightous in a way which could be uncompromising." (Page 14)
    • Husbands profile was suggested to reflect a conventional and controlled man who can be self-centered, immature and manipulative in his relationships (Page 14).
    • Husband is likely to be hard working, achievement oriented, practical and easy-going in many aspects of his life. He is also likely to be friendly and outgoing in relationships (Page 14).
    • Husband does not show an above average potential to be an abusive parent. Responses did indicate unhappiness in relationships and lack of emotional support (Page 14).
    • Husband is able to express warmth and a good range of emotions. Husband appears to have a general negative bias coloring his perception of females (Page 15).
    • While major psychopathology cannot be ruled out because of husband's invalid MMPI test results, husband did present as a generally well functioning person whose authoritarian tenancies are exacerbated by the current conflict situation.
    • Dr. Mclean suggests that husband step back psychologically and consider his own contributions to family problems (unstated what they may be) (Page 15)
    • Dr. Mclean describes one on one interaction between daughters and father. Both daughters appeared comfortable, relaxed and far less aggressive than with mother. Father appears to have the skills to deal with his daughters behavior in a positive manner (Page 15).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband suffers from no major psychiatric illness, but is showing some stress of conflict related symptomology which is expected to dissipate, once matters are resolved (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband perceives ex-wife as the one to blame, or, the guilty party. Husband and ex-wife's personalities are so different that they tend to confuse each other (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that while under considerable stress, husband does have far more in the way of resources to deal with the demands. Husband certainly demonstrated better resources and skills than mother in dealing with his daughters at the clinic (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that husband would be open to any straightforward parenting suggestions and that husband was more nurturing with his daughters when observed in interaction. (Page 16).
    • Dr. Mclean has concerns about how husbands tenancy to paint things black and white extends to the potential role he could see the mother playing with the girls (Page 16).
    • Husband admits, that for first two years of oldest daughter's life he was "not the best father" (Page 17).
    • Ex-wife admits that sexual abuse of daughters "not possible" (Page 18).
    • Ex-wife admits that she is more of a "screamer" for discipline, while husband more in control (Page 19).
    • Ex-wife states that back and forth's under consent agreement going "relatively well" and then swears in Affidavit to court that husband has been very disruptive, conflictual and she is in terror and needs protection from him (Page 20).
    • Oldest daughter is noted to have very good intellectual resources (Page 20).
    • Oldest daughter notes that if she had a lot of money, she would live in a tree house (father built one), with no adults, just kids (Page 21).
    • Oldest daughter, when asked who she wanted to live with, stated "Mommy, because she buys them popsicles" (Page 21).
    • Dr. Mclean concludes that oldest daughters stated preference to live with her mother is not based on any reasons that are in her long term best interests. (Page 22).
    • Dr. Mclean recommends that oldest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 22).
    • Husband and ex-wife disagree regarding youngest daughter's motor development. Ex-wife states normal, husband states delayed because of being kept in the playpen too much.(Page 22).
    • Youngest daughter states she wants to live with both parents in Dunrobin and, when asked to choose one said "mother" because father was bad and took mothers bed (Page 24).
    • Youngest daughter, when asked who loves her the most said father, then changed to mother and then back to father (Page 25).
    • Dr. Mclean is surprised, given that mother spent most time caring for youngest daughter while running a daycare, that youngest daughter does not have a strong preference for her mother. Speculates may be an indication that husband has been the one spending time with his daughters (Page 25).
    • Husband was more aware of and concerned by youngest daughter issues (Page 25).
    • Dr. Mclean recommends that youngest daughter receive counseling for her behavioral problems in addition to a firm behavioral program at home and school. (Page 25).
    • Dr. Mclean summarizes discussions with spouses regarding access arrangements . (Page 25).

    Husband's Response To Report

    • Despite the fact that Dr. Mclean agreed with the facts and husband, still have major misgivings regarding the intellectual validity of the psychiatric profession in general. This profession appears to be in strategic denial of the basic fact that human motivation is to survive in the physical world which is ruled by the laws of action and consequence. To survive requires meeting goals. Further, they refuse to admit that insanity is CONTAGIOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and, if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane from outside point of views. Husband, during the marriage had to deal with his ex-wife, who was insane by refusal to choose survival and husband and daughters were trapped by corrupt law. In husband's humble opinion, the strong possibility exists that this profession was historically created to prevent social and scientific acceptance of the logical implications of evolution and Charles Darwin. Besides, this report netted the psychiatric profession $10,000, who have a very large income by claiming they are "necessary" to provide insight into issues such as this. There was no discussion of motivation on the part of either parent. This is very similar, although far less profitable than current judge's strategic denial of legal equality between persons, requiring judges and politicians to construct elaborate rationalizations "explaining" why people cannot be treated equally in terms of rights and responsibility, making their very costly "services" appear "necessary" to deal with the inevitable conflict between perfectly legitimate and peaceful viewpoints. None of this social conflict would exist if people were free to peacefully live as they see fit, without having their survival threatened if they fail to comply with the demands of whichever political viewpoint has manipulated itself to the "top dog" position, able to wield the apparatus of state as a weapon against the people. When rationalizations fail and the public starts to become aware of the survival of civilization importance of the law being restrained to treat all persons equally and the mortal social danger of special privilege for some, other methods are used, as Martin Luther King Jr. and others have repeatedly proven, at great personal cost and honor to self and loss to civilization.
    • Dr. Mclean failed to consider (and husband suspects, lacked the courage to address) the crucial fact and effects on husband and his parenting ability of being in a trap, prevented from exercising his basic legal rights of not associating with ex-wife AND associating with his daughters to fulfill his parental obligations, of having to deal with and being married to an alcoholic who refused to be responsible as a mother, a partner or contribute, a nemesis, whose self-destructive behavior and financial irresponsibility was destroying the family's and her own daughters ability to survive. Current (illegal) judicial interpretations of law provide no way to hold this mad woman to account, or of influencing her behavior to allow family survival. When the law provides no remedies for very real, survival threatening problems, what is one to do? Husband suggests that domestic abuse statistics indicate the choices that lesser intellects conclude it is "necessary" to make. The fact that husband had issues with ex-wife's destructive behavior appeared to be interpreted by the courts as "abuse" on the husbands part. This was truly a trap, as subsequently proven by the courts. The basic problem is that corrupt courts have upset the balance of power between equal persons in relationships, making reasonable division of labor or compromise impossible in any relationship that has been mis-defined and thus, subverted as has marriage, with the effect of destroying families. Husband could have tolerated ex-wife if she had kept her marriage vows (verbal contract), behaved responsibly, as an equal partner, focused on family and common interest. The only way out is to legally impoverish self and STILL, with irrefutable evidence and law on your side, have the courts take away your children, place them in an environment detrimental to their development and learning survival skills, and attempt to make you a slave using the false pretext of "children's best interests". Husband suspected this during marriage, by equally bizarre legal experiences of family and friends. He was thus biding his time, teaching his daughters, so that when they became more aware, they would choose to leave with him thus avoiding ALL litigation. This they chose, when they became aware, despite the courts "considered opinion" to the contrary. In other words, daughters also disagree with the judicial definition of "in their best interests", and, in a sense, are just as guilty of defiance as their father.
    • Lessor minds choose beating some sense into or killing their spouses, which husband rejected as unjust since ex-wife was a pawn, tricked into lying to provide plausible deniability for the real guilty parties.
    • Regarding Dr. Mclean's statement that husband can be manipulative. Yes, so can we all. Husband realized at a very young age that use of force or fraud (manipulation is a method of fraud) can achieve goals, but the cost is too high to defend from the response of your victims and further, manipulation is antisocial, alienating potential friends and allies. Husband claims to be an honest man and is willing to be judged by his fellow persons on that basis.
    • Husband is in full compliance with the unstated, but very real social contract among rational people, the very basis of civilization "If you refrain from using force and fraud against me, I promise to do the same". Well, force and fraud has been used against husband and his daughters, causing major damage, releasing him from his promise. Husband's response has thus far been restrained, since he wants civilization back and, unrestrained by reason, conflict risks spiraling out of control, sending mankind back to barbarism and living in caves, or worse.
    • Regarding Dr. McLean's speculation on the meaning of husbands personality test (MMPI) being invalid characterizing a pathologically intense need to project perfection, use self-repression and be uncompromising: Or, perhaps some people actually exist who seek the reality, as opposed to the illusion of "being the best they can be" and hold themselves to that standard? (Page 14).
    • Further to the invalid MMPI, indicating defensiveness: How can anyone, when under major assault in a state created conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created and profit from the the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his children's future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see.
    • The fact that husband is intelligent was a major point against him in court, since judges appeared to feel threatened and wary of the possibility husband was manipulating them, as opposed to their view of the natural order, where judges are, by divine right, the manipulators. Husband stuck to the facts and truth, because facts cannot lie and objective minds are easily able to differentiate between fact and manipulation (biased interpretation of fact, posing as fact). For example, police reports in which husband played no part, being presented as a fact that husband was abusive and ex-wife terrified of him, in need of protection and preemptive justice. The only fact is that ex-wife called police and made allegations, which they documented.
    • Regarding husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females may affect his daughters: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
    • Things have not changed much for husband since childhood. He is still surrounded by mental midgets who act as if they have the moral right to forcefully compel him to behave to the detriment of himself, family, fellow citizens, civilization and species for their minority gain and majority loss. The only thing that has changed is that opponents are far more larger, powerful, dangerous and isolated from objective reality. They will be defeated by their own actions, by refusal to acknowledge the undeniable principle of physical reality, that all actions have consequences. The bigger they are, the harder they fall. History is very clear on this point. Husband will not even feel remorse, he always warns of the consequences of actions prior to reluctantly engaging in defensive conflict. From a very detached perspective, the sheer folly of this is amusing.

    Ex-wife's Response To Report

    • Ex-wife's response taken from her affidavit.
    • Ex-wife asks the court to ignore the conclusions of the Family Court Clinic Report, for the following reasons:
    • Reason 1: It would be disruptive to the children if they were transferred from her care and control to the husbands. Ex-wife further states that due to the behavior she has ALLEGED against husband (ZERO proof or witnesses), it would stress her daughters too much to give a brute such as him custody.
    • Husband: Ex-wife and husband had EXACTLY the same amount of non-school and awake time with the children on an alternating day basis per consent agreement, later turned into a court order by Justice Sirois. Ex-wife LIES in this sworn affidavit, stating that the children were mostly under her care. It appears to be assumed by judges that women do and should have primary care and control of children (and men should be wallets and slaves, with no parental influence), although, no democratic assembly would DARE (and did not) pass a law that actually states this.
    • Reason 2: Ex-wife strongly BELIEVES she is the best custodial parent and re-iterates allegations that husband has been stealing from home, neglecting children by sleeping instead of caring for them. States that she has been mindful of daughters needs. Repeats claim that she has been children's primary caregiver throughout the entire marriage.
    • Husband: This contradicts all of husbands witness statements including ex-wife's two sisters and father in-law. Since the observations of "civilians" appears to be judicially irrelevant, read the Mclean Report above, describing Dr. Mcleans observations of ex-wife's inept interactions with her own daughters. Dr. Mclean was forced to conclude, that, for at least the last several years, ex-wife and children have had no meaningful interaction and ex-wife's attempts to deal with her daughter's on a one to one basis were pathetic. Dr. Mclean concluded husband relevant parent with far better skills for dealing with his daughters.
    • Reason 2: Ex-wife has lost job, and since November 11 (for 2 weeks) has been able to be with children on a full time basis. Claims to have more time to care for children, as a result.
    • Husband: In other words, ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by not working and husband strongly believes loss of employment was arranged, a strategic legal move, to gain this time as well as economic advantage (the more needy ex-wife is, the more husband has to pay, a major disincentive against ex-wife being employed). This is a major point, which judges buy, claiming to equate parental time (with no consideration of whether or not it is quality time) with children's best interests. The social result is several generations of children of divorce who have minimal exposure to a working role model parent and thus, believe they are entitled to survival without effort (and vote for politicians who make this anti-survival, illegal promise) and learn no work ethic or economic survival skills. The corollary of this false argument is ex-wife previously alleged husband worked too hard (disproved), making a family survival virtue into a legal disadvantage for the husband. Who benefits from this, and how?
    • Ex-wife claims to have "issues" with Dr. Mclean and his report recommending custody to husband.
    • Issue 1: Ex-wife disputes that she has an addictive personality and claims tranquilizer addiction is being medically dealt with, was caused by husbands abuse and the effective remedy is for the court to smite husband.
    • Issue 2: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her mother also has an addictive personality. Ex-wife admits that mother was long term addicted to Valium, requiring medical assistance. Claims Dr. Mclean has not met her mother and cannot conclude this, based on lack of evidence.
    • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes report contention that youngest daughter suffered from delayed development, in the area of walking. Submits series of photos of youngest daughter from creeping to walking.
    • Husband: During early years, youngest daughter (a very good natured child) confined to playpen by ex-wife too much, to keep her out of ex-wife's "space", a point ex-wife and husband argued about a lot. Dr. Mclean and husband discussed this and husband is still of the opinion that this slightly delayed walking development did occur, as a consequence.
    • Issue 4: Ex-wife disputes report contention she is unconcerned (based on discussions between ex-wife and psychological team) about oldest daughter's sexualized acting out behavior. Claims she is looking for a counselor to assist. Admits she does not "believe it is possible" that husband was sexually abusing daughters.
    • Husband: When it comes to fathers and daughters, he is guilty of being a sexual abuser until proven innocent. Dealing with professionals in this area was like the Spanish Inquisition, they (especially females) appeared to husband as a bunch of anally retentive perverts who saw everything only in terms of predatory males and innocent young girls to protect, all of course, at very high, state funded wages. The truth is, that sexual (or any) abuse of children has highly visible effects that are immediately recognized by caring family friends, teachers, and neighbors. The reason abuse is so prevalent is that anyone who reports it is immediately sucked into a bureaucratic quagmire, legal liability issues and major hassle, reducing the likelihood of reporting it, increasing work for those who pretend to care and have have seized a monopoly in dealing with this and other social problems. This makes social problems far worse, since problem solvers in monopoly positions realized long ago that solved problems equals loss of income and it is far more prifitable to pretend to be solving problems while actually making them worse.
    • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes report conclusion that her disciplinary (lack of) and parenting methods are to the detriment of the children's proper development. Claims to have started a task list and that it is husband who is lax in the area of discipline (contradicting her previous allegations that husband is a "harsh disciplinarian"
    • Issue 6: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's comment that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role that ex-wife can play in the children's lives and claims (LIES) that Dr. Mclean does not deal with this issue in his conclusions.
    • Husband: Dr. Mclean does deal with this and states that once ex-wife cleans up her act, deals with her addictions and other issues and actually behaves in a positive manner and is capable of playing a viable role, that husband may be more supportative of ex-wife's parental role.
    • Issue 7: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean's observation that husband seems to have a general negative coloring in his perceptions of all females and yet does not explain how this may affect young daughters under his care.
    • Issue 8: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean not addressing effect of husband's alleged "harsh disciplinary" measures on daughters, contradicting her allegation above that husband has become lax in discipline.
    • Issue 9: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating the children have no parental preference and states that daughter's, when asked, tell her that they want to live with mother. Presents a "love her mom" note from daughter's school work as evidence. Claims daughters have closer bond with her than father.
    • Issue 10: Ex-wife has issues with Dr. Mclean stating that one of husbands battery of personality tests came back as "invalid", a possible indication of defensiveness and did not address how this may affect the children.
    • Issue 11: Ex-wife claims that Dr. McLean is lying when he states the amount and period of alcohol consumption reported by her when asked. Ex-wife claims that she answered the alcohol consumption question with "I don't know"

    Dr. Selwyn Smith's Response To Report (November 21, 1994)

    • Medical Report of Dr. Selwyn Smith
    • Claims to have reveiwed the custody assessment report of Dr. Mclean.
    • Disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that ex-wife is an addict
    • Reiterates that ex-wife has been under overwhelming stress due to her "abusive" husband who has made rape and other threats, neccessitating ex-wife to call police twice.
    • Adds that ex-wife's stress further compounded by children's behavioral difficulties and a very messy untrained dog.
    • Note: Dr. Mclean observed ex-wife's ineptness and inability to deal with her daughters here. Note also that none of ex-wife's submissions make any mention of having to deal with, or even admitting that daughters had behavioral difficulties, although, ex-wife did allege that husband was having difficulties and that she had to calm children down after husband consistently upset them during his access time. Note also, the dog was a litter of untrained puppies which ex-wife refused to keep outside in the yard, preferring instead to attribute puppy mess to husband's irresponsibility, in photographic splendour.
    • States that ex-wife used tranquilizers slightly more than prescribed. Makes no mention of ex-wife going into withdrawl or becoming addicted to tranquilizers, as concluded by Dr. Mclean, based on his personal observations and hearing ex-wife's description of withdrawl. Ex-wife also admits she became addicted in her affidavit.
    • Claims that tranquilizers can be withdrawn at end of custody proceedings, implying that they are required to deal with the conflict.
    • Claims that ex-wife has no need of addiction assessment or medical referral.
    • Claims that ex-wife has a number of significant issues (unstated what) in her background which require further assistance, but pointless to explore until the conflict is over.
    • Claims ex-wife is on a managed reduction schedule for tranquilizers.
    • Claims ex-wife has not consumed nor abused alcohol since coming under his care (April 22, 1994).
    • Husband: This is a LIE. Dr. Smith states in his previous "expert opinion" (June 20, 1994) that "her (ex-wife, alcohol) intake hs been reduced considerably. Currently she consumes (ie; claims to) approximately one glass of wine with meals."
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands mental health, due to invalid MMPI results.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands general negative bias in his perceptions of females and effect on daughters.
    • Expresses major (unexplained) concerns regarding husbands acceptance of viable role for mother in children's lives.
    • States that he does not feel Dr. Mclean has justified his recommendation of husband as custodial parent.
    • Speculates that, in the absence of Dr. McLeans alleged addiction conclusions, custody may well be recommended for mother.
    • Husband: Future evidence proves that Dr. Smith knew full well that ex-wife had alcohol and addiction problems. He claims this is one of his areas of "expetise". He prescribed Antabuse (used to make chronic alcoholics feel sick if they consume alcohol) in May 1995, as proven by ex-wife's cross-examination. This fact was also admitted by himself in his "expert report" on (March 5, 1996). Dr Smith was simultaneously submitting medical reports to court denying that ex-wife had any alcohol problems. He further claimed that all of ex-wife's problems were due to her brute of a husband, implying the court should protect this poor little innocent woman and her children by dealing with him.
    • Dr. Smith's role (and many other "experts" of his ilk) in matters such as these is to use their professional credentials (at taxpayers expense) as accredited members of various professions to provide supporting "evidence". The role of these "professionals" is to claim impartiality, adherence to fact, reason and scientific method, to be whores, shills and sycophants providing pretexts so that political power can follow whatever agenda it pleases. They provide a chain of scapegoats and plausibile deniability when things go very wrong and their agenda is thwarted. Thwarting them is the purpose and intent of husband, already partially achieved by saving his daughters. The entire psychiatric profession is discredited by Smith. Further, this profession is generally discredited by basic strategic denials of fact. Their strategic refusal to admit that basic human nature is to survive by meeting goals is one example. Another example is that insanity is CONTAGEOUS, since people MUST react to their environment and if insane forces are affecting them, they must react in a way that, more often than not, appears insane. By the facts, ex-wife is insane, since she refuses to choose survival and does not care what it costs others, including her own daughters. In turn, ex-wife is a creation of insane government, laws, judges and lawyers who have devised a means to profit, economically and politically, by destroying civilized values and thus, civilization and our collective survival. When politics and science intersect, there is SUBVERSION, in search of pretexts of why people cannot be free and why people must be enslaved. There are very few people with the courage to fight for TRUTH. These are crimes against humanity. PERIOD. The only choice is fight or be extinct.

Letter husband's solicitor to ex-wife's solicitor complaint re: puppy feces (July 5, 1994)

  • Letter husband's to ex-wife's solicitor
  • Advises that husband wants the most qualified family assessor available.
  • Advises that husband is very concerned about the health risks of puppy feces, had already complained on June 23, 1994, nothing has been done and how does ex-wife intend to resolve this.
  • Enquires when puppies will be sold and when husband will receive his half of the proceeds, given his difficult financial situation.

Financial statement of husband (November 24, 1994)

  • Financial statement
  • Husband had net worth of positive $36,500.00 on date of marriage
  • Husband's debt on separation date (including mortgage): $98,960.00
  • Husband's debt on previous statement date (1994/06/16) (including mortgage): $101,269.00
  • Husband's debt on statement date (1994/11/24) (including mortgage): $107,464.00
  • Husband's debt increased $6195.00 in interval, mainly due to support and legal costs
  • Husband claims a current monthly deficit of $902.00 and proposed monthly deficit of $2,283.00 once children with him
  • Husband, net worth = negative $26,292.13 from negative $28,870.77 in interval

Affidavit of Garry Browne nephew of husband (October 14, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Garry Browne
  • Husband's nephew
  • Claims that went to matrimonial home with his brother on October 6, 1994, looking for husband, to get grandfathers camcorder
  • Claims that ex-wife asked them in and she was very intoxicated, describes ex-wife's state.
  • Claims to have gone upstairs with ex-wife to get camcorder. Oldest daughter (nephews cousin) opened her bedroom door and asked mother who was there. Ex-wife screamed "It's just your cousins...Shut up and get back to bed!"
  • Claims that daughter did not even see him or know which cousins were there and was not allowed to say hello or anything, oldest daughter crying and carrying on throughout until ex-wife went back upstairs and yelled at daughter some more.
  • Claims that ex-wife gave him a tour of the house and said "husband took everything", to which he replied "you've got the house and kids" to which she replied "not for long"
  • Claims that ex-wife desperately wanted someone to talk to, and wanted sympathy, so he stayed for another half hour and listened to all of her allegations regarding his uncle's "abuse"

Affidavit of Dianna Drynan the closest person to a friend ex-wife would tolerate (October 21, 1994)

  • Affidavit of Dianna Drynan
  • Met ex-wife in 1985 at same party as husband did
  • Visited with family at least once a month from prior to marriage through entire marriage, often staying overnight. Observations current, to present
  • Likes ex-wife and wants to help her. Claims to be the closest person to a friend ex-wife has, to the best of her knowledge.
  • States that she never has and never will have any relationship apart from friends with husband.
  • States she has tried, ever since she met ex-wife to be her friend, but ex-wife unwilling to communicate openly.
  • States it was her that lent ex-wife the money to buy a car (May 1994), after marriage failed.
  • States she has tried and wants to be there for ex-wife as a friend, since ex-wife has no one she is close to.
  • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable to honestly be open with herself, husband, Dianna or anyone.
  • States that ex-wife is unwilling/unable face the reality of her life and family.
  • Is well aware that ex-wife will view this statement as a sign of betrayal, leaving her all alone, with no one to talk to. Believes no other choice, ex-wife's and children's best interests can only be served by having the truth come out and ex-wife dealing with it.
  • It is now clear that ex-wife will never talk openly with her, since Dianna knows too much of the truth ex-wife is trying so desperately to avoid.
  • Claims another motivation for this statement is to counter ex-wife's lies, accusations of abuse and control she is making against husband. States that this is the exact opposite of what she has observed during the entire marriage.
  • Claims that husband is a reasonable person and that he and his children have done nothing to deserve the hell the family is experiencing.
  • Claims that, by her observations the relationship was characterized by verbal abuse and hostility (especially when drinking) on ex-wife's part versus blind love, giving in and reasonableness on husbands part. In general, husband was dominated, used and abused by ex-wife.
  • Describes ex-wife as refusing to contribute and consistently worked against all of husbands goals and efforts on behalf of the family.
  • Has never observed ex-wife make a compromise or attempt to work on the relationship or deal with her problems. Claims that it was always husband giving in to ex-wife's demands, verbal and non-verbal hostility, withdrawal and coldness.
  • Claims that ex-wife confided to Dianna early in the marriage that she could get husband to do anything for her, just by using sex..
  • Claims that ex-wife would go out of her way to be mean and selfish with husband. Provides example.
  • Recounts evening in 1989 when husband and her partner surprised her and ex-wife with a limo and one of those "once in a lifetime" romantic experiences. Describes how ex-wife consumed alcohol to excess, completely ruined the evening by her abuse of husband and concludes "I have never seen a meaner, more ungrateful display from anyone in my life"
  • Recounts similar evening in 1990 when went out to the opera and ex-wife did the same, but this time ex-wife's goal was to get husband to buy her a fur coat like one she had borrowed, which he was refusing for financial reasons.
  • Claims that after evening above, Dianna challenged ex-wife on her treatment of husband over the coat. Ex-wife considered lack of a fur coat as an indication that husband does not love her. Ex-wife and Dianna had a falling out over this.
  • Claims that this is consistently the method that ex-wife uses to achieve what she demands: Ex-wife just abuses and makes people miserable until they give in. Claims that she observed the exact same abuse until ex-wife got husband to agree to major renovations which they definitely could not afford and husband was adamantly opposed to.
  • Claims that Dianna and her partner sometimes found it very embarrassing to be out with or visiting the Rosses, due to ex-wife's abuse of husband.
  • Claims that at Christmas 1992, husband asked Dianna to help him pick out gifts for ex-wife and husband was very particular, it took two shopping outings. At Christmas, ex-wife didn't like the gifts and insisted they take them back and get something better. States that ex-wife very ungrateful, but exchanged gifts and husband always generous to ex-wife for Christmas and birthdays.
  • Claims that during relationship, husband did his best to give ex-wife what she asked, if he could.
  • Claims that whenever she visited, ex-wife was always verbally abusive to husband, in front of the children, especially after her first drink. Ex-wife often called husband a "no good, stupid, cheap asshole"
  • Claims that Ex-wife always insisted on often going out to expensive restaurants they could not afford, until two years ago, at which point husband refused since they could not afford it and stuck to his position.
  • Claims that in September 1994, ex-wife confided that she had never loved her husband.
  • Claims that Dianna his consistently failed and met denial when trying to communicate with ex-wife in any area of reality and that ex-wife refuses to discuss anything or see that different perspectives than her own may have any validity.
  • Claims that from her observations, it has been husband who does all child related activities and is the principal caregiver while ex-wife pretends to be busy with other housework which she does very slowly and drags out, taking many rum and smoke breaks.
  • States that ex-wife uses the illusion that she is busy doing cooking or cleaning to shift complete care of the children to husband, except that ex-wife does feed the children.
  • States that ex-wife refused to participate in any of the children's activities, provides a very long list of activities husband did with children.
  • States that ex-wife did not even communicate with her daughters except to tell them to eat or to stay out of her "space".
  • Has never observed ex-wife being affectionate with her daughters, have them on her lap or give them a goodnight kiss although husband does.
  • States that ex-wife did do some of the organizing and shopping for the children, but it was up to husband to do all of the work.
  • States that Dianna could never convince ex-wife to go anywhere, for any activity with the children and that it was always husband who came with her and her son for activities.
  • States that when ex-wife around children, ex-wife was very particular about nap and bedtime schedules. If the children were out with husband, schedule did not seem to matter to ex-wife.
  • States that her seven year old son does not like the way ex-wife treats him. States that ex-wife made children eat alone in other room, while adults ate later. States that ex-wife was always rapping the children on their heads and telling them to eat. States that ex-wife called herself "the wicked witch of the west"
  • States that she and her son did not like it when the Ross children visited their home, due to their lack of respect, lack of discipline, destructiveness and unruliness.
  • States that ex-wife locked the children (her own and daycare) in their room during naptime and when they misbehaved.
  • Recounts spouses reactions to oldest daughters psychological evaluation: Ex-wife relieved that daughter did not have ADS, was fine and had no problems. Husband devastated regarding daughters social and attention problems and begged Dianna to influence ex-wife to cooperate for daughters sake. Dianna talked to daughters teacher and ex-wife who still saw no problem and refused to attend a joint meeting with husband and psychologist. Ex-wife agreed once it was pointed out how bad her non-cooperation would look. Meeting took place, but no followup.
  • States Dianna tried to talk to ex-wife regarding the importance of cooperating with husband for children's sake. Ex-wife replied "It is a good idea to inform husband about what is happening to the children".
  • States that during first two years of marriage, both parents negligent, always arguing about who would change diapers, etc. Both appeared to want to get out of dealing with the kids.
  • States that whenever she was there husband would have total responsibility for the children and share his time between company and children.
  • States that over the years, husband has vastly improved as a parent and treats his daughters as little people and cares for their needs and is patient with them.
  • States that ex-wife's parenting has not improved at all and ex-wife remains selfish, lazy and neglectful of the children's non-physical needs. States she has never observed ex-wife exhibit patience or tolerance for her children.
  • States that when ex-wife decided to have a second child, Dianna was shocked because it is obvious that ex-wife has no patience for children and she told ex-wife this. Why would she want another?
  • States that Dianna was just as shocked, for the same lack of patience for children reason when ex-wife wanted to start a daycare. States that Dianna told ex-wife that she thought it was a way for ex-wife to avoid working and ex-wife admitted it was true.
  • States that ex-wife is lazy and does not want to work.
  • States that during daycare, ex-wife did no activities with the children. There were no walks or any involvement of ex-wife with children except feeding and safety.
  • States that on some occasions that Dianna took the children to the park and ex-wife refused to come, preferring to stay home and drink rum under the pretext she had to make dinner.
  • States that Dianna has never observed ex-wife discipline or have any expectations of her daughters except to tell them to eat and stay out of her "space".
  • States that she has observed many arguments between the spouses regarding ex-wife's debt, spending and lack of partnership.
  • States that her view of husband as a person is reasonable, take it easy, nothing usually seems to bother him.
  • States that she has never observed any abusive behavior on part of husband, but notes that ex-wife certainly gave him reason with her unreasonableness and lack of compromise.
  • States that husband is firm, gentle and kind with his daughters and has more expectations from the children than ex-wife, who has none.
  • States that ex-wife has confided in her that ex-wife hates her job and considers it beneath her.
  • States that ex-wife would rarely agree to go out with anyone, except to restaurants with husband to be pampered.
  • States that husband was always encouraging ex-wife to go out, make some friends and "get a life". States that husband often encouraged Dianna to go out with ex-wife and make some friends.
  • Describes ex-wife as very anti-social, always saying "I need my space". Describes ex-wife as always going off alone to another room to drink rum and that the children were not even allowed in the same room as ex-wife.
  • Describes ex-wife as very lazy, never wanting to do any work. Describes when Dianna and her partner came over to help with renovations and ex-wife insisted they bring a sitter "so we can all work". Describes ex-wife pretending to make dinner, sitting outside having rum and smoke breaks every few minutes while adults worked. States it was the same for housework in general, except cooking and cleaning. Husband did everything, including all child related activities, while ex-wife lazy, pretending to be busy.
  • States that husband did most of the work and ex-wife would appear near the end, do some minor finishing touch and then claim she did it all. States that when ex-wife challenged on this, she becomes unwilling to communicate. States that husband reciprocated for their renovation help, but ex-wife refused.
  • Describes what happens when Dianna tries to talk to ex-wife realistically, on any topic. Ex-wife tries to evade the issue or change the topic. If ex-wife's evasions are unsuccessful, ex-wife appears to be about to cry, her voice cracks and she starts to shake. As soon as topic changes, ex-wife recovers immediately. This issue evading response on part of ex-wife is concluded to be fake by Dianna.
  • States that ex-wife refuses to communicate on any topic where there may be disagreement and that ex-wife has a blind spot for any views but her own.
  • States she has never observed ex-wife go out of her way for anybody, including her own children due to being self-centered and selfish.
  • States that when ex-wife drunk (always) she went out of her way to be mean to husband. Ex-wife's arguments were emotional, in terms of character assaults on husband. Has never seen husband emotionally angry with ex-wife, husband used reason, and a lets work it out manner, which infuriated ex-wife even more.
  • Dianna has never seen ex-wife treat either husband or the children with love. Ex-wife has two methods of dealing with husband, either demanding or demeaning. Whenever Dianna talked to ex-wife about husband, ex-wife always spoke about husband in terms of how she needed things and how it was up to him to provide them.
  • States that ex-wife did not care whether the children were present or not. Ex-wife would just "fly off the handle at husband with no apparent provocation", whether the children were present or not. It was usually not clear to Dianna what ex-wife's issue or point was.
  • States that ex-wife was definitely well looked after, but not with husbands approval. Ex-wife made husband give her half of his overtime money when he had to work and her debt with nothing to show for it, makes it even worse.
  • Dianna did not know how much ex-wife drank until 1986 when she followed ex-wife to the kitchen many times and observed ex-wife making double rum and cokes each time. States that ex-wife holds her alcohol really well.
  • States that when she went to restaurants with spouses, her and her spouse never wanted to split the bill due to ex-wife's excessive alcohol purchases (4 to 5 double rums, sometimes more).
  • States that Dianna visited the daycare unexpectedly three times, in the late morning. Ex-wife already had a rum and coke on the go and immediately poured another when done.
  • Describes, often when stayed for dinner, ex-wife would sometimes serve dinner, be unable to eat and go up to bed, intoxicated. Other times, ex-wife would pass out in her chair, intoxicated, in the middle of dinner. States the first time this happened was shortly after the wedding.
  • Recounts incident in January 1991 when ex-wife called her up and stated "that bastard dumped all my rum down the sink" and ex-wife demanded that Dianna deliver alcohol to her, as a birthday present, which she foolishly did. Describes a typical alcohol/daycare day and verbal abuse when husband got home from work.
  • States that during marriage, husband asked her many times to try to talk some financial sense into ex-wife, and Dianna tried and failed, since ex-wife would not admit her spending, demands and debt as a problem and expected husband to deal with it.
  • States that the financial relationship was very unfair, in ex-wife's favor, since husband paid for all of the big things and ex-wife only paid for groceries, children's clothing and daycare. States that husband was always sacrificing, not buying clothes for himself while ex-wife was living high and making no personal sacrifice.
  • Elaborates on ex-wife's demand that husband pay her half of any extra income he may earn, to pay her to look after her own children and to allow him to work. States that ex-wife used this money on herself, while husband used it for joint things. States that ex-wife discussed this unfair arrangement with her as early as 1989.
  • Recounts another incident in 1991 when husband again asked Dianna to talk to ex-wife about money management, since ex-wife was $9,000.00 in debt, had nothing to show for it and refused to discuss it with husband. Ex-wife stated to Dianna that things cost a lot, debt was not a problem, husband made enough to care for her, husband expected too much from her and he was cheap. In pursuing this topic, ex-wife became very cold and started shaking.
  • Again Recounts renovations and all of the heated arguments and abuse of husband until he agreed. Describes how ex-wife refused to help with the work, sitting around drinking rum and being lazy.
  • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is not buying the quality or quantity of food she used to, nor feeding the children healthy food.
  • States, after marital breakdown ex-wife is even worse at discipline, now the children do not even have to finish their meals and candy and treats are now unlimited.
  • States, after marital breakdown that children are much better behaved when ex-wife absent.
  • Describes, after marital breakdown that Dianna babysat children while ex-wife out and tried to put some structure in the evening, to which oldest daughter responded "You're just like my dad - a slave driver".
  • Describes confrontation with ex-wife in September 1994 where Dianna blasted ex-wife on various points:
  • Issue 1: Why she wants the kids and why she thinks husband wants them. Answer: Because she loves them and husband wants to control them
  • Issue 2: That husband loves his daughters, will never give in and is prepared to lose everything.
  • Issue 3: That ex-wife will not be on easy street with any settlement.
  • Issue 4: That husband and her are saying completely opposite things and she has been caught in lies.
  • Issue 5: That the abuse and control allegations against husband are the exact opposite of Dianna's observations.
  • Issue 6: That eventually, ex-wife will have to deal with the reality of the situation
  • Issue 7: That, on present course, everything will be lost to lawyers and what happens to the children and their friends and school.
  • Issue 8: That her current financial demands of husband are unfair. Ex-wife cannot expect husband to pay all of his historical expenses (which by themselves are unfair), an extra $700.00 per month to ex-wife and for husband to somehow find money for rent and living expenses.
  • Dianna states that ex-wife's reaction to the above was that she became very cold and refused to discuss it. Dianna concluded that ex-wife is blind to the facts and not facing reality.
  • Dianna notes that ex-wife is simultaneously accusing husband of being a slave driver and making the children clean the house and do chores while simultaneously trashing the home every time he is there. Both cannot be true.
  • Dianna notes that ex-wife is accusing husband of stealing groceries and other stuff. She checked with her ex-spouse (husband's roommate) and is convinced this is another lie.
  • Dianna notes that she visits the marital home often and ex-wife does not appear to be doing any cleaning or housework.
  • Dianna notes that ex-wife appears to be taking the children to activities and seems to have turned around compared to the marriage.
  • Dianna claims that ex-wife confided she is wearing her magic crystal for luck and reading her tarot cards every night for guidance and to figure out what to do.
  • Dianna concludes that ex-wife is lying regarding husbands abuse and control, since, if true, ex-wife would have been afraid to abuse husband or act contrary to his stated wishes and family interests as Dianna has observed during the marriage and stated herein.

Factum of ex-wife And Proof of Illegal Acts by Court (November 24, 1994)

Factum of ex-wife

Note that this document is supposed to be FACTS ONLY, for which evidence is available that litigant is prepared to prove in court.

This document also contains the points of LAW the parties will argue the facts in context of.

PART I -STATEMENT OF FACT

  • States that a consent agreement order in place, fails to mention it is "without prejudice"
  • Describes consent order, states husband moved out.
  • States that ex-wife claims she has been the primary caregiver for the children.
  • States that ex-wife's claims supported by affidavits from four people who would come into contact with family on a frequent basis.
  • Husband: This is a lie. Of the affidavits, Diane Nicol, had not communicated with ex-wife for at least two years, Donna Clement had not lived next door to spouses for at least three years or socialized with ex-wife - ever, and Jacqueline Bonnar had not seen ex-wife for at least two years and was biased against husband due to a rental dispute. Ex-wife's mother is the only witness left and she can be assumed to be biased but saw husband and children far more than ex-wife, since it was husbands responsibility to take the girls to swimming lessons and shopping every Saturday and grandmother came along to do her shopping and assist the girls in the change room. Further, none of these witnesses had anything detrimental to say about husbands parenting and even ex-wife's mother recommended maximal child contact for husband. Ex-wife refused to participate in any child activities and stayed home and drank her face off while husband was taking the children to activities. None of these witnesses had any insight. None had observed any action of husband that could rationally be interpreted as abuse, although several interpreted husbands rational nature and insistence on dealing in terms of facts and proven truth as "arrogance". In actual fact, this is the part of husbands nature that judges appeared to most take issue with. Apparently, only judges are supposed to be able to determine and act according to "truth", which they also claim the power to define. Husband was a competitor, intruding on judicial turf and apparently this reason alone was sufficient to smite husband.
  • States that most people who come into contact with ex-wife describe her as being an extremely capable parent.
  • Goes on to describe various other of ex-wife's witnesses as family friends and their observations.
  • Husband: This is a lie. Husband knew very few of these people. Most are friends of ex-wife's mother, called in as a favor, to counter ex-wife's lack of friends or supporters, to witness ex-wife's "dog and pony show" she started once she realized husband's evidence was a serious threat. None of these other witnesses state anything but hearsay and ALL are recounting post separation opinions.
  • States that ex-wife ran a daycare, but failed to state it was three years prior, misleading the court.
  • States that despite the fact ex-wife ran a daycare, husband is claiming to have been the primary caregiver, implying husband is some sort of idiot, denying a plain fact, misleading the court.
  • Husband: even though ex-wife ran a daycare years ago, evidence indicates it was just an excuse not to work and to stay home and drink rum, while doing NOTHING with the children. Every single non-working hour of husband was spent caring for his daughters, since ex-wife wanted NOTHING to do with them during marriage. It is a factual mistake for courts to equate TIME WITH a child to CARE FOR a child.
  • States that husbands minor role with children was to assist by taking them to dance lessons, send them to their bath and read them a story each evening.
  • Husband: a blatant lie, so refuted.
  • States husband has been irresponsible with children by forgetting to pick them up at the sitters, sleeping and leaving seven year old in charge of five year old and forbade the children from contacting their mother.
  • States husband has been irresponsible by watching TV with the children and utilizing his time with the children to steal property from their mother.
  • States a long list of duties ex-wife claims to do for the children while her irresponsible husband does nothing.
  • States that children have expressed an interest in primarily residing with their mother.
  • Husband: and misleads the court by failing to mention that this preference is because mother has no rules or expectations and gives the children more treats, which was determined to be definitely not in "the children's best interests" by the custody assessment team.
  • States that to transfer primary responsibility to husband at this point would be extremely disruptive to the children and ex-wife is now unemployed and ready to give it one hundred percent.
  • Husband: At this point, both husband and ex-wife were equally caring for and responsible for the children, in full possession of their equality and property rights under law. Court is misled to believe ex-wife has primary care, which is NOT TRUE and never has been. Ex-wife claims a competitive advantage by being unemployed. If this is indeed a legal advantage, apart from being illegal discrimination on the basis of being a contributor to society, the very first thing ANYONE should do, when faced with divorce courts is to QUIT YOUR JOB, deny lawyers any "proceeds of crime" and claim to be the better parent, because you are intelligent enough to realize that only peons work and you have more time to screw your children up and teach them how not to work and who to vote for.
  • States that granting ex-wife custody would allow children to stay in same home, attend same school and maintain their friends.
  • Husband: This is also true if he granted custody.
  • States that husband has accused ex-wife of alcoholism. States all of husbands witnesses have infrequent contact with family, a lie.
  • States that all of ex-wife's witnesses concur that they have never seen ex-wife in an inebriated state. Lies again that ex-wife's witnesses have had frequent contact with the family. States that an "expert" (Dr. Selwyn Smith) concurs that ex-wife does not suffer from alcoholism.
  • States that an "expert" (Dr. Selwyn Smith) is prescribing ex-wife tranquilizers to deal with her overwhelming stress, is in the process of eliminating them and is not addicted.
  • States that Dr. Mclean in his report recommended psychiatric followup and a firm behavioral program be put in place, both at home and school for the children.
  • States that ex-wife established a behavioral program for the girls in the spring of 1994, involving rewarding the children when they behaved well. States that husband initially supported this, but lost interest. States that husband prefers harsh method of discipline, such as depriving children of possessions, humiliation and cold showers.
  • Husband: Yes, on the advice of Dr. Margaret Decorte (started off as oldest daughters counselor, rapidly determined that problem was marital conflict and adopted marriage counselor role, failed because she lost her impartiality and took husband's side and could not hide this from ex-wife, who felt ganged up upon and abused) who advised a task list implementing a carrot and stick approach. Ex-wife initially bought into the carrots, but she has philosophical issues with any form of stick and inebriation/laziness issues with actually paying attention to her daughters or considering their behavior and what they were learning versus what they should be learning. Ex-wife lost interest in the list after a week and did not follow through. Husband also abandoned the list, since it is ineffective to deal with children's behavior except in realtime, since children have such short attention spans. Behavioral infractions must be dealt with immediately, while they are still part of children's awareness. Husband's consequences (carrot or stick) were immediate and consistent. This of course, was presented to the court as husband being "harsh".
  • States that ex-wife wants to cross-examine Dr. Mclean, due to "issues" with his report.
  • Issue 1: Ex-wife denies that she was addicted to tranquilizers and is on a phased reduction, backed up by an "expert" Dr. Selwyn Smith.
  • Issue 2: Dr. Mclean does not explore circumstances leading to tranquilizer prescription.
  • Issue 3: Ex-wife disputes that her mother's temporary addiction to valium has any bearing on her susceptibility.
  • Issue 4: Ex-wife claims that Dr. Mclean got some facts wrong such as ex-wife's unconcern regarding children's behavioral problems.
  • Issue 5: Ex-wife disputes conclusion that husband has better ability to manage his daughters based on a short clinical observation without reviewing the impact on the children of the "harsh" methods used by husband.
  • Issue 6: Ex-wife lies by stating Dr. Mclean did not deal with his speculation that husband may have difficulty seeing any positive role for ex-wife in children's lives.
  • Husband: Dr. Mclean did deal with this and stated that once ex-wife cleaned up her act, dealt with her problems, including addictions and was capable of being a positive influence, he believed husband was reasonable enough to acknowledge this fact and adapt to it.
  • Issue 7: Dr. Mclean does not discuss the effect on daughters of husband's "general negative coloring" in his perception of females.
  • Husband: Had issues with one female in particular and irresponsibility in general. As sexist as it may sound, in husband's experience, irresponsibility and demanding special treatment statistically seems to be mostly female traits, a product of misguided socialization, which keeps females subservient. Husband has, despite major state opposition, raised his daughter's and they can and will successfully hold their own in life, without whining or demanding special consideration. Daughters are about as subservient as their father and woe to all who dare cross them.
  • Issue 8: Ex-wife disputes Dr. Mclean's conclusion that the children have no strong preference regarding which parent they live with. Claims to have evidence to the contrary.
  • Issue 9: Ex-wife believes that husband's invalid MMPI test results, indicating defensiveness and impact on the children was not explored by Dr. Mclean.
  • Husband: How can anyone, when under major assault in a state created conflict whose outcome is determined by those who actually created and profit from the the conflict (for their "profession's" financial benefit), with his children's future and perpetual economic enslavement as stakes be anything but defensive? Besides, husband may be more intelligent than the test writers and saw patterns he was not supposed to be able to see.
  • Repeats allegations that husband is trying to destroy ex-wife and has abused her, threatened to hit her and made rape threats. Mentions "The Great Reckoning".
  • Husband: Not admitting he wrote, "The Great Reckoning" on calendar (and, even if he did, this is well within husbands basic freedom of expression rights and further, was a basic truth expressed by whomever had the insight to write it). This appears to be a major terror of ex-wife and is included in her "abuse" evidence category. Taken by itself, this alone is a strong indication that ex-wife was in terror of what the judge may choose in an objective accounting of the evidence and the party's positions on their merits from the overall legal perspective of the "children's best interests", the ONLY consideration in these matters per written law. In other words, ex-wife's "terror" of this phrase is a strong indication that ex-wife acknowledged and agreed with husbands evidence and position.
  • Repeats allegations that husband has been stealing property from the home, including food.
  • Repeats allegations that husband has trashed the home on every occasion he has attended and leaves puppy feces and urine all over the place.
  • Repeats Dr. Smith's "expert" opinion that to continue to expose ex-wife and the children to a hazardous environment containing husband "is not in their best interests".
  • Repeats Dr. Smith's "expert" opinion that all of ex-wife's anxiety, stress and problems are due to husband's "abuse".
  • States that the matrimonial home is the most economical place for ex-wife and children to reside. States that husband unilaterally reduced mortgage payments just prior to separation.
  • States that husband is accusing ex-wife of reckless financial depletion. States a fictitious debt to her impoverished mother of $5,500.00. States that debt to husband's family of $35,000.00 for down payment on marital home is fictitious, despite the fact that all financial transfer records and written agreement exists and this family debt was incurred with ex-wife's consent, in fact demand for better housing. States that husband has disposed of assets.
  • States that ex-wife earns $28,000.00 a year and husband earns $67,000.00 per year, but ex-wife has been temporarily laid off, a blatant unfairness requiring judicial redress.
  • States that monthly childcare costs, excluding daycare are $1761.56 ($21,139.00 per year) and demands husband pay proportional share.
  • States that, during the marriage, husband has stood in opposition to and thwarted her endeavors to educational and career improvement. Claims material damages, demands spousal support to compensate.
  • Claims that, due to husband not paying support totaling $2,100.00 for the months of September, October, November 1994 that she and the children have suffered hardship and husband is in contempt of court.
  • Husband: Do not know how to quantify, measure or express the vast extent or degree to which he holds the courts "In contempt of the law" and therefore, is personally extremely, and perhaps infinitely "In contempt of court", but not the law.
  • Requests that court allow amending ex-wife's divorce petition for sale of the matrimonial home.
  • Requests that court order husband to return property he has removed from the home. List of minor kitchen utensils and "nail clippers" provided.
  • Requests that court order interim custody of the children to ex-wife.
  • Requests that court order interim child support in the amount of $2,000.00 per month.
  • Requests that court order interim spousal support in the amount of $800.00 per month.
  • Requests that court order husband to designate ex-wife and children as irrevocable beneficiaries of his insurance policies.
  • Requests that court order exclusive possession of matrimonial home to ex-wife.
  • Requests that court order husband to refrain from "annoying, harassing or molesting" ex-wife.
  • Requests that court order husband to refrain from disposing of any property.
  • Requests that court order husband to pay ex-wife's legal costs,
  • Husband: for a fight ex-wife started by misrepresenting her nature and goals in life by spinning a very convincing illusion during the per-marital living together test of personal responsibility and ability to work together to entrap husband into a doomed relationship which seriously harmed his daughters and himself by forcing very bad compromises is search of any sort of harmony or stability with his psychopathic, insane ex-wife. Husband's attempts to hold ex-wife to her marital vows, parental obligations and thus legal responsibility were interpreted by both ex-wife and courts as "abuse". There was no fair (or any) legal exit for his daughters or himself, as subsequently proven by the courts. Husband was forced to discover his own exit to secure his daughters "best interests", at great personal cost. Husband has and does appreciate his daughters, the only good to come from this fiasco and sham of "due process".
  • Requests that court order any other pestilence the court can imagine to visit upon and smite husband with.
  • Requests that said court order be enforceable by police.

PART II -STATEMENT OF LAW

  • This preamble is for reference, to establish the incredible cost our civilization and every single person on the planet pays by allowing government and courts to rationalize away the basic "equality of treatment of persons" provisions of law. According to the current legal interpretation of equality (forcing equal results, as opposed to equal opportunity, encouraging lazyiness, dishonesty and sloth, discouraging contribution to civilization, encouraging conflict in pursuit of acquiring the property of the productive), the only way that husband can be equal to ex-wife is to have a sex change operation, a lobotomy and amnesia, causing loss of all knowlege and moral values.
  • Although husband has issues with the basic legal validity of these laws, they are the law of the land. Husband has respected and is in full compliance with all written law in this matter. He has acted in the best interests of his children and refused to obey orders by judges who broke the law and thereby acted illegally, to the detriment of husband, daughters and society, invoking a perfectly legal right to a proportional defense.
  • It is legally valid that spouses have a joint financial obligation to their children, but is legally invalid to state said obligation is not EQUAL, breaking the "equality among persons" provisions of true law. The inability/unwillingness of one spouse to equally contribute towards their moral/legal obligations is a strong indication that they are lacking the moral/survival values required to be contributing members of society and also incapable of teaching these absent values to their children. The equal treatment of persons and quid pro quo requirements of law demands, that if one spouse is required to carry a greater financial burden caring for their children than the other, they should be compensated by having greater time and influence in their childrens lives. It is the function of law to protect civilization which requires a bias towards civilized values and against unproductive/criminal values. This law, as currently interpreted, favors unproductive parents, who provide a role model that is not in societies survival interests.
  • Note that tyrants will resist any and all attempts by the people to insist that all persons be treated equally (in terms of rights and responsibilities) by the law and tyrants have resisted citizens on this simple point for all of recorded history. If the law were constrained to treat all persons equally, politicians would not be able to rule by "divide and conquer" by pitting perfectly peaceful and legitimate viewpoints against each other, each trying to be "king of the hill", in control of the political process and apparatus of state, to exploit all others. This is more thoroughly explored and proven in the "Rule Of Law". This is also the reason that we are plunging to the final world war, it is about control of peoples and resources. Our judiciary, worldwide, stands by mute, useless, corrupt and incompetent.
  • First: This is how/why the legal profession/politicians make all of their illegal financial/political profit by creating conflict between spouses and destroying families by illegally promising spouses entitlements, that they can avoid the responsibilities of partnership while retaining the benefits at the expense of their ex-spouse, should they file for divorce, in full knowledge that the law will not demand responsibility from any person except those that make good prey (are productive).
  • Second: There is absolutely no lawful contract, including marriage (consensual partnership between equal persons in pursuit of joint goals) that a person can legally enter into that is able to strip them of their fundamental equality and property rights, including the fruits of their labors. Even if a person wanted to, with a contract they consented to, placing them in perpetual servitude, there is no basis in law for enforcement. This includes any claims that governments may make that a "social contract" exists, legally subjecting a person to compulsion against their consent. The sole reason that governments must make this claim is that they refuse to provide goods and services (value) that people would voluntarily pay for and therefore force and compulsion is required to "feed the beast", since it has nothing to trade, leaving force and fraud as the only goal-seeking options available for governments.
  • Third: If a parent is unable/unwilling to financially provide for their children, forcing the other parent to do so, then legal quid pro quo demands compensation, by increased parental time/rights for the spouse who does assume responsibility. Among honest people (those who forgo force/fraud in meeting their goals), there is a very strong correlation between prosperity and morality. These are values that children MUST be exposed to, if we are to maintain civilization. Currently, courts place children in the care of the least productive (maximizes conflict, thus legal fees), depriving children of exposure to the values that constitute the "work ethic". This is another key factor in the decline of youth values/educational/productivity achievement which imperils us all.
  • Fourth: How does a judge measure "relative abilities", when the mere promise of compensation for laziness is a factor encouraging laziness and unproductivity, as it is human nature to seek maximal benefit at minimal cost and to adapt by taking the choices offered by the environment. This illegal law defines an unequal environment for the spouses where the lazy one does their best to maximize the appearance of need and the productive one is forced to conclude that there is no benefit (harm to daughters in this case) and it is not possible to meet their goals by contributing to society, so why bother. These are the choices defined by illegal judicial interpretations of law that ex-wife and husband were faced with. Both took them with the result that both have exited the economy, ex-wife as a chronic social services cost, husband earns just enough to meet family needs, but not enough to attract predators. Can any different result be reasonably expected?
  • This conflictual state of affairs is far from necessary or even beneficial to anyone but lawyers and could easily be solved by objectively determining what it actually costs per month to care for a child and insisting that each spouse equally pay their share and currently defined woes for the deadbeats. This has the additional benefit that children could see the economic advantages of the values of the more productive parent, a bias in favor of personal responsibility (true job of law to enforce). As opposed to the current situation, where, more often than not, a non-working parent is just as prosperous as the working parent, at their unwilling spouse's and social conflict expense, obscuring the factual relationship between effort and prosperity to children, biasing them to seek entitlements and voting for those who promise them.

Contempt of Court

  • CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS:

    A contempt order to enforce an order requiring a person to do an act or to abstain from doing an act, may be obtained on motion to a Judge in the proceeding in which the order to be enforced was made. In disposing of a motion for contempt, the Judge may make such order as is just, and where a finding of contempt is made, the Judge may order that the person in contempt,

    (a) be imprisoned for such period and on such terms as are just;

    (b) be imprisoned if he or she fails to comply with a term of the order;

    (c) pay a fine;

    (d) do or refrain from doing an act;

    (e) pay such costs as are just;

    (f) comply with any other order the judge considers necessary.

    Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Court

  • Ex-wife wanted husband to be cited in contempt of court for not paying $2,100.00 in support for the months of September, October and November 1994, plus husband was late in paying some of the expenses related to the matrimonial home. Ex-wife wanted a further order that husbands pleadings be struck out, should he not pay within seven days.
  • The reality of the unpaid $2,100.00 in support was: The consent agreement upon which it was based was intended to be a temporary measure, to deal with the following facts:
  • (a) That on June 23, 1994, the judge was perceived to be incompetent and Dr. Selwyn Smith's lying report alleging that husband was a mortal danger to ex-wife and daughters was at risk of being believed, ending all legal hope for children, since interim custody usually becomes final and in this case was. It would have been legal suicide to proceed with this judge.
  • (b) Support was a bribe to get ex-wife to agree to the custody assessment and to buy time for assessment to be completed.
  • (c) The custody assessment was expected to take several months, the expected longevity of this consent agreement. It took until late November to complete.
  • (d) In September, daughters went back to school and ex-wife's daycare costs dropped an equivalent amount and ex-wife refused to negotiate a reduction.
  • (e) Ex-wife was disposing of joint property (8 purebred puppies at $500.00 each) and refused to share proceeds, lying and claiming to have given them away. It was a fair quid pro quo that husband achieve compensation in the equivalent amount. Even if ex-wife did give the puppies away (proven not), she had no right to give husbands property away and was obligated to compensate husband regardless.
  • (f) Husband was continuing to pay all of ex-wife's housing expenses including mortgage, utilities, property taxes...
  • (g) The expenses husband was accused of not paying were at most, several weeks late, due to extreme financial stress, with the exception of long distance phone charges which were mostly ex-wife's and she refused to acknowledge this fact.
  • (h) Husband was UNABLE to pay.
  • (i) Even without the support, ex-wife had more discretionary income than husband who was surviving on charity.
  • (j) There is no way that this act on the part of the husband could have harmed daughters in any way, since ex-wife had her full paycheque and minor expenses.
  • (k) Contempt is a conscious act, a choice and husband cannot be in contempt if it is not possible to obey an order of the court.
  • Of course, Chadwick accepted none of these very real and proven facts, as evidenced by the fact that he did not cite husband in contempt, but did warn him, meaning Chadwick believed grounds for contempt existed. The will of the court supercedes reality. Husband believes this is yet another ILLEGAL act and ignoring of or discounting pertinent facts on Chadwick's part. It was a very sparse Christmas for the children that year. Husband put himself deeper in debt and paid. Ex-wife got drunker to "celebrate". The children became more stressed as the conflict escalated. Lawyers got richer. Chadwick got to feel good because he "helped" poor little self-abused ex-wife and made it possible for her to continue to evade reality and continue to destroy herself and daughters. The dead architects of our civilization and judges who once maintained civilization by acknowledging reality rolled in their graves.
  • In his handwritten court order of November 30, 1994, Chadwick ordered "The arrears of support, pursuit to the order of Sirois J. dated September 28, 1994 are to be paid by January 31, 1995, otherwise, the husbands further pleadings COULD be struck out."
  • In the order actually entered, ex-wife's solicitor FORGED the court order to read "This court furthers orders that the arrears of support payments of the order of Mr. Justice Sirois dated September 28, 1994 be paid in full by January 31, 1995. If the arrears are not paid by this time, the husbands further pleadings WILL be struck out."
  • The intent of the court order was changed by this FORGERY. The word "COULD", allows judicial consideration by the next judge that there may be extenuating circumstances (such as husbands absolute poverty due to said support payments, having to carry ALL historical expenses for ex-wife's housing, crushing legal bills, etc) leaving husband absolutely no money for living expenses and therefore humbled to having to live on the charity of family and friends, plus escalating debt. The word "WILL" leaves no room for debate or consideration of reality.
  • For the uninformed "Strike out Pleadings" means, pay, whether possible or not or husband loses this entire court action and ex-wife wins everything. In other words, it is possible and very probable that many men have lost custody of their children by the simple expedient of weighing them down with unpayable support and legal costs (spouse more likely than not, on free legal aid, courtesy of fellow taxpayers) and then interpreting their failure to pay the impossible as factual evidence of a deadbeat parent, causing them to lose their children, consolidating their servitude to their ex-spouse and depriving children of what was, more likely than not, their only personally responsible parent. They then proceed to legally impoverish themselves by foolishly attempting to correct this "error" by enriching lawyers. Is it any wonder that domestic abuse is increasing? Ex-wife was lucky to escape the consequences of her actions by paying with her life, pathetic as it is. There are also documented incidents where fathers have been ordered to pay multiples of their gross (pre-tax) income in support and have committed suicide out of despair.
  • Yes, husband was and remains in contempt of court, but not law, for reasons he has made perfectly clear. Chadwick broke the law by not dismissing this contempt charge as having no merit and that it was not possible for husband to pay without putting himself further in debt, with zero benefit to the children, since ex-wife had far more discretionary income than husband even without this support.

Custody and Access

  • CUSTODY, ACCESS AND RELATED MATTERS

    The merits of an application for custody of or access to a child shall be determined on the basis of the best interests of the child.

    Section 24(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act

    Section 16(8) of the Divorce Act

    In making an award of custody under The Divorce Act, the Court shall consider the best interest of the child as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of the child.

    Section 16(8) of The Divorce Act

    Section 16(8) of the Divorce Act actually states: "In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration ONLY the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the conditions, means, needs and other circumstances of the child."

  • Husband experienced a lot of trouble with Katrina Prystupa, ex-wife's lawyer forging court orders, lying to judges, etc. Here, this criminal shyster lawyer is making up law. She misquotes the law by changing "consideration ONLY the best interests" to "consider the best interest" of children. This would not be a problem if judges were competent and know the law, which they do not. This creates a very wide door of discretion for judges to rule based on other unstated considerations such as "ex-wife is cute, vulnerable and available" or "husband is too smart and will teach his daughters to be free and destabilize civilization, causing me more work and harming my golf handicap". These forgeries were challenged in court and were claimed to be typos by Prstupa. This excuse, despite the fact these "typos" change the meaning and intent of court orders was allowed to stand, as well as the fraudulent court orders. No judge would deal with these criminal, obstruction of justice acts. Below is the same law as written.
  • This law was majorly broken by Justice Chadwick. He ignored most of the evidence and witness materials and was unaware that ex-wife's step father, her two sisters, the family's entire social network and all of the evidence and statements from people who had actually observed the family from inside the home, as guests was overwhelmingly in favor of husband's position.
  • Chadwick dismissed a six month study by a team of the best forensic psychiatrists in the region who had taken the time to do and document a good job, in favor of a lying, incompetent, previously convicted of fraud, criminal shrink (Dr. Selwyn Smith) who had not even met husband or children and all of his "expert" opinions were based solely on a few visits with ex-wife.
  • Chadwick refused to consider or accept the fact that all of ex-wife's witnesses had zero insight, husband knew very few of them and most were reporting ex-wife's "dog and pony show" of "good motherhood" she started once litigation commenced and ex-wife realized that husband could prove the truth. This was purely an act and ended when there was no audience. This is why ex-wife hated unexpected visitors both during the marriage and after separation, since they left no time to prepare the stage. Insight to this was provided in the affidavit of Dianna Drynan, describing how all the alcohol and ash trays were hidden just before daycare clients were expected to arrive to pick up their children. It's all smoke and mirrors with ex-wife.
  • Chadwick had sufficient and credible evidence proving that, not only did the children's best interests require their father, whom was the only one meaningfully caring for them, during their entire lives but, in addition, their mother had acted against her own daughters, for the entire marriage and was a hazard to her children's well-being and a totally unfit parent.
  • Not only did Chadwick fail to consider all of the evidence, in his handwritten court order, he admits he was confused by the contradictory material and therefore guessed when he ordered custody REMAIN with ex-wife, further proving that Chadwick was so negligent and incompetent that he was completely unaware of what he was doing and, that he was, in effect DEPRIVING HUSBAND of the EQUAL CUSTODY LEGAL STATUS he had at the time, and the children of their only parent who actually cared, per the "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" consent agreement and court order, with absolutely no basis in law for doing so. The law is very clear that the facts and children's best interests must be considered before making a custody award. Guessing does not meet this decision criteria and is, in itself an illegal act of child abuse. The only lives that Chadwick or any judge are legally allowed to gamble with are their own. It would be a public service to do so.
  • No reference to the facts or circumstances relating to the "children's best interests" was made by Chadwick. Chadwick guessed, contrary to hard evidence, when lives hung in the balance. The psychopathic arrogance. The danger to civilization to let ignorant political hacks such as this judge (shortly thereafter, promoted) determine our fate. Husband KNEW on November 25, 1994 that he and the courts had forever parted company, and that he must determine his own and his daughters fates, despite these arrogant turkeys who incorrectly believe they are in control. They are not even competent enough to be allowed a potato gun.
  • The course of history since then and the immediate future holds no surprises. Civilization is over, and things will keep getting worse, until people start thinking, stand up for their rights and take their freedom back, violently, if necessary.

In making an award of custody or access under The Children's Law Reform Act, the Court shall consider the following in making a determination as to the best interests of a child:

(a) the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child;

  • This law neglects the fact that these values are intangible and therefore non-objective and un-quantify able and that it is possible to experience love, affection and emotional ties to the detriment of yourself by mistakenly believing it is reciprocal (making you prey). Children can and do make the same mistake and, in fact it is the default (innocent) nature of children to love and trust their parents, abusers included. At a minimum, to be used in the judicial decision process, these values must be proven mutual and expressed by actions pertaining to the "best interests of the child". This law is yet another example of lawyers (whom legislators must rely on to help craft law) inserting ambiguity into law so their professional cronies can make a fortune speculating on the meaning and intent in court.
  • It is proven in the Factual Analysis, Parental Ability section that ex-wife is completely antisocial and incapable of forming bonds of trust, emotional ties with anyone
  • It is proven that ex-wife is completely irresponsible, has not done a single thing in her daughters best interests and has consistently acted against their interests and needs. Further, by all reports, ex-wife could not even tolerate her daughters "in her space" and was always pushing them away. Even if evidence exists that the children love their mother, their mother has not done anything to earn it, proving that love has not been reciprocated, is lacking evidence in mothers favor and much evidence to her detriment.
  • It is proven in the Factual Analysis, Parental Ability section that husband is able to and has formed relationships of trust, has many supporters including ex-wife's step father and two sisters.
  • It is proven that, despite concerted opposition on ex-wife's part that husband has tried his best to care for his daughters and meet their needs, under very difficult circumstances. Husband has demonstrated, by actions that he cares for and loves his daughters, meeting his part of the reciprocity test.

(b) the views and preferences of the child, where such views and preferences can reasonably be ascertained;

  • The operative principle here is that reason (analysis of evidence, facts) must be used to make this determination.
  • In support of ex-wife's position that her daughters love her, ex-wife offers a school assignment by oldest daughter stating "I love my mom" and ex-wife's word that the children want to live with her because they tell her so when asked. The most credible evidence ex-wife has is from the Mclean report which is deemed credible when it suits her purposes. When Dr. Mclean asked oldest daughter who she wanted to live with, the answer was "mommy, because she buys me popsicles". When youngest daughter was asked, she initially chose both parents, but, when pressed, stated "mommy, because father is bad and stole mommy's bed". Note that the bed was husbands pre-marital property, so youngest daughter's opinion was based on a lie of her mother, manipulation against the father. Dr. Mclean concluded that the children's wishes were not strong nor based on any reason pertaining to their best interests and were thus, "unreasonable". When this fact is coupled with ex-wife's proven lack of reciprocity, it is clear that bonds of love and trust between mother and daughters are nonexistent.
  • In support of husbands position that his daughters love him, husband relies on the fact that, when observed in interaction by the assessment team, the children were calm, comfortable and happy with him, as opposed to a disaster with their mother. Further, when Dr. Mclean asked younger daughter who loves her the most, the answer was "father". It is admitted that this is weak evidence, but bear in mind that husband and daughters (very confused) were long term suffering from ex-wife's very negative environmental, conflict generating and survival threatening presence in their lives. Further, it has been proven that husband behaved in a manner that indicates he cares for his daughters by being primary caregiver and attending to their needs, meeting his part of the reciprocity test.

(c) the length of time the child has lived in a stable home environment;

  • At this point in time, the children had spent their entire lives living with both parents and were being cared for equally by both parents per the consent order on a "without prejudice" basis. Per the facts, their lives had never been stable, due to the conflict generated by ex-wife's refusal to be a partner, a parent and determination to destroy family survival by her substance addictions, refusal to contribute and financial irresponsibility. Depending on the definition of "stable", the children had either been in a stable environment for their entire lives or never. This criteria seems to not apply in these circumstances and is assumed to be neither to the benefit or detriment of either spouse.

(d) the ability and willingness of each person applying for custody of the child to provide the child with guidance and education, the necessaries of life and any special needs of the child;

  • The facts are unambiguous and to ex-wife's detriment in this area. Ex-wife has clearly demonstrated, by her behavior during marriage that she has absolutely zero interest in providing her children with any sort of guidance or attention. The only education ex-wife is willing to provide is to send her daughters to school, to get them "out of her space", so she can drink rum in peace, on the dole. Given ex-wife's "free spirit" and that any sort of responsibility is an offense to her "freedom" and "abuse" philosophy, if the children adopt these values, they can only become irresponsible adults, burdens on the social system, criminals, impose large social costs and ultimately, teach these antisocial values to their children once they close the divorce trap on their unwitting prey husbands. Further, ex-wife has a consistent record of FAILURE in her educational endeavors, making her an incompetent decision maker in her children's educational choices or helping with homework.
  • Ex-wife has proven she has the ability to provide the necessities of life by her employment record which indicates she can work, if she perceives it is necessary and chooses so (is willing to). Ex-wife has also proven, by her irresponsible behavior consistently acting against family survival, that the necessities of life for her children are a far lower priority than the sheer joy and "freedom" of being entitled, irresponsible, lazy and drunk. Ex-wife has proven that she has been and is unwilling to provide the necessities of life for her daughters by any method except whining. The only special needs of her children were to have a mother who actually gave a shit, nurtured them, provided for their needs and viewed them as more than just "means to her ends", cash cows to secure free, no strings income, necessary for ex-wife's freedom from responsibility.
  • Husband has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to provide his children with guidance and education. He stayed in the marriage trap, a very frustrating, hostile environment with a spouse who married fraudulently and was really his moral and philosophical antithesis, an enemy. Ex-wife acted against all of husbands values and efforts in trying to help his children and secure family survival. Husband did not flee, despite having the ability to do so and prosper anywhere. Husband is highly educated and successful, without any family help and extremely personally responsible. Husband is overqualified in the area of providing guidance and education for his daughters.
  • Husband had a very good career and income. His employer trusted him enough that he could work at home to care for his daughters. He has tried his best to meet his daughters needs of attention, being treated as people, socialization, activities, or, in general, been their primary caregiver under very difficult constraints, with a partner who was in total opposition to his efforts and the childrens best interests.

(e) any plans proposed for the care and upbringing of the child;

  • Ex-wife conveniently "lost" her job two weeks before this court date (and has not worked since). Ex-wife proposes to be a stay at home mother (both daughters in school full time). Ex-wife proposes to run a financial deficit of $50,600.00 per year ($4214.00 per month), per her financial statement of November 21, 1994. Ex-wife proposes that this unfortunate financial shortfall be made up by husband in support, since it is unfair that he has more money than her (because husband WAS a strong contributor, until it became pointless and harmful to his daughters to continue being so). What ex-wife does not say, but the facts do is that ex-wife proposes to teach her daughters the moral values of entitlements and irresponsibility and drink liberal quantities of rum, on the dole of support. What ex-wife DOES NOT proposes is any effort or sacrifice that she will personally make, in service of her children's best interests.
  • Husband proposes that he continue working, at home when necessary to care for his daughters and teach them what they need to learn to become productive members of society. Husband proposes that ex-wife pay child support and he and daughters live in their home. Until ex-wife deals with her addictions and psychological problems, paying child support is the ONLY thing that ex-wife is capable of doing in support of her daughters best interests. Further, any other contact between ex-wife and her daughters is a hazard to the children's moral and psychological development and not in "children's best interests".

(f) the permanence and stability of the family unit with which it is proposed that the child will live; and

  • Ex-wife is, in the opinion of her step father and mother, two sisters and many witnesses, unstable. Even Dr. Mclean states that ex-wife is prone to misperceiving situations and making emotional decisions. Ex-wife has a history of making bad choices and expecting others to bear the consequences or, in general irresponsibility. Children's survival demands that they have responsible adults to guide them and make proper choices on their behalf. Children cannot survive or thrive in an irresponsible, unstable, unpredictable environment with no rules or expectations which is the stated and proven preference of ex-wife. When the children inevitably become aware, it is inevitable that they must seek escape alternatives such as living on the street, rebellion , drugs, killing their mother (yes, it has happened, two teenage girls were forced to conclude that the only way to survive was to drown their drunken mother in a bathtub), etc. There is no stability or consistency with ex-wife, a point thoroughly proven. Further, should the courts act against proven facts and grant custody to ex-wife, husband can only conclude that it is his parental duty and legal obligation to dispute this illegal act and engage in whatever conflict is necessary to address this outrage. For the courts to create conflict is definitely not in the interests of stability or "children's best interests". This is exactly what husband did. He was intelligent enough to realize that the courts were trying to provoke him to violence (to feed the abusive male myth) and found peaceful methods of defiance. Others were not so lucky and have concluded that violence against their spouse was necessary in defense of self and children, only to be thrown in jail by judges stating their right to defense does not include violence, when, in legal fact, it does.
  • Husband has proven himself stable by the goals he has achieved. His education and career accomplishments demonstrate that husband is able to plan and achieve by consistently applied efforts, in the long term. Per witness statements, apart from conflict with ex-wife in the first two years of parenthood (making both appear as unfit parents), of husband trying to get ex-wife to assume ANY parental responsibility, husband admitted defeat, focused on his daughters and assumed the role of primary parent. Husband is able and indeed prefers to have a stable and predictable home environment with defined rules and expectations for his daughters.

(g) the relationship by blood or through an adoption order between the child and each person who is party to the application.

  • Both husband and ex-wife have equal claims in this area.

Section 24(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act

The past conduct of a person is not relevant to a determination of an application relating to custody or access to a child unless the conduct is relevant to the ability of the person to act as parent of the child.

  • Husband has heard far too many ignorant judges state "Behavior is Irrelevant", "Personal Responsibility is Irrelevant", and in fact, by the judicial record in this matter, the only relevant thing is what judges want and therefore choose to do, which is to ignore the law and do their very best to destroy all possibility of children surviving or allowing them to be exposed to any negative influences such as honesty, personal responsibility or the work ethic. It appears that the values of reason, self-sufficiency and children learning that their fate depends on their own choices and efforts are to be smashed like bugs under the arbitrary gavel of "justice". This is what the facts prove, consistently, with eight judges applying their ponderous intellects to "consider" this and even more damming evidence accumulated in ex-wife's disfavor.
  • Neglecting the irrelevant opinions of ALL judges in this matter, the LAW states that ex-wife's past conduct in the proven areas of alcoholism, irresponsibility, negligent mother, trying her best to destroy family survival are VERY relevant, in fact, crucially important. Ex-wife has not done a single thing to indicate she cares about her daughters and ALL of her proven personal attributes indicate ex-wife has zero ability to parent her daughters and is worse than an unfit parent, she is a threat to her daughters survival. Ex-wife does not even propose a parental plan where she is responsible for anything except misguiding her daughters, staying home and drinking rum, while husband is expected to pay (at the point of a gun, taking away his drivers license, threat of jail, seizure of his property and fruits of his labors) in service of the illegal destruction of his daughters.

Section 24(3) of The Children's Law Reform Act

Section 16(9) of The Divorce Act

In making a determination regarding custody of children, the Court should not "rubber stamp" the recommendations of psychologists or other experts. While expert reports may be helpful, they do not relieve the Court of responsibility for making the determinations case upon them by the legislature.

  • Finally, in black and white legalize, somebody, besides husband is responsible for something! Judges are willed by parliament and LAW, their JOB is to be responsible in making determinations based upon the merits of the facts and law passed by the legislature. They are not GOD, the legislature is, in theory (but not practice), following the will of the people. Not "rubber stamping" does not mean "ignore" and rule in opposition to the facts and law.
  • Dr. Mclean and his team considered the facts, researched the issues and put the parties through very harsh and thorough scrutiny. He concluded and concurred with what was already proven by overwhelming evidence supporting husbands claims and refuting ex-wife's claims. The court chose to rule contrary to fact and law.

Nanji v. Nanji (1987)

Robinson v. Robinson (1985), 49 R.F.L. (2d) 43

Brown v. Brown (1994) 3 R.F.L. (4th) 135 (Ont. Ct. Gen Div.)

Assessment reports should bear less weight on interim motions than at trial:

  • "Less weight" does not mean "no weight". This precedent has the effect of dragging out divorce conflict, forcing the parties to go to trial, impoverishing the family and abusing children by extended and escalating conflict. This precedent is of major benefit to lawyers and to the detriment of all others.
  • Since the stated highest principle and purpose of the law in the area of divorce is to secure "children's best interests", dragging out the conflict and impoverishing parents with legal fees is contrary to "children's best interests". This precedent needs to be overturned.
  • So do all other precedents and laws which have the effect of slowing down consideration of the facts. Unaddressed problems inevitably get larger, the longer issues are allowed to fester. Effective problem solving demands identifying dealing with problems as soon as possible. The only parties who benefit by allowing problems to escalate are problem solvers in a monopoly position who have come to the obvious conclusion that solved problems means less work and income.
  • Laws which encourage and cause divorce and fraudulent entitlement marriages need to be struck down. These include all laws which do not acknowledging spouses are equal in terms of rights and responsibility, marriage is a partnership and the spoils of divorce should be based on proportional contributions.
  • Children's best interests require speedy, economical resolution of divorce conflict.
  • Parents need to know that their fellow citizens have a right to demand parents behave in a responsible manner and teach their children to be productive members of society. Parents who fail to do so are antisocial and create social costs for their fellow citizens which gives them a self-defensive right to intervene and impose sanctions.

Genovesi v. Genovesi (1992) 41 R.F.L. (3d) 27 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)

In making an award of interim custody, greater preference should be given to the maintenance of the "status quo" than in making an Order for final custody, in assessing the best interests of the children involved. Further, in the absence of material evidence that the welfare of the children demands an immediate change, it is not in the interests of children to be tossed back and forth pending the determination of interim custody.

  • The status quo, at this point in time was that both parents were EQUALLY caring for the children based on a "without prejudice" consent agreement, further codified as a court order. The status quo was JOINT CUSTODY. The following assumes that Chadwick actually considered the evidence and had reasons (unstated) for changing custody, as demanded by law.
  • There was no material evidence that the welfare of the children was negatively affected by husbands behavior in the status quo. All of the police reports, security reports, Dr. Selwyn Smith and ex-wife's witnesses were regurgitating allegations and hearsay directly from ex-wife. Even Ex-wife admitted to Dr. Mclean that "turnovers were going relatively well". The allegations in ex-wife's affidavits such as puppy feces were a direct consequence of ex-wife's stupid choice to insist the puppies be kept inside. The photos of the home that husband was alleged to be trashing could not be attributed to husband and were negated by ex-wife's allegations that husband was simultaneously being a slave driver and forcing his daughters to clean house. Ex-wife's allegations that husband stole all possessions from the home resolve to a small list of kitchen supplies in ex-wife's factum. The rape and violence threats by husband are both out of character and unsupported by any evidence. All of ex-wife's heinous allegations against husband have ZERO evidence, are perjury and slander. These allegations were purely part of a strategy to demonize husband and feed into judicial preconceptions of the "abusive male" myth, which in itself is a media hyped creation of illegal laws forcing fathers to act in defense of selves and children, since the law offers no remedy.
  • Husband admits there was conflict and animosity between ex-wife and himself. Ex-wife started and fed the conflict. Husband was keeping his head, in the false hope that the judiciary would apply some objective intelligence, execute the law and clean this sorry mess up. This turned out to be a false hope. The real point was for the legal profession to create, fan the flames of, keep the conflict going for as long as possible so they could feed from husbands foolish faith that the law actually gives a shit. This is aided and abetted by a thoroughly corrupt judiciary who would deny the law of gravity if it suited their purposes.
  • There was sufficient evidence available to Chadwick proving that ex-wife and her alcoholism, irresponsibility and conflict creation was a hazard to the children. There was sufficient evidentiary grounds and the LAW demanded that Chadwick remove the stressor in the children's lives, their mother. Chadwick chose the opposite, to reward lies, perjury and child neglect and punish the husband and children.
  • There was no basis in fact, only a pack of easily disproved allegations against husband to justify Chadwick's order that husband should be deprived of joint custody and become an every second weekend father, drastically reducing his parental influence to the detriment of his daughters.
  • Chadwick not only broke the law stating that the status quo remains unless sufficient evidence exists demanding otherwise, he ignored hard, factual, credible evidence and chose unsupported by evidence allegations of ex-wife, her hearsay chorus and lying shrink (Dr. Selwyn Smith). If it was necessary to change custody, fact and law indicates husband should have been allowed to continue his role as primary caregiver. Future evidence will show exactly how much Chadwick and other equally corrupt judges harmed daughters.
  • Further, in Chadwick's handwritten court order, he writes "custody REMAINS with mother", clear proof that Chadwick was not even aware enough to realize that he was depriving husband of joint custody and the children of their only viable, caring parent.

Neil v. Neil (1976), 28 r.f.l. 257 (Ont. C.A.)

Papp v. Papp [1970] 1 O.R. 331 (Ont. C.A.)

Serruys v. Serruys (1982), 29 R.F.L. (2d) 215

Robinson v. Robinson (1985), 49 R.F.L. (2d) 43

Brown v. Brown (1994) 3 R.F.L. (3d) 135 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)

Child and Spousal Support

  • CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT

    Every parent has an obligation to provide support in accordance with need for his or her unmarried child, who is a minor ... to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so.

  • Husband has zero issues with this law as stated, it is how it is used and interpreted by corrupt courts that is problematic.
  • Husband has not broken this law. He was not capable of paying an irresponsible alcoholic and negligent mother to teach his daughters the dangerous philosophy of dishonesty, entitlements and using people. He tried, was incapable of continuing his career, was in danger of being fired as unproductive (too many court created woes) and quit his career on medical advice. At no point in this sorry mess did his daughters go hungry or without necessities, except on those occasions that their mother chose to purchase alcohol over groceries and daughters came to fathers to eat.
  • Ex wife has proven herself capable of working, should she perceive negative consequences for not or benefits for doing so. Ex-wife has been on social services, in one form or another, since 1994. She has not contributed or fulfilled her parental obligations, taxpayers have. Ex-wife is a deadbeat mother. Ex-wife has also proven that she perceives no negative consequences for staying on social services or advantages of working. This matter requires scrutiny of the people, who, husband is sure, will not approve.
  • Problem #1: For support paying parents, this is interpreted by corrupt courts as the only parental obligation with no attendant parental rights. Since the support paying parent is deemed irrelevant in their children's lives, this makes it appear non-harmful to children when this parent is deemed to be a deadbeat and major and illegal force is applied to achieve compliance. The only reason the children were not harmed by the multiple occasions that husbands drivers license was taken away was that these were illegal acts, which husband ignored and drove anyway, for years. Children's best interests are equated solely to support payments. It is hoped that the facts of this matter will demonstrate that fathers are very necessary and must be far more than wallets and not all females (in fact, very few) are saints.
  • Problem #2: For support recipient parents, there is no way to insure that child support is used to benefit children. Husband was faced with an ex-wife who used child support to feed her addictions, party, avoid working and provide a lazy role model. In essence, husband was being forced to harm his daughters, an illegal absurdity, the law applying sanctions against husband, attempting to force him to break higher laws of not harming children (or anyone).
  • Problem #3: For support recipient parents, since it is perceived that harming them harms children, there is no way to hold them to account as good parents, nor to enforce the law above that they are expected to financially contribute and get a job. For support recipients, the more unproductive (lazier) you are, the more support the law will give you.
  • Problem #4: The law will not consider any objective measure of children's actual needs (how much to clothe, house, feed...), preferring instead to base it on the amount of income that is seizable. This results in obscenely large support payments in some cases and really pisses off the support payer who is well aware that such large amounts can only harm children, subsidize's their ex's lifestyle (per law, both parents expected to contribute), creates conflict and, most importantly, makes lawyers RICH from the conflict this illegal interpretation creates.
  • Problem #5: The law in this area relies upon the moral obligations of parents to care for their children and the self-defensive right of society who must otherwise pay the social cost of improperly raised, unproductive children as its moral basis, or justification. This moral obligation of parents does not extend beyond what a child needs in order to survive and learn how to integrate with society. It most definitely does not extend to lucrative support which prevents children from learning the values of productivity, fosters the values of entitlements and allows ex-spouse's to survive without contribution, a socially costly and very dangerous role model for children. Our society is at least three generations into paying very large social costs of this illegal interpretation, the conflict it generates, the dependents it creates and lost productivity (contributions to civilization and social wealth). Further, the wealth the legal professions scams from this fraud is a shifting of power (wealth is the ability to coerce) from the productive to the unproductive. This has caused a general social shift away from the values of honesty, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency towards entitlements, whining, fraud and self-defensive conflict (not acknowleged as such) due to illegally rationalized theft and slavery. This is why our industrial base is disappearing, the middle class is disappearing, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. Crime now pays.
  • Section 31 of The Family Law Act

    Section 15(8) of The Divorce Act

    In making an order for spousal support the Court shall consider the length of time the spouses have cohabited and the functions performed by the spouses during cohabitation, including child care, as well as the desirability that one of the parties remain at home to care for a child.

  • Chadwick chose to award ex-wife $100.00 per month in spousal support. He clearly did not consider the functions performed by the spouses, per the evidence, indicating ex-wife was a lazy drunk and husband did the bulk of the work, especially with the children. Chadwick most definitely did not consider whether it was desirable for ex-wife to stay at home with children and be a lazy drunk, which evidence indicates was her preference. The passage of time indicates this is exactly what ex-wife chose, until daughters chose to live with father full time. Now, ex-wife is just a lazy, stay at home drunk, on the dole, without children.
  • None of the legal criteria for awarding spousal support were met in this case. Chadwick again broke the law, for arbitrary, unstated reasons.

Section 33(8) of The Family Law Act

Section 16(5) of the Divorce Act

The objectives of an order for spousal support include:

(a) The recognition of economic advantages/disadvantages arising from the marital breakdown;

  • Husband admits that the potential for major economic advantages existed, by getting rid of his predator ex-wife and being able to plan and manage finances without the periodic "surprises" and financial emergencies that ex-wife demanded he bail her out from.
  • Husband admits that ex-wife was going to take a major financial hit and drop in lifestyle. Husband claims this is more than fair, since ex-wife entered into marriage under false pretenses and therefore, without husbands consent. This marriage should be annulled because it was not consummated by ex-wife being the partner and mother she verbally promised to be, during courtship and by her marital vows. Husband claims that ex-wife has already illegally enjoyed the benefits of marriage to him without paying the cost and, if compensation is due, it should be paid to husband and children, by ex-wife.

(b) Apportion financial responsibility for the care of children over and above child support obligations

  • It should be apparent by now that the children never did and never will get care from their mother.

(c) Relieve economic hardship arising from the marital breakdown;

  • It should be apparent that any hardship, economic or otherwise of ex-wife is self-inflicted. She had her chance to be a good mother and partner and chose promises of entitlements by corrupt courts instead. It is absurd to think that ex-wife should be compensated for a marital breakdown that she was bound and determined to cause and, in fact did cause and also filed for divorce. Good riddance, and thanks for the wonderful daughters.

Section 16(7) of the Divorce Act

In an application under s. 33, the court may make an interim or final order,

(a) Requiring that an amount be paid periodically, whether annually or otherwise and whether for an indefinite or limited period, or until the happening of a specified event;

(i) in an order made under clause (1)(a), the court may provide that the amount payable shall be increased annually on the order's anniversary date by the indexing factor , as defined in subsection (vi) for November of the previous year;

(ii) the indexing factor for a given month is the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for Canada for prices of all items since the same month of the previous year, as published by Statistics Canada.

(b) Requiring that sum of all of the money payable under a support order be paid to another person or agency; and

(c) Requiring a spouse to irrevocably designate the spouse or children as beneficiary of life insurance policies;

Section 15(4) of the Divorce Act

Section 34 of the Family Law Act

Possession of Matrimonial Home

  • EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION OF THE MATRIMONIAL HOME

    Both spouses have an equal right to possession of a matrimonial home. However, the court may on application, by order, direct that one spouse be given exclusive possession of the matrimonial home or part of it for the period that the court directs and release other property that is a matrimonial home from the application of this part.

    Family Law Act, s. 19 and 24

    In considering whether to grant an order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, the court shall consider:

    (a) The best interests of the children affected, including the possible disruptive effects of a move to alternate accommodations, the views and preferences of the children, if they can reasonably be ascertained; and psychological straining and stresses to a child arising out of friction between the parents;

  • The best interests of the children have been proven: with father. No move of children was proposed by either parent. The views and preferences of the children: Too immature, cannot be reasonably ascertained, but if mature and aware: with father. Much friction between parents, caused by ex-wife and false allegations to court, refusal to reason. LAW says: to father

(b) The financial position of both spouses;

  • Granted, husband was in a better financial position without support and having to pay all of ex-wife's housing expenses. Ex-wife was self-unemployed. Assuming "need" is to be rewarded: LAW says: To ex-wife, but the greater facts say custody to husband and children's best interests trumps ex-wife's claim on home.

(c) The availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation; and

  • This was not discussed nor considered by the court.

(d) Any violence by a spouse against the other spouse or children.

  • There was no proven or even plausible threats of violence, just allegations by ex-wife and regurgitated by hearsay witnesses and police.

Section 24(3) and 24(4) of the Family Law Act

  • This whole section of law is completely and utterly illegal. Politicians don't (yet, but soon) directly DARE to admit that they are stealing property, they are merely stating the owner cannot have use of or access to their property, because someone deemed more deserving gets to use it. The plain legal truth is, whoever creates, pays for or earns something owns it. PERIOD. Without basic and absolute property rights, mankind focuses on stealing the property of others, dismantling civilization (exactly what is happening NOW, on the world stage. IRAQIS own IRAQ and ALL of their natural resources. PERIOD), since it is much more efficient than working and contributing to civilization for property that it is not guaranteed to be yours. The merits of who owns property is determined solely on this basis, for this reason. Strategic denial of property and equality rights and the resultant conflict is the legal "professions" cash cow, a problem created by them, to be milked by them.
  • If there is a difference between stolen and inaccessible, unusable property, someone smarter than me please explain, in one syllable words. This is word games, property theft, no matter what you call it. If a person cannot or is not allowed to use their own property, it has been stolen. All else is semantics. Also very social conflict creating.
  • Perhaps our legislators would like to experience husbands fate of being kicked out of his home which was achieved by his hard work and loans from his family (which he was forced to renege on because the legal profession is more deserving), to have his grifter of an ex-wife abusing his daughters by drunken negligence in his home and jail for him if he tried to do anything about it?
  • All, within a system under illegal laws devised by equally corrupt, but far more successful grifters with a profound understanding of human nature and how to profit by creating conflict, blaming it on flawed human nature when they know damn well that people are adapting to their environment consisting of insane laws, trying to cope with laws that do not treat people equally, making it IMPOSSIBLE to form any stable relationships, contracts or civilization, since the rules and relative advantages/disadvantages for members of various groups are constantly shifting with political fortunes and the legal profession laughs all the way to the bank as civilization implodes.
  • Intentionally faulty law was the reason for the occurrence of husbands marriage (he was prey), failure of the marriage and major stress on the children, demanding extraordinary countermeasures. How exactly does a person deal with an irresponsible partner (or government) who deals with every issue since she became pregnant by "fuck you and give me what I want or the courts will" or courts who try valiantly to do exactly that? This question has already been partially answered with respect to ex-wife and the complete answer has now entered the execution phase.
  • Even granting the legal validity of this law (husband does not, property rights are absolute, including ownership of self and fruits of labor, otherwise, we are all slaves), Chadwick broke it. The facts indicate that children's best interests were with father in the matrimonial home and ex-wife gone, since she was creating conflict to the detriment of the children by her false allegations and refusal to deal with reality.

Extra Pleadings

  • ORDER RESTRAINING HARASSMENT

    On application a court may make an interim or final order restraining the applicant spouse or former spouse from molesting, annoying or harassing the applicant or children in the applicant's lawful custody, or from communicating with the applicant or children, except as the order provides and may require the applicant spouse or former spouse to enter into the recognizance that the court considers appropriate.

    Family Law Act, s. 46 (1)

  • RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY

    Where property was either unlawfully taken from the possession of the Plaintiff/Petitioner or is being unlawfully detained by the Defendant/Respondent, the Court may on motion, make an order for the interim recover of possession of the property.

    Section 104 of the Court of Justice Act

    Rule 44 of the Rules of Court

  • AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

    On motion, at any stage of an action, the court shall grant leave to amend a pleading on such terms as are just, unless prejudice would result that could not be compensated for by costs or an adjournment.

    Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Court

  • ABRIDGMENT OF TIME FOR SERVICE

    The Court may, by Order, extend or abridge any time prescribed by the Rules, on such terms as are just.

    Rules 3.02 of the Rules of Court

PART III -RELIEF SOUGHT

  • RELIEF SOUGHT
  • The Petitioner (Wife) seeks an Order for the following relief:
  • (a) An Order citing the Respondent in contempt of the interim Order of Mr. Justice Sirois dated September 28, 1994, for his failure to:
    (i) Make the support payments due under paragraph 1(c) of the Order in the amount of $700.00 per month, for the months of September, October, and November, 1994, totaling $2100.00;
    (ii) Pay all mortgage, insurance ,utility, and his long distance charges relating to the matrimonial home, including the following payments, and in particular, failing to pay Hydro and Long distance telephone accounts in the amount of $521.15;
    together with a further Order requiring the Respondent to pay the above amounts within 7 days of the date of the Order, failing which the Respondent's pleadings be struck;
  • (b) Interim custody of the children of the marriage, namely, Khierstyn Laurel Emily Ross, born November 16, 1986, and Hilary Lynne Victoria Ross, born January 27, 1989;
  • (c) Interim child support in the amount of $1000.00 per month per child (for a total of $2000.00 per month) to be paid to the Petitioner (Wife), to be indexed to the cost of living, based on increases in the Consumer Price Index, as published by Statistics Canada;
  • (d) Interim spousal support in the amount of $800.00 per month to be paid to the Petitioner (Wife), to be indexed to the cost of living, based on increases in the Consumer Price Index , as published by Statistics Canada;
  • (e) An interim order requiring the husband to designate the wife and the children of the marriage as irrevocable beneficiaries of his life insurance policy or policies;
  • (f) An interim order for exclusive possession of the matrimonial home at 1077 Thomas A. Dolan Parkway, Dunrobin, Ontario, and the contents thereof;
  • (g) An order that the Respondent be restrained from harassing, molesting or annoying the Petitioner, pursuant to s. 46;
  • (h) An interim order that the Police of any jurisdiction in any municipality, province or in Canada will enforce the above order;
  • (i) An Interim Order for the return of personal property located at the residence of the Respondent, being 173 McClintock WaYI Kanata, Ontario:
  • (i) Items removed from the matrimonial home by the Respondent that were either gifts to the Petitioner, or acquired by her prior to marriage, including:
    Her indian calendars from mom
    Cuisinart food processor and accessories
    Brown juice jug with white lid
    Tupperware measuring cups (4)
    Rolling pin (marble with rest pan)
    Measuring spoons
    Spaghetti tongs (metal)
    Brown hand mixer and mixing container that goes with it
    Nail clippers
    Large flat stainless pan with tray and cups to poach eggs
    Spatzel maker
    Small Corningware pot with lid (brown)
  • (ii) Items belonging to the Petitioner's mother, previously stored at the matrimonial home, and removed by the Respondent, including:
    Royal Doulton china (11 place settings and a few extra pieces)
    Blue blanket
    2 cup pyrex measuring cup
  • (j) An Order permitting the Petitioner to amend her Petition for Divorce to seek an Order requiring the sale of the matrimonial home, being real property municipally described as 1077 Thomas A. Dolan Parkway;
  • (k) An interim Order the Respondent from disposing of any property in his possession, power, or control;
  • (1) An Order abridging the time for of the Petitioner's Notice of Motion dated November 21, 1994;
  • (m) Costs of the within motion on a solicitor and client basis; and
  • (n) Such further and other relief as this Honorable Court may deem necessary and just.

Factum of husband And Proof of Illegal Acts by Court (November 24, 1994)

  • Factum of husband (June 21, 1994)
  • Note that this document is supposed to be FACTS ONLY, for which evidence is available that litigent is prepared to prove in court.
  • This document also contains the points of LAW the parties will argue the facts in context of.
  • Relied upon previous Factum, Evidence, several new Affidavits and Family Court Clinic Report which concurs with husbands position, since nothing changed except that ex-wife has changed her story and is now alleging that husband was and is abusing her and husband is now an unfit parent. Husband's lawyer advised that not necessary to refute these allegations in a new factum, since all allegations, including police, security, medical (Dr. Selwyn Smith) reports and witness statements are hearsay, directly quoting ex-wife's allegations verbatim. Not a single witness, including ex-wife's claimed that ANY issues existed regarding husbands parenting ability or bond with daughters. In fact, even ex-wife's mother recommended maximal contact between husband and his daughters. Factum summary unchanged and repeated below.

PART I -STATEMENT OF FACT

  • Claims that husband has assumed far greater proportion of childcare duties than ex-wife
  • Husband claims that, once he got home from work and on weekends that he assumed full responsibility for daughters, due to ex-wife's disinterest and refusals.
  • Claims that ex-wife is disinterested in her children and has been unwilling or unable to accept her parental responsibility, throughout the entire marriage.
  • Husband claims that, ex-wife refused to have family meals together with the children. Ex-wife cooked separate meals for the children, which they would eat alone in front of the TV. Ex-wife then cooked another, different meal for parents. Ex-wife spent all evening drinking alcohol and cooking or sitting alone in the dark, in the living room, drinking rum and cokes.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife would not allow him or children in "her space" and he did all evening and weekend activities with the children, including playing, walks, bike rides, bath time, bedtime story, taking them to activities and all child responsibilities except cooking the children's evening meal.
  • Husband built daughters a tree house in the yard which is also a magnet for neighborhood children.
  • Husband and virtually all witnesses, including ex-wife's two sisters and step father observe that ex-wife consistently demonstrated little interest in or affection towards her daughters and seems to regard them as "troublesome intrusions in her life".
  • Husband admits that tension in matrimonial home between spouses detrimental to children.
  • Husband seeks custody of the children and exclusive possession of matrimonial home.
  • Claims that ex-wife consumes excessive quantities of alcohol, on a daily basis, to the detriment of the children.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife appears incapable of putting her children's interests ahead of her own whims.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife, since divorce commenced, is trying to put on the appearance of a good mother and is also trying to manipulate daughters against him.
  • Husband claims that all witnesses, including ex-wife's two sisters and step father are unanimous in their opinion that ex-wife is not "mother material" by reason of alcoholism and/or disinterest in her children, lack of affection and misguided parental methods, which are very detrimental to the "best interests of the children", should ex-wife achieve custody.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife is irresponsible, financially reckless and has run up considerable debt in personal expenditures, for no family benefit.
  • Husband claims and presents analysis of ex-wife's accounts by chartered accountant that in 1993, ex-wife, despite having more discretionary income (her income minus her areas of financial responsibility) than husband, was putting the family in debt at the rate of $10,700.00 per year.
  • Husband claims, presents cancelled cheques as evidence and witness verifies that husband had to pay ex-wife $1,000.00 to bathe her own daughters for one month, so husband could work at home in 1993, engaged in a joint venture with a friend for family financial benefit.
  • Husband claims that ex-wife's financial irresponsibility and lack of contribution during the marriage has been reckless depletion of family assets, lack of partnership and that financial equalization should be in his favor, since whatever marital equity there may be was achieved by husband's efforts, pre-marital equity and loans from his parents, despite ex-wife's insatiable financial appetites.

PART II -STATEMENT OF LAW And Proof Of How It Was Broken, by Corrupt Courts

  • This preamble is for reference, to establish the incredible cost our civilization and every single person on the planet pays by allowing government and courts to rationalize away the basic "equality of treatment of persons" provisions of law. According to the current legal interpretation of equality (forcing equal results, as opposed to equal opportunity, encouraging lazyiness, dishonesty and sloth, discouraging contribution to civilization, encouraging conflict in pursuit of acquiring the property of the productive), the only way that husband can be equal to ex-wife is to have a sex change operation, a lobotomy and amnesia, causing loss of all knowlege and moral values.
  • Although husband has issues with the basic legal validity of these laws, they are the law of the land. Husband has respected and is in full compliance with all written law in this matter. He has acted in the best interests of his children and refused to obey orders by judges who broke the law and thereby acted illegally, to the detriment of husband, daughters and society, invoking a perfectly legal right to a proportional defense.
  • It is legally valid that spouses have a joint financial obligation to their children, but is legally invalid to state said obligation is not EQUAL, breaking the "equality among persons" provisions of true law. The inability/unwillingness of one spouse to equally contribute towards their moral/legal obligations is a strong indication that they are lacking the moral/survival values required to be contributing members of society and also incapable of teaching these absent values to their children. The equal treatment of persons and quid pro quo requirements of law demands, that if one spouse is required to carry a greater financial burden caring for their children than the other, they should be compensated by having greater time and influence in their childrens lives. It is the function of law to protect civilization which requires a bias towards civilized values and against unproductive/criminal values. This law, as currently interpreted, favors unproductive parents, who provide a role model that is not in societies survival interests.
  • Note that tyrants will resist any and all attempts by the people to insist that all persons be treated equally (in terms of rights and responsibilities) by the law and tyrants have resisted citizens on this simple point for all of recorded history. If the law were constrained to treat all persons equally, politicians would not be able to rule by "divide and conquer" by pitting perfectly peaceful and legitimate viewpoints against each other, each trying to be "king of the hill", in control of the political process and apparatus of state, to exploit all others. This is more thoroughly explored and proven in the "Rule Of Law". This is also the reason that we are plunging to the final world war, it is about control of peoples and resources. Our judiciary, worldwide, stands by mute, useless, corrupt and incompetent.
  • First: This is how/why the legal profession/politicians make all of their illegal financial/political profit by creating conflict between spouses and destroying families by illegally promising spouses entitlements, that they can avoid the responsibilities of partnership while retaining the benefits at the expense of their ex-spouse, should they file for divorce, in full knowledge that the law will not demand responsibility from any person except those that make good prey (are productive).
  • Second: There is absolutely no lawful contract, including marriage (consensual partnership between equal persons in pursuit of joint goals) that a person can legally enter into that is able to strip them of their fundamental equality and property rights, including the fruits of their labors. Even if a person wanted to, with a contract they consented to, placing them in perpetual servitude, there is no basis in law for enforcement. This includes any claims that governments may make that a "social contract" exists, legally subjecting a person to compulsion against their consent. The sole reason that governments must make this claim is that they refuse to provide goods and services (value) that people would voluntarily pay for and therefore force and compulsion is required to "feed the beast", since it has nothing to trade, leaving force and fraud as the only goal-seeking options available for governments.
  • Third: If a parent is unable/unwilling to financially provide for their children, forcing the other parent to do so, then legal quid pro quo demands compensation, by increased parental time/rights for the spouse who does assume responsibility. Among honest people (those who forgo force/fraud in meeting their goals), there is a very strong correlation between prosperity and morality. These are values that children MUST be exposed to, if we are to maintain civilization. Currently, courts place children in the care of the least productive (maximizes conflict, thus legal fees), depriving children of exposure to the values that constitute the "work ethic". This is another key factor in the decline of youth values/educational/productivity achievement which imperils us all.
  • Fourth: How does a judge measure "relative abilities", when the mere promise of compensation for laziness is a factor encouraging laziness and unproductivity, as it is human nature to seek maximal benefit at minimal cost and to adapt by taking the choices offered by the environment. This illegal law defines an unequal environment for the spouses where the lazy one does their best to maximize the appearance of need and the productive one is forced to conclude that there is no benefit (harm to daughters in this case) and it is not possible to meet their goals by contributing to society, so why bother. These are the choices defined by illegal judicial interpretations of law that ex-wife and husband were faced with. Both took them with the result that both have exited the economy, ex-wife as a chronic social services cost, husband earns just enough to meet family needs, but not enough to attract predators. Can any different result be reasonably expected?
  • This conflictual state of affairs is far from necessary or even beneficial to anyone but lawyers and could easily be solved by objectively determining what it actually costs per month to care for a child and insisting that each spouse equally pay their share and currently defined woes for the deadbeats. This has the additional benefit that children could see the economic advantages of the values of the more productive parent, a bias in favor of personal responsibility (true job of law to enforce). As opposed to the current situation, where, more often than not, a non-working parent is just as prosperous as the working parent, at their unwilling spouse's and social conflict expense, obscuring the factual relationship between effort and prosperity to children, biasing them to seek entitlements and voting for those who promise them.
  • A court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses, or by any other person, make an Order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all children of the marriage.
    The Divorce Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. C-47, Section 16(1)
    • Using plain language interpretation, since persons must be able to understand the law to be able to obey it or, to judge, "competent jurisdiction" can only be interpreted as meaning that the judge must be competent, defined as knowledgeable in law, objective, unbiased and intellectually capable of differentiating between fact and fiction. The courts are guilty of two counts of failure to provide competence;
    • First, during the motion of June 23, 1994, in the opinion of husband and his lawyer, the judge (Binks) was not intellectually capable and also did not have the time to adequately consider the facts to determine that the "expert" medical opinion of Dr. Selwyn Smith was a complete and utter lie, as the facts before the court on both court dates and time has proven. This forced husband into a very bad compromise to the detriment of himself and daughters and, the damage to the children of this forced compromise itself constitutes an illegal act, since the negligent behavior of the court by the judge not reclusing himself, or, if the judge was chronically unfit, this being noticed and corrected by management was a negligent act of the law not in "the best interests of children".
    • Second, the complete and utter failure of the judge (Chadwick) in the motion of November 25, 1994 to be competent is thoroughly explored and proven.
    • In simpler terms, on November 25, 1994, the court had no jurisdiction by reason of incompetence, making any resultant court orders also illegal and any subsequent consideration of them as the basis for further court orders, agreements that husband was extorted to consent to, support payments, etc to be null and void and any enforcement of them to be aggression and illegal acts against husband and his daughters. This legitimizes any proportional defense husband may have deemed necessary by his inalienable right to life which includes defense of self and daughters. Under law, husband could and can legally do whatever it takes to thwart any and all criminals, including judges who stood in the way of his inalienable right to survive, properly raise his children and live in peace. Husband was intelligent enough to find peaceful options. Many people are not, which is the root cause of domestic violence and child abuse. Our prisons contain many men who saw no option but violence, put there by judges who refuse to acknowledge the circumstance that the actions of their entitled spouses was an impediment to family survival and current judicial interpretations of law provides no remedy. Further, any and all costs or consequences of these illegal acts against husband and daughters must be fully compensated and the perpetrators brought to account, by law.
  • When an application is made under subsection (1), the court may, on application by either or both spouses, or by any other person, make an interim Order respecting the custody of or the access to, or the custody of and access to, any or all children of the marriage, pending determination of the application under subsection (1).
    The Divorce Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. C-47, Section 16(2)
  • In making an Order under [Section 16] the court shall take into consideration only the best interests of the child of the marriage as determined by reference to the condition, means, needs, and other circumstances of the child.
    The Divorce Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. C-47, Section 16(8)
  • This law was majorly broken by Justice Chadwick. He ignored most of the evidence and witness materials and was unaware that ex-wife's step father, her two sisters, the family's entire social network and all of the evidence and statements from people who had actually observed the family from inside the home, as guests was overwhelmingly in favor of husband's position.
  • Chadwick dismissed a six month study by a team of the best forensic psychiatrists in the region who had taken the time to do and document a good job, in favor of a lying, incompetent, previously convicted of fraud, criminal shrink (Dr. Selwyn Smith) who had not even met husband or children and all of his "expert" opinions were based solely on a few visits with ex-wife.
  • Chadwick refused to consider or accept the fact that all of ex-wife's witnesses had zero insight, husband knew very few of them and most were reporting ex-wife's "dog and pony show" of "good motherhood" she started once litigation commenced and ex-wife realized that husband could prove the truth. This was purely an act and ended when there was no audience. This is why ex-wife hated unexpected visitors both during the marriage and after separation, since they left no time to prepare the stage. Insight to this was provided in the affidavit of Dianna Drynan, describing how all the alcohol and ash trays were hidden just before daycare clients were expected to arrive to pick up their children. It's all smoke and mirrors with ex-wife.
  • Chadwick had sufficient and credible evidence proving that, not only did the children's best interests require their father, whom was the only one meaningfully caring for them, during their entire lives but, in addition, their mother had acted against her own daughters, for the entire marriage and was a hazard to her children's well-being and a totally unfit parent.
  • Not only did Chadwick fail to consider all of the evidence, in his handwritten court order, he admits he was confused by the contradictory material and therefore guessed when he ordered custody REMAIN with ex-wife, further proving that Chadwick was so negligent and incompetent that he was completely unaware of what he was doing and, that he was, in effect DEPRIVING HUSBAND of the EQUAL CUSTODY LEGAL STATUS he had at the time, and the children of their only parent who actually cared, per the "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" consent agreement and court order, with absolutely no basis in law for doing so. The law is very clear that the facts and children's best interests must be considered before making a custody award. Guessing does not meet this decision criteria and is, in itself an illegal act of child abuse. The only lives that Chadwick or any judge are legally allowed to gamble with are their own. It would be a public service to do so.
  • No reference to the facts or circumstances relating to the "children's best interests" was made by Chadwick. Chadwick guessed, contrary to hard evidence, when lives hung in the balance. The psychopathic arrogance. The danger to civilization to let ignorant political hacks such as this judge (shortly thereafter, promoted) determine our fate. Husband KNEW on November 25, 1994 that he and the courts had forever parted company, and that he must determine his own and his daughters fates, despite these arrogant turkeys who incorrectly believe they are in control. They are not even competent enough to be allowed a potato gun.
  • The course of history since then and the immediate future holds no surprises. Civilization is over, and things will keep getting worse, until people start thinking, stand up for their rights and take their freedom back, violently, if necessary.
  • A court of competent jurisdiction may on application by either or both spouses make an Order requiring one spouse to secure or pay, or to secure and pay, such lump sum or periodic sums, or such lump sum and periodic sums, as the court thinks reasonable for the support of ... (b) any or all children of the marriage.
    The Divorce Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. C-47, Section 15(2)
  • When an application is made under subsection (2), the court may, on application by either or both spouses, make an interim Order requiring one spouse to secure or pay, or to secure and pay, such lump sum or periodic sums, or such lump sum and periodic sums, as the court thinks reasonable for the support of ... (b) any or all children of the marriage.
    The Divorce Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. C-47, Section 15(3)
  • An Order made under [Section 15] provides that the support of a child of the marriage should (a) recognize that the spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the child; and (b) apportion that obligation between the spouses according to their relative abilities to contribute to the performance of the obligation.
  • Husband has zero issues with this law as stated, it is how it is used and interpreted by corrupt courts that is problematic.
  • Husband has not broken this law. He was not capable of paying an irresponsible alcoholic and negligent mother to teach his daughters the dangerous philosophy of dishonesty, entitlements and using people. He tried, was incapable of continuing his career, was in danger of being fired as unproductive (too many court created woes) and quit his career on medical advice. At no point in this sorry mess did his daughters go hungry or without necessities, except on those occasions that their mother chose to purchase alcohol over groceries and daughters came to fathers to eat.
  • Ex wife has proven herself capable of working, should she perceive negative consequences for not or benefits for doing so. Ex-wife has been on social services, in one form or another, since 1994. She has not contributed or fulfilled her parental obligations, taxpayers have. Ex-wife is a deadbeat mother. Ex-wife has also proven that she perceives no negative consequences for staying on social services or advantages of working. This matter requires scrutiny of the people, who, husband is sure, will not approve.
  • Problem #1: For support paying parents, this is interpreted by corrupt courts as the only parental obligation with no attendant parental rights. Since the support paying parent is deemed irrelevant in their children's lives, this makes it appear non-harmful to children when this parent is deemed to be a deadbeat and major and illegal force is applied to achieve compliance. The only reason the children were not harmed by the multiple occasions that husbands drivers license was taken away was that these were illegal acts, which husband ignored and drove anyway, for years. Children's best interests are equated solely to support payments. It is hoped that the facts of this matter will demonstrate that fathers are very necessary and must be far more than wallets and not all females (in fact, very few) are saints.
  • Problem #2: For support recipient parents, there is no way to insure that child support is used to benefit children. Husband was faced with an ex-wife who used child support to feed her addictions, party, avoid working and provide a lazy role model. In essence, husband was being forced to harm his daughters, an illegal absurdity, the law applying sanctions against husband, attempting to force him to break higher laws of not harming children (or anyone).
  • Problem #3: For support recipient parents, since it is perceived that harming them harms children, there is no way to hold them to account as good parents, nor to enforce the law above that they are expected to financially contribute and get a job. For support recipients, the more unproductive (lazier) you are, the more support the law will give you.
  • Problem #4: The law will not consider any objective measure of children's actual needs (how much to clothe, house, feed...), preferring instead to base it on the amount of income that is seizable. This results in obscenely large support payments in some cases and really pisses off the support payer who is well aware that such large amounts can only harm children, subsidize's their ex's lifestyle (per law, both parents expected to contribute), creates conflict and, most importantly, makes lawyers RICH from the conflict this illegal interpretation creates.
  • Problem #5: The law in this area relies upon the moral obligations of parents to care for their children and the self-defensive right of society who must otherwise pay the social cost of improperly raised, unproductive children as its moral basis, or justification. This moral obligation of parents does not extend beyond what a child needs in order to survive and learn how to integrate with society. It most definitely does not extend to lucrative support which prevents children from learning the values of productivity, fosters the values of entitlements and allows ex-spouse's to survive without contribution, a socially costly and very dangerous role model for children. Our society is at least three generations into paying very large social costs of this illegal interpretation, the conflict it generates, the dependents it creates and lost productivity (contributions to civilization and social wealth). Further, the wealth the legal professions scams from this fraud is a shifting of power (wealth is the ability to coerce) from the productive to the unproductive. This has caused a general social shift away from the values of honesty, personal responsibility and self-sufficiency towards entitlements, whining, fraud and self-defensive conflict (not acknowleged as such) due to illegally rationalized theft and slavery. This is why our industrial base is disappearing, the middle class is disappearing, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. Crime now pays.
  • The Divorce Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. C-47, Section 15(8)
  • In an application under Section 33, the court may make an interim or final Order, ... (i) requiring that a spouse who has a policy of life insurance as defined in the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or child as the beneficiary irrevocably.
    The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, Section 34(1)(i)
  • Regardless of the ownership of a matrimonial home and its contents .. . the court may on application, by order, ... (b) direct that one spouse be given exclusive possession of the matrimonial home ... (d) direct that the contents of the matrimonial home, or any part of them (i) remain in the home for the use of the spouse given possession.
    The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, Section 24(1)
    • Completely and utterly illegal. Politicians don't (yet, but soon) directly DARE to admit that they are stealing property, they are merely stating the owner cannot have use of or access to their property, because someone deemed more deserving gets to use it. The plain legal truth is, whoever creates, pays for or earns something owns it. PERIOD. Without this right, mankind focuses on stealing the property of others, dismantling civilization, since it is much more efficient than working and contributing to civilization for property that it is not guaranteed to be yours. The merits of who owns property is determined solely on this basis, for this reason. Strategic denial of property and equality rights and the resultant conflict is the legal "professions" cash cow, a problem created by them, to be milked by them.
    • If there is a difference between stolen and inaccessible, unusable property, someone smarter than me please explain, in one syllable words. This is word games, property theft, no matter what you call it. If a person cannot or is not allowed to use their own property, it has been stolen. All else is semantics. Also very social conflict creating.
    • Perhaps our legislators would like to experience husbands fate of being kicked out of his home which was achieved by his hard work and loans from his family (which he was forced to renege on because the legal profession is more deserving), to have his grifter of an ex-wife abusing his daughters by drunken negligence in his home and jail for him if he tried to do anything about it?
    • All, within a system under illegal laws devised by equally corrupt, but far more successful grifters with a profound understanding of human nature and how to profit by creating conflict, blaming it on flawed human nature when they know damn well that people are adapting to their environment consisting of insane laws, trying to cope with laws that do not treat people equally, making it IMPOSSIBLE to form any stable relationships, contracts or civilization, since the rules and relative advantages/disadvantages for members of various groups are constantly shifting with political fortunes and the legal profession laughs all the way to the bank as civilization implodes.
    • Intentionally faulty law was the reason for the occurrence of husbands marriage (he was prey), failure of the marriage and major stress on the children, demanding extraordinary countermeasures. How exactly does a person deal with an irresponsible partner (or government) who deals with every issue since she became pregnant by "fuck you and give me what I want or the courts will" or courts who try valiantly to do exactly that? This question has already been partially answered with respect to ex-wife and the complete answer has now entered the execution phase.
  • In determining whether to make an Order for exclusive possession, the court shall consider (a) the best interests of the children affected ... (c) the financial position of both spouses ... (e) the availability of other suitable and affordable accommodation.
    The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, Section 24(3)
  • In determining the best interests of a child, the court shall consider, (a) the possible disruptive effects on the child of a move to other accommodation; and (b) the child's views and preferences, if they can be reasonably ascertained.
    The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, Section 24(4)
    • Whether husband or ex-wife achieved custody, the children would have remained in the matrimonial home, so no disruption of move considerations.
    • If the law is concerned about disruption to children in general and disruption is to be minimized, Justice Chadwick seriously broke the law and disrupted the children's lives by taking the children from a custody situation where they were under each parent's care half time, to spending most of their time under care and control of an irresponsible, negligent drunk who considered her children ONLY as a means to her ends, with minimal time with their thoroughly traumatized father who was trying to deal with the plain and unambiguous FACT that the courts are completely unconcerned with fact, law or even the ability to survive of children, and their opinion is backed up by irresistable force and mindless police. This shithead of a judge was not even aware he was making a major change in the children's lives, to their serious detriment.
    • So, in one legal interpretation where (a) and (b) are the ONLY considerations of law, it comes down to preferences and, a very bad legal definition of "children's best interests", which makes no reference to, for example, necessary conditions for children to survive or to become personally responsible, productive members of society and biases custody choices towards the parent who is most accommodating of children's natural wishes to be unrestrained and "free". Husband suspects this is the interpretation used by the courts, which goes a very long way towards explaining the decline of civilized values, personal responsibility and increasing violence in society.
    • In the only other possible legal interpretation where (a) and (b) are factors that must be considered, but are only part of the determination of "children's best interests" then all other factors that can be proven as pertaining to "children's best interests" must also be considered by judges. If this were not so, and judges were free to neglect proven pertinent facts, then "children's best interests" could NEVER be objectively established and the law could NEVER be objectively implemented, leaving judges free to use their discretion to implement whatever social engineering agenda they or whomever is coercing them choose. This appears to be the current state of affairs in Canada.
    • Independent of which interpretation of "children's best interests" Chadwick chose, he broke the law.
    • If Chadwick used the first interpretation, the children's preferences could not be reasonably ascertained (based on reason). The children's words did slightly favor ex-wife, but their actions observed by Dr. Mclean in the one on one encounter with ex-wife demonstrated that ex-wife and children had no relationship, respect or emotional bonds, as did all witness statements. Husband's one on one interaction was described by Dr. Mclean as the children were very comfortable, calm and respectful of husband, indicating that, for at least several years, ex-wife had no interaction with her daughters and husband was the primary caregiver.
    • If Chadwick used the second interpretation, where all relevant factors must be considered, he accepted the fact of ex-wife's chronic alcoholism and addictions because his handwritten Court Order stated "I expect the mother to follow the counseling recommendations in the Mclean Report, in the interim". The report recommended that ex-wife seek professional help for her addictions, in addition to counseling for the children and a firm behavioral program at home and school (Report also established that ex-wife was philosophically opposed to and incapable of managing any behavioral program). Thus, Chadwick was well aware that ex-wife was a chronic alcoholic and IGNORED the established social FACT that addicts destroy the lives of ALL people associated with them, by their psychopathic compulsion to feed their addictions, independent of the costs to themselves or others, especially children. Further, a drunk is incapable of paying attention to and teaching children.
    • This court order was FORGED by ex-wife's solicitor to read "This court further orders that the Petitioner (ex-wife) follow the counseling recommendations FOR THE CHILDREN set out in the McLean Report, in the interim".
    • As a consequence of this forged court order, ex-wife did not get help, ex-wife was placed in a trap that if she tried to get help then further evidence to the detriment of her position would exist, the children were majorly harmed and ex-wife's lawyer was able to successfully argue in future motions that Chadwick (a VERY respected judge, in some "intellectual" circles, and by his peers), one of their "best" judges, had considered and rejected as fabrications husbands allegations of alcoholism, deeming him a LIAR. No subsequent judge would entertain any arguments to the contrary and husband was a proven liar just by trying. A judge had spoken. Reality was decreed by this powerful GOD, the laws of nature and the entire natural order of creation trembled and adapted in submission (except for husband) and all of history was re-written to retroactively prove that this TRUTH has always been eternal. Husband subsequently impoverished himself with legal fees pointlessly trying to save his daughters with absolutely no possibility of legal success, since he was arguing against established fact, a fool.
    • This forged court order allowed ex-wife's lawyer from this point on, to cast husband as an insane, vindictive loser, too stupid to accept the plain fact that the law and his "moral and intellectual superiors" had objectively considered, and in their fair and "considered opinion", husbands experiences (backed up by detailed witness accounts from his entire social network and ex-wife's step father and two sisters, verified by a six month psychiatric study) of nine years of living in hell and trying to achieve family survival and protect his daughters from an irresponsible, psychopathic alcoholic mother, trapped by bullshit, illegal laws which impoverish anyone wanting to exercise their basic freedom to not associate with their spouse, but to associate with their children was fabricating it all and a liar, a mortal danger to his ex-wife, children and society.
    • Husband was successfully demonized as out to get his poor little, innocent, helpless, needy ex-wife and interfering in her valiant attempts to raise her children, despite husbands abuse and insane campaign against her.
    • The plain fact is, a matter of documented history, beyond speculation, is that ex-wife has never attempted to help or shown any responsibility, compassion, or consideration towards her daughters well-being, EVER. Ex-wife's marriage and daughters were a means to an end - to get support, to not have to work and drink rum. PERIOD. It has not been easy for daughters to come to terms with this very disturbing fact, but their own mother proved it to them, despite all of their wishes not to believe. It was also not easy for husband to come to terms during marriage with how thoroughly he had been duped and entrapped by his ex-wife and her fraudulent marriage vows, facilitated by laws that actually encourage this, just to make make money for the legal profession from the inevitable conflict and political power for those who claim it is unfair and unjust that people should actually have to contribute to society and face the consequences (profit or suffer) of their own choices. The state and their cronies in this matter are proven predators, feeding from the dismantling of civilization, destruction of families, lives and child abuse.
    • Ex-wife's mother, in the early years was the one who at least helped to mitigate some of the destructive effects of ex-wife on her daughters, before they became aware enough and chose to live with their father full time.
  • A court may, on application, order a person to provide support for his or her dependants and determine the amount of support.
    The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, Section 33(1)
  • In an application under Section 33, the court may make an interim or final Order, ... requiring that a spouse who has a policy of life insurance as defined in the Insurance Act designate the other spouse or child as the beneficiary irrevocably.
    The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, Section 34(1)(i)
  • In an application under Section 7 or 10, if the court considers it necessary for the protection of the other spouses interest under this Part, the court may make an interim of final Order (a) restraining the depletion of the spouse's property; and (b) for the possession, delivering up, safe keeping and preservation of the property.
    The Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F3, Section 34(12)

PART III -RELIEF SOUGHT

  • Interim custody of the children of the marriage, namely Khierstyn Laurel Emily Ross, born November 16, 1986, and Hilary Lynne Victoria Ross, born January 27, 1989, or in the alternative, interim joint custody of the said children, together with a further Order providing that the primary residence of the children shall be in the home of the Respondent, subject to reasonable access on reasonable notice by the Petitioner;
  • Interim child support in the amount of $400 per month, per child, for a total of $800 per month, to be paid to the Respondent, indexed to the cost of living based on increases in the Consumer Price Index as published by Statistics Canada;
  • An interim Order requiring the wife to designate the husband and the children of the marriage as irrevocable beneficiaries of her life insurance policy or policies;
  • Interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home known municipally as 1077 Thomas A. Dolan Parkway, Dunrobin, Ontario, and the contents thereof;
  • An interim Order restraining the Petitioner from depleting any assets in her possession or under her control until further order of the court;
  • An Order abridging the time for service of the within cross-motion;
  • Costs on a solicitor and client basis.

Illegal Court Orders in total opposition to fact and law

Illegal Court Order (November 25, 1994)

Judges Handwritten Court Order

Lawyer Forged Court Order Entered

Judge's Handwritten Order Lawyer Forged Court Order
  • Petitioner seeks an adjournment in order to cross-exam the respondent and other items. Respondent agrees that cross-examination is necessary but suggest that the respondent father should have intern interm custody of the two children of the marriage KHIERSTYN (Nov 16, 1986) & HILARY (Jan 27, 89). In support of his position he relies on the affidavit and other materials. Most importantly he relies on the assessment of Dr. Mclean which is favorable to his position.
  • Not Entered.
  • I have a difficult time determining the true facts in view of the conflicting materials. I am mindful of Dr. Mcleans professional opinion. However, under all of the circumstances, the best interests of the children will be served by remaining with the mother. The current situation is intolerable for both the father and mother and no doubt stressful for the children. I will hear further submissions from counsel regarding the husbands access during this interim period and the other outstanding issues.
  • THIS COURT ORDERS that the Petitioner (ex-wife) have interim custody of the children of the marriage, namely, Khierstyn Laurel Emily Ross, born November 16, 1986 and, Hilary Lynne Victoria Ross, born January 27, 1989.
  • I expect the mother to follow the counseling recommendations in the McLean report, during the interim.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the Petitiner follow the counselling recommendations FOR THE CHILDREN set out in the report of Dr. Mclean, in the interim.
  • There will be an order for an expedited trial.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the trial in the within action be expedited.
  • Counsel can speak to me regarding a convenient time for the continuation.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the issue of access and other outstanding interim issues be adjourned for hearing further submissions to a date to be arranged between counsel before Mr. Justice Chadwick.

What is wrong with this handwritten court order?

  • The facts were established: Husband has been and is daughters primary caregiver. Husbands position proven. Ex-wife lying.
  • The facts were established: Ex-wife is an alchoholic. Ex-wife is a negligent mother, no meaningful interactions with daughters for at least several years. Ex-wife's parental philosophy harmful to daughters. Ex-wife has acted against her own family and children's interests. Ex-wife has created and continues to create conflict.
  • Chadwick admitted his confusion and not knowing what the facts were. He guessed, and lives were severely damaged. Chadwick was legally obligated (his job) to establish the facts beyond a reasonable doubt before wielding the law and applying force against innocent lives.
  • Chadwick admitted his awareness of ex-wife's addictions by ordering her to deal with them (follow Dr. Mcleans recommendations, get addiction help).
  • It is a known FACT that addicts are harmful to everyone associated with them, especially helpless dependent children.
  • When the law is objectively applied against proven facts, Chadwick ignored every proven fact and acted contrary to virtually every applicable law by ruling in ex-wife's favor. The law is supreme and it states: the only consideration is "Children's Best Interests".
  • The children were deprived of their only caring parent by this illegal order which placed them in an abusive environment, at risk of serious harm, which, inevitably, did occur.
  • Chadwick further admits his ignorance of what he was doing by stating the children's best interests are served "by remaining with mother". This deprived father of the legal status of equal and joint custody of his daughters based upon consent and Court Order, with absolutely no consideration or basis in law by Chadwick.

What were the consequences of this forged court order?

  • The fact that Chadwick guessed in making this order was suppressed and not entered. This gave the forged order the same apparent credibility (not much to intelligent people, infinite to judges) as court orders that are based on (claimed) objective reason applied to fact and law.
  • This court order was FORGED by ex-wife's solicitor to read "This court further orders that the Petitioner (ex-wife) follow the counseling recommendations FOR THE CHILDREN set out in the McLean Report, in the interim".
  • As a consequence of this forged court order, ex-wife did not get help, ex-wife was placed in a trap that if she tried to get help then further evidence to the detriment of her position would exist, the children were majorly harmed and ex-wife's lawyer was able to successfully argue in future motions that Chadwick (a VERY respected judge, in some "intellectual" circles, and by his peers), one of their "best" judges, had considered and rejected as fabrications husbands allegations of alcoholism, deeming him a LIAR. No subsequent judge would entertain any arguments to the contrary and husband was a proven liar just by trying. A judge had spoken. Reality was decreed by this powerful GOD, the laws of nature and the entire natural order of creation trembled and adapted in submission (except for husband) and all of history was re-written to retroactively prove that this TRUTH has always been eternal. Husband subsequently impoverished himself with legal fees pointlessly trying to save his daughters with absolutely no possibility of legal success, since he was arguing against established fact, a fool.
  • This forged court order allowed ex-wife's lawyer from this point on, to cast husband as an insane, vindictive loser, too stupid to accept the plain fact that the law and his "moral and intellectual superiors" had objectively considered, and in their fair and "considered opinion", husbands experiences (backed up by detailed witness accounts from his entire social network and ex-wife's step father and two sisters, verified by a six month psychiatric study) of nine years of living in hell and trying to achieve family survival and protect his daughters from an irresponsible, psychopathic alcoholic mother, trapped by bullshit, illegal laws which impoverish anyone wanting to exercise their basic freedom to not associate with their spouse, but to associate with their children was fabricating it all and a liar, a mortal danger to his ex-wife, children and society.
  • Husband was successfully demonized as out to get his poor little, innocent, helpless, needy ex-wife and interfering in her valiant attempts to raise her children, despite husbands abuse and insane campaign against her.

Illegal Court Order (November 30, 1994)

Judges Handwritten Court Order

Lawyer Forged Court Order Entered

Judge's Handwritten Order Lawyer Forged Court Order
  • Motion with reference to access by the respondent father. Father to have in accordance to Sch. A. attached to this endorsement.
  • Not Entered, but Schedule A correct.
  • Christmas access on consent, in accordance with Sch. B. attached to this endorsement.
  • Not Entered, but Schedule B correct.
  • The respondent father to pay interim child support of $700.00 for each child (1400) per month and interim spousal support of $100.00 per month commencing Dec. 1/94.
  • THIS COURT ORDERS that the Respondent pay to the Petitioner the sum of $700.00 per month per child for the total payment of $1,400.00 per month as interim child support.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the Respondent pay to the Petitioner the sum of $100.00 per month as interim spousal support, commencing December 1st, 1994.
  • The arrears of support pursuant to the order of Sirois J. dated Sept 28/94 are to be paid by Jan 31, 1995, otherwise, the respondent fathers pleadings COULD be struck out.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the arrears of support payments of the order of Mr. Justice Sirois dated September 28, 1994, be paid in full by January 31, 1995. If arrears are not paid by this time, the Respondent's further pleadings WILL be struck out.
  • Items of personal property are to be resolved by the parties.
  • Entered Correctly.
  • In arriving at the interim order for support, I have based this upon the respondent mother receiving U.I.C. benefits and not being employed. I have also considered the tax benefits and consequences. I have used fathers income of $67,500.00 less the pension deduction of $3994.00.
  • Not Entered, But should be, so next judge can know the basis of support, so for instance, it can be reduced in the unlikely event that ex-wife got a job, or, more likely, to prevent ex-wife from claiming her income has dropped more, once benefits run out.
  • If there is a material change in circumstances in either party, they may bring a further motion regarding the support.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that if there is a material change in the Petitioners financial situation, a further motion may be brought before the court to reconsider the above support order.
  • My interim interim order of custody was to (unreadable - assume: "allow the liars") to conduct cross-examinations in the various Affidavits. I also contemplated the trial could be heard - the spring of 1995. If that is not the case, then I will consider hearing a further motion regarding interim custody when all cross-exams are completed.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that if the trial in the within action cannot be heard in the spring of 1995, a further motion may be brought in respect of interim custody of the children of the marriage, once cross-examinations in this matter are complete.
  • There will be an order for mutual restraining orders.
  • THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the parties herein be restrained from molesting, annoying or harrassing one another.
  • If any problems arise, counsel may speak to me with short notice.
  • Not Entered.
  • Schedule A: Interim access to the husband shall be as follows:
  • (a) Every second weekend @5:00 p.m. until Monday morning @8:00 a.m., commencing Dec. 16/94.
  • (b) Each and every Thursday evening @5:00 p.m. until Friday @8:00 a.m., except where the visit falls upon Fathers regular access weekend, in which case, the children will be returned following their weekend visit.
  • (c) Christmas access to be arranged between the parties.
  • (d) The children shall be picked up and dropped off at the residence of the mother.
  • Entered Correctly.
  • Schedule B: Consent: Christmas Access (1994-5):
  • Father: Dec. 23 @5:00 p.m. until Dec. 25 @Noon
  • Mother: Dec. 25 @Noon until Jan. 1/95 @Noon
  • Father: Jan. 1/95 @Noon until Jan. 4/95 @7:00 p.m.
  • Mother: Jan. 4/95 @7:00 p.m. until Jan. 8
  • Fathers regular weekend access to recommence Jan. 13/95
  • Entered Correctly.

What is wrong with this handwritten court order?

  • The previous court order granting interim custody to ex-wife was an ILLEGAL act of aggression against husband and daughters. It had zero basis in fact and law.
  • The child support was a consequence of the above illegal act, also illegal.
  • The spousal support award had zero basis in fact and law.
  • Husband, with all of the evidence in his favor and none to his detriment, ended up with far less than half time with his daughters. It is illegal for the law to punish or sanction someone for zero reason. The law administers consequences. Where is husbands action? A harsh punishment such as losing influence with children can only be imposed if a parent is behaving to their childrens detriment, to protect them. The truth is: Losing time with children provides a pretext to extract support and buys votes from those who wish to be dependents, who also become the dominent teachers of values to children. The access schedule, since it contained less than half time was an arbitrary, illegal act.
  • The contempt warning has already been discussed. The contempt charge had no factual or lawful merit. For a judge to warn, with no legal basis is an act of aggression. Husband was unable to pay and had to put himself further in debt to comply.
  • The order that Chadwick would re-consider once cross-examination occurred was a gift to ex-wife's lawyer. All she had to do was not cross-examine, since she was already aware that husband was telling the truth and cross-examinations yields truth, the last thing ex-wife's lawyer wanted. No cross-examinations equals no new information equals legal stalling forever, ex-wife wins by default.

What were the consequences of this forged court order?

  • By changing (forging) Chadwick's contempt warning from COULD to WILL "strike out pleadings", husband lost all possibility of convincing idiot court that they cannot get blood from a stone and support was unreasonable and unpayable. This forced husband to borrow another $2,100.00 from family, since he was far beyond the financial debt limit. "WILL" does not leave much room for interpretation by the next judge faced with an impoverished beyond the point of non-survival husband. The only thing left to take was all hope for the children by "striking out pleadings".
  • This prevented the husband from seeking relief from the court when the costs of this pointless litigation and excessive support payments while simultaneously under order to solely bear all of ex-wife's household expenses such as mortgage and utilities impoverished him to the point of having to live in the basement of a friend on charity, with no resources to care for his daughters during his access time. Husband was in a court ordered escalating debt situation, with no court acknowlegement or relief possible.
  • Further, ex-wife's lawyer's forging Chadwick's order that if there was a material change in financial circumstances of EITHER party, to read PETITIONER (ex-wife), allowed ex-wife to go back to Chadwick to whine for more support, but prevented husband from arguing when the sheer insanity of this situation and insane judges caused husband to lose his career. It is not possible to be sane and productive when dealing with insanity backed by guns.
  • This left subsequent judges under the impression that the merit of the husbands legal position was dubious to the point that not paying support (for any reason, including inability) was just grounds to terminate any further court consideration of the facts. Husband had to borrow heavily to meet these payments, most of which were rationalized by daycare expenses claimed by wife in financials, but not necessary due to her self-unemployment.

Evidence of Corruption by husband's lawyer (November 25, 1994)

  • The obvious question is: Why were all of these illegal acts allowed to stand, and why not appeal?
  • The first piece of evidence is the judges handwritten court orders which were in possession of husbands lawyer. Husband was not aware of these until years later, when impoverishment forced him to legally represent himself. These were part of legal records retrieved from his lawyers office, years later.
  • Handwritten Court Order (November 25, 1994)
  • Handwritten Court Order (November 30, 1994)
  • Husband was not aware that Chadwick guessed, contrary to all fact and law and it was an illegal act on his part to do so. It was also an illegal act and contrary to law for the judge to deprive husband of joint custody, especially with a "without prejudice" consent and court order in place and no material evidence that husband was detrimental to his daughters. In fact, all evidence indicated that husband was crucially necessary to the "best interests of his daughters"
  • Husband may not have been aware that judges do not have the power to act in an arbitrary manner (guess), contrary to all fact and law, but his lawyer must have been. Husband's lawyer strongly recommended against appeal, claiming it would waste thousands of dollars, while husband wanted to. No appeal was made, but should have been.
  • The second and third pieces of evidence is that it was necessary for husband's lawyer to verify for accuracy the court orders entered (forged) by ex-wife's lawyer. These forgeries were signed off by husband's lawyer and became legal "TRUTH". This resulted in major damage to the children and made all efforts of legal redress pointless. When husband discovered this and challenged in court, they were claimed to be "typos" by ex-wife's lawyer and no judge would fix them.
  • Court Order, Verified by Husbands Lawyer (November 25, 1994)
  • Court Order, Verified by Husbands Lawyer (November 30, 1994)
  • It can only be concluded that husband's lawyer either conspired to co-operate with ex-wife's lawyer to increase legal fees, or decided to seize on Chadwick's crimes and do this on her own. In either case, the law firm of Hamilton, Appotive, Callan is in a major civil and perhaps criminal liability position in this matter. Their risk is vastly increased since the state will be looking for fall guys to shift blame away from itself in this matter. Incompetence is ruled out because these "mistakes" are too basic and obvious, even for Law 101.
  • It can only be concluded that not only did the judiciary, ex-wife's lawyer and ex-wife consider husband and daughters as prey, but so did husbands lawyer.
<< Social Costs Factual Analysis of Evidence >>
Trackback
  • URL: https://www.divorcefraud.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c8/24
  • Trackback: https://www.divorcefraud.org/modules/article/trackback.php/24
Rate
10987654321
API: RSS | RDF | ATOM
Copyright© rossb & XOOPS Site
The comments are owned by the author. We aren't responsible for their content.