Keywords


carline vandenelsen,
larry finck,
mona-clare,
public inquiry,
NS, Halifax stand off,
parents rights,
child welfare,
NS children’s aid society,
halifax regional police,
corruption,
abuse,
Minister of Justice,
Michael Baker,
Minister of Community Services,
kidnaping,
child abduction,
abuse of power,
political and judicial corruption,
Halifax Law Courts,
Shirley St.,
David Morse,
Canadian Charter of Rights,
baby snatching ring,
incompetent lawyers,
legal, entrapment,
attack, family rights,
babies,
unsafe for children,
abuse of single parents,
social assistance,
entrapment,
family law,
supreme court of NS,
CAS,
children’s aid society
Elizabeth Whelton
high priced lawyer
Debra Smith
Judge
carline vandenelsen, larry finck, mona-clare, public inquiry, NS, Halifax stand off, parents rights, child welfare, NS children’s aid society, halifax regional police, corruption, abuse, Minister of Justice, Michael Baker, Minister of Community Services, kidnaping, child abduction, abuse of power, political and judicial corruption, Halifax Law Courts, Shirly St., David Morse, Canadian Charter of Rights, baby snatching ring, incompetent lawyers, legal, entrapment, attack, family rights, babies, unsafe for children, abuse of single parents, social assistance, entrapment, family law, supreme court of NS, CAS,

Ontario drops runaway mom case


Wednesday, July 13, 2005 Back The Halifax Herald Limited


File
Carline VandenElsen was jailed last month for a standoff with Halifax police over a child custody case.

Ontario drops runaway mom case
No retrial for VandenElsen on charge of fleeing with triplets

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG / Staff Reporter

Carline VandenElsen won’t be retried for allegedly abducting her triplets in Ontario in October 2001.

Henry VanDrunen, assistant Crown attorney in Stratford, stayed the charges Tuesday morning in Ontario Superior Court.

“It is no longer in the public interest to continue this prosecution,” he wrote in his submission.

The stay of proceedings means that after a year, it will be as if all three counts of abducting a child under 14 in contravention of a court order were never filed. Mr. VanDrunen said he has no plans to revive the charges.

Ms. VandenElsen’s ex-husband, Craig Merkley, had asked the Crown to stop the trial from proceeding.

“After watching just the bizarre antics and behaviours with that trial down in Halifax recently, I made the decision that there’s just no way that I would subject my kids to that,” Mr. Merkley said in a telephone interview from his Stratford home.

Justice Robert Wright, when sentencing Ms. VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, two weeks ago in Nova Scotia Supreme Court for their roles in a Halifax standoff in May 2004, noted the couple’s “contemptuous conduct at trial” that “ranged from the belligerent to the bizarre.”

Ms. VandenElsen is imprisoned at the Nova Institution for Women in Truro and is not yet allowed to conduct media interviews.

She didn’t attend the Ontario hearing but her defence attorney, Tony Bryant, called her with the news and described her response as “neutral.”

“I didn’t get the sense one way or the other as to what her feelings were,” he said.

“It may well be as a result of what I understand is her ongoing fast.”

She has been on a liquid-only diet in jail, saying she would not eat until there is an investigation into her case.

Mr. Merkley said the triplets, the subject of a lengthy and acrimonious custody battle, have made slow but steady emotional gains since November 2003 when their mother was barred from contacting them. He called the time since then the most peaceful and tranquil in the 12-year-olds’ lives.

“The spectacle that this trial (in Stratford) would create would simply turn their lives upside down,” he said.

Court documents state that the triplets – Peter, Gray and Olivia – suffered emotional harm throughout the fighting.

One child became aggressive, hurt others and tried to commit suicide. Another wet the bed and the third was extremely withdrawn.

The couple divorced in 1996 but the battle for the children didn’t end even when Mr. Merkley was awarded full custody in March 2000.

That October, Ms. VandenElsen fled to Mexico with the children, then seven, during one of their weekend visits. At the time, an Ontario judge was shortly to decide what access, if any, she was to have to her children.

The triplets were found in Acapulco in January 2001 and were returned to Canada. Ms. VandenElsen was extradited and charged.

An Ontario jury acquitted her in 2001 on the basis of necessity – she said she left with the children because it would have caused them emotional harm if the court had kept her out of their lives.

The Crown won its appeal on the issue of necessity and the acquittal was overturned.

“Accordingly, no new trial is required for the purpose of resolving the legal issue of necessity; it has been settled,” Mr. VanDrunen wrote.

The Crown pointed to Ms. VandenElsen’s 3 1/2-year prison term in Nova Scotia, calling it a “substantial sentence for serious violence and abduction offences.”

Police went to a Shirley Street home in Halifax in May 2004 with a court order to seize Ms. VandenElsen’s and Mr. Finck’s infant daughter. The ensuing standoff lasted almost three days.

On May 12, a Halifax jury found Ms. VandenElsen guilty of child abduction in contravention of a court order, using a shotgun while committing a crime, threatening to assault a police officer with a shotgun, obstructing police, having an unregistered shotgun and having a shotgun dangerous to the public peace during the 66-hour standoff.

On June 29, Ms. VandenElsen was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, with 200 days shaved off for the time she spent in custody before sentencing. Her husband was also sent to prison.

The couple lost all access to their baby daughter but an appeal has been filed.

Even if Ms. VandenElsen had been found guilty on the Stratford charges, it’s unlikely she would have received a “dramatic increase in custodial sentence,” Mr. VanDrunen wrote.

The stay means Ms. VandenElsen – who Mr. Bryant said is “passionate about her cause” and has a fierce love for her children – will never know if a Stratford jury would have acquitted her again, Mr. Bryant said.

“She can always say . . . ‘I am presumed innocent. I have never been and never will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'”

Andre Lefebvre, one of Ms. VandenElsen’s supporters in Stratford who attended the hearing Tuesday, had mixed emotions about the Crown’s move.

Although the supporters knew a court fight might be hard on the children, they had hoped the triplets would finally get a chance to say what they feel in open court.

“They would be asked, ‘Were you told that you would never see your mother again?’ ” Mr. Lefebvre said. “And they (authorities) would have to look into this whole thing.

“I think that he (Mr. Merkley) has way more to lose in this situation.”

The support group meets regularly and maintains a website on the VandenElsen case. The members planned to meet again Tuesday night to digest the news and plan their next move.

For now, Mr. Lefebvre remains hopeful about his friend’s future.

“It is my hope that Carline will keep quiet and not exacerbate the public opinion or the legal opinion against her by anything she will do from this point on,” Mr. Lefebvre said.

“It is my secret hope and prayer that she will bite the bullet and realize that as soon as she comes out of jail in 3 1/2 years or before, her children will be 16 and they will have the right to choose where they want to live.”

Mr. Bryant said his client plans to apply for a transfer to a prison in Kitchener, Ont., to be close to her family.

“Maybe somehow she still has a dream that maybe she’ll get a chance to see her children, but that will be their choice, not hers,” he said.

Mr. Merkley said he was unaware of his ex-wife’s wishes.


Back

All family laws are subjective laws and that is how they survive.


ALL the famly laws are subjective laws and that is how they survive. Until you understand the difference and start educating the ones who live by them , HOW CAN IT CHANGE??? quit begging start educating there army with the truth! This is what they all NEED TO KNOW! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phproductstaxrevolt/
HELP SMASH THE ILLUSIONS! They are the criminals, NOT US!
THEY ARE THE ONES WHO NEED TO CHOOSE SIDES.
Us or the system
————————————————————————————
Subjective Laws vs. Objective Laws
Refer to http://www.neo-tech.com/golden-helmet/new-words.html

Subjective Laws include political-agenda laws conjured up by politicians and bureaucrats to gain self-serving benefits, ego props, and unearned power. Enforcement of political-agenda laws requires the use of force and armed agents against innocent people. …The only purpose of such laws is to violate individual rights.

Objective Laws are not conjured up by politicians or bureaucrats. Instead, like the laws of physics, they arise from the immutable laws of nature. Such laws are valid, benefit everyone, and advance society. Objective laws are based on the moral prohibition of initiatory force, threats of force, and fraud. The only rational purpose of laws is to protect individual rights.

Definition of Natural Law
Refer to http://www.neo-tech.com/pax-b1/a2.php

Below is Cicero’s definition of natural law from his book On the Republic published in 51 BC (substitute the secular word “Nature” for the mystical word “God”):

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature, universal, consistent, everlasting, whose nature is to advocate duty by prescription and to deter wrongdoing by prohibition. Good men obey its prescriptions and prohibitions, but evil men disobey them. It is forbidden by God to alter this law, nor is it permissible to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish the whole of it. Neither the Senate nor the People can absolve us from obeying this law and we do not need to look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of this law. There will not be one law at Rome and another law at Athens. There is now and will be forever one law, valid for all peoples and all times. And there will be one master and ruler for all of us in common, God, who is the author of this law, its promulgator, and enforcing judge. Whoever does not obey this law is trying to escape himself and to deny his nature as a human being. By this very fact, he will suffer the greatest penalties, even if he should somehow escape conventional punishments.”

Philosophy Index Top

The Constitution of the Universe
Refer to http://www.neo-tech.com/pax-b1/a1.php

(1976)

Preamble

* The purpose of conscious life is to prosper and live happily.

* The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that let individuals
fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a universal
constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any
person or group against any individual.

* * *

ARTICLE 1

No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force,
or fraud against any individual’s self or property.

ARTICLE 2

Force is morally-and-legally justified only for protection from those who violate Article 1.

ARTICLE 3

No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

* * *
The Constitution of the Universe rests on six axioms:

1. Values exist only relative to life.

2. Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism. Whatever harms
a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.

3. The value against which all values are measured is conscious life.

4. Morals relate only to conscious individuals.

5. Immoral actions arise from individuals who harm others through force, fraud,
or coercion — from individuals who usurp, degrade, or destroy values earned by others.

6. Moral actions arise from individuals who honestly create and competitively
produce values to benefit self, others, and society.

http://www.objectivehappiness.com/notes4.htm#laws

What Evil is Happening to Our Children?



The interest of the parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” U.S. Supreme Court, 2000

“Although the dispute is symbolized by a ‘versus’ which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of the line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose well-being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child’s right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents’ wisdom, judgement and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce.” Judge Dorothy T. Beasley, Georgia Court of Appeals, “In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child,” July 2, 1993
“There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System.” Judge Brian Lindsay Retired Supreme Court Judge, New York.

“There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation.” Judge Watson L. White Superior Court Judge, Cobb County, Georgia



The interest of the parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.” U.S. Supreme Court, 2000

“Although the dispute is symbolized by a ‘versus’ which signifies two adverse parties at opposite poles of a line, there is in fact a third party whose interests and rights make of the line a triangle. That person, the child who is not an official party to the lawsuit but whose well-being is in the eye of the controversy, has a right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it. Inherent in the express public policy is a recognition of the child’s right to equal access and opportunity with both parents, the right to be guided and nurtured by both parents, the right to have major decisions made by the application of both parents’ wisdom, judgement and experience. The child does not forfeit these rights when the parents divorce.” Judge Dorothy T. Beasley, Georgia Court of Appeals, “In the Interest of A.R.B., a Child,” July 2, 1993
“There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System.” Judge Brian Lindsay Retired Supreme Court Judge, New York.

“There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation.” Judge Watson L. White Superior Court Judge, Cobb County, Georgia

Get Carline VandenElsen’s Book and Read for Yourself





“America’s Most Wanted Mother”

by Carline VandenElsen.

Now Available, for a limited time only.

Carline VandenElsen’s own true story that sent this nation into a frency with a partiacularly distorted account of a mother, turned fugitive who fled with her triplet children. Followin an international search VandenElsen was returned to Canada, charged with abduction, and tried by jury.

NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF NECESSITY.

Her Majesty the Queen is appealing her acquittal though, arguing she had alternatives to running…

POWER, POLITICS, PERSONAL AGENDAS
VandenElsen exposes the exploits of the

CANADIAN FAMILY LAW SYSTEM

Who really abducted her children?

America’s Most Wanted Mother.

revealing closedted decrees of judicial standards with
beguiling honest and bouts of black humour.

Intriguing and testing the human mind, the (m)other
side leaves decetn souls and democratic criers outraged!

FAMILY, the backbone of society.

By law the State is supposed to protect it, not break it!

  • A kindred treatise for other floundering families
  • A challenge for legal and social science professions
  • An assurance for the spiritually challenged
  • Ana a sure to be, coming soon to a theater near you.

ON SALE NOW. GET YOUR COPY BEFORE THEY ARE ALL GONE. NOW ONLY $15.00 (Includes shipping and handling) All funds reserved for Carline VandenElsen for the day she is free again.
Corruption has reared it’s ugly head again. They have struck again! Currently serving 31/5 years for refusing to give up her newborn, to the corrupt Family and Children Services of NS.

Send $15 to
Brauer and Harris, 1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0 Phone 902.798.5267
or via paypal, cbrauer@lincsat.com

Your book will be sent out immediate by Canada Post. Allow 6-8 weeks for delivery. Chances are you will get it much sooner.

Connie and Vic