Open letter to Jack Layton, NDP, or No Dads Party


Contact: Kris Titus, National Coordinator
Phone: 1-888-345-2262
ext. 704

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 12, 2008
Open Letter
from F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada to Hon. Jack
Layton

2008-08-12 VIA EMAIL AND REGISTERED MAIL

F4J Fathers 4
Justice Canada,
202-812 12th Street,
New Westminster , BC V3M
4K1

Hon. Jack Layton, M.P.
Leader of the NDP,
221 Broadview
Avenue-Suite 100,
Toronto , ON M4M 2G4

Dear Mr. Layton:
Re: NDP
Policy on Equal Parenting

We are pleased to note from your CTV
interview of 2008-08-08 that you describe yourself as
“accessible” and with a “reputation for responding well and
fast”. Regrettably, your constituency staff have not been
responding to telephone calls, emails and letters on Equal
Parenting from numerous Canadians and our members, sometimes for
months on end.

We therefore submit this Open Letter on Equal
Parenting to you, and invite you to likewise respond in public,
either directly or via response that we shall release to the
media:

1. Does the NDP support parliamentary Private Members
Motion M-483 on Equal Parenting?

M-483 — April 11, 2008 —
Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That, in the opinion of
the House, the government should propose amendments to the
Divorce Act so that law and practice ensure due process
protection of rights and equality of parents, and to ensure that
children benefit from equal parenting from both their mother and
their father, after separation or divorce.

2. If not, what
amendment is the NDP prepared to put forward to make the motion
acceptable?
3. Will the NDP publicly commit to allow its members
an unfettered free vote on M-483 free from party discipline and
sanctions?

4. What is the official NDP policy on Equal
Parenting, and, should it not have one, when will the NDP commit
to publishing a policy in public?

We note that in a February
2007 SES Poll, 79% of Canadians, and 76 % of NDP voters
supported Equal Parenting in response to the question:

“Do
you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or
strongly oppose federal and provincial legislation to create a
presumption of equal parenting in child custody cases? ”

We
believe Equal Parenting and Family Rights are too important to
be partisan issues, and we seek all-party support for long
overdue family law reform. If Denmark and Australia , among
others, can adopt equal parenting provisions, there is no reason
for Canada to be a laggard.

While we note with favour that
Mr. Paul Dewar will apparently be tabling a Private Members Bill
(PMB) this autumn to help equalize tax treatment for divorced
parents, we specifically seek your position on more substantive
Equal Parenting issues that are clearly important to most
Canadians and NDP supporters, as polls indicate.

Should we
not hear from you in ten business days, we shall reasonably
conclude that you have explicitly chosen not make yourself
accessible to Canadians and the media after all.

F4J
Fathers-4-Justice ( Canada ) advocates for Equal Parenting and
Family Law reform on behalf of those children and parents
brutalized and bankrupted by the current divorce industry. We
pride ourselves on our twin track campaign of non-violent direct
action and political activism. It’s time for all
parliamentarians to address this national tragedy for the sake
of the children.

In good faith,

Kris Titus

National Co-ordinator
office@fathers-4-justice-canada.ca

1-888-345-2262 ext. 704

copy: Media List
copy: All
Federal Members of Parliament
copy: Representatives Family
Rights Movement

Advertisements

Police make a peaceful demonstration, unsafe for everybody.


Following sent to CTV News

Go to the following url and read the Press Release by the Toronto
Police with respect to the F4J Demonstration at Jack LAYTON’s office
on 08 Aug 08.

http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/newsreleases/pdfs/14711.pdf

Go to the following url and view the photos of the men on the roof of
Jack LAYTON’s office. NOTE: The police refer to this as a house. Note
that Plywoodman is wearing a safety harness. Could this be confused
with a noose in full daylight. Do persons threatening suicide
normally wear a full safety harness.

Your full raw footage may also be viewed. I know it will produce
nothing to support the Toronto Police Press Release.

http://www.f4jcanada.com/OntarioPages/No_Dads_Party_August_08_08.html

The arrest of Mr. BOGAN was filmed and broadcast by your Toronto
station. Did any of your personnel on scene obtain footage of
a “noose”

Below find the text of a letter sent to the 55 Division. Confirmed
received by phone on the evening of 08 August, 2008.
Toronto Police Service
Officer in Charge, 55 Division

Via Fax 416-808-5502

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have received information that you are holding two of our
members in custody resulting from what began as a peaceful non
criminal demonstration, and was escalated into dangerous incident by
the actions of the Toronto Police.

In this letter I will not belabour the doctrine of reasonable
and probable grounds. I am sure you are well versed in them and in
the haste to create a spectacle they were simply forgotten and or
ignored by your members.

I have heard reports that our members will be charged. The
proposed charges on the news reports are trespassing and or mischief.
I have also heard “interfering with public property” I will write
that off as either a very inexperienced police officer or a media
error. I have also heard “vandalism” which would in effect be
mischief. To my knowledge there was no damage done by our members.

With respect to the proposed charge of trespassing, the only
criminal charges with respect to trespassing would be trespass by
night, at or near a dwelling house. From the information I have
received it appears that the building involved in this is a
commercial building, in any event the time involved is the daylight
hours thus negating any criminal charge.

With respect to a possible charge of mischief. Two protesters
on a flat roof protesting for their civil rights in no way interferes
with anyone. The only interference in this incident was actions of
members of the Toronto Police Service.

In a free and democratic society it is the right of all
citizens to peacefully protest. There are of course laws limiting
that right. The proper procedure in the case of this trespass would
be for the owner of the property in question to, either directly
themselves, or by an authorized agent, request that the protesters
leave their property. If the protesters refused the next step would
be for the owner to apply for an injunction in the Superior Court of
Justice compelling the protesters to vacate the property. Once the
protesters were informed of the court injunction and if they then
still refused to leave then the matter would be a matter for police
action in enforcing the Superior Court injunction.

The police are agents of the State, not a private security
agency. Your officers do not and should not deal with matters which
are not a breach of the peace and involve civil matters. As stated
above, if your services are required it is the jurisdiction of the
courts to give you such direction.

I therefore demand the immediate release of our members. As
the Officer in charge of 55 Division we, as of the time of receipt of
this letter, hold you personally responsible for the unlawful
detention of our members Denis VanDecker, and Mark Bogan. Your
personal responsibility in this matter does not of course absolve the
Toronto Police Service of liability for the continued unlawful
detention as a result of unlawful arrest of our aforsaid members.

A subsequent release of our members by the courts under any
conditions does not absolve you and or the Toronto Police Service of
liability in this unlawful arrest and detention.

You may contact me at (778) 837-1224

Hal Legere, VP and Director of Legal Affairs
Fathers-4-Justice (Canada)

Tiananmen Square in Canada!


A demonstrator is taken into custody after a protest atop the roof of NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday, August 8, 2008.
A demonstrator is taken into custody after a protest atop the roof of NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday, August 8, 2008.
A demonstrator, dressed as the superhero Plywood Man is seen with police on the roof of federal NDP Leader Jack Layton's Toronto office on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008.
A demonstrator dressed as ‘Plywood Man’ is seen with police on the roof of federal NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008.

Charges laid after ‘superheroes’ climb NDP office roof

ctvtoronto.ca

Police have laid trespassing charges after protesters dressed as superheroes dropped a banner from the roof of federal NDP Leader Jack Layton’s Toronto office on Friday.

The demonstrators, one dressed as Spider-Man and the other as Plywood Man, said they were protesting for family law reform for fathers in custody disputes.

The incident at 221 Broadview Ave., near Dundas Street, was organized by Fathers 4 Justice.

Heavily armed Emergency Task Force officers responded to the incident and evacuated employees from the building as a precaution.

The man dressed as Spider-Man had planned to rappel down from the roof, but later surrendered to police.

However, Plywood Man refused to turn himself in. Officers used some kind of explosive device as a distraction and then moved in and made the arrest.

The men face charges of trespassing, mischief and vandalism. The protest tied up police for hours.

Layton, who wasn’t in the office, said he doesn’t know much about the group or why his office was targeted.

“It really just came out of the blue,” Layton told CTV Newsnet.

For more info on this story Click Here:

CTV News

An email from the group.

To follow tomorrow is a heartwarming note from Spiderman and another activists account/edited.
  1. At approximately 6AM members of F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada commandeered the rooftop of NDP Leader Jack Laytons constituency office located at 221 Broadview Avenue, Toronto, ON. With them were supplies to last for several days. Included in these supplies were food, change of clothes, shelter and a home made toilet consisting of a bucket and a pool ring.
  2. Two activists, Plywoodman and Spiderman remained on the rooftop for several hours out of sight and set up their lawnchairs to have a good rest and chat before the sh*t hit the fan.
  3. While waiting for their signal to initiate, the heros were seen by an onlooker having his morning cigarette on his balcony. No action was taken by any individuals at this time.
  4. At approximately 9:40AM the two heroes put their banner over the rooftop reading NDads Party.
  5. The Supersonic Plymobile was stationed out front for added visual effect.
  6. At approximately 10:00AM the owner of the building arrived and told them to leave. He confronted the heros on the roof and told them to just jump. He also threw a bunch of their belongings about and returned to threaten them throughout.
  7. By approximately 10:30AM 680 news had arrived on scene and began broadcasting live from the scene every 20 mins.
  8. Shortly after 10:30AM the police arrived. Police were told this was a non-violent direct action being organized by F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada. 
  9. At approx. 12:00PM the police were seen going to the rooftop with Tasers
  10. A firetruck was called and arrived on the scene.
  11. At approximately 12:30PM additional officers arrived and began cordoning off the street up to 4 blocks in total.
  12. ETF officers arrive on the scene.
  13. A negotiator arrives on the scene.
  14. At aproximately 12:50 PM a member of F4J was arrested on the ground. 
  15. Another F4J Fathers 4 Justice representative arrives shortly thereafter to assess the scene and continue interviews and sending updates back to HO.
  16. The report is that heavily armed ETF officers are on scene. A police negotiator is on scene. A psychiatrist is on scene. A hydro truck is one scene. A firetruck is on scene. There are approximately 80-100 onlookers, some chanting, ” Let them see their kids!”
  17. Despite news reports that the constituency office had been evacuated, one of Jack Layton’s aids comes out to the back alley and has a cigarette with one of our supporters on the scene at approximately 2:00PM
  18. Other reports indicate that their were other staffers inside the Layton office who verified they knew of our organization and what our cause and issues were.
  19. At approximately 3:00PM Spiderman is brought down from the building on the understanding they will release him when his buddy on the roof comes down. He recounts being told by the police on the rooftop that they were going to be shot. He recounts that Plywoodman is in control, not as reported, and did a great job remaining calm while negotiating with the ETF. He also reports that the onsite psychiatrist has stated Plywoodman is indeed sane and not a threat to jump. ** global News  report says he was down at 2:34   pm … but he also did not show up at police station until 5:30’ish

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/ontario/story.html?id=0caf70dd-6dfb-4d94-9b18-2bb1ca7768b4

  1. Spiderman is held inside the Layton office for two hours while negotiations continue with Plywoodman on the roof. They keep asking him how they got up there. He tells them he is Spiderman. He is told by police they are going to shoot his buddy.
  2. At approximately 3:30PM Kris Titus, National Coordinator for F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada calls the 55 Division and speaks to the Sergeant on duty. She identifies herself and tells them she has been briefed on the situation they are dealing with. She asks if it would be helpful for her to attend the scene and assist the negotiators. The Sergeant says yes, that may be helpful, when you get there speak to Sergeant Walsh or Sergeant McGregor.
  3. Reports are that the officers on the scene were informed that the National Coordinator was on her way and what the purpose was.
  4. At approximately 5:00PM ETF officers deploy 3 flash grenades to distract Plywoodman while a significant contingent ( reports are 6-10 ) of ETF officers tackle him on the rooftop and take him into custody. ** you can see it on the CTV news coverage .. looks like  6 to me on the tackle with 3 -4  more hovering

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080808/trespass_charges_080808/20080808/?hub=TorontoNewHome

  1. Kris arrives on the scene at approximately 5:45 and the only remaining individuals are one F4J representative, a traffic officer and tow truck and a 55 Division detective. The Plymobile gets towed to the police impound yard.
  2. At approximately 6:00PM Kris arrives at the police station to ensure
    1. That all three activists have been able to contact and speak to designated legal council
    2. That Plywoodman receives a medical examination as well as the proposed psychiatric assessment ( which he knew ahead of time they may send him for )
    3. What the proposed charges are if they will be released that evening.
  • The officer on duty of course lies and says yes, they have all made their call to council.
  • The officer on duty will not tell Kris anything or go ask permission from the activists to give this information.
  • Kris speaks to legal counsel and updates her on situation. She has only spoken to 1 of our activists, contrary to police officer’s statement. She calls and is told they will not be let out because investigation continues.
  • Kris speak to legal counsel again at 10:00PM and is told they are in for the night and have a bail hearing the next morning.
  • F4J Fathers 4 Justice legal counsel and supporters attend at WRONG courthouse in the morning. Continue on to correct location when information is obtained. Legal counsel is sent to WRONG courtroom and it is only upon further investigation it is learned that the activists are in another courtroom, Plywood man has already been held ( with durty counsel participation ) for psychiatric assessment and other two activists ahve been brought up and taken back down to await their counsel.
  • Police officers monitor groups progress and continually take ‘head count’.
  • Approximately 11:30AM court begins. Crown attorney ‘interrogates’ surety for 20 minutes. Many questions are completely unrelated to the assessment of a person’s ability to act as surety. Steps made by the crown include: 

      1. Trying to prohibit activists from wearing their F4J tshirts claiming they should be treated as ‘colors’ and compares it to Satan’s Choice bike gang. Judge thankfully says, this is a stretch.
      1. Crown makes argument that Mr. Layton has been ‘targeted’.
      2. Crown is able to convince judge to put in bail condition that the two charged activists cannot participate in ANY form of protest.
      3. The crown asks that one bail condition be that they cannot attend at ANY elected officials constituency office ( pronounced CONSTITUTION about 5 times by the Judge! ) without prior written permission.
      4. Activists are to be released on $10,000 bail!
      5. Crown asks both sureties if they feel police over reacted, both said in their opinion YES! Both reiterated it was a peaceful protest.
      6. Crown tries to establish that activist on the ground is ‘ring leader’.
    1. Ground support and Spiderman are released, both have since been told to remain quiet about events until they have been properly briefed by legal council.
    2. Plywoodman remains in custody and will hopefully be released Monday morning.
    3. Return date for first appearance for first two released is Friday, August 15th @ 10:00AM
    4. Other attorney approaches us outside courtroom and is expressing his ANGER at what was allowed to happen in the courtroom. Subsequently two more lawyers express their anger and dismay.
    5. Fathers 4 Justice UK member climbs judges house in England!

    Next steps

    An open letter is being issued to Mr. Layton to answer on the issue of equal parenting and to assess if there is any change in support for M483. To be sent Monday AM.

    Any constituents of Jack Layton please contact us to be included in this meeting should it occur.

    If no response or insufficient response received by Thursday, August 14th in the PM a peaceful street level protest will be staged at 221 Broadview Avenue after the first appearance of the F4J Fathers 4 Justice superheros and support.

    F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada will be making official complaint about police conduct and charter violations so as to protect our activists from such extreme measures. Please know that despite the measures used by police, F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada activists have NO INTENTION of stopping their current campaign and course of action. ( We do note that not all officers were hostile or aggressive! )

    We will defend our right to peaceful protest and non-violent direct action.

    Any questions please direct them specifically to myself

    Kris Titus – National Coordinator, F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada,

    officefathers4justicecanada@gmail.com

    Hal Legere – Legal Director – F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada,

    Rob Robinson – National Action Coordinator, F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada.

    We are greatly appreciative of all the support our activists have received.

    The ratio of congrats to complains is approx 10:1.

    Most sincerely;

    Kris Titus

    FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF THE The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

    EVERYONE HAS THE FOLLOWING FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS:

    A) FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION

    B) FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, BELIEF, OPINION, AND EXPRESSION, INCLUDING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

    AND OTHER MEDIA OF COMMUNICATIONS;

    C) FREEDOM OF PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY; AND

    D) FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

    “Your Guide to the The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.

    Get your copy by calling       1 819 994 3458

    Connie Brauer, activist


  • __,_.

    The Feminest Agenda makes criminals out of Dads


    One Brave Judge Resists Feminist Agenda

    Phyllis Schlafly

    08/05/2008

    For more info on this story, click here

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27902

    A New Jersey judge recently confronted an issue that courts have been avoiding for years: Are restraining orders constitutional? Accused criminals have “due process” and many other constitutional rights, but feminists have persuaded many judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminals and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations.

    These restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, yet they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.

    Anibal and Vivian Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the same household when they had a fight, and Vivian asked for a restraining order. Anibal was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the restraining order, which banned Anibal from his own house and thereby separated him from his children.

    Anibal made several good arguments that the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz rejected most of those arguments, but he cited a long line of cases holding that “clear and convincing evidence” is required in order to take away fundamental rights, such as a parent’s right over the care and custody of his children.

    Feminists are in an uproar about Judge Schultz’s decision and would like the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse it. Feminists want courts to uphold a woman’s right to kick a man out of his home based on a woman’s unverified accusations.

    Family courts are notorious for issuing restraining orders based on one woman’s unsupported request. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’ ”

    People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order. Too often, the order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute.

    Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to retain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence, which doesn’t have to be physical or proven, did not involve the children at all.

    The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another case, U.S. v. Hayes, to decide whether an old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can bar a man from ever owning a gun. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not have guns, but misdemeanors are minor offenses that usually carry no jail time.

    Under feminist pressure, most courts have interpreted federal law broadly to deprive millions of men of their gun rights. However, in the Hayes case, a 2-1 majority on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had the courage to stand up to feminists and rule that Hayes had no fair warning that prosecutors would stretch the definition of domestic violence to include his minor offense.

    Randy Edward Hayes had a dispute with his wife in 1994, pled guilty to misdemeanor battery, and served one year of probation. Ten years later, he was prosecuted for having a Winchester rifle in his West Virginia home....For more info, click here.

    Who killed the electric car? Absolutely amazing…


    Dear Editor,
    After watching the documentary on “Who killed the electric car?” and visiting their site at
    to our energy, oil and gas situation.
    GM built the most efficient, non polluting, non gas guzzling car and it was scrapped  when  big oil and government
    decided to protect their financial interests at the expense of the people, their lives and their wallets and their
    grandchildrens’ future.
    All the bs about saving energy, saving the planet, cutting down on emissions etc. has now been debunked.
    It’s all crap!  Here is a short synopsis  from the documentaries site.

    Synopsis

    WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? chronicles the life and mysterious

    death of the GM EV1, examining its cultural and economic ripple

    effects and how they reverberated through the halls of government

    and big business.

    The year is 1990. California is in a pollution crisis. Smog threatens

    public health. Desperate for a solution, the California Air Resources

    Board (CARB) targets the source of its problem: auto exhaust.

    Inspired by a recent announcement from General Motors about an

    electric vehicle prototype, the Zero Emissions Mandate (ZEV) is born.

    It required 2% of new vehicles sold in California to be emission-free by

    1998, 10% by 2003. It is the most radical smog-fighting mandate

    since the catalytic converter.

    With a jump on the competition thanks to its speed-record-breaking

    electric concept car, GM launches its EV1 electric vehicle in 1996. It

    was a revolutionary modern car, requiring no gas, no oil changes, no

    mufflers, and rare brake maintenance (a billion-dollar industry unto

    itself). A typical maintenance checkup for the EV1 consisted of

    replenishing the windshield washer fluid and a tire rotation.

    But the fanfare surrounding the EV1’s launch disappeared and the cars

    followed. Was it lack of consumer demand as car makers claimed, or

    were other persuasive forces at work?

    Fast forward to 6 years later… The fleet is gone. EV charging stations

    dot the California landscape like tombstones, collecting dust and spider

    webs. How could this happen? Did anyone bother to examine the

    evidence? Yes, in fact, someone did. And it was murder.

    The electric car threatened the status quo.

    For more info, click here.

    It was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever built. It

    ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American

    technology to the forefront of the automotive industry. The lucky few

    who drove it never wanted to give it up. So why did General Motors

    crush its fleet of EV1 electric vehicles in the Arizona desert?

    I am asking our Canadian government to get involved and bring back the EV1.

    We the people demand clean air, clean cars and no emissions. Get with it.

    This letter will be reprinted on our website. Link to us at

    http://www.stopthetorture.info

    Live Free,
    Sincerely,
    Connie Brauer
    1061 Mines Rd.
    Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
    Canada
    Phone and Fax: 902.798.5267 (Office hours 9-8 AT)
    Email: cbrauer@lincsat.com
    Skype Me = connieandvic
    www.skype.com
    ==========================