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

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

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


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

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

Dear Mr. Layton:
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

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
3. Will the NDP publicly commit to allow its members
an unfettered free vote on M-483 free from party discipline and

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:

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? ”

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.

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

1-888-345-2262 ext. 704

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


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.

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.

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)