F.A.C.T. brings you the news .......recent news items of interest and some old ones

Go to the News Index

Dad 'feels like dirt'
Thursday, May 24, 2001, Andy Ivens, The Province
A tremendously bad judgement. For courts that are supposed to keep legislation from violating the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this court, and Madame Justices Southin and Newbury show they are as biased and bigotted colours as the legislators. By supporting the legislation here while overthrowing legislation that does not fit their biases one can see the result of bad legislation and an inconsistent judiciary. Quotes from the decision are included here, and you can read the judgement at http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/01/03/2001BCCA0368.htm (yes, we downloaded a copy for the time that the revisionists change this one.) Two things to look for, as to why JOINT responsibility is unacceptable:

Sorry, Darrell
Friday, May 25, 2001, Lynne Jasper, The Province
One women's comments on the destruction of Darrell Trociuk and his children.

Judge's 'ribald' remark excused
Saturday, May 19, 2001, Margaret Philp, The Globe and Mail
Ribald? Not ribald at all, but a clear and biased comment accurately showing not only the appearance of bias, but the presence of bias, from Madam Justice Helen MacLeod. If you want to be more afraid, you can also read (a lead member of the radical NAWL and virulent anti-father lawyer) Carole Curtis's accurate comments about how "more and more family-law cases being settled outside the courtroom, beyond the earshot of splitting couples and court reporters" in the back room by judges biases with a total lack of evidence or standards -- or equality before the law. This is a "be afraid" article.

Court orders divorce upgrade
Saturday, May 12, 2001, Sam Pazzano, Toronto Sun
The Toronto Sun comes up with some of the real facts. It is clear, men can never get ahead if the woman wants a divorce -- even if she is a total incompetant, a man (who is not a judge) must pay and pay and pay. Justice Paisley should be ashamed of himself. Undoubtedly he is, instead, proud of the chaos and damaged children resulting from his bad decisions.
Club dread
Saturday, May 12, 2001, Heather Bird, Toronto Sun
Bird tells it like it is, including Justice Victor Paisley's biases.
`Ex' must share windfall four years later
Friday, May 11, 2001, Donovan Vincent, The Toronto Star
Story misses a lot of points that should be salient. The assets are divided as of the date of separation. This is talking about the date the divorce was signed. A long time between. As well, this poor woman is getting about $120,000 a year in pre-tax dollars. She obviously is just incapable. So why does she have the children? Where is her obligation under the divorce act to get a job and support herself? You can see that judges are the highest paid occupation in Canada by the innanity of Justice Victor Paisley's decision. What turkeys!

The custodial connection
Monday, May 14, 2001, Karen Thomas, National Post
The almighty computer is, at best, a fancy phone....it is no parent, and the interaction is inadequate for children and parents.
Divorce dilemma: Online visits
Sunday, May 6, 2001, David Crary, Charlotte Observer
The insanity continues.
The Webcam Dad
Monday, December 18, 2000, The Mirror
If you ever had doubts about the disturbingly dysfunctional people in the divorce industry, this will let you know just where their head is at. No wonder our children have so many problems.

National Post editorial cartoon for Mothers Day
Saturday, May 12, 2001, National Post
A comment on the changing nature of parenthood. Equally applicable to Dad's day.

Poll reveals skepticism about role of judges
Friday, May 11, 2001, Robert Matas, The Globe and Mail
Canadians know that judges are biased. So far, only the judges seem not to know.

Coming from Venus can be a costly trip, fellas
Sunday, May 13, 2001, Mindelle Jacobs, Edmonton Sun
Even Jacobs cannot fathom the stupidity of the Ontario Court of Appeal (based on the Supreme Court) and their decision in Miglin v. Miglin. Time to emigrate to a country with real laws, and not just bigotry.
Hey guys, let death do you part
Thursday, May 3, 2001, Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail
Another clear realisation of the blatant bigotry of Judge Rosalie Abella, the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the courts in general. I wonder if they think we are all as dumb as Carol Curtis and the National Association of Women and the Law (NAWL) and the Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) think we are. Of course, they are publicly funded so we know the politicians are that dumb.
Court ruling puts divorce deals in doubt
Thursday, May 3, 2001, Mindelle Jacobs, Edmonton Sun
Jacobs adds to the commentary as the sheer inanity of this decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal: "It's pretty sad when responsible adults can't rely on separation agreements and move on with their lives. Furthermore, Linda has done women a great disservice. ... she signed an agreement, knew the consequences and went whining to court anyway. The impression it leaves is that women are gold diggers - forever plotting to screw their ex-husbands." Perhaps the gold diggers should be recognised to include the judges and lawyers who brought you this terrible decision.
No means no
Wednesday, May 2, 2001, Michael A. Menear, National Post
A family law lawyers comments -- negatively -- on the biases of the Ontario Court of Appeal (and the Supreme Court).
Divorce wars
Wednesday, May 2, 2001, Jean Sonmor, Toronto Sun
Divorced columnist identifies the bigotry and unfariness of Judge Rosalie Abella -- but laughs it off. I guess she didn't read about the Court feeling that women are not capable of thinking and negotiating an arrangement. The bigotry of enforced victimhood and enslavement is the call of this ruling.
'Sexual duties' part of divorce ruling?
Tuesday, May 1, 2001, Mark Dunn, Toronto Sun
Senator Cools talks about how ludicrous the decision is.
Divorce deals never final: court
Saturday, April 28, 2001, Cristin Schmitz, National Post
A totally inappropriate judgement in Miglin v. Miglin that rushes to throw out the concept of personal responsibility for women -- at the cost solely of a man that had anything to do with her. This is simply the trend of the courts to demonise men while making women weak and incapable of being trusted to make even the most basic of decisions. We all end up victimised by these judges, who are totally unaccountable to anyone. It is time for radical change to get rid of these power-mongers who are set on destroying us all. You can read this insane decision at http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2001/april/miglin.htm.

Double standard behind bars
Thursday, May 3, 2001, Donna Laframboise, National Post
More judges' gender bigotry -- and the resulting epidemic of deaths -- is discussed by Donna Laframboise.

Legal aid clinic to continue controversial no-abuser rule
Thursday, May 3, 2001, Tracey Tyler, The Toronto Star
With much political manipulation, deceit and subterfuge, York University continues to commit to train their students with degrading gender biases, to openly flaunt the human rights laws of the country and the province for programs funded with public money, and to act unprofessionally. Is this their way to train lawyers -- to ignore the truth, to ignore the law and to ignore professionalism>

Rod down on marriage
Tuesday, May 1, 2001, Mark Reynolds, Toronto Sun
Rod Stewart gives up.

Go to the News Index