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,

Canadian Civil Rights Association

Canadian Civil Rights Association

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

Potholes litter path to public inquiry

Potholes litter path to public inquiry

By Stephen Kimber
The Daily News

It’s been an interesting week on the other side of the media trenches.
I’ve recently become a member of a community group pushing for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the infant child of Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen. I usually steer clear of joining such groups, partly because I already have a pulpit for my views, partly because I want to maintain my independence and partly — if I am to be honest — because I hate meetings.

But I’d become frustrated only writing about this particular case. Since the May 2004 highly publicized 67-hour standoff between Finck and VandenElsen and a heavily armed police swat team, I’ve written a half-dozen columns outlining my concerns about the role the Children’s Aid Society and Family Court played in taking this child from its parents, and about the massive use of police force to do it.

Each column generated e-mails, letters and phone calls, many from ordinary readers with no direct connection to the case or personal histories with Children’s Aid, most supporting my call for a public inquiry and many asking what they could do to help make an inquiry happen.

My only suggestion — that they write their MLA — seemed lame and unlikely to have much effect without an organized campaign behind it.

So when I got a call a few weeks ago from author Heather Laskey, a resident of the neighbourhood where the standoff took place, inviting me to a meeting she and some others were holding to discuss what they could do to right what they too saw as a wrong, I quickly agreed.

Last week, we — now known as the MCF Inquiry Committee (MCF is how the infant is described in court documents) — called a news conference to explain why a public inquiry is needed and to announce the committee’s plans to insert an advertisement in the next day’s Halifax Chronicle-Herald. The ad would outline the case for a public inquiry and encourage readers to write Justice Minister Michael Baker demanding one.

Just before the news conference, however, a Herald official called to say the paper wouldn’t run our ad without editorial changes (reasonable ones, in fact, to which we quickly agreed), and unless — as well as paying upfront for the ad — each member of the committee signed a letter to “indemnify and hold harmless The Halifax Herald Ltd., its officers and individuals acting on its behalf from any claims or causes of action” that might result from the ad.

That unusual request — when was the last time any newspaper asked Sobeys officials to sign a waiver absolving the paper of legal responsibility for the contents of their ads? — isn’t really so unusual in this very unusual case.

Ever since the standoff, in fact, media outlets have been grappling with a difficult dilemma: what can they legally publish or broadcast?

On the one hand, this is a child-custody case, and there are very clear rules in place that prohibit publishing any information that might reveal the identities of children involved in such cases.

On the other hand, the standoff — shotgun fired, police emergency response teams, snipers on roofs, neighbourhood evacuated — was a major news event that could not be understood without writing about the custody issue that triggered it all.

To complicate matters, the story raised a number of important questions of legitimate public interest. Were Children’s Aid and Family Court really acting in “the best interests of the child” when they took the five-month-old from her parents, or were they vindictively punishing two admittedly difficult parents for challenging their arbitrary authority? Did the police act appropriately, or did the massive deployment of police power actually create the crisis that followed?

How do you ask those questions without writing about the custody issue?

Even now, no one seems quite sure how to juggle these competing pressures. It took CBC Radio, for example, more than five hours and eight local newscasts’ worth of internal discussion last week to finally decide to run a story about our committee’s call for a public inquiry.

And the Herald, which had published its own first-rate, four-day series on the background to the case last week — the first real attempt to put the issues and personalities in context since Richard Cuthbertson’s excellent story on Larry Finck’s personal history appeared in The Daily News immediately after the standoff — decided not to post its own series on its website on the advice of its lawyers.

(Having raised the issue of how other media outlets have dealt with the story, I should note — gratefully — that my editors have not censored or substantively altered any of the columns I’ve written about the case.)

But this media conundrum — like the standoff circus and the courtroom craziness — is ultimately beside the point.

We are still left with questions — Why did authorities take the child in the first place? Who authorized the use of massive force to seize the child? Why does the child not have her own independent legal representation in court? What external checks and balances are in place to make sure that Children’s Aid, Family Court and the Community Services Department act in the interest of the child? — that can only be answered by a full, independent and public inquiry.

If you agree, I encourage you to write (5151 Terminal Rd., Halifax, N.S. B3J 2L6), call (902-424-4044) or e-mail the justice minister (bakermg@gov.ns.ca or

michaelbakermla@ns.sympatico.ca demanding he appoint such an inquiry.
It won’t happen otherwise.

Stephen.Kimber@ukings.ns.ca

DONATE NOW! STOP THE TORTURE

FOLKS,
THIS IS A WORLDWIDE CALL TO STOP THE EVIL, ABUSE AND CORRUPTION IN THIS CASE. PLEASE DONATE.
HELP STOP THE TORTURE,
LIVE FOR JUSTICE!

DONATE NOW.
SEND CHECK TO:
BRAUER AND HARRIS
1061 MINES RD. FALMOUTH, NS B0P 1L0
CALL US 902.798.5267
PAYPAL ACCT: cbrauer@lincsat.com
MARK ON IT : FOR JUSTICE

WE WILL KNOW WHAT TO DO. We use all
donations for advertising. We must expose the truth!
What is even more important, is what you don't see in
the media. What they won't print. What they won't tell you.
We will expose it all with your help. That means, paid advertising.

Thank you, Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

Media Release: Open Letter to Minister of Injustice!

TO:

MINISTER OF INJUSTICE, MICHAEL BAKER,

HERE IS AN EMAIL ABOUT A PHONE CALL FROM CARLINE VANDENELSEN,

HOW CAN YOU DO THIS TO A FELLOW NOVA SCOTIAN, A MOTHER, A FATHER AND THEIR CHILD?

FIX THIS NOW OR RESIGN TODAY!

I'M WAITING FOR AN ANSWER!

HOLD A PUBLIC INQUIRY NOW AND STOP THE TORTURE AND TERRORISM OF CANADIANS!

HOW DARE YOU!

YOU HAVE CAUSED IRREPARABLE HARM TO THIS FAMILY AND ALL FAMILIES IN NS.

STOP NOW!

THIS IS THE FACE OF NS. THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE WILL REMEMBER, WHEN NS IS MENTIONED.

CHILD ABDUCTION BY NS GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DESTRUCTION OF LIFE AND FAMILY!

WAY TO GO NS! ARE YOU PROUD YET?

Hi All:

Carline's phone call this afternoon was the most disturbing. She said that she just does not care anymore. She cannot drink or eat at this point. People cannot understand that she is not crazy or mentally ill, she is in a state of deep grieving. She does not know where her baby, Mona Clare is. She does not know how her triplets are doing. her grieving is for the devestation of the whole family, 2 gandmothers are dead, a baby is missing, both parents are in jail,her triplets cannot be with their mother and a young daughter cannot be with her father. The system has destroyed this family. There is no hope and there is no point in going on.

Carline expects to be taken to the hospital today (Friday). She is feeling very sick and too far gone to even take any liquids.She is hoping that the treatment in the hospital will be better than at corrections. All communications have been cut off for her. Her lawyer from Ontario called her yesterday and authorities refused to allow her to talk to him. She wanted to call him today but, she was refused permission. It has been 40 days since she began the starving for the children. She expects to be taken to Dartmouth General Hospital. She has no way to contact Larry.

She knows the justice system is not perfect,but to what extent does it have to go in this case. Her question is, How can Justice Minister Baker and Judge Wright justify these sentences. Is this the case where she and LArry have to be penalized to this extent to show to the public that if you dare question the authority of child protection you will be punished and this is the extent to which the system will go to protect itself and to maintain the status quo at all costs.

When I attempted to have her change her mind and work toward coming off the starving for the children for the sake of the triplets who will be looking for her and hopefully Mona Clare who is young enough now to see a time when the archaic adoption laws of Nova Scotia will have to change and she will be able to contact her parents, her answer was , what would be the point.

She will be left with four damaged children who will have to be taken care of. The damage is so great to the parent child relationship that it cannot ever be restored. At her death, the triplets will morn and be sadened but, in time they will accept their loss and some how with each other cary on. Mona Clare will not even be allowed to know. When I said to her that her children are all very bright and they will be able to work through all of this , her answer was that this is one of the worst kind of damages and to over come it is virtually impossible. The scars remain forever. i had no choice but to agree with her.

The conversation was very distubing and so unlike Carline. Her vivaciousness was gone , her voice was filled with sadness and she sobbed uncontrollably. Is this what J.Wright so vehemently wanted? Is this justice or is it revenge? The question still remains, what is Minister Baker trying to hide. We still need an inquiry into the child pretection system!! If a true inquiry is done in the Theresa McEvoy case,some of the deep ,dark, secrets of the child protection system may see the light of day.

Carline,many of us are praying for you. There is no justice, there is no reasonableness; there is chaos and anarchy, the very evil that Justice Wright is trying to protect us from, is what we have now. For you Carline, there is only prayer.

Marilyn,

Live Free!
Connie Brauer

WORLD AMBASSADORS FOR PARENTS EQUAL RIGHTS.
NS, Canada
902.798.5267 ( Office hours 9-9AST-1 hr past EST)
cbrauer@lincsat.com

http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/

From Canada's Federal Government

High-quality child care and early learning opportunities are essential to support children’s physical, emotional, social, linguistic and intellectual development, and to set them on a path of lifelong achievement.

The Government of Canada’s commitment to a new Early Learning and Child Care initiative recognizes the important role that early learning and child care play in expanding opportunity and building a more productive economy.

Budget 2005 follows through on this commitment with new investments of $5 billion over five years to help build the foundations of an Early Learning and Child Care initiative across the country.

Then why are we incarcerating families?

Canada Day, 2005, Nothing to Celebrate Here!

Today is Canada Day. Normally we would feel patriotic, but not today.

Not when Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck and their baby are separated and incarcerated in a NS jail cell.

All these parents ever wanted to do was to raise their children. Our abusive country, CANADA, would not allow that. No! They had to snatch their babies away from them. All 5 of them. One at a miserable time.

Compare these two loving parents to a serial killer like Karla Homolka. She killed two young girls. Raped and drugged them and then killed them. Disposed of their bodies in the river.
She drugged, raped and killed her own sister, Tammy, and disposed of her body. She was never tried or convicted of Tammy's death. Tammy's murderer has never been arrested.
Karla Homolka, also drugged and raped Jane Doe. The drugs were so powerful that the young teen didn't regain conscience for 72 hours.
No one has ever been arrested for Jane Doe's suffering.
Karla Homolka got 12 years.


Carline and Larry are parents who wanted to raise their children. The government took their children, their home, their income, their marriage, their health, their dignity, their freedom and maybe even their lives. Carline is still on a hunger strike.

• They refused to give up their child. So the government took her.

• They refused to give up their home. So the government bashed in their door after midnight with a battering ram.

• They refused to cooperate with Children's Aid. So the Supreme Court removed their child from them permanently. Forever, with no access.

• They refused to submit to a mental health evaluation. So the government labeled them as mental health incompetents and misfits.

• They refused to go away quietly and fought all the way to the Supreme Court. So the government courts denied them all their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the courts.

• They refused to cooperate in jail, and went on a hunger strike. So the government denied a Public Inquiry.

What is wrong with this picture? Why in hell, won't the government of NS take action and do what's right?
Why does a non government agency like Children's Aid have the ultimate power to violate our children?
Why are the Supreme Court judges endorsing such lawlessness?
Why? Because they are all protecting a multi billion dollar, profit sharing enterprise called the Family Court System in Canada.

It's nothing more than a make work project for Canadians.
The product is our children.

What a disgusting country we live in, Canada!

No Justice here, folks!
Remember the next time you vote.
Don't vote for any party that does not come clean about the abusive Family Law Industry that systematically violates the rights of our people!


Remember, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!

Standoff Duo Get Multi-Year Sentences

Thursday, June 30, 2005 The Halifax Herald Limited File VandenElsen: 'It's a crime to keep me in jail.' File Finck: Requested house arrest or time served. TIM KROCHAK / Staff A sheriff, standing beside documents from the Finck / VandenElsen trial, locks the door to Courtroom 3 at Supreme Court in Halifax Wednesday after the couple were sentenced. Standoff duo get multi-year sentences VandenElsen give n 3 1/2 years, Finck 4 1/2 years in custody fight gone wrong By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG / Staff Reporter Over a year after the armed stan doff that cost them their infant daughter and their freedom, Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck still don't fully understand what they've done, a judge says. "Like Ms. VandenElsen, Mr. Finck appears to have little appreciatio n for the seriousness of his unlawful conduct or the danger he put his child in," Supreme Court Justice Robert Wright said Wednesday in sentencing the couple to prison time. "Like Ms. VandenElsen, he blames everyone but himself." After two days of hearings, Justice Wright sentenced Mr. Finck to 4 1/2 years i n prison and Ms. VandenElsen to 3 1/2 years for their roles in the May 2004 standoff on Halifax's Shirley Street. In contrast to their frequent outbursts at earlier court appearances, the couple showed little reaction to the ruling: Ms. VandenElsen was busy writing, while Mr. Finck sat back in his chair. "They made deliberate plans to carry out what they did, and this is where they ended up," Crown Rick Woodburn said outside court after the ruling. The Crown had asked for a five-year term for Mr. Finck for child abduction contrary to a court order. Mr. Woodburn based that on the circumstances and the fact Mr. Finck committed the Halifax offence while still on probation after serving two years for abducting his daughter, from a previous relationship, from her legal guardian in Ontario. Earlier in the day, Mr. Finck had asked the judge for house arrest or time served, saying, "Anything further is excessive." "Both are out of the question," replied the judge. Justice Wright agreed Mr. Finck should serve more time than he did for the first abduction, but said the Crown's request was "a notch too far." Mr. Finck received 3 1/2 years for abduction and a year for possessing a shotgun, to be served consecutively. He also received six months for obstructing a police officer and two months for having an unregistered shotgun, to be served concurrently. The judge accepted the Crown's proposal about Ms. VandenElsen and gave her 18 months for abduction and two years, to be served consecutively, for using a gun while committing a crime. She was sentenced to a year concurrent for threatening to assault a police officer with the shotgun, obstructing a police officer, having an unregistered shotgun and having a shotgun for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The judge gave the couple the customary double credit for the time they've already served. Mr. Finck, who's been in jail since his May 2004 arrest, will see 26 1/2 months shaved off his term, while 200 days will be cut from Ms. VandenElsen's. In the end, Mr. Finck will serve less time than his wife, who has been free most of the time while awaiting, and going to, trial. He also issued mandatory firearms prohibition orders and a DNA order for Ms. VandenElsen. The couple came to Nova Scotia from Stratford, Ont., in November 2003 when Ms. VandenElsen lost access to her triplets from a previous marriage after a lengthy custody battle. She was already pregnant and feared child welfare workers would take the baby. Ms. VandenElsen told the court they moved into the home of Mona Finck, Mr. Finck's mother, at 6161 Shirley St., to start their lives over. Mona Finck died of natural causes during the standoff. "I have significant remorse for not terminating my pregnancy when my mother instincts told me that my unborn child would face grave peril," she said Wednesday. The Children's Aid Society in Halifax applied to the court for supervision orders at the family home and psychological and parental assessments. Given the reports about the couple and Mr. Finck's behaviour in family court, Justice Wright said, the court ordered the child placed in temporary care. Ms. VandenElsen fled with the baby, and Mr. Finck continued to appear in court. He admitted during the criminal trial that he lied in family court - he did in fact know where his wife and baby were. They eventually came home, and the couple planned to leave the country. When police found them at the Shirley Street home on May 19, 2004, the couple refused to let them in and barricaded the door. Pellets from a shotgun fired inside the home passed just inches from a police officer's head. The emergency response team was called in and the longest standoff in Halifax history began. Ms. VandenElsen repeated Wednesday that "Big Mona," her mother-in-law, fired the gun, but Justice Wright reminded her a jury convicted her of that offence. The couple endangered their then-five-month-old baby, the judge said, when they carried her onto a porch overhang and displayed her to reporters and police. They used the standoff to further their "ridiculous theories" that various agencies - the courts, police and child protection agencies - are plotting to sell children to the childless. Despite repeated warnings by police, "in an act of self-indulgence and outright recklessness," Mr. Finck was carrying a loaded shotgun when he came out of the house on the evening of May 21 with his wife and baby. The couple carried the body of his mother on a makeshift stretcher. "It's indeed fortunate that no one got hurt," Justice Wright said. As her sentencing submission, Ms. VandenElsen read from 10 pages of handwritten notes, which Justice Wright termed a "political statement." She said police "unnecessarily created a massive public spectacle" through the standoff "to sensationalize and justify their earlier actions." "It's a crime to keep me in jail," she read. Facing a mandatory one-year sentence on the weapons charge, Ms. VandenElsen said the only remedy was to return all her children to her. "I can't change who I am," she told the judge. "I understand I can't change the system." Justice Wright said: "Ms. VandenElsen, it's never too late to turn your life around." "I tried that and look where I am," she replied. A handful of supporters attended the hearing Wednesday afternoon, including Mary MacDonald. The Halifax woman, who knows Ms. VandenElsen "very casually," said the sentence was harsh. "It will obviously cause her a great deal of grief," she said. "I would have preferred that Ms. VandenElsen be reunited with her baby daughter rather than go to prison." Another supporter, Halifax's Marilyn Dey, was displeased but not surprised by the sentence. The woman, who's known Mr. Finck since his first court case in Ontario, wished the judge had spoken about the pair's emotions because the whole situation involved the apprehension of their child. "The judge didn't even go there. There was no concern for what they were going through at the time." Justice Wright noted the couple's "contemptuous conduct at trial," which he said "ranged from the belligerent to the bizarre." Despite that behaviour, their lack of participation in preparation of a presentence report and their apparent disregard for assessments, he recommended they receive psychological counselling in prison. "Their co-operation may appear to be a dim prospect at the moment," he said, "but it is still worth a try."

Copyright © 2005 The Halifax Herald Limited