Canadian Family Law Reform

Missing Man is Now 22 and still Missing

2008-11-11T11:18:00.002-04:00

William Harris is now 22 and starting into his 23rd year.
We are still paying child support to the mother Paulette Harris.
The Chief Justice Kennedy of NS ordered the Dad, Victor Harris to pay
$10,000 in surety costs plus we are paying child support plus we are paying other costs.
Our crime?
Being parents who want to stop paying child support for grown adults to the mother who uses
it for her own benefit.
Go figure. Only in Canada can the judicial system abuse parents for being parents.

Open Letter to PM-Why are we still paying child support?

2007-09-29T10:31:00.000-03:00

Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Canada
Phone and Fax: 902.798.5267
To fax, call first or let ring to set up.
Email: cbrauer@lincsat.com

July 11, 2007

Why are we paying child
support for an adult male, indefinitely

Dear Prime Minister Stephen Harper and family,

We have been paying child support for our nearly, twenty-one year old son, for 20+ years now. He is able bodied and mentally fit so why are we still paying child support to his mother, Paulette Harris of Halifax

We have been before 10 judges to terminate child support for an over the age of majority son, who should have been terminated from support at 19. At 17 , William Harris was working and living on his own in his own apartment, but we were still ordered to pay adult support. He quit school at 15 and refused to go back. He works only when he wants to.

Now he is not working and we are still ordered to pay support to his mother. Neither he nor his mother have ever showed any appreciation or respect despite having supported the whole family in the amount of one million dollars since the marriage and most of it on a meager pension income.

During the marriage, the father, Victor Harris was the sole provider. After divorce, Victor Harris was ordered to pay exorbitant child support payments for three children whom he was seldom allowed to see. A non custodial parent in Canada is stripped of all human and parental rights as soon as a judge declares him a non custodial parent. All benefits go to the custodial parent.

Over the years we have paid for our children’s trips around the world, extended holidays in foreign countries, three apartments for three adults long after they stopped attending schools, one university education, one year living abroad, one 15 year old drop out who quit school and refused to work and two young adults who enrolled in the most expensive boarding school in Canada and then didn’t bother attending it, all by court order of the judges. We have had no rights or freedoms and no parental influence in any of these decisions. They were all decided by many, many judges. Judges have completely interfered in all parental decisions for the last 12 years of our lives.
We finally arrived at the time when the youngest man, who had dropped out of school, was over the age of majority and should finally have child support terminated.

But it wasn’t to be.

A single judge declared that he was mentally retarded, without any mental assessment from a mental health specialist. Instead he relied on the false allegations and testimony of the mother, Paulette Harris who has been using the mental illness excuse to gain all control and financial benefit for herself.

Ten judges later,
we are still paying $3,600 per year in child
support for an undiagnosed
and fraudulent mental illness.

Eight judges have never laid eyes on William Harris, our mentally capable son.

They all followed the same court orders as the previous judges.

Two judges denied our application for an independent psychological assessment, under Civil Procedure Rules 22.01.
(1) Where the physical or mental condition of a party is in issue, the court may, at any time on the application of an opposing party or on its own motion, order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified medical practitioner.

Three appeals court judges, found the judge made no error by declaring a grown man mentally incompetent without seeing him and without a mental assessment of any kind proving mental illness. Since when can judges practice psychology from the bench

One judge ordered the mother to pay child support to the young adult, in the amount of $3,600 but made no provisions for her to do so. She makes far more money than we do.

The only one who is actually paying child support is the father.

One Federal court Prothonotary determined that this matter was not a constitutional matter and sent us back to the Supreme Court where we get no positive results and no justice.

Four judges ordered us to pay costs for seeking justice. It is our constitutional right to terminate child support when the child is a man, however, if we go back to court we are ordered to pay costs to the mother. The only way to terminate child support is to go back to court. We were ordered to pay costs four times. Too high a price for no justice.

One judge dismissed our lawsuit against Paulette Harris, for medical fraud and child support fraud entirely. What else is this but medical fraud and a child support scam

Two judges dismissed the testimony of William’s doctor, stating that he didn’t know anything about any mental disabilities.

Seven times we subpoenaed our son William to appear in court and he failed to appear.

At no time was he ever arrested or ordered to appear. At no time was he ever ordered to get a job or even get treatment for this alleged mental incompetence. He is an adult.

He is on a never ending holiday at our expense. To date we have been forced to pay in excess of $21,000 for a man who won’t get out of bed until mid afternoon to look for employment.

The Canadian Judicial Counsel found absolutely nothing wrong with multiple judges denying us our constitutional rights. Judges practicing psychology from the bench, without a license and without a patient was no cause for concern.

Each judge violated our parental rights and our Charter Rights but there is no way out of this child support scam. It is endorsed by the judges for the benefit of the mother, Paulette Harris. It does nothing but harm and destruction to William Harris.

We are the only ones who want our son to be financially independent. William, his mother Paulette Harris and the judicial industry are quite content to have us pay child support forever!

Prime Minister, what are you doing about it How can this happen in Canada What have you done to repair the judicial injustice What would you do if this happened to your family?

We demand an immediate and full investigation into this matter.
We demand an end to torture and terrorism and judicial abuse.
We demand our full constitutional rights.
We demand financial compensation.
We demand child support terminated, retroactively to age 19.

Slaves of the child support scam industry,

Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
Parents with no constitutional rights in Canada

P.S.
We just received our court order in the mail. Over one month later.
Attached copy of court order.

Warning! Nova Scotia is not Safe for Families!

2007-09-06T14:40:00.000-03:00

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

Dear Editor,

"What part of we want a public inquiry into the
Finck/VandenElsen case do you not understand, AG Murray
Scott?"

Why are you continuing the evil, cover up of
corruption in Nova Scotia? It is your job to see that
justice is done for the people. So do it! Nothing has changed.
This case is not going away. There are too many unresolved
issues and you along with the previous AG, Michael Baker
have left Nova Scotia wide open for the continued corruption
against families. Every single family in Nova Scotia is at
risk.

Michael Baker is more concerned with his now exposed,
non payment of license and fees for a vacation property than
he was with the unconstitutional, full force police attack and
apprehension of a newborn baby girl in May/04.

Now we have news that the Halifax Regional Police did
nothing wrong in the armed and dangerous, EMT, midnight
battering ram attack of a
family to forcefully remove their newborn child, resulting
in a three day standoff. This resulted in a dead grandmother,
tasered and arrested parents and the permanent apprehension,
(theft) of their child.

Let's go back to the beginning shall we?
These are points that the public may not know and why we
MUST have a public inquiry.

First of all, Dr. Dawn Edger violated her patient's privacy
privileges when she informed the Halifax Children's Aid,
that she was treating Ms. VandenElsen during her pregnancy
and that she was concerned for the coming baby. She based this
opinion solely on the hearsay news that Carline was being
charged with kidnapping her three children from a previous
marriage. She obviously ignored the part that Carline felt
she had to take them out of necessity as the judge in that
case was denying her parental rights and constitutional
rights regarding her raising her triplets. All charges were
later stayed.

The Halifax Children's Aid Society immediately went on the
attack and applied for and received an apprehension order
from the Supreme Court Judge, Debra Smith.

No evidence of criminal behaviour or neglect of any kind
were brought into evidence. There was none. Not one of the
Family and Children's Services apprehension conditions applied.

So why did Debra Smith issue an apprehension order that
violated the family's constitutional and parental rights?
How does this happen in Nova Scotia? Since when do judges
make their own rules?

The mandate of the Children's Aid is to keep families together. They did no
investigation, no in house visit and no consultation with
the family. They just stole their child.

Why did the IWK not issue a birth certificate stating
Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck were the natural
parents? What is their role in this? Since when can a children's
hospital fail to file legal and statistical information about newborns?
It's their job.

Why has the Dept. of Community Services not investigated the
Halifax Children's Aid Society? It's their job.

How is it possible that a charity organization can hold so
much power over individual people? Who gave them this power?
Who are they? They evolved as an offshoot of the Social Prevention
of Cruelty to Animal. The SPCA.
How can they flaunt all parents' rights and constitutional
rights without any criminal charges laid against them?
Why are taxpayers footing the bill to the tune of over
$600,000 per year for the Halifax Children's Aid legal
bills alone?

Why has the Halifax police failed to follow up on any of our
complaints into the mistreatment of this family? What about
all the other families destroyed by this unconstitutional
and corrupt apprehension and adoption industry? It is
supposed to be monitored by the Minister of Community
Services, who used to be David Morse. It was his job. He did squat!
Why hasn't Community Services Minister Judy Streatch called for an
investigation? It's her job.

Why is the adoption industry such a closed and secret
society? Why can't people apply for the adoption of any
child they want like we wanted to? We applied for custody and
adoption of Mona-Clare. Why is it the Children's Aid who
decides who can adopt whom? Why can the Children's Aid
Society ( society means charity) use public funding to
prevent all contact with them other than their high priced
lawyers like Elizabeth Whelton of Blois, Nickerson and
Bryson? Do all adoptive parents know they may be adopting a
non consensual parent's child? A child who was most
likely stolen from his/her own parents? Where is
Mona-Clare? What happened to her? How many people got paid
when she was stolen? I'll tell you. 28 different groups of people got paid.

Why did Justice Ferguson refuse to give us custody of this
child but left her in the care of the Halifax Children's
Aid Society who destroyed her at birth? She was in clear and
present danger as soon as the CAS preyed upon her. She has
still not been returned to her rightful parents. Profits became more
important than a baby.

Why hasn't the Human Rights Commission investigated as per
our insistence? Why are they completely impotent to
investigate this?
Why hasn't the Ombudsman investigated? Why is he completely
impotent?
I'll tell you why. They are not allowed to investigate the
executive counsel of Nova Scotia, so what good are they?

Why is there no funding for qualified and expert legal
counsel to bring suit against the government of Nova Scotia
for failing to uphold fundamental freedoms and the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms? How long can this go on?

Why has neither Rodney McDonald or the previous Premier of NS, John Hamm,
been held to account for allowing this on their watch? It's their job.
Why haven't 52 of Nova Scotia's MLA' s insisted on justice being done?
It's their job.

Why has no one except the victims been arrested?
Why is Chief Beazley getting a new contract for another term when he swept the
whole issue under the rug? It's his job to protect the people of Halifax.
It's his job. Who protected this family?

Why do we have a government that is systematically covering up
the crime and corruption of the violation of most basic human rights that
are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

How do I know all this? I went to the trial and I read all
the court documents. I have been a civil rights activist for
this family and other families for a long time.
I personally know the family. I applied for the care and custody of Mona-Clare.
I wanted to adopt her and raise her in our loving family.
I was denied.

Bring on the Public Inquiry! Bring home Mona-Clare now!

Live Free,

Connie Brauer
Family Rights Activist

Live Free,

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
Yahoo IM= libertyprofits
MSN IM= Connie Brauer
Skype Me = connieandvic
www.skype.com
=============================================
Sign the Petition for Canadian Family Law Reform
Stop Judicial Abuse in Canada's Family Law Courts Now!
http://www.gopetition.com/online/13444.html
Your children's future is at stake.
===============================================

Letter to PM Stephen Harper

2007-07-20T16:55:00.001-03:00

Media Release- For Immediate Release Open Letter to Prime Minister Harper and Family

Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Canada
Phone and Fax: 902.798.5267
To fax, call first or let ring to set up.
Email: cbrauer@lincsat.com

Vic Harris and Connie Brauer
You tube message to PM Harper
http://stopchildsupportscams.blogspot.com/

Family Law Reform Petition: http://www.gopetition.com/online/13444.html

July 11, 2007

Why are we paying child
support for an adult male, indefinitely?

Dear Prime Minister Stephen Harper and family,

We have been paying child support for our nearly, twenty-one year old son, for 20+ years now. He is able bodied and mentally fit so why are we still paying child support to his mother, Paulette Harris of Halifax?

We have been before 10 judges to terminate child support for an over the age of majority son, who should have been terminated from support at 19. At 17 , William Harris was working and living on his own in his own apartment, but we were still ordered to pay adult support. He quit school at 15 and refused to go back. He works only when he wants to.

Now he is not working and we are still ordered to pay support to his mother. Neither he nor his mother have ever showed any appreciation or respect despite having supported the whole family in the amount of one million dollars since the marriage and most of it on a meager pension income.

During the marriage, the father, Victor Harris was the sole provider. After divorce, Victor Harris was ordered to pay exorbitant child support payments for three children whom he was seldom allowed to see. A non custodial parent in Canada is stripped of all human and parental rights as soon as a judge declares him a non custodial parent. All benefits go to the custodial parent.

Over the years we have paid for our children’s trips around the world, extended holidays in foreign countries, three apartments for three adults long after they stopped attending schools, one university education, one year living abroad, one 15 year old drop out who quit school and refused to work and two young adults who enrolled in the most expensive boarding school in Canada and then didn’t bother attending it, all by court order of the judges. We have had no rights or freedoms and no parental influence in any of these decisions. They were all decided by many, many judges. Judges have completely interfered in all parental decisions for the last 12 years of our lives.

We finally arrived at the time when the youngest man, who had dropped out of school, was over the age of majority and should finally have child support terminated.

But it wasn’t to be.

● A single judge declared that he was mentally retarded, without any mental assessment from a mental health specialist. Instead he relied on the false allegations and testimony of the mother, Paulette Harris who has been using the mental illness excuse to gain all control and financial benefit for herself.

●Ten judges later,
we are still paying $3,600 per year in child
support for an undiagnosed
and fraudulent mental illness.

● Eight judges have never laid eyes on William Harris, our mentally capable son.
● They all followed the same court orders as the previous judges.

● Two judges denied our application for an independent psychological assessment, under Civil Procedure Rules 22.01.
● (1) Where the physical or mental condition of a party is in issue, the court may, at any time on the application of an opposing party or on its own motion, order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a qualified medical practitioner.

● Three appeals court judges, found the judge made no error by declaring a grown man mentally incompetent without seeing him and without a mental assessment of any kind proving mental illness. Since when can judges practice psychology from the bench?

● One judge ordered the mother to pay child support to the young adult, in the amount of $3,600 but made no provisions for her to do so. She makes far more money than we do.

● The only one who is actually paying child support is the father.

● One Federal court Prothonotary determined that this matter was not a constitutional matter and sent us back to the Supreme Court where we get no positive results and no justice.

● Four judges ordered us to pay costs for seeking justice. It is our constitutional right to terminate child support when the child is a man, however, if we go back to court we are ordered to pay costs to the mother. The only way to terminate child support is to go back to court. We were ordered to pay costs four times. Too high a price for no justice.

● One judge dismissed our lawsuit against Paulette Harris, for medical fraud and child support fraud entirely. What else is this but medical fraud and a child support scam?

● Two judges dismissed the testimony of William’s doctor, stating that he didn’t know anything about any mental disabilities.

● Seven times we subpoenaed our son William to appear in court and he failed to appear.
● At no time was he ever arrested or ordered to appear. At no time was he ever ordered to get a job or even get treatment for this alleged mental incompetence. He is an adult.

● He is on a never ending holiday at our expense. To date we have been forced to pay in excess of $21,000 for a man who won’t get out of bed until mid afternoon to look for employment.

●The Canadian Judicial Counsel found absolutely nothing wrong with multiple judges denying us our constitutional rights. Judges practicing psychology from the bench, without a license and without a patient was no cause for concern.

●Each judge violated our parental rights and our Charter Rights but there is no way out of this child support scam. It is endorsed by the judges for the benefit of the mother, Paulette Harris. It does nothing but harm and destruction to William Harris.

●We are the only ones who want our son to be financially independent. William, his mother Paulette Harris and the judicial industry are quite content to have us pay child support forever!

Prime Minister, what are you doing about it? How can this happen in Canada? What have you done to repair the judicial injustice? What would you do if this happened to your family?

We demand an immediate and full investigation into this matter.
We demand an end to torture and terrorism and judicial abuse.
We demand our full constitutional rights.
We demand financial compensation.
We demand child support terminated, retroactively to age 19.

Slaves of the child support scam industry,

Connie Brauer and Victor Harris
Parents with no constitutional rights in Canada

Sign Petition for Family Law Reform
http://www.gopetition.com/online/13444.html

Nine Judges in a row order child support for 20 year old son

2007-06-13T14:57:00.000-03:00

No Jusice in Canada!
It has now been nine judges who have ordered the continued child support of our 20 year old son.
The reason stated is that the son is "mentally disabled and unable to sustain the necessities of life"
However, no mental assessment is required, no doctor's report, no job search is ordered.

It is all hearsay. Hearsay rules in Canada. Unsubstantiated hearsay is what judges make their civil decisions by. Nothing has to be true or accurate.

We are the parents and we know that there is nothing wrong with our son, except he is extremely lazy and really doesn't want to work.

Justice is a myth in Canada.

Our judicial system is completely corrupt and barbaric.

Does anyone else have this problem?

Canadian Judges Decide Who Can Be Parents and Who Can't!

2007-04-10T09:51:00.001-03:00

Canadian Judges Decide Who Can Be Parents and Who Can't!

2007-04-10T09:51:00.000-03:00

Child Support Scam Video

2007-03-20T11:39:00.000-03:00

Why Are these parents paying child support for
20 year old man, not to him, but his mother???

Because 6 judges ordered it so and the mother and son
are collaberating in a bizarre child support scam.

Watch the video, now.

Judges Implement Never Ending Child Support Scam

2007-03-20T11:30:00.000-03:00

20 Year Old, Capable Man, William Harris, stays in bed all day and his mother, Paulette Harris -Teacher, collects $4,000 per year in child support from Dad (tax free) and has done so for the last 6 years.

● Mother /teacher allows Will to stay home, in bed all day.
● He gets up mid afternoon.
● He doesn’t work or look for work.
● He doesn’t go to school.
● He doesn’t do chores.
● He does only what he wants.
● Judges continue to order child support from pensioner, Dad and teacher-Mom.
● Dad’s, (Victor Harris) payment goes to mom, mom’s payment goes to mom. Tax Free!
● Dad can’t get William Harris up and out working by long distance.
● Mother sabotages every attempt to get Will off child support.
● His own Doctor testifies there are no mental disabilities.
● Mother claims Will is mentally disabled- Provides no proof! No medical intervention.
● Will has above average intelligence.
● Will has no physical handicaps.
● Will has been allowed to do whatever he wants since he was 14.
● Mom/Teacher allows kid to drop out of school at 14 and do absolutely nothing.
● Will lies to Dad about taking classes, going to work and job hunting.
● Will fails to respond to any attempt to get him working full time.
● Dad as gone before 6 judges to terminate child support of adult!
● Mother continues to give hearsay testimony of mental illness. We don’t want to pay child support for an able bodied man for the rest of our lives.
● Mother wants to collect child support forever.
● We need your help!
● We are launching a Legal Defence Fund to terminate child support for an able bodied and mentally fit adult, who refuses to look for employment.
● Pensioner Dad has paid $24,000 to date, by court order, for man to do nothing,!!!
● Would you allow your children to do this?

“Help Get 20 Year Old William Harris Off Child Support”
Donate to: Brauer and Harris
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth,
NS B0P 1L0
Phone 902.798.5267

Paypal Donations = cbrauer@lincsat.com
HELP STOP CHILD SUPPORT EXTORTION SCAM!

VandenElsen sent back to prison; McDonald's restaurant killer gets passes

2007-03-04T11:08:00.000-04:00

Hi All:

Here is an article that Rick Howe wrote in the Daily News:

COLUMNS

Last updated at 8:27 AM on 02/03/07

Parole board's priorities puzzling
VandenElsen sent back to prison;
McDonald's restaurant killer gets passes

RICK HOWE
The Daily News

As the National Parole Board prepares to let back into the
community a man involved in one of Nova Scotia's most notorious
crimes, it has slammed the door shut again on a petite woman
whose only crime was to try to hang on to her young baby -
and hopes to be a mother to her daughter again some day.

Carline VandenElsen not only had her temporary pass from
prison yanked this week, but the parole board threw her back
into prison, saying she hasn't yet learned her lesson.

Variety of charges

VandenElsen had been sentenced to three years on a variety
of charges including child abduction, assault with a weapon
and obstructing police after a three-day standoff on Shirley
Street in Halifax in May 2004. The confrontation with heavily
armed police began with a midnight knock on her apartment
door to serve a child-protection order. It ended some 67 hours
later with VandenElsen and her husband, Larry Finck, under arrest,
Finck's mother dead from natural causes and the couple's infant
daughter taken by the Children's Aid Society.

VandenElsen had been released on a temporary pass about a month
ago and was doing volunteer work at a Halifax church. She's kept
herself out of trouble and kept her mouth shut - reining in a weakness
that compounded some of her earlier problems with the legal system.

But despite a positive recommendation for parole from Corrections
Canada officials, the board said no this week and ordered her return
to the Nova Scotia Institute for Women in Truro to serve out the
remainder of her sentence - which expires later this year.

Connie Brauer of Falmouth has long been a supporter of VandenElsen
and her fight to keep her baby daughter. She was prepared to take
VandenElsen into her home to live if she'd been granted parole.
But apparently the arrangement was one of the board's issues.

Brauer has also been a vocal critic of the justice system, and a board
member says they were troubled with the mix. Pat O'Brien said
in the board's oral decision: "It doesn't make sense. The risk is not manageable."

Brauer is outraged and calls the parole board's decision "barbaric, medieval and cruel."

Brauer says corrections officials visited her home three times, and
there was never a problem.

"The gave us a good report," she told me this week.

Brauer says the parole board has it out for VandenElsen because
she won't admit any guilt and wants her baby back.

"She's being punished for two or three years for what? What's she
supposed to say? 'I'm sorry you took my child?' She's an innocent
person. They took her child for no reason. The fix was in. There
was no way they were going to give her parole."

It is truly difficult to imagine how VandenElsen could be considered
any kind of a risk, to herself or to society. Is she odd? Yes. But since
when did eccentricity become a crime?

Out-spoken and angry at her run-ins with Children's Aid and the
legal system? Without a doubt. Are we not, however, guaranteed freedom of opinion?

But a risk? Certainly not. She has already served more than two years.
This woman should not spend another minute in prison.

The National Parole Board's stand is all the more puzzling,
considering its decision to give Darren Muise 16 temporary
passes from prison - where he's been serving a life sentence
with no parole for 20 years for his second-degree murder
conviction. Muise was one of three young men involved in
the triple murders of late night employees at a McDonald's
restaurant in Sydney in May 1992.

Shocking crime

Muise, 18 at the time, slit the throat of employee Neil Burroughs.
It was a crime that shocked Nova Scotians, who naively believed
such violence could never happen here.

Under escort, Muise will be permitted to visit a girlfriend and
attend some family functions. He has another six years to serve
before he's eligible for full parole.

Burroughs's sister Cathy says her family's very upset with the decision.

"He has not shown any remorse," she told CTV News anchor
Steve Murphy Wednesday night.

She says Muise has duped the board into believing he's changed.
"He's a good actor."

A mother's efforts to one day be reunited with the child she bore
keep her in jail, while a man who, in cold blood, ended the life of a
young father earns some freedom.

Is it just me, or is something not right here?

rhowe@chumhalifax.com

Rick Howe is the host of the radio talk show Hotline,
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on AM 920 CJCH, and
on the Internet at cjch.ca.

One Care: free Trial Version Today!

Board denies VandenElsen parole again

2007-03-04T11:06:00.000-04:00

10:20 AM 2/28/2007

Board denies VandenElsen parole again
Woman convicted in standoff improving but still deemed a risk
By MARY ELLEN MacINTYRE Truro Bureau

TRURO — Carline VandenElsen has done so well in prison she’s on early release at a Halifax halfway house but she hasn’t done well enough to get full parole.

"The risk is not manageable — application denied," Pat O’Brien of the National Parole Board said during a hearing at Nova Institution for Women on Tuesday.

Ms. VandenElsen has been a prisoner at the institution since her conviction in June 2005 on charges from a highly publicized three-day standoff with Halifax police in 2004.

The standoff began when police officers attempted to carry out a child apprehension order for her five-month-old daughter. Ms. VandenElsen’s husband, Larry Finck, was also sentenced to prison for his part in what has been called a bizarre and tragic situation.

After holding police at bay for three days, the couple left the home carrying Mr. Finck’s dead mother on an improvised stretcher, a shotgun and the baby.

Ms. VandenElsen was convicted of careless use of a shotgun, using a shotgun while committing an indictable offence and threatening to use a shotgun in committing an assault on police.

They were both convicted of abducting the baby in contravention of a child custody order, obstructing a police officer, possessing an unregistered shotgun and possessing a shotgun dangerous to the public peace.

Mr. Finck is being held at the Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B., and is scheduled for release in March.

Ms. VandenElsen struggled to hold back tears when she heard the news Tuesday morning.

Corrections staff had recommended the 43-year-old gain full parole.

"She never picked up one charge here and never gave us any indication she was a risk," said her caseworker, Rod MacDonald.

"But she does have a difficult time trusting authority figures."

The caseworker said Ms. VandenElsen seemed to have a lot of sympathetic supporters and she planned to eventually live in the Annapolis Valley with a couple who have taken up her cause.

For the past month, she has been on what’s called a 60-day unescorted temporary absence, living at a halfway house in Halifax and volunteering at local churches. When she walked into the institution Tuesday morning, inmates hollered out to her, offering her good luck on her application.

Ms. VandenElsen was composed, well-spoken and agreeable during the hearing.

However, when a member of the board asked what she would do differently if she could go back to the time of the standoff, Ms. VandenElsen was unable to single out any one thing.

"It was the most harrowing, horrifying and traumatic experience in my life," she said of the event.

"Had I known this would transpire, I wouldn’t have had a baby," she said.

Mr. O’Brien told Ms. VandenElsen she is one of a kind.

"I’ve never seen a standoff with such drama — you’re unique," he said.

"I know what happens to children in foster care — I didn’t want a child of mine in foster care," she responded.

"I had a baby. I wanted to keep it and it was just a miserable, tragic situation all around," she said.

Asked what she wanted to do in the future, Ms. VandenElsen said she wanted to get on with her life.

"Just collect all these little bits and pieces of my life — I would like to reunite with my family — it’s a very primal feeling."

In delivering the board’s decision, Mr. O’Brien said members were not convinced Ms. VandenElsen understands what she did wrong.

"We never got the sense that at a fundamental level you think you ever did anything wrong."

( mmacintyre@herald.ca)

Stop the Rigged Elections in the Liberal Party

2007-02-15T15:15:00.000-04:00

Dear Editor,

Stephane Dion's campaign to take "extraordinary measures" to boost the ranks of

women candidates in the next election, including barring men from seeking

nominations in some ridings is unconstitutional and barbaric!

Doesn't anyone read the The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Section 28 guarantees equal rights to both men and women. In order to make

a particular section of the Charter, exempt it has to be passed by Parliament or a legislature.

However, a law that limits Charter Rights under the notwithstanding clause

expires after five years. This clause is used very rarely.

How can he even think that running women only elections campaigns is OK?

Section 3 of the Charter guarantees all citizens the right to run for office.

How many more of our Charter Rights do we have to lose in this country?

Already, they are being violated by all governents, every day!

People, don't accept government intrusion into your lives.

We deserve freedom and liberty and it is guaranteed in

our Charter of Rights.

Kick Dion out now! The only election is a fair election.

I have 1000 Charter books and will share them with anyone who wants one.

Just call 902.798.5267

Live Free!

Sincerely,
Connie Brauer

Larry Finck denied parole for second time in '06.

2006-12-12T18:40:00.000-04:00

Finck denied parole for second time in ’06

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter
http://herald.ca/Search/546650.html

Larry Finck has been denied parole again.

The National Parole Board held a hearing Monday at Atlantic Institution in Renous, N.B., for Mr. Finck, the father at the centre of a 2004 police standoff in Halifax over his infant daughter.

The parole board found Mr. Finck unfit to release on either day or full parole, but the reasons for the decision weren’t available Monday. A written report is expected to be released today.

Monday’s hearing was scheduled after Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Charles Haliburton ordered that it be held in response to a court application by Mr. Finck.

The National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada applied on Dec. 5 for a stay of proceedings to postpone the judge-ordered parole hearing until their appeal could be heard.

Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the application at a Dec. 7 hearing at the Halifax Law Courts. He said the applicants didn’t file notice in time and arrangements weren’t made to bring Mr. Finck from northern New Brunswick for the hearing. Also, Justice Cromwell wrote, even if "the judge may have erred in making the order he did," the applicants would suffer no irreparable harm if the hearing went ahead as scheduled.

This is the second time this year that Mr. Finck, serving a 4½-year sentence for his role in a 67-hour standoff and another four months for assaulting a fellow patient at a Dartmouth hospital, was denied parole.

In March, The Chronicle Herald reported that he was refused because he didn’t "acknowledge his crimes, did not have an acceptable release plan, did not take psychiatric counselling and refused to take courses that would improve his conflict resolution skills."

The May 2004 standoff began when police came to his mother’s Shirley Street house with a court order to remove his baby daughter from the house. The longest standoff in Halifax history ended when Mr. Finck and his wife, Carline VandenElsen, with their daughter strapped to her chest, walked out of the house carrying his dead mother on a stretcher. Mona Finck had died of natural causes. The baby was immediately seized by authorities.

Ms. VandenElsen, who is serving a 3½-year sentence at the Nova Institution for Women in Truro, was also denied parole earlier this year.

( pbrooks@herald.ca)

NO JUSTICE- NO VOTES!

2006-06-16T16:19:00.000-03:00

MEDIA RELEASE, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NO JUSTICE=NO VOTES!
World Ambassadors for Parents’ Civil Rights
Canadian Civil Rights Association
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0 Canada
http://www.stopthetorture.info
Call Now. 902.798.5267
or email us at cbrauer@lincsat.com

Mona-Clare Finck/VandenElsen, 5 mo old, breast feeding
infant seized by armed force from her anguished parents.

Campaign For Justice!

Falmouth, NS. May 25, 2006. Husband and wife team, Connie Brauer and Vic Harris, civil rights activists for justice for families, are launching a campaign for justice just in time for the NS Election candidates. Will they stand up for truth and justice or won’t they? Are there any honest people left in Canada? No Justice = No Votes, has launched today.

May 21, 2006 was the two year anniversary of the worst case of Charter violations and persecution in NS history, for a Nova Scotia family, by the Nova Scotia Government.

2 years ago, The Halifax Children’s Aid, with the assistance of the riot gear, machine gun toting police, abducted a nursing infant baby girl from her parents, at gun point, in what was known as the Halifax Standoff. The approval for this monstrous act of inhumanity came from the Supreme Court of NS. No proof of criminal negligence was ever presented to the judge, Debra Smith. She approved the apprehension application, anyway. Why? How is it possible that the very court that is mandated to uphold The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the ultimate law of the land, can steadfastly violate those very Charter Rights and issue an apprehension order, without any criminal evidence or charges of any kind? How can this happen?

To date, no one has been arrested for this criminal atrocity, except the parents who did everything they could to protect their baby from abduction. This family did what any normal family would do under the circumstances. They refused to give up their baby! They defended themselves. What happened to the right to defend your family in clear and present danger? Someone fired a warning shot into the air. For that the parents were arrested and incarcerated for 4 years.. The Gestapo stole Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck’s baby and they get arrested! How is that possible? The government of NS took their child, their home, lost their grandmother to an early death during the standoff, incarcerated them, refused bail, refused parole, denied their appeal to get their baby back and still claims unaccountability! What Charter Rights?

No public inquiry, no police inquiry and no Halifax Children’s Aid investigation has been done. The CAS have unlimited and unreasonable powers to invade a private home and seize children. No evidence required. CAS is a registered CHARITY and government AGENCY. How can a charity and a government funded agency have so much power? No birth certificate was ever prepared by the IWK. Why? Folks, these people are funded by our tax dollars! Are we going to allow this? We demand full disclosure now! We want justice!

Brauer and Harris have created a list of 100 reasons for a public inquiry. The politicians are covering this up. Paid by our tax dollars. Why? The Charter violations are too numerous to ignore. How? No Charter Rights here! The arrogance and indifference of the past and present government officials is astounding! The ex NS Premier, John Hamm and the new Premier, Rodney MacDonald have refused to investigate. Why? People need to die in NS. before a public inquiry is called. Where is the new Justice Minister, Murray Scott? Continuing the cover up, that’s where. Why? We asked them. No positive response. No public inquiry. Why? 52 NS MLA’s who are now seeking your votes, people, have not demanded a public inquiry. Why? No one has resigned. Why? Not one person has been charged for the forceful abduction and horrendous child abuse of this innocent little baby. Why? What hell is she living through now? Where is she? Where? The Halifax CAS has completely destroyed this family and this baby girl. She will never know her parents, her grandmother, her siblings and other relatives. She is traumatized for life. She is facing endless years of therapy. How can we keep such an agency open? Why isn’t this agency shut down?

We demand a full public inquiry into not only this government child abduction and the court process which allowed this to happen, but all the children who were abducted from their parents in NS. Every last one of them and there are many.

The Minister of Community Services, David Morse hasn’t resigned or been fired. Why? Why isn’t he in jail? It’s his Dept. that allowed this to happen. Why are tax payer’s paying for child abductions? Since when is government endorsed child abduction acceptable in court? This political cover up isn’t going away. It stank two years ago and it still stinks today and will continue to stink until we get answers and justice!

Why haven’t there been any arrests? Why aren’t Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen free? Why was Carline VandenElsen denied parole on May 24,06 two years after her child was abducted? What do they expect from this mother? What more can she give up? What more can they take from her? Real criminals serve less time in prison. Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck are victims of a huge political coverup. They have lost everything! They have absolutely nothing left. Where is the baby? How many other children have been abducted from their families by Children’s Aid? We need answers! We need a free (no fee) and accessible Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We have the right to know. No more cover ups! We demand justice! Join us! Now! Your child could be next! Then what would you do? Who you gonna call? Where are you pretty baby? We want you home. Now! We want Larry and Carline home, now. Reunited with their baby!
What are you doing about this, Mr. and Ms. Candidate? Don’t just blather during an election, Stand up for justice, like a real man or woman. What are you doing about this, Mr. Prime Minister? You are responsible too.

Pay attention. We the people, will no longer vote in any election where Justice and Charter Rights are not the #1 Priority. If NS and Canada is to be safe, then they must stand up for Justice and the Charter Rights that all people in Canada are supposed to have under The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Show me!

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

NO JUSTICE=NO VOTES!
World Ambassadors for Parents’ Civil Rights
Canadian Civil Rights Association
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0 Canada
http://www.stopthetorture.info
Call Now. 902.798.5267 (9-8 AST)
or email us at cbrauer@lincsat.com
Donations for Justice accepted.

Carline VandenElsen, Larry Finck, siege, children's aid, Halifax,NS, Halifax standoff, human rights, constitutional rights, charter rights, police force, excessive police force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies, civil rights violations,
CAS, Dept of Community Services, David Morse, John Hamm, Rodney MacDonald, Murray Scott, Attorney General of NS, Elizabeth Whelton, Barbara McPherson, Canadian Civil Rights Association, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Connie Brauer and Vic Harris, criminals, crimes against humanity, no justice, No votes

Siege of Shirley Street: two years later, still no answers

2006-05-06T12:58:00.000-03:00

seige, children's aid, halifax, standoff, human rights, constitutional rights, charter rights,
police force, excessive force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies,

Siege of Shirley Street: two years later, still no answers

By HEATHER LASKEY- Chronicle Herald, May 5/06

Two years have passed since Halifax’s "siege of Shirley Street." Two years this month since the police seizure of a five-month-old infant, the death of her grandmother, and the arrest of her parents.

Since that time, there has been a plethora of court proceedings – criminal trials, family court hearings, decisions and appeals. The parents are in prison and the toddler – as far as we know – is still in the custody of the Children’s Aid Society. It was the parents’ refusal to relinquish her to the CAS shortly after her birth which had led to the police action.

There is still unease among many people in this area about the use of a militarized police/SWAT team during the May 2004 events in what appeared to be a convenient opportunity to rehearse for a possible terrorist strike on the city. Many of us are also uneasy about the opaque powers of the CAS.

The CAS is a quasi-private, government-funded, not-for-profit organization which, though well-intentioned, is in effect answerable only to its board. This absence of public accountability is a comment you will hear even from other social workers. No formal explanation has been given to the public for why the CAS wanted the baby removed from her parents: "Client confidentiality" is the mantra used to hide behind this wall of silence.

As far as can be established, the apparent reason the newborn baby came to CAS attention was that her parents, Carline Vanden Elsen and Larry Finck, had previously run afoul of the legal system in Ontario by abducting children of their previous relationships. Neither had been accused of neglecting or abusing these children, and there was no suggestion before or after she was seized that the five-month-old nursing infant had been neglected or abused.

But it was clear that her parents had antagonized authorities by dissing the legal system and the CAS in Ontario, as they were to do here in Nova Scotia. Their behaviour may have been intensely annoying, block-headed and eccentric. It was, however, no justification for the state to condemn their baby to the damaging uncertainties of a childhood in the foster-care system. (One year ago, at the age of 17 months, she was already in her second placement, and it was officially recorded that she had been upset by her move, at the age of 12 months, from her first placement. We do not know what her present situation is).

As for the siege itself – the violent means employed to seize the baby were profoundly inappropriate. They could easily have resulted in her being injured or killed. They did lead to the death from heart failure of her grandmother, Mona Finck. The weaponry with which the Halifax police and the RCMP (according to their own testimony) were armed included semi-automatic sub-machine guns, and Taser guns. There was also the battering ram used in the middle of the night in a residential street against the home containing the five-month-old baby, her parents and frail grandmother. When the couple emerged after nearly three days with the body of Mrs. Finck on a stretcher, there was a melee in which a knife was used to cut a Snugli – with the infant in it! – from off the mother. Then a Taser gun was used to force her to remove her arms from under her body when she was lying on the sidewalk.

It would have seemed reasonable if the people responsible for ordering the attack had been charged with endangering life, but even calls for a public inquiry were ignored by the minister of justice. The Halifax police promised that there would be a formal review of the events. Two years on, and despite questions from Mayor Peter Kelly, there is still silence. There is a similar silence from the Mounties. These are not healthy signs in a democracy.

Last summer, a group of people, who wanted the whole business exposed to the air, got together to push for the inquiry. We wanted the public to be told what evidence of actual or potential harm had been presented to the Family Court to justify ordering the baby be taken from her parents, and why massive force had been used. The informal group included five independent and experienced journalists (Stephen Kimber, Kim Kierans, Ian Porter, Dulcie Conrad and myself) as well as Ray Kuszelewski, who had been Larry Finck’s Legal Aid lawyer; Joyce Dempsey, a neighbour of the Fincks; and Susan Stuttard, a retired professional.

We have been supported in our demands by a wider group of citizens, from engineers, nurses and lawyers to professors and social workers, all of them equally disturbed by the behaviour of police and government-associated agencies in these events. To quote a letter to this newspaper from Winifred Milne, the retired director of social services for the Nova Scotia Hospital, "a climate has been created which may put subsequent vulnerable children and families at further risk."

None of us should forget a lesson of both Mount Cashell and the Indian residential schools: You cannot always trust the state to protect children; sometimes it can be the instrument of their destruction. It’s time we had a careful look at how we are dealing with our children deemed in need of state protection, and ask how we could do it better. One major step forward would be the creation of the post of an independent children’s advocate, a suggestion made to government by a group including Mrs. Milne – in the early 1960s!

It’s not too late to call or write to MLAs or to the minister of justice, requesting that a public inquiry be set up into the events around that baby’s seizure in May 2004 by the RCMP and Halifax police. And residents of HRM could write to or call their councillors, requesting that they push for the release of the police report. It’s the very least that is owed to the late Mona Finck, to her little granddaughter, and to all the children who may be taken into care.

Heather Laskey’s book The Children of the Poor Clares: The Story of an Irish Orphanage, published in Ireland in 1985, was the first to expose the abuse of children in church-run institutions. She also wrote and broadcast about the child immigration movement from Britain to Canada.

seige, children's aid, halifax, standoff, human rights, constitutional rights, charter rights,
police force, excessive force, ns government, parents, child abduction, children and babies,

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2005-12-04T11:06:00.000-04:00

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I

Part
I	Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
	Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Fundamental Freedoms Democratic Rights Mobility Rights Legal Rights Equality Rights Official Languages of Canada Minority Language Educational Rights Enforcement General Application of Charter Citation
II	Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada
III	Equalization and Regional Disparities
IV	Constitutional Conference
IV.I	Constitutional Conferences
V	Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada
VI	Amendment to the Constitution Act , 1867
VII	General

SCHEDULE B

CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982⁽⁷⁹⁾

PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental 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 communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.

Democratic Rights

Democratic rights of citizens

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Maximum duration of legislative bodies

(1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members. ⁽⁸⁰⁾

Continuation in special circumstances

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. ⁽⁸¹⁾

Annual sitting of legislative bodies

There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. ⁽⁸²⁾

Mobility Rights

Mobility of citizens

(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

Rights to move and gain livelihood

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a)	to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b)	to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Limitation

(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a)	any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b)	any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

Affirmative action programs

(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

Legal Rights

Life, liberty and security of person

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Search or seizure

Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Detention or imprisonment

Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Arrest or detention

10.

Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)	to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Proceedings in criminal and penal matters

11.

Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c)	not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e)	not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f)	except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h)	if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i)	if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

Treatment or punishment

12.

Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Self-crimination

13.

A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Interpreter

14.

A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15.

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. ⁽⁸³⁾

Official Languages of Canada

Official languages of Canada

16.

(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

Official languages of New Brunswick

(2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick.

Advancement of status and use

(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

English and French linguistic communities in New Brunswick

16.1.

(1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.

Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick

(2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed. ^(83.1)

Proceedings of Parliament

17.

(1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament. ⁽⁸⁴⁾

Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature

(2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick. ⁽⁸⁵⁾

Parliamentary statutes and records

18.

(1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. ⁽⁸⁶⁾

New Brunswick statutes and records

(2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. ⁽⁸⁷⁾

Proceedings in courts established by Parliament

19.

(1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament. ⁽⁸⁸⁾

Proceedings in New Brunswick courts

(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick. ⁽⁸⁹⁾

Communications by public with federal institutions

20.

(1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where

(a)	there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or
(b)	due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.

Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions

(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.

Continuation of existing constitutional provisions

21.

Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada. ⁽⁹⁰⁾

Rights and privileges preserved

22.

Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French.

Minority Language Educational Rights

Language of instruction

23.

(1) Citizens of Canada

(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province. ⁽⁹¹⁾

Continuity of language instruction

(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.

Application where numbers warrant

(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province

(a)	applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b)	includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.

Enforcement

Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

24.

(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

General

Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

25.

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including

(a)	any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b)	any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. ⁽⁹²⁾

Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter

26.

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

Multicultural heritage

27.

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes

28.

Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

Rights respecting certain schools preserved

29.

Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools. ⁽⁹³⁾

Application to territories and territorial authorities

30.

A reference in this Charter to a Province or to the legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the case may be.

Legislative powers not extended

31.

Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.

Application of Charter

32.

(1)This Charter applies

(a)	to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b)	to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

Exception

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.

Exception where express declaration

33.

(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Operation of exception

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

Five year limitation

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

Re-enactment

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

Five year limitation

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

Citation

34.

This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

PART II
RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA

Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights

35.

(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

Land claims agreements

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Aboriginal and treaty rights are guaranteed equally to both sexes

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons. ⁽⁹⁴⁾

Commitment to participation in constitutional conference

35.1

The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,

(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and

(b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item. ⁽⁹⁵⁾

PART III
EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES

Commitment to promote equal opportunities

36.

(1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;

(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and

(c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

Commitment respecting public services

(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. ⁽⁹⁶⁾

PART IV
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

37.

⁽⁹⁷⁾

PART IV.I
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES

37.1

⁽⁹⁸⁾

PART V
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA⁽⁹⁹⁾

General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada

38.

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and

(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.

Majority of members

(2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).

Expression of dissent

(3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

Revocation of dissent

(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

Restriction on proclamation

39.

(1) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) before the expiration of one year from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder, unless the legislative assembly of each province has previously adopted a resolution of assent or dissent.

Idem

(2) A proclamation shall not be issued under subsection 38(1) after the expiration of three years from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder.

Compensation

40.

Where an amendment is made under subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial legislative powers relating to education or other cultural matters from provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply.

Amendment by unanimous consent

41.

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

(b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

(c) subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e) an amendment to this Part.

Amendment by general procedure

42.

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

(b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

(c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;

(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and

(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.

Exception

(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).

Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces

43.

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including

(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and

(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,

may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

Amendments by Parliament

44.

Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

Amendments by provincial legislatures

45.

Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

Initiation of amendment procedures

46.

(1) The procedures for amendment under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.

Revocation of authorization

(2) A resolution of assent made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

Amendments without Senate resolution

47.

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.

Computation of period

(2) Any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the one hundred and eighty day period referred to in subsection (1).

Advice to issue proclamation

48.

The Queen's Privy Council for Canada shall advise the Governor General to issue a proclamation under this Part forthwith on the adoption of the resolutions required for an amendment made by proclamation under this Part.

Constitutional conference

49.

A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part.

PART VI
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867

50.

⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

51.

⁽¹⁰¹⁾

PART VII
GENERAL

Primacy of Constitution of Canada

52.

(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

Constitution of Canada

(2) The Constitution of Canada includes

(a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act;

(b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and

(c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).

Amendments to Constitution of Canada

(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

Repeals and new names

53.

(1) The enactments referred to in Column I of the schedule are hereby repealed or amended to the extent indicated in Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall continue as law in Canada under the names set out in Column III thereof.

Consequential amendments

(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act 1982, that refers to an enactment referred to in the schedule by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in the schedule may be cited as the Constitution Actfollowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.

Repeal and consequential amendments

54.

Part IV is repealed on the day that is one year after this Part comes into force and this section may be repealed and this Act renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of Part IV and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. ⁽¹⁰²⁾

[Repealed]

54.1

⁽¹⁰³⁾

French version of Constitution of Canada

55.

A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.

English and French versions of certain constitutional texts

56.

Where any portion of the Constitution of Canada has been or is enacted in English and French or where a French version of any portion of the Constitution is enacted pursuant to section 55, the English and French versions of that portion of the Constitution are equally authoritative.

English and French versions of this Act

57.

The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative.

Commencement

58.

Subject to section 59, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada. ⁽¹⁰⁴⁾

Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec

59.

(1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.

Authorization of Quebec

(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec. ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾

Repeal of this section

(3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequentially upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.

Short title and citations

60.

This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982.

References

61.

A reference to the "Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982" shall be deemed to include a reference to the "Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983". ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾

Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982
Modernization of the Constitution

Judges taken out of lawsuits!

2005-10-03T15:38:00.000-03:00

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Back

The Halifax Herald Limited

Judges taken out of lawsuits
Two Ontario justices ruled immune from suits filed by VandenElsen,Finck

By PATRICIA BROOKS ARENBURG Staff Reporter

The long list of people Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen are suing got a little shorter Tuesday.

Justice Arthur Pickup granted an application to strike the names of two Ontario judges from a lawsuit the couple filed.

"I am satisfied that these justices are immune from civil pursuit," Justice Pickup said in Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

He also ruled that there was "nothing before me to suggest they acted outside their duty."

In a lawsuit filed Jan. 10 against 18 people and organizations, Mr. Finck and Ms. Van-

denElsen allege that Justices David Aston and Grant Campbell of Ontario Superior Court acted with "malicious intent" against them in court matters.

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that Justice Aston sabotaged sales of Ms. Van-denElsen's book, which detailed her flight to Mexico in 2000 with her seven-year-old triplets when her ex-husband, Craig Merkley, had custody of them.

They also allege that Justice Campbell damaged Ms. Van-denElsen's reputation through comments he made in his decision to terminate her access to her triplets.

Scott Norton, lawyer for the two Ontario judges, told the Nova Scotia court Tuesday that his clients denied each of the allegations. He argued that allowing the claims against his clients to continue would "compromise judicial independence" and he asked Justice Pickup to strike all references to his clients from the action.

Mr. Finck didn't argue against Mr. Norton's submission but asked Justice Pickup to rule so he could appeal his decision to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

The judge ruled in favour of the application, removing the Ontario judges as defendants and all references to them in the lawsuit. They did not ask the court for costs and Justice Pickup didn't award any.

Since the case was launched, the courts have dismissed claims against two other judges - Justice Robert Wright of Nova Scotia Supreme Court and Justice Deborah Smith of the Supreme Court family division - after ruling that they are also protected by judicial immunity.

The remaining defendants include the Children's Aid Society of Stratford, Ont., and two of its workers, the Children's Aid Society of Halifax and two of its workers, Halifax Regional Police, the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility, a Halifax doctor and Mr. Merkley and his wife, Janis Searle, both of Stratford.

Ms. VandenElsen was brought to the court building Tuesday from the Nova Institution in Truro, where she is serving 3½ years for her role in a lengthy armed standoff in May 2004 over a court order to seize the infant daughter she had with Mr. Finck.

The standoff ended after nearly three days when Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck came out of his mother Mona's Shirley Street home with the baby and carrying a dead Mona Finck on a makeshift stretcher. Mr. Finck's elderly mother had died of natural causes during the standoff.

Ms. VandenElsen refused to enter the courtroom for Tuesday's hearing and stayed in the cells while Mr. Finck, who is serving 4½ years at the Springhill Institution, argued their case. The couple was allowed to confer for an hour during an adjournment to review a lengthy submission from Mr. Norton.

The couple will be back in Halifax on Oct. 14 for a Nova Scotia Court of Appeal hearing on the June 22 family court order that placed their daughter in the permanent custody of the Children's Aid Society of Halifax.

pbrooks

Back

Media Release: ARE YOU A VICTIM OF JUDICIAL/POLITICAL ABUSE BY THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY? WE NEED YOUR INPUT!

2005-09-16T12:34:00.000-03:00

For immediate Release

Canadian Civil Rights Association

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

1061 Mines Rd.

Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0

Canada

902.798.5267

cbrauer@lincsat.com

http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=115199

ARE YOU A VICTIM OF JUDICIAL/POLITICAL ABUSE BY THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY?

Then, you need you to take a few moments to fill out our survey.

We are gathering statistics to use in a court of law.
Since Canada has made a career of denying citizens their Canadian Charter of Rights, we

are working very hard to file a class action lawsuit.
It is very difficult because there are no lawyers or resources in all of Canada that protect the

Canadian Charter of Rights.
Anyone who agrees to submit their name will be benefit from any results when we file the lawsuit.

Our mission is to restore equal rights, equal shared parenting and justice for all Canadian families.

http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=115199

PASS IT AROUND!

Live Free!

Connie Brauer
Liberty Profits
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth,NS, Canada
B0P 1L0
902.798.5267 ( Office hours 9-9AST-1 hr past EST)
cbrauer@lincsat.com
=========================================
Our websites:
http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=115199

Canadian Civil Rights Association
http://www.stopthetorture.info

Donations and New Members Here!

2005-09-03T14:39:00.000-03:00

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
Fighting for Everyone's Freedom!

Donations can be made to

BRAUER AND HARRIS
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Canada
Phone 902.798.5267
Cell : 902.791.0958

or

Paypal, cbrauer@lincsat.com

New members $25.
Send email to cbrauer@lincsat.com with
Canadian Civil Rights Association Membership
in subject.

All donations and memberships will be used exclusively for the cause.
Civil Rights for Parents and Children, Victims of Political/Judicial Abuse.
At this time donations are not eligible for a tax receipt.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? CANADA'S BIG FAT LIE!

2005-08-16T14:22:00.000-03:00

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Media Release, For Immediate Release

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ?
CANADA’S Big Fat Lie!

Falmouth, NS couple, Connie Brauer and Vic Harris are
demanding legal and financial resources from the Canadian
government to uphold parents’ Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. We visited our Federal MP, Scott Brison, last
week and requested Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
funding and legal counsel. At the meeting, we mentioned
there are no resources available to victims of Charter
violations. This makes the Charter inaccessible and
therefore non existent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is only viable
if all Canadians have quick access to it and the country
will uphold it. Canada does not! There are no consequences
to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations.

We do not have an 800 number, there are no politicians who
can provide access, there are no lawyers in Canada willing
to prosecute Charter motions for individuals and there is
absolutely no financing for legal fees. Litigation is
further complicated because the Provincial and Federal
Governments are both guilty of Charter violations, in the
same matter. They don't even teach Charter Rights in most
law schools. If they do, they do not teach the reality of
inaccessibility. We do not have access to class actions in
NS and some other provinces, and it would be impossible to
hire a law firm anyway as they don't exist for this purpose.
They only exist for corporations. There is no mandatory, pro
bono, in Canada, either. Legal Aid is inaccessible and
inadequate. They do not do litigation.

On the other hand, Canada spends an inordinate amount of
taxpayers’ money, quashing any and all Charter motions
which individuals manage to file. Victims are expected to
hire a lawyer (impossible), pay for it (impossible) or
muddle through litigation on their own. (impossible). Then
there is always the threat of costs, awarded by the judge.

This is totally unacceptable and makes any viability of a
Charter, moot. Canada pays lip service to the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms but there is no oomph! No
money, no legal counsel and no punishments for violations.
Canada is getting off Scott Free!

The Canadian governments’ have been violating parents’ and
childrens’ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for over
30 years now and there is no end in sight.

We requested an immediate short term solution. We need
immediate, financing for a class action lawsuit to uphold
our Charter rights and we need the best law firm in the
country to represent us in an unbiased manner. This is also
impossible because most law firms have a conflict of
interest, as they have government contracts. Nevertheless,
we want access to uphold our rights for all Canadians.

Mr. Brison knows, we have been working on this matter, 24/7
for the last 10 years as have millions of other Canadian
parents. Every single family is at risk of losing their
family and their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Canadian government, systematically ignores families’
complaints.
When is government going to listen?

Our long term solution request is for a national resource
centre, exclusively maintained for the purpose of enabling
victims, all victims, not gender biased or restricted in
any way, to seek immediate redress from Charter violations.

Resources to include mediation with top government
officials, extremely competent legal counsel, (not Legal
Aid), financing for lawsuits, travel and accommodation to
the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, prompt, access to
the courts, education program in government on how to advise
victims properly, more training in Law Schools and a more
willing attitude of government to uphold the Charter.

The Charter belongs to Canadians, it is the ultimate law of
the land ( Constitution Act, 1982 & Sect. 52 of Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) and must be upheld! That's
Canada's job!

After our meeting with Mr. Brison, we really didn't get a
commitment to actively and aggressively work towards this
goal. We requested a reply with an outline of a short term
and long term agenda to get our needs met? We want to hear
from other parents who are victims of Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms violations. Call 902.798.5267 or email
us at, cbrauer@lincsat.com. Subject: Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.

Sincerely,
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
Canadian Civil Rights Association

Request for Immediate Resources to Uphold the Charter

2005-08-10T14:17:00.000-03:00

Canadian Civil Rights Association
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
1061 Mines Rd.
Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone 902.798.5267
cbrauer@lincsat.com

Hon. Scott Brison
Liberal Caucus
Wolfville, NS
B0N 1X0

11:40 AM 8/10/2005

Request for Immediate Resources to Uphold the Charter

Dear Mr. Brison,

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday to discuss our concerns about the lack of resources and therefore the inaccessibility of the Charter of Rights to Canadians. As we mentioned there are no resources available to victims of Charter violations. This makes the Charter inaccessible and therefore non existent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is only viable if all Canadians have quick access to it and the country will uphold it. Canada does not.

We do not have an 800 number, there are no politicians who can provide access, there are no lawyers in Canada willing to prosecute Charter motions for individuals and there is absolutely no financing for legal fees. Litigation is further complicated because the Provincial and Federal Governments are both guilty of Charter violations, in the same matter. They don't even teach Charter Rights in most law schools. If they do, they do not teach the reality of inaccessibility. We do not have access to class actions in NS and some other provinces, and it would be impossible to hire a law firm anyway as they don't exist for this purpose. They only exist for corporations. There is no mandatory, pro bono, in Canada, either. Legal Aid is inaccessible and inadequate. They do not do litigation.

On the other hand, Canada spends an inordinate amount of taxpayers’ money, quashing any and all Charter motions which individuals manage to file. Victims are expected to hire a lawyer (impossible), pay for it (impossible) or muddle through litigation on their own. (impossible) This is totally unacceptable and makes any viability of a Charter, moot.

We requested an immediate short term solution. We need immediate, financing for a lawsuit to uphold our Charter rights and we need the best law firm in the country to represent us in an unbiased manner. This is also impossible because most law firms have a conflict of interest, as they do government work.
Nevertheless, we want access to uphold our rights.

As you know, we have been working on this matter, 24/7 for the last 10 years as have millions of other Canadians.
When is government going to listen?

Our long term solution request is for a national resource centre, exclusively maintained for the purpose of enabling victims, all victims, not gender biased or restricted in any way, to seek redress from Charter violations.

Resources to include mediation, extremely competent legal counsel, (not Legal Aid), financing for lawsuits, travel and accommodation to the Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa,
prompt, access to the courts, education program in government on how to advise victims properly, more training in Law Schools and a more willing attitude of government to uphold the Charter.

The Charter belongs to Canadians, it is the ultimate law of the land (Sect. 52) and must be upheld! That's Canada's job.

After our meeting with you, we really didn't get your commitment to actively and aggressively work towards this goal. You mentioned a letter to Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler. I can already tell you what his reply will be.

Could you kindly, reply with your short term and long term agenda to get our needs met?

Sincerely,
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

Who's Child Is It Anyway?

2005-08-10T14:12:00.000-03:00

Hi all,

I have finally gotten a copy of that article published on August 2nd.

Didn't hear from the Beacon Herald yet about my letter to the editor...

Blessings,

Andre

Whose child is it anyway?

The case of a Halifax couple who have been ordered to never see their young daughter again has raised troubling questions about Nova Scotia's child welfare system.

National Post Tuesday, August 2, 2005 Page: A7 Section: Canada Byline: Scott Stinson Source: National Post

In the early hours of May 19, 2004, heavily armed officers of the RCMP Emergency Response Team descended on a home on a quiet Halifax street. Four people were inside, and none of them planned to come out. Sixty-seven hours later, two of the home's occupants were under arrest, one was dead of an apparent heart attack, and the fourth resident – a five-month-old girl -- was in the care of the local Children's Aid Society.

The standoff was only the beginning of the problems for the husband and wife taken away in handcuffs on that night 14 months ago. They were sentenced last month to lengthy prison terms for their roles in the confrontation with police -- in which a blast from a shotgun sent pellets over the heads of the RCMP officers -- and their daughter has since been placed in the permanent care of the Halifax CAS. Child apprehensions in this country are nothing new, but some Haligonians -- including university professors, lawyers, and the local Elizabeth Fry Society -- say the case raises troubling questions about Nova Scotia's child welfare system. They want a public inquiry to explain what compelled the CAS to seize a child from the care of its own parents and why the police arrived bearing semi-automatic weapons and a battering ram to do so.

The province, critics say, took the baby girl from her parents not because of what they did but because of who they are. The 43-year-old mother and 51-year-old father -- who may not be named in order to protect the child's identity -- share an unusual bond beyond their marriage. Both have lost acrimonious custody disputes from previous marriages and both were charged with abducting those children from their legal guardians.

The mother was briefly an international fugitive in October, 2000, when she packed her seven-year-old triplets in the trunk of her car and drove them across the Ontario border into the United States and eventually to Acapulco, Mexico. Their history with the child welfare system has caused the couple to distrust authorities with an intensity that borders on the pathological, as even some of their supporters acknowledge. During criminal trials that ended in May, the couple insisted they were victims of a vast government conspiracy to remove children from low-income families and place them with
wealthy benefactors. They fired their lawyers and represented themselves in court, which local reports said led to frequent outbursts from the defendants, who levied wild accusations at witnesses, lawyers and judges.

Ray Kuszelewski knows first-hand the difficulties of dealing with the father. He represented the man in the early stages of the criminal proceedings, before being fired when he refused to use his client's defence to promote the conspiracy theory. Mr. Kuszelewski says that despite his former client's abrasive, combative nature, the man has a point. ''Regardless of [the father and mother] and their statements and their beliefs ... there are still issues that need to be addressed," he says. Mr. Kuszelewski, one of eight Haligonians on a committee that is pushing for a public inquiry into the Halifax CAS, says there has never been a proper explanation for why Children's Aid had an order to put the couple's child under supervisory care before she had even been born. (The mother fled Halifax with the newborn in January, 2004, when she learned of the custody order and returned a month later under a Canada-wide warrant for her arrest.)

The lawyer notes that the father lost a fight to raise his other daughter, now an adolescent, whom he wanted to remove from an Ontario native reserve after her mother died, while the mother lost her children in a dispute with her former husband. ''But this is a child of that couple, of two people who had problems individually of a different sort,'' Mr. Kuszelewski says. ''Any rational person would say these things are not the same [as their problems in the past]. ''How is it that some Ontario issue in the past is enough to trigger a call for an unborn child, which trumps all the other cases in Halifax to the point where the child is 20 days old and is already before the court?''

Stephen Kimber, a journalism professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax and another member of the newly formed committee, says he sees this case as a simple issue: ''What was the reason for taking this kid? Unless they can come up with a better reason than '[the couple] were involved in a custody battle and they challenged authority,' then I don't think they have much of a case.'' Mr. Kimber says if the Halifax CAS, which declined a request for comment on the case and the calls for a public inquiry, could show that the man and woman ''were a danger to their child, then that's a different thing, but
they haven't shown that.'' The Nova Scotia Supreme Court saw things differently, ruling late last month that the two were ''consumed with their perception of a corrupt family
justice system,'' that they were unable to act in the best interests of their child and that she ''would be at substantial risk of physical and emotional harm if returned to her parents' care.''

Mr. Kuszelewski says there is no doubt the couple were confrontational and difficult from the moment they learned the CAS wanted a role in the care of their child, which as he says was the point ''when the whole thing went off the rails.'' ''What happened in the standoff, and the shooting of the gun and all that stuff is terrible and there is legitimate reason why you can't let that go,'' Mr. Kimber says, ''but if it all keeps coming back to the question of why did [CAS] do this in the first place, if they can't justify that, then
it seems to me you have a problem.'' Michael Baker, the Conservative Justice Minister, has said he will not hold an inquiry into the case or the CAS, which says it will not discuss its reasons for action due to privacy laws.

Mr. Kimber suggests that many people in Nova Scotia are ''appalled'' by the series of events that began with the Halifax standoff, but he thinks it will take pressure from opposition politicians to convince the Tories to hold an inquiry. ''Because of what happened in the standoff, and the gun being fired, and because of [the couple's] personalities, there seems to be a lack of desire to get deeply into this by the NDP or Liberals,'' he says. ''I think they'd just prefer it goes away.'' There are hints, however, that the government will feel some pressure to provide answers to the questions Mr. Kimber and his associates are asking.

Graham Steele, an NDP member of the provincial legislature, has gone to court to force the government to appoint an advisory committee to review legislation governing the child welfare system. Mr. Steele says the Child and Family Services Act requires the review be carried out annually, but it hasn't been conducted since 1999. He says his court action is not directly related to this case, but that the furor it created ''threw a spotlight'' on the lack of oversight in the child welfare system.

The Halifax chapter of the Elizabeth Fry Society, while also choosing not to directly address the complaints raised by the mother, said recently it supports a CAS inquiry to explain what it sees as a sharp jump in the number of children taken into state care in the past couple of years. Donna Phillips, executive director of the non-profit organization that supports women in conflict with the law, said her staff has seen ''a huge increase in the number of women who are losing their children, particularly involving women with mental illness.''

Ms. Phillips said the society's outreach co-ordinator estimates 35% of her clients ''are involved with CAS trying to get their children back,'' up from only 5% two years ago. Mr. Steele says the statements from Elizabeth Fry will add to pressure on the government to give some of the questions surrounding Children's Aid a full public airing. ''The fact that a very well-regarded and serious organization is calling for the same thing makes it that much harder for the department to dismiss it as a few paranoid crackpots.'' The mother and father vow to continue their fight. She claims to be on a hunger strike while in prison, where she is serving a 3 1/2-year sentence. Her husband was sentenced to 4 1/2 years, but both have appealed their convictions. They are also appealing the court order that said they would never see their daughter again. They continue to represent themselves in court.

Keywords

2005-07-15T09:31:00.000-03:00

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

2005-07-14T11:56:00.000-03:00

Canadian Civil Rights Association

Ontario drops runaway mom case

2005-07-13T13:20:00.000-03:00

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.

2005-07-10T14:25:00.000-03:00

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?

2005-07-08T12:34:00.001-03:00

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

2005-07-08T12:34:00.000-03:00

Get Carline VandenElsen's Book and Read for Yourself

2005-07-05T16:36:00.000-03:00

"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

2005-07-04T13:12:00.000-03:00

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

2005-07-02T15:01:00.000-03:00

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!

2005-07-02T14:55:00.000-03:00

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

2005-07-01T13:49:00.000-03:00

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!

2005-07-01T13:17:00.000-03:00

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

2005-07-01T12:19:00.000-03:00

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."

Wednesday, June 29/05 No Justice in Canada Day!

2005-06-29T18:43:00.000-03:00

Sentenced by the courts, Larry and Carline VandenElsen have received the following punishment:

- They lost their 5 month old baby girl

- The State has been unaccountable for the abduction of their baby girl

- Public character assassination

- Public shame for standing against the powers that be (let it teach us all a lesson, eh?)

4.5 years for Larry Finck and 3.5 years for Carline VandenElsen. Both were credited double time for time served, contrary to the abusive 1.5 time the Crown wanted to force on them. Larry will then serve 4.5 years less 26.5 months and Carline will serve 3.5 years less 200 days.

One thing this trial has not succeeded at doing is examine the reasons why Larry and Carline refused to hand over their baby. Why the RCMP tried to ram down their door in the middle of the night. The many irregularities CAS and the legal system have been responsible for, from the first court order while Mona-Clare was still in the womb, to the use of the RCMP anti-terrorist unit in the middle of the night, to the abuse of mental health assessments which the CAS sparkles families with like poisoned candies at Christmas.

What this trial has succeeded to do is throw discredit on the institution of "justice" in that province, and has helped bring out to the light the issue of the CAS and Family Court who, by their very self-preservation, continue to break up families using "mental health" as their weapon of choice.

How do we let an agency that has both a governmental and private status, use its own psychiatrists and lawyers to build up their own defense to support the fabricated removal of children in otherwise regular families? Who has never had any harm done to them in a family? Who can predict that a child placed in a foster home will NEVER have any harm done to them? The OPPOSITE is actually truer.

At this point, scores of people from around Halifax and elsewhere, in Ontario as well, are coming out with their own horror stories of how their child has been methodically removed by the CAS and placed in a foster home or given in adoption. To ignore them is no longer possible. We cannot refuse to consider the future of this "mental health" angle as being the weapon of choice being use nowadays to forcibly take away from parents their children who suffer from mental health.

A public inquiry is the only way we will finally expose the inefficiency of the system they use, and expose the numerous abuses that will shock people. There is a systemic blindness to the real tragedies unecessarily created by employees of a system who rely solely on the letter of the law to accomplish a task: provide candidates to a system that processes children.

Cynical? Far from it. It is a grim and undisputable reality.

Larry, Carline and Mona-Clare Finck have been victims of this confused system. The standoff stemmed from their refusal to abide by the CAS comedic claims to their infant. And now that the LAW has succeeded in forcing itself on those victims, we need to stand and denounce such atrocities against Canadian families. The deep shame that stigmatizes families who lose their children for reasons that are beyond them, the powerlessness before a system that maintains that rules have to be blindly applied, even if those rules clearly violate the very mandate they boast about: protecting children and keeping families together. It is clear that we assist at a social fraud.

The CAS has turned into a monstruous machine, and the longer we leave it to itself, unaccountable, the worst it will become. In that particular province, the obligatory annual review of the CAS and Child Protection Services has not been done since 1999. It is time we start asking questions. There's a big buiding being constructed in Stratford, ON for the CAS... WHY do they need a new million-dollar building?

Regards,

Andre Lefebvre

519-271-5880

http://www.familyheadquarters.ca

Criminal Complaint Filed with the HRP

2005-06-25T21:20:00.000-03:00

Chief Frank Beazley
Brauer and Harris Human Rights Org.
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone 902.798.5267
cbrauer@lincsat.com
http://www.stopthetorture.info

April 12, 2005

Halifax Regional Police

Official Charge of Criminal Wrong Doing by the following:
Government of NS, Premier John, Hamm, Minister of Community Services, David Morse, Family and Children Services , Chief of Police of HRPD and Minister of Justice, Michael Baker and the Judge who issued the apprehension order of Mona-Clare Fink/VandenElsen.

Charges:

• Torture and Terrorism
• Criminal Child Abduction
• Forceful Child Abduction with Many Dangerous Weapons and Unnecessary Force.
• Conspiracy
• Unlawful Arrest and Confinement
• Running a Baby Snatching Ring
• Child Endangerment
• Incompetence
• Property Damage
• Police Brutality
• Massive Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Violations
• Excessive and Unnecessary Tax Payer Spending
• Judicial Unaccountability
• Political Unaccountability
• Failure to Respond.
• Wrongful Death
• “Crimes Against Humanity”

Torture and Terrorism
May, 2004 Halifax Standoff at 6161 Shirley St.
The Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen story has been making headlines for months. This family is at the breaking point. Currently Mr. Finck is incarcerated and has been for nearly a year.
Every bail hearing was denied. There are accused criminals and murderers out on bail, free. However, a father who harmed no one and did everything he could to protect his family and especially his baby daughter from the corrupt and barbaric family and children services is still in jail today.
These parents have endured torture, persecution, stalking, assault, taunting, threats, slander, libel, financial devastation, child abduction and incarceration from the very people who are supposed to ensure their rights and freedoms. This all started in Ontario, when a corrupt court system decided to terminate a natural mother’s access to her children and give full custody to their father. This act violates the Judge’s Act, The Divorce Act, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The family decided to move to NS when they found out that they were expecting another child. The parents were extremely fearful that the Family and Children’s Aid would once again attempt to abduct their children. They had good reason to fear as the Family and Children’s Services of NS contacted the Ontario FACS even before the baby was born. They issued an apprehension order based on pure fabrication. The NS Judge ordered a court order to apprehend a nursing infant from her mother’s breast without any evidence of any neglect or danger to the child.

Of course the parents would not give up their infant without a fight. During the Halifax standoff, a gun was fired out a window. However, it was never aimed at anybody and nobody was hurt.
3 Days later the couple surrendered and came out of the house with their infant child and the baby’s dead grandmother, who had died prematurely during the stressful event.

Since that time Mr. Finck has been incarcerated without the barest necessities to carry on a defense at his trial.

Ms. VandenElsen and Mr. Finck have been financially ruined by the Ontario system and the NS system.
They have not seen their child, heard from her, held her or been assured she is safe. In fact the opposite is true. Family and Children Services have already begun adoption proceedings, without the parents. They even suggested the baby was in the US.

The parents are engaged in no less than three trials during the same time and quite possible more.
They have been doing everything possible to get their child back. At this time they have little hope because both parents have already lost their children from previous marriages, due to the corrupt court systems in Canada. These parents have done absolutely nothing wrong. All they wanted to do was be with their children. That however, is a crime in Canada.

Criminal Child Abduction
In 2004, Family and Children Services applied for an apprehension order without any evidence whatsoever, of harm to the baby, Mona-Clare. A NS Judge rubber stamped the order without requesting any evidence. The mandate of the Family and Children Services is to unite the family. They took absolutely no steps to check, verify or provide assistance to this family.

Mr. David Morse is the Minister of Community Services. It is his responsibility to oversee the Family and Children Services and see that they are run correctly and do no harm to families. He failed.

Mr. John Hamm, Premier of NS, is responsible for his own ministers, including David Morse. He failed to be accountable. He failed to demand accountability from David Morse and Family and Children Services. This inhumane tragedy happened on John Hamm’s watch.

There are many babies and children in NS, routinely, being stripped from their parents, without cause, by Family and Children Services

Forceful Child Abduction with Many Dangerous
Weapons and Unnecessary Force.
Upon receiving the unjustified, apprehension order, the police moved in to the residence with machine guns, ER teams, riot gear and battering rams. The police attempted to forcefully seize the infant from her parents, after midnight, in May 2004, without any mediation, discussion, reassurance or concern for the baby’s welfare. Baby’s are very sensitive to tension and riot gear, windows bashing and continuous phone calling after midnight would be enough to upset any baby. Depriving the child of it’s mother and father, is a high stress event for any child and could have long damaging effects. The baby has not seen or heard her family since the apprehension. This is cruel and unusual punishment. Nobody in their right mind would sanction such a thing, except the government of NS.

Conspiracy
Medical files are private. So are Revenue Canada files. However the Family and Children Services of Ontario wasted no time in forwarding all sorts of wrong, misleading and private information to the NS Family and Children Services.
When Mr. Finck went to the HRP to lay a conspiracy and kidnaping charge the police brushed him off with contempt. He was a fly in their ointment. All they cared about was unlawfully apprehending their perfectly healthy baby.

Unlawful Arrest and Confinement
Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen were immediately arrested and charged with all sorts of ridiculous charges. Defending your baby and preventing her from being permanently snatched, is a crime in NS. Being a parent in NS is now a crime.

Running a Baby Snatching Ring
Where are all the babies going? Why are they taken without any contact with their parents?
Why did the IWK not record the live birth? Why are the being adopted out? Who is adopting them? Who is responsible? When did the parents become dispensable? Where is Mona-Clare? Why hasn’t David Morse, Michael Baker and John Hamm stepped up and called a full criminal inquiry? Twice as many baby’s are apprehended in Halifax as they are in Toronto. What does that tell you?

Child Endangerment
What has happened to Mona-Clare? Where is she? Is she alive or dead? Why isn’t she back with her mommy and Daddy? Has she been adopted? Where? Why? Who? How? No one knows and no one cares.

Criminal Negligence
John Hamm, Michael Baker, David Morse, Family and Children Services, Human Rights, Ombudsman, HRP Police Chief have all failed to lift a finger or make a call. It’s their job.

Property Damage
The Halifax police damaged the property of Mona Finck. They have not compensated the family.

Police Brutality
Forceful apprehension of a child, arresting the parents, arresting witnesses, solitary confinement, tasering, pushing into the ground, sitting on peoples back while their hands are pinned beneath them, false arrests, unlawful incarceration of witnesses and continued incarceration is police brutality.

Massive Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Violations
No Canadian government agency is above the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the Supreme Law of the Land and all people in Canada are supposed to be protected by it.
The government has violated Sections: 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 24, 28, 31 and 52 in this matter.

Excessive and Unnecessary Tax Payer Spending
How much tax payer money has this government spent depriving this family of their children? We want to know, right down to the penny.

Judicial Unaccountability
Any judge who rules to remove a perfectly healthy baby from her loving parents should and must be removed! We demand it. http://www.jail4judges.org

Political Unaccountability
The politicians have hidden from us, from Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen and the public.
There is nowhere left to hide.

Failure to Carry out their elected duty.
Politicians, judges, police.

Wrongful Death
Ms. Mona Finck died prematurely during the standoff. Death was caused by Family and Children Services and Halifax police.

“Crimes Against Humanity”
The cruelty of this case and the many other cases in NS, is astronomical. It can only be classified as “Crimes Against Humanity”
The provincial torture of parents is the continuation of the Federal torture of parents by the politicians. Make no mistake about it. The Divorce /DV Industry, which is a multi-billion dollar, profit sharing industry, based on greed, that has violated the constitutional rights of all parents and their Children, must be reformed. This industry spreads the wealth to all it’s leeches at the expense of the family.

This torture must stop now. We are asking a full scale investigation be implemented immediately.
Criminal charges to be applied if found guilty.

We are human rights and family rights activists. We do not want any more harm done to this family. They are in constant danger.

They have been excessively harmed. Because of the fragile state of the family, please refer all questions to us. We are laying these charges. Leave the family alone.

WE DEMAND THE RETURN OF MONA-CLARE FINCK/VANDENELSEN RIGHT NOW! SHE NEEDS TO BE WITH HER PARENTS.

We demand a full public inquiry, now.
We demand a full criminal investigation.

Sincerely,
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
World Ambassadors for Parents Equal Rights.
The Parents Are Angry!

Cc International Criminal Court @ The Hague.

“Keeping people from being free is big business.”
Prison Guard on “Masked and Anonymous” staring Bob Dylan

2005-06-25T21:19:00.000-03:00

Halifax Regional Police Complaint

Media Release: Oh, Canada, What Have You Done?

2005-06-22T12:01:00.000-03:00

Media Release, For Immediate Release and

Worldwide Media Release

PSA for television, for human rights

Justice, Inc.

Brauer and Harris

902.798.5267

cbrauer@lincsat.com
June 17/05

Oh, Canada, What Have You Done?

NS Premier Hamm

and NS AG, Michael Baker...

"How Can You Allow

This To Happen In NS?"

Warning!

NS, Canada is not Safe For Families!

They steal your babies, here!

Notice the cut straps? Forcefully cut from her mother's loving arms!

May 21/04, Halifax, NS. The Forceful Removal Of A 5 Month Old Nursing Infant From Her Parents By Children's Aid and a dozen of NS's Machine Gun, Armoured SWAT TEAM For No Logical Reason! Halifax standoff lasted for 67 hours, during which time the police bashed in the family's door with a battering ram, after midnight, and attempted to seize the child. Exactly like the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. Parents refused to give up their baby, as Government is unconstitutional, barbaric and cruel. Grandmother died during standoff. 50 Reasons to hold a Public Inquiry, but NS Government refuses Public Inquiry. Parents are incarcerated in prison. Found guilty of abducting their own child and firing a gun, a warning shot. But the cops got their child, by God! Child has not been seen since. (over a year now) No home, no family, no justice! Millions $$$ spent just to prevent parents from raising their children. Why? What are they hiding? What a country, Canada? No one is safe here! Grab your kids and run!

Call A Public Inquiry Now!

Don’t Let This Happen!

R.I.P. Carline VandenElsen,

Wife, mother and human rights activist, on hunger strike for justice,

starving for the children in a jail cell,

Deprived of everything, including her newborn baby, now 18 mo. old, by the

NS political/judicial/CAS/corrections system.

Larry Finck, Father, husband and human rights activist has been in jail for over

a year for refusing to give up his child to CAS. Innocent until proven guilty, NOT!

Little Baby Girl, deprived of her mummy and daddy, for no reason! Why? How?

How many others?

A Public Service Announcement from Justice, Inc. Brauer and Harris Phone 902.798.5267 http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/

2005-06-22T11:48:00.000-03:00

Lunenburg, NS looks so peaceful, but wait, the evil monster is stirring. This monster is so evil it eats our young and spits out the parents. We must slay this evil monster! We must make our beloved NS safe for families again!

2005-06-22T11:40:00.000-03:00

In the bowels of Halifax, lurkes a monster! It will come and get you in the middle of the night and lock you away forever. It will pretend nothing ever happened.It can do no wrong.

DEAR UNACCOUNTABLE POLITICIANS

2005-06-22T11:23:00.000-03:00

Dear Unaccountable Politicians,

Carline VandenElsen is dying and it's your fault!

She has been taken to hospital!

You have tortured and terrorized this mother and her husband and their baby.

You have failed to fulfill your duty as an elected politician.

You have failed to ensure Justice.

You have failed to Investigate the corrupt abuse of power.

She will will be dead very soon, and you are all at fault!

Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely!

We hold you all personally responsible!

Your complete lack of care is reprehensible!

Live Free!
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
NS, Canada
902.798.5267 ( Office hours 9-9AST-1 hr past EST)
cbrauer@lincsat.com

2005-06-19T23:06:00.000-03:00

Michael Baker, Minister of Justice in NS, responsible for the Carnage.

2005-06-19T23:05:00.000-03:00

Premier John Hamm, the Premier of NS, responsible for the carnage.

2005-06-19T23:04:00.000-03:00

David Morse, Minister of Community Services. The one responsible for carnage.

Compare Karla Homolka to Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck

2005-06-19T14:39:00.001-03:00

Carline and Larry have been tortured and terrorized for over 10 years,
And they still do not have their children back!

2005-06-19T14:39:00.000-03:00

Karla Homolka, will soon be released after 12 years of incarceration for the murder of two people. Not charged for the the murder of her sister or the rape and drugging of Jane Doe.

2005-06-19T14:30:00.000-03:00

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris, Founders of Justice, Inc.

2005-06-19T14:27:00.000-03:00

RIP Carline VandenElsen, Starving for the Children, Starving for Justice! Don't let this happen, NS, Canada!

2005-06-19T14:26:00.000-03:00

Larry Finck, fighting for his family

2005-06-19T14:25:00.000-03:00

Carline VandenElsen, Searching for her baby.

2005-06-19T14:23:00.000-03:00

5 Month Old Baby, Seized by NS Government, from her parents, never to be seen again!

OH CANADA, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

2005-06-18T23:36:00.000-03:00

Media Release, For Immediate Release and
Worldwide Media Release
PSA for television, for human rights
Justice, Inc.
Brauer and Harris
902.798.5267
cbrauer@lincsat.com

Oh, Canada, What Have You Done?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NS Premier Hamm

and NS AG, Michael Baker...

"How Can You Allow

This To Happen In NS?"

Warning!

NS, Canada is not Safe For Families!

They steal your babies, here!

Notice the cut straps? Forcefully cut from her mother's loving arms!

May 21/04, Halifax, NS. The Forceful Removal Of A 5 Month Old Nursing Infant From Her Parents By Children's Aid and a dozen of NS's Machine Gun, Armoured SWAT TEAM For No Logical Reason! Halifax standoff lasted for 67 hours, during which time the police bashed in the family's door with a battering ram, after midnight, and attempted to seize the child. Exactly like the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. Parents refused to give up their baby, as Government is unconstitutional, barbaric and cruel. Grandmother died during standoff. 50 Reasons to hold a Public Inquiry, but NS Government refuses Public Inquiry. Parents are incarcerated in prison. Found guilty of abducting their own child and firing a gun, a warning shot. But the cops got their child, by God! Child has not been seen since. (over a year now) No home, no family, no justice! Millions $$$ spent just to prevent parents from raising their children. Why? What are they hiding? What a country, Canada? No one is safe here! Grab your kids and run!

Call A Public Inquiry Now!

Don’t Let This Happen!

R.I.P. Carline VandenElsen,

Wife, mother and human rights activist, on hunger strike for justice,

starving for the children in a jail cell,

Deprived of everything, including her newborn baby, now 18 mo. old, by the

NS political/judicial/CAS/corrections system.

Larry Finck, Father, husband and human rights activist has been in jail for over

a year for refusing to give up his child to CAS. Innocent until proven guilty, NOT!

Little Baby Girl, deprived of her mummy and daddy, for no reason! Why? How?

How many others?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Public Service Announcement from Justice, Inc. Brauer and Harris Phone 902.798.5267 http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/

CARLINE IS DYING!

2005-06-18T23:33:00.000-03:00

Dear Unaccountable Politicians,

Carline VandenElsen is dying and it's your fault!
She has been taken to hospital!
You have tortured and terrorized this mother and her husband and their baby.
You have failed to fulfill your duty as an elected politician.
You have failed to ensure Justice.
You have failed to Investigate the corrupt abuse of power.
She will will be dead very soon, and you are all at fault!
Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely!
We hold you all personally responsible!
Your complete lack of care is reprehensible!

Live Free!
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
NS, Canada
902.798.5267 ( Office hours 9-9AST-1 hr past EST)
cbrauer@lincsat.com

RIP

2005-06-16T13:37:00.000-03:00

Media Release, For Immediate Release
Justice, Inc.
Brauer and Harris
902.798.5267
cbrauer@lincsat.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Can You Allow

This To Happen In NS?

Call A Public Inquiry Now!

Don’t Let This Happen!

R.I.P. Carline VandenElsen

Wife, mother and human rights activist

Deprived of everything by the NS political/judicial system.

A Public Service Announcement from Justice, Inc, Fax 902.798.5267

Live Free!
Connie Brauer
NS, Canada
902.798.5267 ( Office hours 9-9AST-1 hr past EST)
cbrauer@lincsat.com

_

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starving For the Children

2005-06-16T13:26:00.000-03:00

Friends of Carline and Larry Links- Check them out!

2005-06-16T13:23:00.000-03:00

Starvation Campaign to request a public inquiry
http://starvingforthechildren.blogspot.com
http://newsroomwatch.blogspot.com
http://commentspage.blogspot.com

=-------=0=-------=
The Canadian Book of Many Sorrows
http://www.familyheadquarters.ca

=-------=0=-------=
EVERY CHILD COUNTS, EVERY SIGNATURE TOO....
http://www.petitiononline.com/babymona
=-------=0=-------=

STOP THE PERMANENT CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS!

2005-06-16T13:18:00.000-03:00

Media Release, for Immediate Release

Justice, Inc.

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0

902.798.5267

cbrauer@lincsat.com

http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/

Thanks to:

http://www.soulcanvas.com/postcard.jpg

cc Media, politicians and Friends of Larry and Carline

POST CARD CAMPAIGNE DEMANDING A PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE THEFT OF CHILDREN BY NS CHILDRENS AID SOCIETY- NO LONGER IN THE CHILD PROTECTION BIZ BUT IN THE CHILD APPREHENSION BIZ!

Open Letter to Canadians- No Babies Allowd in NS!

2005-06-13T12:52:00.000-03:00

June 13, 2005
Open Letter to Canadians: No Babies Allowed in NS!

Dear Canadians,
There is a terrible crime happening in NS. Parents are at risk of having their children snatched, unlawfully, by the Children's Aid Society.

They have an incredible government support system and they are unaccountable to anyone. First they apply for an apprehension order of your child based
upon the most vague and illogical reasons,
"possible future harm." (Gestapo tactics) This is the one size fits all loophole excuse to torture and terrorize the family. Then they submit this application to a judge who routinely rubber stamps the order. (Gestapo tactics)

Next, a psychological evaluation is ordered, but wait, there's more! The psychologists are all employed by the government. What does that tell you? Refusing a biased evaluation is reason for seizure of your child because you are uncooperative.
Next step is to engage the police, SWAT Team, who will first stalk your house and family and then bash in your door in the middle of the night to forcefully snatch your baby. (Gestapo tactics)
If you resist, you will be arrested, tasered, abused and confined. The baby will be taken anyway and you will never see her/him again. (Gestapo tactics)
This is exactly what happened to a NS couple, Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck. First a little history.

Carline and Larry lived in Ontario. They both lost custody of their previous children because our Supreme Courts routinely, during a divorce, designate one parent the custodial parent and the other parent the non custodial parent. From that moment all parents are no longer parents of their own children. A non custodial parent will never be able to make a parenting decision again as that right has been removed from them. In Carline's case her triplets were removed from her care and awarded to her ex husband. She was given very limited access to her own children for no apparent reason. We have the children and Canadian judges raise them. We must now ask permission from a judge for everything.
Our Family Law System is barbaric, cruel and unconstitutional but they have the power. They refuse to implement equal shared parenting.

Carline VandenElsen couldn't bear having no contact with her triplets, as the judge threatened to do. She took matters into her own hands and abducted them to Mexico, where she enjoyed a special time with her children.
Eventually she was caught and returned to Ontario. She was acquitted on all charges, based upon necessity. At this time however, the crown is appealing the verdict.
Despite accusations to the contrary, Carline VandenElsen never had any dealings with the Ontario Children's Aid.

Larry Finck had a baby daughter. When the mother died, the mother's brother was awarded custody of the child despite the father's application for custody.
The child went to live on the Indian reserve and the father would never have custody of his child again. It was even difficult to see her.

After a scheduled visit with his own baby, Larry Finck did not return the child, siting that the child was in danger. The courts didn't see it that way and denied custody and access to the father.

Carline and Larry met in Ontario and married. They moved to NS believing that they could start a new life here, in quiet NS. That was not to be. Upon learning of her pregnancy, the NS Children's Aid Society, got involved and kicked it up another notch. They issued an apprehension order of the fetus, claiming " possible future harm".

The Children's Aid has a checklist 14 reasons to apprehend a child. Not one of the 14 reasons was applicable so they used their catch all reason. There was no abuse or neglect and they even had a glowing family doctor's report of their excellent parenting skills.

After the birth of the baby, the judge rubber stamped the order without any investigation, without any consultation, without any home visits, despite the mandate of the Children's Aid to keep families together.

When the baby was 5 months old and nursing from her mother's breast, ( babies only food source) the SWAT team bashed in their door and attempted to seize the child. The alarmed parents refused. After a 67 hour standoff, during which time the grandmother died of natural causes, the couple gave up. The baby was seized, the parents tazerd and pushed to the ground. They were arrested and confined. The precious mother's milk was never collected for the baby. The baby hasn't been seen since and it is now more than a year later. This was supposed to be temporary. A year is long term.
The courts are now in the process of making a decision regarding permanent care, permanent removal of their child forever. This couple is very vocal in their disgust of government. This and this alone is what has caused the seizure of their child. It is now a punishable crime to voice opposition to government activities. (Gestapo tactic)

During the standoff a gun was fired, a warning shot, while the police were bashing in the front door of the family's home after midnight. (Gestapo tactics)

Carline VandenElsen was subsequently charged with firing the weapon even though no DNA was found and no gunshot residue was found. Strictly conjecture.

Larry Finck, charged with firing the gun and abducting his own child, has already served a year in jail. Again no DNA and no GSR was found. Strictly conjecture. What happened to “ innocent until proven guilty?” Why is an innocent man in prison for a whole year?

Both parents are charged with abducting their own child. How is that humanly possible?
Carline and Larry are now confined in the Central NS Corrections Facility awaiting sentencing. They have been denied envelopes, stamps, medical treatment, a better mattress, communication with each other, their legal files and documents, phone privileges and legal council. Larry Finck has been denied bail several times, the reason stated that he is at risk of flight. Why are murderers and pedophiles out on bail and not a father protecting his own family?

At no time was the baby every provided with legal counsel. During the criminal trial the couple each had legal representation but they subsequently fired their lawyers. They felt they were not working in their best interests. They asked for legal representation during the permanent care hearings but were denied. They wanted a lawyer who would work for them exclusively and not the integrity of the court, a required condition of all lawyers.

Carline is ready to die. She has given up on ever having justice. She has been on a hunger strike, starving for the children, since May 21/05, the anniversary of the seizure of her baby. She has demanded a Public Inquiry into the corruption of this case and all the other apprehension orders of the Children's Aid.

They have repeatedly asked for their Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be upheld but not one court has upheld them. Section 7 of the Charter guarantees "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principals of fundamental justice." Section 7 of the Charter guarantees the life, liberty and personal security of all Canadians. It also demands that governments respect the basic principles of justice whenever it intrudes on those rights.

Where are Carline and Larry's rights? Who will uphold them? Who will compensate them? Who will release them? Who will return their baby? Who will come forward and rally to their defence?
No one is safe in NS! Babies and parents are not safe anymore. At any time of the day or night, the CAS can unlawfully snatch your child. They already did!
In the meantime, Nova Scotia’s politicians arrogantly refuse to hold a Public Inquiry. The NS Ombudsman refuses to get involved.

Why? What are they hiding? The flow chart shows no less than twenty two separate entities profiting from the seizure of this child. All expenses are paid for by the taxpayers. A family at home costs the taxpayers absolutely nothing. Seizure of the child invokes 22 separate groups of civil servants and private organizations that must be paid. This is costing the taxpayers millions and millions in uneccessay expense.

We, the people, and Carline and Larry, have a right to a Public Inquiry. Call it now, or resign Premier Hamm and AG Michael Baker!

There is something else happening here that is very strange. There appears to be a blanket censorship on any information regarding this situation. Some media and the community have refused to allow information to get through. Even the local schools don't want anything to do with the truth. Libraries, schools and book stores refuse to take Carline VandenElsen's book. (Gestapo tactics) This case affects every single person in NS and in Canada. This is not the only case. We hear many horror stories everyday, all across Canada.

Carline and Larry have many supporters who have been working 24/7 for a Public Inquiry. However, the justice system is content to just let Carline VandenElsen die in prison and to continue supporting the snatching of healthy babies from their parents.

In this letter, we have identified certain actions as Gestapo tactics. This is no accident. A comparison of Hitler’s actions regarding the snatching of children by their CAS is identical to modern NS and Canadian tactics. Your child could be next! Evil is here!

Our elected civil servants are no longer working for the people but actively working against them. They are engaged in a Political Coverup that rivals Ottawa’s Ad Scam.
We are asking for all interested parties willing to support the release of Larry and Carline and in favour of a Public Inquiry to come forward.

Please call us at 902.798.5267 and leave your name and phone number. Fund-raising in progress.

Donations welcome.

Live Free!
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
Family Civil Rights Movement
NS, Canada
902.798.5267 ( Office hours 9-9AST-1 hr past EST)
cbrauer@lincsat.com
Paypal actt: cbrauer@lincsat.com

Sign the Petiton for a Public Inquiry

2005-06-06T12:16:00.000-03:00

http://www.petitiononline.com/babymona

2005-06-05T13:22:00.000-03:00

Media Release, For Immediate Release

June 6, 2005 Justice Inc.

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0

Phone and Fax 902.798.5267
Cell: 902.791.0958

Email:cbrauer@lincsat.com
http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/

Fifty Reasons - Why We Need An Immediate,
Public Inquiry Into the Carline VandenElsen
& Larry Finck Case.

We need a public inquiry into the complete handling of the caseof Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck and the forceful removalof their child on May 21, 2004 and their subsequent arrest,incarceration, and permanent care hearings. It has now been 380days since their child was forcefully seized by NS Children’sAid and Halifax Regional Police, Swat Team. No reasonable causewas provided. This barbaric action was approved of by JudgeDebra Smith of NS Supreme Court and totally ignored by all NSpoliticians.

We need broad, public, independent and all day televisedhearings into the Family Law System and the NS Children's AidApprehension Practices. Just like the Gomery Inquiry. We needcompensation for all victims. We, the people, demand anindependent public inquiry to resolve the following....

Save a Life

1. We need to save the life of Carline VandenElsen, wife,mother, who is starving for the children in her demands to getjustice via a public inquiry.
2. We need both parents, CarlineVandenElsen and Larry Finck free on bail immediately.

IWK Doctor
3. How can a doctor violate the privacy rights of herpatients, mal-practice, which resulted in seizure of the child,and still be employed as a pediatrician by government?
4. How can a doctor's call to eliminate all medical concerns to theChildren's Aid be totally ignored? The doctor called to saythere were absolutely no concerns for the health and welfare ofthe child.
5. Why didn’t the IWK prepare a birth certificate andregister the birth?

Children's Aid

6. How the Children's Aid can make an apprehension order while thebaby is still a fetus?
7. How the Children's Aid can seize ababy without any evidence of life endangerment?
8. How the Children's Aid can seize a child without any investigation orconsultation with the parents?
9. How the Children's Aid canseize a child without any attempts to identify a problem andthen work to solve the problem?
10. How the Children's Aid canseize a baby temporarily and it turns into long term?
11. How the Children's Aid can seize the baby permanently and makeapplication for permanent care?
12. How many other children are permanently removed from their
homes and families by Children'sAid without proof of life endangerment?
13. How the Children'sAid can violate their mission statement of keeping the familiestogether?
14. Why and when, the Children's Aid is no longer inthe child protection business but the child apprehensionbusiness?
15. How is the Children’s Aid funded?
16. Which is more profitable: seizure of children or working with the familyto keep them together?
17. Why are the Children’s Aid still inbusiness?

SWAT TEAM

18. How the SWAT team can be called in to stalk afamily for months?
19. How the SWAT team can bash in a family'sdoor after midnight?
20. How the SWAT team can have theauthority to forcefully seize a couple’s child without anyreasonable alternatives.
21. How the SWAT team can physicallyabuse the parents and others after they gave up?
22. How the SWAT team can ignore the fragile life and health of an aginggrandmother ?
23. How the SWAT team can cause undue hardship andanxiety to a child, her parents and the grandmother?
24. How the SWAT team can follow an apprehension order without any duediligence of their own?
25. How the SWAT team can remove anursing, 5 month old baby from her very sustenance of life, hermother’s breast?

Judge Smith

26. How a judge can issue an apprehension order based on noevidence of life endangerment?
27. How a judge can issue anapprehension order based on a possible future harm complaint
28.How a judge can get promoted to Assistant Chief Justice whileshe deliberately caused the forceful removal of a child from herparents without cause?
29. How can that judge now adjudicate theresults of her own actions in court? Permanent Care,Constitutional Question?
30. How a hearing for permanent carecan continue without competent lawyers for the defense, or thechild?

Judge Wright?

31. How a criminal trial can go on without the other partypresent? Children's Aid?
32. How no evidence was presented byChildren's Aid?
33. How a criminal trial can go on withoutincluding the validity of the court order, which is the startingpoint for the standoff and the refusal to hand over their childby the parents?
34. How a trial can continue without allowingall evidence, witnesses etc. for the defense?
35. How a judgecan delay sentencing so as to keep people incarcerated withoutbail or time served? Courts
36. How the system can continueendlessly without any accountability as to expenses? 37. Howthere is unlimited financial assistance for the prosecution butnothing for the defense?
38. How there is unlimited financialcosts for the Children's Aid, the lawyers, the prosecution etc.and nothing for the parents.

Jail

39. How the jailers can deny food, mattresses, personalcare, medical and counseling Carline and Larry and otherprisoners?
40. How the jailers can deny phone calls, visits,legal documents etc? for prisoners who are self representing incourt each day?
41. How the jailers can deliberately install asystem of noise, light and sound distraction so one can work?Accountability
42. How no politician is accountable for anythingin NS?
43. How there is no method to hold politiciansaccountable?
44. How no cops, no Children's Aid, No MLA's, noPremier, no Attorney General, no ombudsman and no anyone isaccountable for anything?
45. Who is doing their job, who isnot, and what is their job? How is it possible that theGovernment of NS can attack a family, seize their child andviolate all their human and Charter Rights and no one isaccountable?

Canadian Charter of Rights
46. How can Sections: 2, 6,7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 15.1, 24, 28, 31, 52 all be violated by thisgovernment and no remedies or accountability has been offered?

47. The parties involved are: All NS Politicians, Minister ofCommunity Services, David Morse, Premier Hamm, AG Michael Baker,our MLA Ron Russell, VandenElsen /Finck MLA, MLA Howard Epstein, NS Children’s Aid, Elizabeth Whelton, Blois-Nickerson law firm,IWK Hospital and possibly other hospitals, Dawn Edger,pediatrician to Carline and Mona-Clare, HRP + ER(SWAT) team,Judge Debra Smith, Judge Wright and other judges involved inrubber stamping apprehension orders, NS Corrections.

48. The aggrieved parties are: Larry Finck, Carline VandenElsen,Mona-Clare, (baby), Mona Finck and all the other parents andchildren who have been tortured and terrorized by this agency,government and political, judicial cover up.

49. Warning! NS is not safe for Families! Every parent and everychild is at risk, here. We want justice!
50. To restore faith,in the judicial system.

Justice Inc.
Parents Civil Rights Movement
Connie Brauer and VicHarris 1061 Mines Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0
Phone and Fax902.798.5267
Email: cbrauer@lincsat.com

cc NS Ombudsman
cc RonRussell, MLA and Deputy Premier, failed to respond
cc John Hamm,Premier of NS, failed to respond
cc Michael Baker, AttorneyGeneral of NS, failed to respond
cc International Criminal Court@ Hague, add to our file.
cc Carline VandenElsen and LarryFinck, parents incarcerated in NS Correctional Center
cc Media ,NS and World Wide
cc Parent’s Civil Rights Movement

P.S. Karla Homolka, who killed 3 women and raped and druggedanother one, will be free in July after serving 12 years.

Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck have been fighting for theirchildren, in the courts, for more than 10 years and they stilldo not have them back. They are both incarcerated for refusingto give up yet another child to the system.

Something is very evil here!

Compare:

Karla Homolka, Serial Killer -3 dead and 1 raped and drugged

Mom, Carline VandenElsesn, Dad, Larry Finck Baby, Seized at 5 mo. and not seen again!

All the other parents and children too.

Seizure took place on May 21, 2004

Google Search

2005-06-02T12:36:00.000-03:00

CALL A PUBLIC INQUIRY OR CALL IT QUITS!

2005-06-01T20:14:00.000-03:00

MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Connie Brauer and Vic Harris Justice, Inc. 902.798.5267 cbrauer@lincsat.com http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/June 1/05

CALL A PUBLIC INQUIRY OR CALL IT QUITS!

Warning! NS is not safe for families!
It has now been 376 dayssince the ER seize a 5 a month old, nursing child, fromher parents. Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck are presentlyincarcerated for refusing to give up their child to NSChildren's Aid. A 67 hour stand off resulted

in May 21, 2004, after the police bashed in their door andattempted to seize their child after midnight. Yes, a warningshot was fired from the home,
however no one was hurt. NS has permananently harmed thisfamily, however. The child was supposed to be seizedtemporarily but it has been 376
days since she felt the love of her family. How do you explainthis to her? How can NS ever make it up to her?

We demand a public inquiry, immediate release of CarlineVandenElsen and Larry Finck and the immediate return oftheir child to her parents,
without any restrictions. This family has been tortured andterrorized for a lot longer than 376 days. It started when a NS pediatric doctor, broke a
doctor-patient confidentiality and called the Children's AidSociety to voice concerns because the mom wanted to have a homebirth. Imagine!

Home births are legal in NS. Children's Aid immediately issued anapprehension order for the child that wasn't even born yet. Thereason, future harm, is so vague and
unsubstantiated, as to be meaningless.

The doctor, realizingthat her concerns were invalid, called the Children's AidSociety but they had already
started the ball rolling to seize the child. Nothing was goingto stop them.Why? What followed is sheer torture. The HalifaxRegional Police spent months
stalking the family, then finally on May 21, 2004, bashed intheir door with a battering ram. They were armed with machineguns, helmets and kevlar
vests. No negotiation. No assurances of no harm.

The grandmother, Mona Finck, died during the stand off. She diedfighting for her children. Father and Mother were arrested.Child taken into
custody. Since then it has been an endless round of court cases,incarceration, lack of proper food, lack of lawyers, lack ofmaterials to defend
themselves with and a huge lack of accountability by the verypeople in charge, the ELECTED politicians.

Remember who you work for.

Carline VandenElsen has declared she will die in prison if thereis no public inquiry. She is starving for the children. LarryFinck has already served
376 days in prison. His crime?

Defending his family. Refusing to give up. Both Carline andLarry are fighters and that's the problem. They are beingpunished mercilessly for
fighting for their family.
Who wouldn't ? What would you havedone? How many other families have been ripped apart anddestroyed by this Family Law System? How many other familieshave been systematically denied their Charter of Rights?

Most certainly, Ms. VandenElsen, Mr Finck, Ms Finck (deceased)and their child have been violated. Section 7 of the Charterstates: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and thesecurity of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereofexcept in accordance with the principles
of fundamental justice."
The Charter is a fantastic piece oflegislation. It provides every person in Canada with rights andfreedoms.
Section 52
states: "The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law ofCanada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions ofthe Constitution is, to the
extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."
Every government entity must abide by the Charter.

So, Mr. Baker, bring on the inquiry! Let's find out what isreally happening here. If you have nothing to hide, you willhide nothing. You must have
something to hide. What? How much money has it cost NS taxpayersto prevent parents from having their own children? Millions!
Mr. Hamm, Mr Baker and Mr. Morse have had 376 days to call apublic inquiry. They have sat on their hands for 376 days andlooked the other away. "Who me? No can do, It's before thecourts."
The standard anwer for all politicians to do ABSOLUTELYNOTHING and evade everything.
Well no more!

We, the people, want a public inquiry into not only this casebut the whole system, right here, right now or quit! If youare not working for the people,
we don't want you. Quit! Resign! Call an election and let areal man or woman do the job, that you are being paid to do but aren't.

The Finck/VandenElsen case is being heard around the world. NSis now known for being like the Wild Wild West. Shoot em ups!Snatch and Grab.
Throw
them in jail. Keep them quiet. Lawlessness in the streets.Unsafe at any costs. A judge gets a very large promotion, whileapproving an apprehension application that should have beenfirmly dismissed. No one accountable, especially not the government of NS!

A comparison was done with modern Children's Aid tactics and theHitler youth. They are identical.This is what they did duringHitler's reign.

They consist of unlimited power of the Children's Aid, same asin NS. Approved apprehension orders by judges. Same as in NS. Smash and grabs after midnight. Same as in NS. Incarceration ofthe parents, should they resist. Same as in NS. All justifiedin the best interests of the child. Same as in NS.

What in God's name has happened here?
Has anyone asked their child? Is this in her best interests? No!
Get in or get out, Mr. Hamm, Mr. Baker and Mr. Morse. Preparefor the truth.
We are Justice Inc. , a human rights group, compiling adatabase of One Million Missing Children.

If you are a victim ofthe Family Law Industry
and have been deprived of your children, either by Children'sAid or the Divorce System, call us. 902.798.5267 We want you onour list. Currently there is no database of victims, but thereis going to be now. Ask for Connie or Vic or send an email tocbrauer@lincsat.com Subject: One Million Missing Children

Get in or get out! You can't handle the truth!

Connie Brauer and Vic Harris Justice, Inc. 902.798.5267http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/ Full time human rights activists. Compiling a database of One Million Missing Children.cbrauer@lincsat.com

PRESS RELEASE SAVED - PR TRACKING NUMBER: 247045 Your press release has been saved. Please record your Tracking Number. Your tracking number for this
press release is 247045.

WHY WE NEED A PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE TAKING OF MONA-CLARE

2005-05-31T13:10:00.000-03:00

Stephen Kimber is Professor at the School of Journalism at the University>> of King's College in Halifax, NS. He forwarded this to me today...>>>>>>

=====Why we need a public inquiry into the taking of Mona Clare>>
By Stephen Kimber>> Posted on: http://newsroomwatch.blogspot.com/>>>>

Forget for a moment the circus that their trial became: their>> lawyer firings, their seemingly ever-more-paranoid claims of>> baby-factory conspiracies, their spectator-shocking,>> judge-trying courtroom outbursts, their richly fertilized and>> cross-pollinated legal garden of lawsuits, appeals, briefs and>> petitions that are still growing wild inside Halifax court>> houses. Forget even Carline VandenElsen's current>>
"starving-for-the-children" hunger strike that threatens to>> turn this farce into tragedy.>>
Focus instead on the single critical - and still unanswered ->> question that is at the heart of the story of Mona Clare>> Finck: Did the Nova Scotia Children's Aid Society have any>> reasonable legal grounds to seize the infant from her parents>> in the first place?

>> Everything else - policemen with battering rams and machine>> guns showing up at the Finck front door in the middle of one>> night last May, the single shot fired from inside the house,>> the 67-hour standoff with a heavily-armed police tactical>> squad that followed, the death by natural causes of Mona>> Clare's grandmother in the middle of it all, the criminal>> charges, the trial, the application by child protection>> authorities for permanent custody. All of those events flow>> from an initial decision by Children's Aid back in December>> 2003 to seek an apprehension order for the then still-unborn>> Mona Clare.>>

Why did Children's Aid do that?>> Could its decision to take the infant have been made on the>> basis of nothing more substantial than a relayed phone call to>> Ontario Children's Aid from VandenElsen's>> far-from-disinterested ex-husband, informing them - wrongly,>> as it turns out - that VandenElsen had already given birth in>> Halifax.>>

We do know VandenElsen and her husband Larry Finck had each>> been in conflict with child protection authorities in Ontario>> over the custody of their children from previous marriages. We>> know Finck served time for abducting his daughter, and>> VandenElsen was charged with kidnapping her triplets. But we>> also know a jury found her not guilty of those charges,>> accepting her argument she was acting out of what she>> considered necessity.

We know too that the Crown successfully>> appealed the verdict, meaning VandenElsen - still not found>> guilty of anything - was awaiting a new trial at the time of>> the apprehension order.>> Perhaps most importantly, we know now that there is nothing on>> the public record - other than their ongoing battles with>> child custody authorities - to indicate that either Finck or>> VandenElsen was an unfit parent.>>
So why did Children's Aid seize Mona Clare?>> Should there be - as Carline VandenElsen is demanding - a full>> public inquiry to answer that question?>>

Nova Scotia Justice Minister Michael Baker doesn't think so.>> Shortly after VandenElsen announced she would stop eating>> until authorities agreed to such an inquiry, the Justice>> Minister issued a terse news release: "Based on the>> information we have at the present time," he said, "the>> Department of Justice does not feel that a public inquiry is>> warranted.">> What information is that, Mr. Baker?>>

The province's Children and Family Services Act, which governs>> child custody issues, is clear that the "purpose of this Act>> is to protect children from harm, promote the integrity of the>> family and assure the best interests of children.">> The Act specifically lists 14 different situations in which a>> child might be "in need of protective services." Those include>> everything from actual and potential physical, sexual or>> emotional abuse, to neglect and abandonment, to the parents'>> failure or unwillingness to provide proper medical care.>> None of the criteria apply to this case.>>

Even if you were to stretch the Act's Section 22.2(g) - which>> says a child can be taken from its parents if "there is a>> substantial risk that the child will suffer emotional harm>> [demonstrated by severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or>> self-destructive or aggressive behaviour]." - and tried to>> make the argument that someday perhaps Mona Clare's parents'>> disputes with child protection authorities over custody of>> children from before she was born might somehow, possibly,>> conceivably result in some unspecified emotional harm to Mona>> Clare, well, that is much, much more than just a stretch.>>
The Act itself is clear about what constitutes "substantial>> risk" of harm to a child: "a real danger that is apparent on>> the evidence.">>

The evidence in this case, in fact, suggests quite the>> opposite. The doctor who delivered the child and met with the>> family before and after her birth reported: "Both parents>> appropriate with baby, caring, loving." Neighbours, who saw>> mother and daughter in the weeks before the police assault,>> said they saw nothing to indicate the child was in any danger.>> Doctors and nurses at the IWK, who examined five-month-old>>

Mona Clare after she'd been seized by police, described her as>> "a well grown and well developed baby with no clinical signs>> of any illness. doing well. active, playful and feeding well.">> So, Mr. Baker, let me ask you again: What information did your>> department have at the time that legally justified seizing>> this child from her parents?>> Or does this really have anything to do with the law?>>

Could it be that Children's Aid here over-reacted to an>> over-reaction by child protection officials in Ontario, who>> didn't like Finck's and VandenElsen's attitude and wanted to>> punish them for the crime of being difficult? And could it be>> that judges here okayed this because our Family Court system>> has become more of a rubber stamp for the child-care>> bureaucracy than a careful check on the arbitrary powers of>> those agencies? Could there be other cases as egregious as>> this one that we don't yet know about only because no shots>> were fired.>> The truth, Mr. Baker, is that you already have plenty of>> information to warrant a public inquiry. It's past time you>> called one.>>

Stephen.Kimber@ukings.ns.ca>>>> _____>> Stephen Kimber>>>> Professor>>>> School of Journalism>>>> University of King's College>>>> Halifax, CANADA>>>> http://www.stephenkimber.com>>>> http://journalism.ukings.ns.ca/magazine/>>

MONEY RAISED FOR MOM ON HUNGER STRIKE

2005-05-29T21:28:00.000-03:00

Sunday, May 29, 2005
The Halifax Herald Limited

Money raised for mom on hunger strike
By MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE / Staff Reporter
A Nova Scotia couple who say they're full-time human rights activists are trying to raise money to support Larry Finck and Carline VandenElsen - and other parents whose children have been removed from their care.
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris, who have each lost custody of children from previous relationships, said Saturday any donated cash will go toward fighting what they say is an unjust child-welfare system.

Ms. Brauer of Falmouth said part of the money raised will finance planned advertising to target what they call government abuse of parents.
Another reason the couple is seeking funds is to build a database of children removed from their homes by child-protection agencies .

Ms. Brauer acknowledged she and her husband are friends of Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen. They've joined others who have called for a public inquiry into the case.
A little more than a year ago, Mr. Finck and his wife were involved in a 67-hour armed standoff with Halifax Regional Police. They were convicted of several charges and are to be sentenced in late June.

Mr. Finck and Ms. VandenElsen are both in custody in metro; their 17-month-old daughter is in foster care.

Ms. VandenElsen has been on a hunger strike for about a week to back demands for an inquiry.
On Saturday, she phoned ATV news and said she expects to be put in solitary confinement soon.
"I'm not getting any health services, nor am I getting any counselling," she said. Ms. VandenElsen said she now weighs about 114 pounds.

Jail officials will not comment on a prisoner's hunger strike. Justice Minister Michael Baker has said the province won't authorize an inquiry unless new information comes to light.
A spokeswoman for Community Services, which handles child-welfare issues in Nova Scotia, has refused comment on the standoff case because it's still before the courts.
Ms. Brauer said only an independent probe can properly get to the bottom of the Finck-VandenElsen case.

She had harsh words for Halifax police and their use of emergency response officers during the widely publicized standoff.

She was appalled by what she called "Gestapo" police tactics used in the middle of the night.
A police spokeswoman told The Chronicle Herald recently the department is conducting an internal review of how it handled the incident but that it feels officers acted appropriately.
Copyright © 2005 The Halifax Herald Limited

DONATIONS CAN BE SENT TO :
BRAUER AND HARRIS
1061 MINES RD.
FALMOUTH, NS BOP 1L0
Canada
Paypal: cbrauer@lincsat.com

An Open Letter to Canadians. Freeze For Justice!

2005-05-28T12:32:00.000-03:00

You have an AudioPostcard(tm). To listen to your AudioPostcard, turn up your speakers and click on this link:
http://audiopostcard-001.com/X.asp?2519505X2336X2170
-Connie

Freeze For World JusticeEvery Monday,
at 11:00 AMfor 10 minutes, STOP, wherever you are and stand still.

We, the people, are calling for a Worldwide
Freeze For Justice to Stop the Torture. Take part in a 10 minute individual strike for world justice.

Parents, Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck, are incarcerated in a NS jail for not giving up their nursing infant to the NS Children's Aid Society upon demand. Government snatched her anyway and she hasn't been seen since May 21, 2004.Mom, Carline VandenElsen is currently STARVING FOR THE CHILDREN, until she gets a public inquiry in NS or dies.What will come first?

Don't let this mother die!

We demand the following:
*Immediate release of Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck of NS.
*Immediate return of all children snatched from their parents by the government.
*Immediate Public Inquiry Into All Apprehension orders made by the Children's Aid Society in every province, state and territory and in every country.
*Immediate and Full Inquiry into the Family Law Industry in every country, that systematically deprives parents of all rights and freedoms and the right to raise their own children.The government torture and terrorism of parents and their children stops now!Not one more parent must die, not one more child must be made parentless, by the tyranny of our governments!

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!
We are Connie and Vic and we are asking for your immediate cooperation to stop the torture!
We appreciate your donations for Justice.
Send to:
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
1061 Mine Rd. Falmouth, NS B0P 1L0 Canada
902.798.5267 ( office hours 9-8 AT)
http://justiceforparents.blogspot.com/
You have an AudioPostcard(tm).
To listen to your AudioPostcard,
turn up your speakers and click on this link:
http://audiopostcard-001.com/X.asp?2519505X2336X2170

Don't Let This Mother Die! Call A Public Inquiry!

2005-05-21T13:43:00.000-03:00

Via Fax May 21/05 Anniversary of Child Apprehension and End of Stand Off.

Dear NS Minister of Justice, Michael Baker,

Thank you for your response of May 12/05 stating that you could do nothing regarding this issue because it is before the courts. It is no longer before the courts. There are issues here that have never been addressed.
They are:

Medical malpractice by a govenrment paid doctor.
An invalid apprehension order, signed by the judge.
Police stalking of the family.Police brutality and abuse of power during and after the standoff.
Unlawful incarceration of an innocent man for a year.
Innocent until proven guilty.Discrimination and failure to allow bail.
Biased judge in criminal hearing.Suppression of evidence and witnesses.
Multiple criminal charges that all mean the same thing.
Biased judge in Constitutional hearings.Missing Child by Children's Aid SocietyFailure to uphold fundamental justice.
Failure to uphold UN Declaration of Human Rights
Violation of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Failure of Politicians to do their jobs, paid for by the taxpayers.Unlimited, irresponsible government spending of tax payers money.
Political Cover Up.

May I remind you that Justice Gomery, is proceeding at the same time a police investigation is being carried out to get answers to the AD SCAM.

We have worked extremely hard for justice, on behalf of this family, with no results. We have filed a complete account of this case with the International Criminal Court.
When are you going to do the right thing and call a full public inquiry?

When are you going to stop the torture for this family and all others?

It has now been 365 days and counting.

Sincerely,Connie Brauer and Vic Harris

cc MLA Ron Russell, Premier John Hamm and media

Carline VandenElsen Starving for the Children

2005-05-21T13:18:00.000-03:00

Sent by:
Connie Brauer and Vic Harris
Justice Inc.
902.798.5267
NS Canada
Civil Rights Activists for Carline VandenElsen, Mona-Clare and Larry Finck

MEDIA RELEASE, For Immediate Release
Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Starving for the Children, Incarcerated NS Mother,
Demands an Immediate Public Inquiry!

Mona -Clare was a 5 month old, happy, healthy nursing infant atthe time she was seized by police in Halifax after theyattempted to break into her grandmother’s home in the middle ofthe night with a battering ram and machine gun.
Police claim they were enforcing an apprehension order for theChildren’s Aid Society of Halifax.
May 21st marks the 1st anniversary of the death of 79 year oldMona Mary Finck and the disappearance of baby Mona-Clara.
Her parents Carline VandenElsen and Lawrence Finck were recentlyconvicted for abducting their baby and face years ofimprisonment for allegedly depriving state authorities of hercustody.
No one has explained the apprehension order or why theChildren’s Aid Society went after Mona-Clare when she was yet afetus.
VandenElsen will begin a "starving for the children" campaignand will not eat until Premier John Hamm and Justice MinisterMichael Baker agree to investigate the actions of police andchild welfare authorities, and the disappearance of her baby.
She urges the public to demand why hundreds of millions of taxdollars have been expended to fell her family. She feels nochild, parent or family member should suffer such intolerablepain , suffering and exploitation.
VandenElsen and Finck believe that thousands of children acrossCanada are being criminally abused by state authorities andlawyers in a multi billion dollar family law industry and itMUST STOP!
Carline VandenElsen (Incarcerated in NS)
Mother
May 19, 2005
For further information see:
http://carlinevandenelsen.blogspot.com/

VANDENELSEN LETTER

On January1.1993, I gave birth to Canada’s first New Yearstriplets, who were conceived by in vitro fertilization usingdonor sperm.
On December 20, 1995 my then husband hired a lawyer to go tocourt in the absence of the entire family to obtain custody ofmy children. I was not aware of this procedure, and nor is itrecorded.

After five years, six lawyers and hundreds of thousands ofdollars, I still could not get my children legally or rightlyreturned to my care. As a result , and as a loving and caringmother, having noted a remarkable deterioration of my children,I absconded with them only to be located and arrested in Mexicothree months later. I was returned to Canada where I wascharged, tried and acquitted by a jury. However , the crownappealed and I now face a re-trial on parental abduction.
Please find enclosed a copy of my book, "America’s Most WantedMother" detailing these accounts. After legal scrutiny, the bookwas found to be a treatise account- an accurate factualrendering of events.

Shortly following its publication, I met and married a man,Lawrence Ross Finck. He too absconded with his child followingthe death of her mother and after four lawyers worked in concertby illegally conducting court proceedings which lead him to losecustody of his daughter. The lawyers were subsequently chargedwith obstruction of justice, however, the charges were laterwithdrawn by the Attorney General of Ontario. My husband spenttwo years in prison as a result of what the lawyers orchestratedand his daughter remains in a significantly abusive environmenton a native reserve.

Since our union we have attempted and continue to attempt toexpose the criminal abuse of children by state authorities andlawyers in a multi billion dollar family law industry.

While living in Ontario, and following the stated knowledge ofmy pregnancy, my ex-husband obtained another ex parte courtorder unilaterally cutting all communications to my tripletchildren two days after they made an independent move to myhome, as they simply wished a shared relationship with bothparents.
Although my children, who were almost 11 years old wereinterviewed by child welfare authorities, who determined thatthey were more than capable of ascertaining their own wishes,the judge (Grand Campbell) made the opinion that no child ofmine could endure such "forceful personalities and like-mindedindividuals" -referring to my husband and me.
Fearing state authorities would not relent, my husband and Ileft Ontario in November 2003 and moved to Halifax, Nova Scotiato born our child. We resided with my mother-in-law.

On December 23, 2003, I gave birth to a healthy girl, however,unbeknownst to us, child welfare authorities in Ontariofabricated a Canada Wide Apprehension Alert prior to the birthof our daughter, which was sent to Halifax only (authoritiesfollowed us to Nova Scotia), while my baby was still in the womb.
Child welfare authorities did not attend at the hospital when mybaby was born, as they were on Christmas holiday. In earlyJanuary 2004, they contacted my family physician who stated thatmy baby was healthy and in good and loving parental care.

On January 13, 2004, the Children’s Aid Society of Halifax,filed a notice of supplication for a supervision order and anorder prohibiting us form leaving the province.

On January 15, 2004 Debra Smith of the Supreme Court of NovaScotia issued an apprehension order to seize our infant. Therewas no notice, no grounds, no evidence of abuse, neglect orabandonment. I left the jurisdiction with my baby prior to thehearing, fearing and correctly suspecting the worst.
While I remained in hiding, my husband continued in legalproceedings, self-represented, anticipating a resolution ofmatters, however, his efforts were futile, even at the Court ofAppeal.

On May 19, 2004,after authorities learned of my return to thejurisdiction, a SWAT team attempted to break into my motherin-law’s home in the middle of the night with a battering ramand machine gun in attempt to seize my nursing infant. My motherin-law fired her shot gun from within her home, sending policeaway. State authorities declared a stand-off. Following thedenial of medical attention, of all family members and finallyof her priest my mother-in law died. My baby was then forcefullytaken from my arms and I was attacked with a taser gun, twice,which left scaring and neurological symptoms.

My husband and I were arrested, charged, tried and convicted,and now face years of imprisonment for "willfully andunlawfully" detaining our nursing infant with the intent todeprive the government of "lawful custody".

We have not seen ourbaby in a year (since the’ stand-off’) and the state has nowmoved for permanent custody alleging that my husband and I arementally incapable of raising our child. It should be noted that we are with above average intelligence and never has our fitnessas parents been questioned by anyone. All family members whocame forward to have our baby placed in their care have beenturned away.

Please find enclosed a copy of our Notice of Leave to Appeal inthe Supreme court of Canada as regards a writ of Habeas corpusrespecting our infant child , as well as a copy of the documentsthat procured the initial apprehension order of January 15, 2004.

Smith J., who made the order , was promoted to Chief AssociateJustice of the Supreme court of Nova Scotia while JusticeMinister, Michael Baker and Nova Scotia Premier, John Hammrefuse to conduct a public inquiry into this casenotwithstanding hundreds of requests and demands to do so.

Although my husband and I have been targeted and continue to paya dear price for our attempts to expose the criminal abuse ofCanadian children, millions of other children and family membershave fallen prey to permanent familial displacement and lifelong afflictions.

Statistics show increased infertility, decreased birth rates,but increased undisclosed and unloosening adoption sales ofinfants and children seized by child welfare authorities.

The courts are continually denied my husband’s and myapplications and submissions regarding the constitutionality ofstate actions- violations of liberty, physical and psychologicalintegrity infringements of speech, expression and opinion.Increasingly damaging our state joint ventures (Justice,Community, Services, Health) procuring psychological/psychiatricassessments of parents whose children are subject to becomingwards of the state, most often determining that parents fail themental capacities to raise their children. The result has beendevastating for parents, grandparents, and children.

My husband I are the first Canadian parents to be convicted ofacting to protect out offspring, which profoundly leaves an"open season" effect on all Canadian children. It is not onlythe indigenous that face significant peril.
Corruption in the judicial system is rampant with completeimmunity for lawyers appointed to the judicial bench. The publicis completely blind sided by a government doctored and directedmedia. Tyranny and oppression are growing rapidly and theultimate destruction of the group unit of society- the Family isdangerously close at hand.

Stealing (systematically kidnaping) children without dueprocess must stop. The children of Canada and the future of outsociety will only survive if world condemnation falls upon theperpetrators. I beg you, as a mother, as an educator, as a human activist and as a researcher on social engineering, please help us.

I am launching a "starving for the children" campaign on May21st, 2004, marking the first year anniversary of the negligentdeath of my mother-in-law and the systematic kidnaping of myinfant child in desperate hope that the Canadian government willproperly take carriage of these matters.
I do not anticipate my survival, however, I see not alternative.These crimes against humanity and this torture must stop, forthe sake of the children.

Carline VandenElsen,
Mother
May 19, 2005

Justice, Inc.
Live Free! Connie Brauer NS, Canada 902.798.5267
( Office hours9-9AST-1 hr past EST) cbrauer@lincsat.com

Canadian Family Law Reform

Missing Man is Now 22 and still Missing

Open Letter to PM-Why are we still paying child support?

Warning! Nova Scotia is not Safe for Families!

Letter to PM Stephen Harper

Nine Judges in a row order child support for 20 year old son

Canadian Judges Decide Who Can Be Parents and Who Can't!

Canadian Judges Decide Who Can Be Parents and Who Can't!

Child Support Scam Video

Judges Implement Never Ending Child Support Scam

VandenElsen sent back to prison; McDonald's restaurant killer gets passes

Board denies VandenElsen parole again

Stop the Rigged Elections in the Liberal Party

Larry Finck denied parole for second time in '06.

NO JUSTICE- NO VOTES!

Siege of Shirley Street: two years later, still no answers

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Judges taken out of lawsuits!

Media Release: ARE YOU A VICTIM OF JUDICIAL/POLITICAL ABUSE BY THE FAMILY LAW INDUSTRY? WE NEED YOUR INPUT!

Then, you need you to take a few moments to fill out our survey.

We are gathering statistics to use in a court of law.Since Canada has made a career of denying citizens their Canadian Charter of Rights, we

are working very hard to file a class action lawsuit.It is very difficult because there are no lawyers or resources in all of Canada that protect the

Canadian Charter of Rights.Anyone who agrees to submit their name will be benefit from any results when we file the lawsuit.

Our mission is to restore equal rights, equal shared parenting and justice for all Canadian families.

Donations and New Members Here!

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? CANADA'S BIG FAT LIE!

Request for Immediate Resources to Uphold the Charter

Who's Child Is It Anyway?

Keywords

Canadian Civil Rights Association

Ontario drops runaway mom case

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

What Evil is Happening to Our Children?

Get Carline VandenElsen's Book and Read for Yourself

Potholes litter path to public inquiry

DONATE NOW! STOP THE TORTURE

Media Release: Open Letter to Minister of Injustice!

From Canada's Federal Government

Canada Day, 2005, Nothing to Celebrate Here!

Standoff Duo Get Multi-Year Sentences

Standoff duo get multi-year sentences

VandenElsen give

n 3 1/2 years, Finck 4 1/2 years in custody fight gone wrong

Wednesday, June 29/05 No Justice in Canada Day!

Criminal Complaint Filed with the HRP

Media Release: Oh, Canada, What Have You Done?

DEAR UNACCOUNTABLE POLITICIANS

Compare Karla Homolka to Carline VandenElsen and Larry Finck

OH CANADA, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

CARLINE IS DYING!

RIP

Starving For the Children

Friends of Carline and Larry Links- Check them out!

STOP THE PERMANENT CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS!

Open Letter to Canadians- No Babies Allowd in NS!

Sign the Petiton for a Public Inquiry

Google Search

CALL A PUBLIC INQUIRY OR CALL IT QUITS!

WHY WE NEED A PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE TAKING OF MONA-CLARE

MONEY RAISED FOR MOM ON HUNGER STRIKE

An Open Letter to Canadians. Freeze For Justice!

Don't Let This Mother Die! Call A Public Inquiry!

Carline VandenElsen Starving for the Children

We are gathering statistics to use in a court of law.
Since Canada has made a career of denying citizens their Canadian Charter of Rights, we

are working very hard to file a class action lawsuit.
It is very difficult because there are no lawyers or resources in all of Canada that protect the

Canadian Charter of Rights.
Anyone who agrees to submit their name will be benefit from any results when we file the lawsuit.