I have long wondered as to why all the family courts not only in Canada, but the UK, New Zealand and Australia, independently come to the same conclusion independently, that fathers are an unnecessary burden on a child after the mother deems it so? and as her word in any of the above country's is worth twice that of the father, as any father knows if he is in court he might as well recite nursery rhymes.
After being in court in three of the country's mentioned in unfamily court, I have to say I personally believe there has been a conspiracy by the judiciary for this to occur, that may be backed up by the statements of Justice Colridge, " Lord Thomas issued a warning say Sir Paul had brought the judiciary into disrepute with his views." so old lord Tom is saying that justice Coleridge has to follow the general line of consensus that all the other judges have agreed upon?
This is also relative in Canada as there is a supreme court ruling by Chief Justice Dickson, see below, stating that judges are supposed to think independently, and not collectively as pedantic mooron's.
The courts website where this was taken from has long since been removed, again part of their conspiracy.
Chief justice Dickson
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/legal_compendium/Chapter6.asp <http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/legal_compendium/Chapter6.asp>
Chief Justice Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada gave a useful description of judicial independence in an important case.5 <http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/legal_compendium/Chapter6.htm#en05> He wrote:
The role of the courts as resolver of disputes, interpreter of the law and defender of the Constitution requires that they be completely separate in authority and function from all other participants in the justice system. The principle of judicial independence has been the complete liberty of individual judges to hear and decide the cases that come before them; no outsider be it government, pressure group, individual or even another judge should interfere in fact, or attempt to interfere, with the way in which a judge conducts his or her case and makes his or her decision.
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1996/1996scc113.html <http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1996/1996scc113.html>
I believe they conspired to have consensus amongst the judiciaries of the above country's at this conference
BATH WORLD CONGRESS ON FAMILY LAW – SEPTEMBER 2001 NOTES ON THE CONFERENCE:
http://www.dottal.org/LBDUK/bath%202001.htm
You should recognize many names
Here is an article where a judge has been chastised and effectively fired for stating what I have explained above
High Court judge who spoke out in favour of marriage says he would have been 'publicly hanged' if he had spoken out again <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632061/High-Court-judge-spoke-favour-marriage-says-publicly-hanged-spoken-again.html>
image <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632061/High-Court-judge-spoke-favour-marriage-says-publicly-hanged-spoken-again.html>
High Court judge who spoke out in favour of marriage say... <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632061/High-Court-judge-spoke-favour-marriage-says-publicly-hanged-spoken-again.html>
Sir Paul Coleridge, pictured, defended the right of judges to voice their private opinions on issues they believed were of national importance.
View on www.dailymail.co.uk <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632061/High-Court-judge-spoke-favour-marriage-says-publicly-hanged-spoken-again.html>
A High Court judge who stepped down after being disciplined for campaigning in favour of marriage said he would have been ‘publicly hanged’ if he had spoken out again.
Sir Paul Coleridge launched a stinging attack against Lord Thomas, the country’s most senior judge, for rebuking him after he repeatedly spoke out about the harm that family breakdowns caused children.
He said the judiciary had been ‘brought into disrepute’ by investigating him for backing a traditional view of marriage.
Sir Paul, Britain’s top divorce judge, was given a formal warning by the Lord Chief Justice and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling for judicial misconduct, prompting him to hand in his resignation.
Yesterday he hit back to defend the right of judges to voice their private opinions on issues they believed were of national importance.
He said the way he had been treated proved the senior judiciary was ‘terrified of mild criticism’ and ‘trivial’ complaints by a few members of the public.
Sir Paul set up the Marriage Foundation think tank in May 2012 to champion the institution on a national basis and promote ‘healthy, stable relationships’.
The Office for Judicial Complaints, the body that polices the behaviour of judges, advised Sir Paul to take a lower profile after he protested about the devastating impact of family break-up on children, criticised cohabitation, and called for greater support for marriage.
But in December that year he gave an interview which appeared to criticise the government for focussing too much on the issue of gay marriage.
It attracted 10 complaints and an inquiry found his speeches and newspaper articles were ‘incompatible with his judicial responsibilities’.
Lord Thomas issued a warning say Sir Paul had brought the judiciary into disrepute with his views. When he complained that this was ‘unfair and disproportionate’, he received another reprimand.
He said: ‘I thought it was completely ridiculous.
'Every time I said anything, a member of the public wrote in and I found the whole enormous panoply of the judicial complaints organisation just grinding on. I mean, where do we go after a reprimand? Public hanging?’
Sir Paul, who has heard some of the UK’s highest-profile divorce cases, including that of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, said the senior judiciary was ‘risk averse to the point of being frightened of our own shadow.’
He said: ‘He [Lord Thomas] is the one who should have put a stop to it. He thinks I’m the one who brought the judiciary into disrepute. I’m not sure about that.
‘Allowing this to get out of hand has done us [the senior judiciary] no good at all. I think I said to him in a letter this whole affair brings the judiciary into disrepute.
'It makes us look stupid. It makes us look risk averse to the point of being ridiculous when half a dozen members of the public can provoke this kind of storm. It should not be allowed to happen.’
Sir Paul, 64, officially retired from the High Court’s family division last month but is continuing to sit as a judge while he finishes hearing three divorce cases.
He set up the Marriage Foundation to research the consequences of family breakdown on children, which he says is increased risk of indiscipline in schools, drug-taking, behavioural problems, gang violence, poor mental health, lack of achievement in exams and failure in the job market.
He said the ‘epidemic’ was damaging the lives of millions of children, with some 3.8million caught up in the family justice system.
He said: ‘I am not saying that every broken family produces dysfunctional children but almost every dysfunctional child is the product of a broken family.
‘Separation of parents may be good for the parents. It is never, never, never good for the children.’
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office said: ‘The office plays an important role in maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. It is a statutory body through which the lord chancellor and lord chief justice investigate judges and magistrates under regulations passed by parliament.’
It’s the NATIONAL JUDICIAL INSTITUTE
You have been conspired against taken to the cleaners by a corrupt judiciary and the Canadian Judicial Counsel
: Follow-up by: Rick
: Jeremy
