Issues - corruption - what is a corrupt judge?
A corrupt judge is one who takes a bribe or some other inducement
to deliver a judgment that is biased, unfair or would normally
be considered unlawful. In Family Court, this situation is
the norm... and here is how:
In a lawful society, no parent should ever have their child(ren)
seized by the state without Lawful cause. But that is exactly
what judges do when they make a sole custody 'award' in any
disputed custody case. The new trend towards so-called "joint
custody" where children are "normally resident"
with one person, does not fool anyone who has ever been subjected
to this form of judicial flimflam.
Judges have no authority to "award" anything that
they do not first have dominion over. Nobody (not even the
judges themselves) can explain where, or how, judges acquired
the authority to "award" children to anyone, in
the absence of lawful cause. Obviously, child abuse would
be lawful cause, but the vast majority of child custody "awards"
have no abuse component.
Judges make unlawful custody awards for personal gain. Judges
have been given various inducements (bribes) to deliver unlawful
judgments. They gain a job, a paycheque, promotions based
on 'merit', and various political favors. The system itself
is corrupt, and the judges are it's corrupt defenders and
When Common Sense Becomes Law:
Corrupt Judges Will be forced to Stop Abusing Dads in their
Courtrooms and be held accountable for their Actions.
1. Be subjected to civil suits
2. Be removed from the bench!
3. Be prosecuted criminally!
4. Serve time in prison!
It is obviously that in Family Law, the Courts have no Morals
or Values. The best Interest of the children is secondary
to political and financial interests of psychologists, lawyers,
judges and politicians. The time has come to hold Judges accountable
for their corruption of the law.
Psychologists make a bundle while family courts fiddle
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, September 21, 2001
By Dave Brown
That family courts generate business for psychology
has been a theme of many
of these columns, but a transcript popped up recently that
would be funny,
were it not an example of how much damage is being done in
the fertile court
fields where psychologists graze.
The judgment from the Supreme Court of British
Columbia is dated Aug. 17.
Take the sterile language of the court and turn it into column
one can track how the psychology field generates business
It started Aug. 11, 1999, when Oprah Winfrey
aired a show titled: "Would you
know if your kids were being sexually abused?" Her guest
was a psychologist
who offered a list of things to look for, including changes
in behaviour. In
Vancouver, a mother of three young daughters was watching
that show, and
concluded her husband was abusing the girls. He offered to
take all and any
tests to prove he could never do such a terrible thing. The
tests for the
most part generated money for the readers of the headbone.
Normal things became embarrassing studies. Mother
said she noticed the
father had an erection while playing with the girls. Father
said it was
morning and his need to urinate caused that reaction.
Experts filed into court to discuss whether
that was a valid explanation.
Any male in the courtroom could have answered that question,
courts trust only experts, and the experts said yes, that
happens to healthy
males. "Quite common," was the court's conclusion.
The court ordered an evaluation of the children,
and the job was turned over
to a psychologist who also interviewed the plaintiff (mother).
In the course
of this it was recommended the father "would benefit
from psychotherapy or
counselling, that was oriented towards assisting him in coping
current stresses and the impact of his marital separation."
Translation: The poor man needs the help of
psychologists to repair the
damage being done by other psychologists.
A little further into the transcript we find
father recommended for "stress
management and relaxation training." More work for more
The court felt it would benefit from a "custody
and access evaluation," so
another mind-reader was assigned to assess the family as a
The children were turned over to other experts
for "play therapy." A
specialist hired by the plaintiff told the court the children's
"disclosures," made only to the mother and reported
by her, remained
"ambivalent." He said further assessment was needed
to determine whether the
father was a risk to the children.
The judge considered it in the father's favour
that the girls wanted to
sleep over at his new home. The court wandered further into
the hows and
whys of childhood masturbation. The judge said the claims
of abuse were
One expert mind-reader recommended that the
court order the parents not to
discuss the case with the children "without the presence
of a professional."
There's no end in sight.
The court's conclusion was the parents were
to share custody, but the
children will reside with mother. Anybody who thinks I have
the facts can feel free to check it out. Go to the B.C. court
Web site and
look up docket E000595.
[The "Reference Judgement from the Supreme Court file
that Dave Brown talks about..]
While wandering around B.C. newspaper files
another strange court story
popped up. It appeared in the Vancouver Sun Feb. 1, headlined:
industry mom wins custody."
Father petitioned the court for custody of his
six-year-old son, based on
claims the mother was in the sex trade. She runs a massage
admitted to the court she indulged in sex acts, "but
not intercourse." She
has her own Web site featuring pictures of herself in lewd
poses. The pictures were taken by her new boyfriend.
Father thought it was unacceptable that the
boy was often left in care of
persons who worked in the sex trade.
Mother said father was a dangerous man who once
tried to run her down with
his car when she was on her motorcycle. The court said it
did not believe
Once again the court relied on psychology reports.
A headboner reported the
boy's attachment to the mother was stronger than to the father.
*Dave Brown is the Citizen's senior editor.
Read previous columns by Dave Brown at www.ottawacitizen.com
© Copyright 2001 The Ottawa Citizen