Why is Domestic Violence Hidden by our Culture?

Updated: 6 days ago

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/domestic-violence-family-court-1.6436368

In the early part of the school year in 2015/2016, my son was experiencing strange phone calls from two women. They asked him if I, his mother, was acting strangely, if perhaps I might be mentally ill?

The actions of these women were reported to a lawyer in Oahu, who gave advice to tell the women to use the kitchen phone, where they could be monitored. They were not told to stop contacting, only to be observed - a boundary.

One woman wrote right back to my son asking if his email was private. She said that I had told her she could not contact him which wasn't true.

This escalation is priming. For minors the subtle edge, the stair they are being asked to climb, is a product of the lack of boundaries of the adult.

A third woman wrote a letter to an Ontario judge claiming the same 'mental illness' story. She hosted a gathering to introduce my son to her son's friends. My son told me this in whispers, from her house, he knew there was something odd happening. The judge at the initial hearing ignored a restraining order reading only the first sentence, an incident that occurred when the child was an infant and not reading the rest of the page of incidents. He ignored his own Views and Preferences of the Child Report. The report cost 7,000. CAD. The legal adviser claimed she had not received the restraining order until just before the hearing. She admitted later that she had received service of the restraining order several months earlier. This judge gave custody to the other party. I appealed. The visit with the other children was just days before the appeal date.

When I appealed this decision the Appeal Court overturned the Ontario judge's order citing palpable error.

Ontario had not cause for claiming jurisdiction as we did not live there and my child was in no danger in my care, as had been argued. Judge Patillo, one of three Appeal Court judges hearing my case, ruled that the actions of my child did not happen in a vacuum. They were influenced by the other party.

My case in the US also ruled independently the same thing. Judge Wilson of the Third Circuit Court wrote that the other party should not be rewarded for his behavior.

My son was moved, my father told me, 'they've hired child lawyers'. But at the next hearing these men appeared, Gottlieb and Aalto, with documents they had my son sign. The papers said ridiculous things, like I had woken him one morning by sprinkling water on him. The other party wished to disagree with the four judges who ruled against him, to continue, but he did not appeal their decisions. I went to visit my son and he had been moved, a neighbour told me. There was more to come.

This is coercive control. This is a mental-health crisis without acknowledgement. The parents are left with mental-health needs for themselves and their children and are expected to pay for it themselves by a group of people who have caused the damage. Coercive control is happening inside the court. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/video-how-to-spot-the-warning-signs-of-coercive-control-in-a-relationship/ {you need a subscription to view this content}

I made a date for a hearing in Ontario. The false child lawyers Gottlieb and Aalto were reprimanded by Judge Paisley. I had written to these men saying you can't interview my child. They wrote back, 'You are denied.' They tried to stop a new passport.

Judge Paisley provided relief, ordering that my son and I get back together. 'I have not seen this in twenty years on the bench'. he wrote.

Following this was another hearing. Judge Horkins the next judge, said, "This doesn't look like Judge Paisley's signature". After some conversation I understood he was accusing me of forging a judge's signature.

The procedure derailed. I asked him to call Judge Paisley, who was on vacation. Judge Horkins sent back by way of a clerk, a paper which said it was 'not the respondent mother's fault'. The other legal adviser yelled that the clerk go and get the judge because she wanted 2,000. CAD for forgery. The hearing had devolved into a mad hatter tea party.

There are few moments when family wealth is under the control of a few select people. Income tax once a year, but there is no other time to control an estate. Canada does not have inheritance tax.

The court is a type of taxing station if you look at it from a historical stance. The person with the legal adviser must pay between 400 and 800 CAD per hour, every hour creating a reason to take resources. Creating conflict creates hours. Channeling all the wealth to one party makes them more wealthy and more powerful in a system that rewards wealth. With all safety nets removed the children are abused. The other party, the parent that protects them is shamed. The motive for creating false allegations is profit.

But taking it off the rails, away from due process is a trackable pattern. Why is the judiciary ignoring this?

"It was the ability to tax and to extract a surplus from the produce of agriculture that, in Scott’s account, led to the birth of the state, and also to the creation of complex societies with hierarchies, division of labor, specialist jobs (soldier, priest, servant, administrator), and an élite presiding over them...Some of the earliest images in human history, from the first Mesopotamian states, are of slaves being marched along in neck shackles."3

My son was abducted, I was not allowed to see him, I was also not allowed to have any child support.

There is a direct correlation between child abuse and money. I have studied early childhood. My children lost several things. One lost 'my country and my mother.' The other lost his mother, his friends, and a goal he had been training for for for nine years. This was directly used to influence me. My children were made to sign documents, one was made to rewrite his own wording, to be free from custody. There was nothing, no one to protect them.

One child told me the group told him I was bad and he could not see me. He was in absolute distress. They were being shamed, I was being shamed, and the original orders of Patillo, Wilson, were ignored by at least ten people. I was forced to move, leaving my home.

The other party had even attempted to stop my son from graduating with his friends but my son left and did it anyway.

Shortly after this I learned that I couldn't cross the border because the other party had tampered with my status. I reported this to Toronto Police in a recorded statement in 2018. Then he overturned the US decision but not at the appeal court. You cannot do this. They then used that decision to overturn the Appeal Court Decision (Divisional Court) in Ontario. There is a letter in evidence asking the same child lawyers to continue.

There is another factor, or intersection which needs examining which is using a minor for a type of 'date' inside the family court. There is an alliance formed by each person refusing to adhere to law. It looks to me like a type of psychological merging with a child who has no power structures, stepping over a line that is regarded as sacred and is in no way in the 'best interests of the child', a meaningless phrase embedded in Canadian law. This is a wound, created for children, inside the family court. It can be also called 'looting' and one friend has called it 'like war'. I think it is simply the art of breaking a contract. The party who breaks a law (attacks someone after being served a restraining order, abducts a child during a restraining order, takes money from an account that is for the use of another party, lies to a judge, has an order made from a lie told to a judge, etc.) tells more lies, sometimes admitting to blame reversal, and yet is not sanctioned. This is the real power issue. Why do some individuals in authority allow other individuals to be unnaccountable?

Interview with Gloria Steinem on NPR

"On her reaction to the leaked document that suggests the Supreme Court may be about to overturn Roe v. Wade

There have always been efforts to control women's birth-giving. I remember sitting in the Kalahari Desert, talking to women who were showing me the plants that they used for abortifacients and to increase fertility. This is not a new issue. And the very definition of patriarchy is trying to control women and birth-giving." 4

"Angela Garbes writes in her new book, “Essential Labor: Mothering as Social Change.” Raising kids is “not a private hobby, not an individual duty,” she goes on. “It is a social responsibility, one that requires robust community support. The pandemic revealed that mothering is some of the only truly essential work humans do.” 5

* * * *

In October, 2021 I motioned the Ontario court on my child and my behalf. You have less than 1/2 hour to make your argument, and shortly after beginning the legal adviser said, 'I am going to stop you there...' The judge said that what I was saying had to be in Affidavits which it was. I began again. Leaving some time to refute whatever the other side would say, I listened as the legal adviser of my former partner made up a story and engaged the judge with it. It doesn't matter what the story was, the legal adviser and judge began discussing me with detail about what I could do to solve the false problem. Judge Kimmel dismissed my requests, including a longer motion. (3-4 hour session in front of a judge, called a Long Motion which the other party would not agree to.) She said that they had been decided earlier. She ignored the abduction, the restraining order. Each time a judge denied my rights, one of my children would call me distressed after hearing the news.

A discussion I had had with the other side before the motion, to negotiate, to avoid court, was written as asking for 'help'. I was now in need of help, not equalization of property. A heavy burden for a woman to carry inside a government institution in a country with guarantees of equality.

When I asked the legal adviser if she understood that creating false allegations to make orders was against the law she made no response.

She told the judge that no 911 call was made from my child's house. Police know that this call occurred because they told me of it, so I reported this.

* * * * *

Structures in our society are dependent on the trustworthiness of participants. Women are under no obligation to endure contempt while making strides in their lives.

Fascist regimes show contempt for children who have no power structures. An ideology is born from the material circumstances. New ideologies are created inside systems that have no connection to the outside world. Stalin regulated farming for control while killing millions of people. "Scott argues that a state’s interests and the interests of subjects are often not just different but opposite". 3

In July, 1942, French police and civil servants participated in the roundup of Jewish parents and children who were taken from their homes and put in the Velodrome d'Hiver in Paris without sanitation, little food and water. Young children, 2 and 3 years old, were separated, left alone together, sent to concentration camps.

Multiple unmarked gravesites have been found from residential schools founded in Canada. Indigenous people are using Renewal Ceremonies and Resurgence (action).

Family life appears to be an anathema to the court. The civil servants inside are serving themselves at great cost to parents and children. Even clerks show contempt for the people they are serving.

When I went to a family centre in Hilo to get help, the providers said, the clerks, bailiffs, judges, they don't know anything about violence. You must be explicit.

The family's own wealth is taken. The children are taken. Children suffer hearing parents using violence. Groups are formed to isolate them, keep them from telling. Isolation creates mental health/trauma. There is no excuse to allow this to continue. There is no need for a court during a legal severing of a marriage. Rules and boundaries are the only solution, rules that are mandatory and consistent following Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

* * * * *

I went back to school in 2021, and studied Rhetoric in Film and Image. Bias, Ideology, and Rhetoric in Kramer’s ‘Inherit the Wind’ Kelly Winsa, April, 2021 [Colonel Drummond, lawyer is played by Spencer Tracey, Colonel Brady is played by Frederic March, 1960].

'Feedback for Final Exam 2021W Total: 100% You are one of three people who got a perfect score. Part 1: 50/50 This essay shows thoughtfulness and open-mindedness. Congratulations. The choice of overconfidence bias is one of a kind this class, and it is brilliant.' Professor H. Cheu, Laurentian University.

My essay will show how overconfidence bias can cloud a person’s judgement so that they think they have authority over others. In the film, the Bible is claimed to be the words of God. The Bible doesn’t present itself to be the words of God. It is not a book, but a collection of articles, open to interpretation. Using Pathos, Eros, and Logos, I will take into account the methodologies of overconfidence bias, ideological framework, and an explanation of rhetoric to McCarthyism, in the film ‘Inherit the Wind’. ‘The Origin of the Species’ by Darwin in 1859 is the book left out of the discussion at the trial. Bert Cates is on trial for teaching evolution from this book. Evolution is already in textbooks but in Nebraska the state law is not up to date.

“Would the court admit evidence, expert evidence on a Book known as the Holy Bible?” says Colonel Drummond for the defense (of Bert Cates). Burke says humans are symbol making and symbol misusing. The bible is not factual. The crowd has loyalty to the bible as a ‘solid reference’ in the chaos of life.

Drummond understands the frame of mind of the audience (ethos). In this beginning Drummond is using the bias of Colonel Brady, the judge, and the congregation – Overconfidence Bias. Drummond begins by apologizing humbly to the judge to show his character and to set the stage for his argument. He must first admit wrongdoing in order to show respect for the revered Bible which is coming next. He knows what will keep his audience happy – respect for their revered text and their perspective. The crowd has assumed certain values embedded within the bible. (Pathos) Drummond continues to use their overconfidence bias by asking permission of the court to examine the words of the Bible and an overconfident judge and prosecuting attorney take no issue with this. Brady says, “the prosecution will take no exception” and continues saying “he is well known to have ridden hobby horses before.” Suggesting that he already acknowledges his win. Drummond asks the prosecuting attorney to take the stand and testify as an expert witness. Colonel Brady plays right into Drummond’s hands because he is overconfident. He agrees. He does not see any trap because his ego is invested heavily in his own rightness. He has already shown he will use a young woman’s trust to win his case. He has used his false consciousness as a reason to betray the preacher’s daughter’s confidence. Colonel Brady will do so again earlier in the scene in the courtroom. That is how strong the overconfidence bias is – he will lie to someone in order to win and put aside morality.

When Drummond is not allowed to bring in any Darwin text, he reverts to the Bible and painstakingly makes a dialectic with the language (rhetoric) of his audience. His ethos is using the language of his audience, the people in the stands, the judge and the prosecutor. Starting with Jonah and the Whale, Drummond asks if this really happened. “Everything in the Bible should be accepted exactly as it is given there,” replies Colonel Brady. Drummond says that Genesis has only Cane and Able and how does the woman appear? “Where did she come from?..Was there another Creation in the next county?” “I trust my Creator.” Says Brady.

“It frightens me the stock of the world if everyone had your curiosity!” Drummond begins to knock down Brady in systematic and logical questions to show that Brady believes that he himself is a prophet and decides who and what is right and wrong. “Are we to forego progress because all this Brady now frightens us with a fable?” as he speaks to the audience of the other side of Brady’s idea, that one cannot think for themselves because God’s word is there in the bible. Drummond says the “A price is paid,” for knowledge. A woman cannot hide in her skirts after she has won the vote and birds are not so full of wonder when you can fly in a plane. This is the price of progress, but Brady wants to be an authority, rather than allow this thinking to take place. At the end, Brady admits that ‘God tells me’ and there he reveals his ignorance. Brady also says that a man has a right to think, like a sponge, and therefore, says Drummond, the defendant, Bert Cates may also think. Here logic takes hold. “How long was a day…could it have been ten million years?” Brady cannot answer as he has revealed his overconfidence has blinded him to logical reasoning. Colonel Drummond has been showing the lack of logic in the ideas of application of the bible to natural law. Does Brady believe that Cates should be in a jail cell for his thinking? By this time, Colonel Brady is yelling about the sections of the bible.

His ego has been shown, his outdated ideas of being the one who decides right and wrong. His love for the bible is a way to have power. Being uneducated has been shown to be a protection of his power. His conservative overconfidence bias is all out for the world to see. Colonel Drummond has discussed the illogic of reading the bible as a complete source of knowledge indicating an overconfidence bias in Colonel Brady. Brady keeps his ego intact, by not questioning his ideology.

Ideology is false consciousness, the result of how we live. Ideology depends on how we earn our living according to Marx; it depends on our material conditions, how we create in the world the way we survive. In this film, ideology is about knowing less and less so that nothing changes. This creates a power structure and the structure reproduces itself by denying education. This is how the town has historically survived and it knows nothing else. Colonel Brady’s ideology is based on his authority as an interpreter of the Bible (proven by Colonel Drummond).

The townspeople are uneducated, particularly about science, as they also have the ideology that the Bible is fact. Their ideas are interpreted by Colonel Brady and he has in fact tried three times to be President. This attests to his belief that his position of authority is real and deserved. Brady did not win in his attempts at the presidency. He had a narrow world view.

This ideology is based on loyalty. Those not loyal to the ideology are shunned or in this case put in jail for alternative thought on science. The thoughts of the character Bert Cates are not new outside of Nebraska. They are embraced in 1925 generally in the world. Ideological meaning comes from what kind of culture creates an ideology. Material circumstances determine ideologies. The people of this town are uneducated. They feel safe and historically have shunned education, preferring their authority figures; in this case Mayor, Colonel Brady, to interpret the world for them. They are not easily swayed. They live in Nebraska in a rural area without much interplay with urban centres, or learning. Probably many of them are illiterate as well.

Part of their ideology is ‘we don’t think’, ‘we don’t question it’. They use a literal, superficial interpretation of a book that isn’t fact and is a collection of stories written for the times they were written in.

Colonel Drummond takes makes a detailed analysis of some of the bible’s stories to show that they cannot be taken literally. He uses Cane and Able to show that a woman just appears without explanation. Colonel Brady replies that he trusts the Creator. Then Drummond goes further making Brady admit that a sponge can think and therefore the defendant must be able to think, shouldn’t Cates be allowed to think? Brady says yes. Drummond asks questions of logic (logos) that Colonel Brady cannot deny. “We must abandon faith in the pleasant poetry of Genesis,” is his goal. Colonel Brady never becomes confused as his mistake. He steadfastly repeats his ‘faith’ in the Bible and further on, his ideology in himself being the ultimate prophet of that bible. Each person in the town plays a role in its ideology. The patient but loyal judge backs it up, the people in the stands yell, “Amen!” when necessary to support their ‘prophet’. This ideology is practised by ignorant folk who have subconsciously agreed to not ask questions.

When Drummond has struck a knife into the ideology of the town, unsurprisingly, Colonel Brady collapses.

Inherit the Wind as a Rhetorical response to McCarthyism

The McCarthy Hearings took place in the late 40s to the 60s and was an anti-intellectual movement – a movement against new thought to protect the status quo. Many writers were blacklisted, including screenwriters and journalists. The period ended in 1954 when Edward R. Murrow spoke on tv “See it Now”. He was not the first to speak out, but his program was definitive. Murrow took on McCarthy in the same way Colonel Drummond takes on Colonel Brady in Inherit the Wind. The film is dated 1960. McCarthyism has ended.

Colonel Drummond believes both books matter. He holds both the Bible and the Origin of the Species at the end of the film. The film is a symbol against McCarthyism – the idea that thought is dangerous and should be punished. In Inherit the Wind, Bert Cates is teaching their children about Darwin and although this is taught across the country, the state of Nebraska holds dear their hypocritical thinking. They embrace the Bible but not its contradictions. The character of Brady shows the corruption of living this ideology. He is pitied by his wife, uses the young woman (the reverend’s daughter) and does not admit he is mistaken. He dies or looks to be dying in the courtroom. So strong is his ideology that he will die without exchanging it.

McCarthy died in 1957, only three years after the Morrow show denouncing his attacks on intellectuals.

I think there is a clear pattern today of people who go out without learning anything new and die with their ideas. I can see it the way my family responds when I tell them of my life. They do not want to hear it. They have an ideology about my life based on stories they make up, and they will perhaps die with that. When I asked, “How can you know that. You never visited?” my mother said, “I know.”

This mob mentality was created as a response to an ideology. In my case, stories were told to people who believed them though they had no knowledge. Even after losing court cases, the people who believed the stories shuttled my son between them. The court had ordered my son to be returned.

In time, this mob created its reason for being and people who had not spoken in twenty years joined forces. This resulted in considerable suffering for myself and my sons.

Eventually the court heard false testimony of such magnitude and speed that there was no time to construct a rhetorical response. In this case, you can mislead using anchoring bias, which puts an idea in the mind of a judge which is difficult to change.[6] The judge’s own bias and the lawyer’s knowledge of this bias also come into play. Ideas not in the realm of ‘reason’ are accepted as postulations. Those unafraid of authority, and unclouded by this thinking must continue and this is why the term ‘violence against women’ is an ideology. The ideology comes from the language which uses the word woman, instead of man. The lense of each participant is framed within their own ideology. A better term may be: those who use violence to control women (or men).

Overconfidence is a bias I saw in several judges just because they sit in a chair, without risk to their career, in most cases, and without windows. Time has given these persons many material gifts and they can’t see what they haven’t got. They base their ideology on materialism, a steady job. Few cases are shown to the public unless they are extremely severe examples of bias. I saw a judge angry at a stenographer because the internet in the room was slow. This judge was able to turn responsibility to the wrong party in his own anger.

This film is an exceptional one for today because the protagonist, Drummond, stands so close to his rival, Brady, because he has such real confidence. Drummond has confidence in his ability to see the need for both books, to see the need for new thought. He was able to attune to his audience because he could see their instincts for faith as he held some himself. Drummond is willing to look the fool at the beginning and this part of his strategy, of his ability to read his audience. He knows that the only way to get them to listen is to submit to their ideology at the beginning. From there, he diverges.

There are few films that do that today, that show good argument about fundamental divergencies. Fundamentalist people are scary people and few entertaining films show a metaphor of redemption. In many places the fox is not in the henhouse – he is at the entrance charging admission. Kenneth Burke says that humans become rotten by hierarchy. Colonel Drummond’s character uses dialectic to present a marvelous rhetorical contribution to film." 2

* * * *

*Bill C-78 says that Restraining Orders are to be complied with by judges + the principal or first tenet of best interest of child is psychological safety. (among other safeties) Multiple judges ignored the restraining order, and Judge Kimmel ignored the child safety tenet and the restraining order one. However, not Judge Paisley. One judge, named William Horkins immediately upon entering the courtroom, suggested that I had forged Judge Paisley's signature, showing his bias.

*In the US court my passport was flagged so I could not go to the US and the legal advisers overturned the US jurisdiction. They went back to the same courtroom where Judge Wilson of Third Circuit Hawaii ruled that it had jurisdiction over both parties because of property held and long time living in the state, and did a do over with no one to point out the obvious. They legally needed to appeal within thirty days but didn't. This is how they did it. It is just this type of coercion which drained my finances because I used logic and due process.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coercive-control-domestic-violence-calgary-sagesse-1.6233903?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

Peterborough police were called in to 'guard' my son after the abduction, but when I called the station they claimed that no one was at the courthouse that day. One Sudbury police officer wrote that taking my child to Sudbury when my child and I had made plans to be together was not harassment.

A woman police officer in Sudbury who I spoke to in September 2019 responded when I asked if she knew about family violence, 'I have been on the force twenty years.'

There were at least three instances where I was threatened by police after the other party spoke to them creating false allegations.

Early in the process, I received an email from the other party, telling me I must meet with him and violate the restraining order OR he would stop our son's access to his sport.

To believe that you have jurisdiction over others you must believe they are subservient to you. Women and children are unprotected from violence throughout a complex corrupt system including but not exclusive to law enforcement and the court. Children are used by inflamed bystanders/soldiers joining the cause as well. This is in the current debate in the United States, civilians attacked in their homes, fleeing their country in Ukraine, those who incarcerated children in Residential schools, parties in the Toronto Children's Aid Society who use a power structure to disenfranchise parents, and WW11 Germany. You believe you are better but you also believe that you can use the target for your goal. The intersection of groups with this thinking.

Judge Monahan ignored the other party's admission that he told people that I was violent and mentally ill instead of him, that is the other party has these qualities but he told others I did. Judge Monahan did nothing with this information. He did not use it in his orders, or in any of his arguments.

To appeal an Ontario judge's decision means applying, ordering and paying for a transcript, navigating the laws, within 30 days. On April 1, 2022, the cost of one page went up fifty percent to 6.30. Views and Preferences of the Child Report cost 7,000 to 12,000 CAD but there is no guarantee the judge will use it. If he/she doesn't you will have to appeal.

You must recover from reading any order that is disturbing. These orders may threaten your children and your health.

Judge Paisley provided relief in the way of being reunited with my son, was not made into an Order because Judge Horkins diverged into a false allegation.

I asked Judge Horkins if he saw what was going on, his face became red, but there was no change. When I went to register the order at the University tenth floor, Mr. Akinyosowe said that he told the legal adviser that Judge Paisley signed the order.

I found an eviction motion in my mailbox in a county I was supposed to be barred from. The motion claimed I was living in a mental institution. Had I not found a way to return home I would not have seen this, had it struck.

'Scott argues that a state’s interests and the interests of subjects are often not just different but opposite. Stalin’s project of farm collectivization “served well enough as a means whereby the state could determine cropping patterns, fix real rural wages, appropriate a large share of whatever grain was produced, and politically emasculate the countryside”; it also killed many millions of peasants.' The New Yorker 3 Why would Canadians allow successive government institutions to desecrate families simply because there was already a system in place. This system of richly paid employees (see the new wages for authorized court transcriptionist just went up 50% this month) turn away from the democratization of system over individual.

Timothy Snyder, professor of History at Yale University says "The whole history of Colonialism... invokes denying that another people is real...to try to separate families one from another," in his description of the invasion of Ukraine. https://www.democracynow.org/2022/5/5/war_in_ukraine_is_colonial_war

* * * * *

'The father was given primary custody despite the fact he had been charged with criminally harassing Anna and granted a discharge on the condition that he not come near her.' https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/domestic-violence-family-court-1.6436368

"He probably spent about $370,000 just trying to bury me … because he could. God forbid anybody ever, ever believed a word that came out of my mouth about how he treated me and what my boys went through." Ibid.

"It's not supportive of the trauma that you're going through when you leave that relationship, and then, you're in the worst place and you're fighting." Ibid.

* * * * *

Femicides occur in Canada every 6 days: the risk is elevated by the lack of boundaries within the family court. Ideology that women don't have courage is promulgated inside the buildings.

One woman I spoke to in Toronto called the city 'the belly of the beast'. She reported that she worked 68-80 hours a week and paid child support to the other parent, who timed the mother/child nightly phone calls. She said that it was whoever got the courthouse first, who filed first. This was her experience.

Another woman I spoke to while in Toronto, a hairdresser, told me that one of her clients ended up back in her childhood bedroom. She had no money left, and said, at least when you are in the relationship, you have a babysitter. I understand this sentiment as violence becomes much worse when you leave. There are teams of people making money from the dissolution. Suddenly your child has become a commodity.

My kids listen to my voice. I have listened to them and mirrored them.

#IHaveReason #Children #childsafety #Canadianlaw #dontshameme #instapoverty #Taken #FamilyofOrigin #CanadasTakenChildren #domesticviolence #domesticviolenceawareness #narcissisticabuse #familydomesticviolence #standagainstdomesticviolence #childdomesticviolence #healingfromdomesticviolence #breakthesilenceagainstdomesticviolence #howdomesticviolenceaffectsmentalhealth #howdomesticviolenceaffectscustody #howdomesticviolenceaffectschildren #whydomesticviolencevictimsdontcallpolice #whydomesticviolencevictimsdontleave #whatisdomesticviolence #whatdomesticviolenceis #whatdomesticviolencedoestoachild #whodomesticviolencedefinition #wheredoesdomesticviolencehappen

Cost awards are a form of extortion to keep women silent. The threats of deportation from the Toronto legal adviser were carried out six months later. David Cass of The Law Society said "We do not police lawyers." in summer of 2016.

Jason Michelle Patterson and I are filming 'I Have Reason' a documentary that will show how coercive control affects the physiology of children and young adults using Two-Eyed Seeing (Albert Marshall, 2004).

1 "Scott argues that a state’s interests and the interests of subjects are often not just different but opposite. Stalin’s project of farm collectivization “served well enough as a means whereby the state could determine cropping patterns, fix real rural wages, appropriate a large share of whatever grain was produced, and politically emasculate the countryside”; it also killed many millions of peasants."

John Lanchester, (2017)."The Case Against Civilization'' in The New Yorker, September 11, 2017.

4 https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096929128/gloria-steinem-roe-wade-abortion-rights-contraceptives-birth-scotus

5 https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/can-motherhood-be-a-mode-of-rebellion?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_050822&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&utm_term=tny_daily_digest&bxid=5fa45d2575b9a31ff7800e38&cndid=62627002&hasha=5050c64f5af6e696602f0be6fa0643bc&hashb=1f9ef20c654dceba898f834ea2f649e045c3d915&hashc=dd79cb89f4342c83a3cb5fa1db2d3b81c771e56028a1054531885887413a81a2&esrc=register-page&mbid=CRMNYR012019

6 In 2018 at the divorce trial the other party falsified a receipt for 4K and claimed that my son's signature on it was for my debt. The other party had borrowed the money and I found it several months later in an etransfer from my son made for the other party for support. When he was paid back my son signed a receipt, and then the other party claimed this was paid as I refused to pay my son a debt. Judge Monahan used this in his ruling. He also forgave the other side for breaking a treaty/contract, removing my name off a joint bank account. The other party said, 'There was a big cheque coming in'. The judge also forgave this as the other party claimed that I was keeping too much money from the joint account. I had the children and a house mortgage to pay and had agreed to change the wording to shared financial agreements as the other party said they could not guarantee income for monthly support payments.

So this judge believed that it was ok to break a signed contract and take a large amount of money. This left me with debt which I repaid from the sale of the family house, which I negotiated to pay all taxes, form an education fund, and protect each side equally.

In all cases Judge Monahan sided with the other party, even allowing him to use his phone in the courtroom. This intense misogyny is so effective that my son asked me not to appeal. As I had so little contact with my child I believed that he would suffer further with anymore litigation.

Interestingly to me, I had paid a mortgage payment during that time with a rent cheque. I rented our ohana to pay the mortgage but the other side said, 'small cheque' which it was, but enough to keep the house from foreclosure. Shortly after the term of the contract ended the other party said he started doing much better.

"The Court has found that the harm caused by hate propaganda is not in keeping with the aspirations to freedom of expression or the values of equality and muticulturalism contained in sections 15 and 27 of the Charter." Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 SCR 892.

Any propaganda told outside and inside the court to gain money, respect, in a divorce is by nature hate propaganda. This is the pearl in the oyster. It was admitted in my divorce trial. When one party can pay up to 150,000. for a trial and the other party stands alone, that is inequality. Someone has made an unbalance. Another dysfunction. Parties must have equal representation, and equal access to funds. If, as in my case, funds were removed during the tenure of a signed agreement, with wording the other party requested so that I had to use education funds, I am not at fault, as Judge Monahan found. If my presentation is not how the court likes to see it, that is not my fault. It is because women and children are allowed and expected to be at the bottom, it is the case in the court.

In 2009 I was Vice-Chair of Dovercourt Public School Parent Teacher Organization and we spent one year visiting schools to make a report as to which should be closed. It was revealed at the final meeting at the Toronto School Board that the decision had been made with the Provincial government before the project began. The head of the Toronto School Board said to me after my remarks about this process, but why do you care about a school your children will never go to?

That is the essential problem with the court. No multiplicity, no multiculturalism, no equality. The court is the intersectionality of covert wealth and those without power structures. The protective parent is bullied so the child is without any protective structure.

This article gives data on how Psychological violence, Coercive control, affects children.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/stop-family-violence/prevention-resource-centre/family-violence/psychological-abuse-discussion-paper.html

I said in my closing remarks that if the other party received child support this would encourage child abduction. I said, this legal adviser looks to have support and success using these tactics. He looked only mildly uncomfortable.

I submitted to Judge Kimmel an Affidavit supporting the safety clause of bill C-78 with an Affidavit of the words of the caregiver who was caring for my son son September 17, 2015, so he would not be involved in litigation. So he would be safe. "Kelly, I returned your phone call. While I was returning the phone call, I had my back turned and [inaudible 00:00:07] unlocked and ran out the front door. I don't know where he is. I've gone running after him. There's no sight of him on the street. [Dog name] and I walked and ran the local streets. I have no idea where he's gone, whether [other party] has been laying in wait to pick him up. I have no idea. Do you want me to call the police? At this point, I don't know what else to do. It's now 10:40. This all happened at 10:20 and...I have no idea...This was obviously done behind my back...He is a 13 year old, not in his city. In a strange city. So I need to know. I need your instructions."

The legal adviser admitted to receiving the restraining order signed by another judge a full three months before the hearing but told the judge on September 17, 2015, that she had not. She simply made up a story that I withheld it on purpose, repeating this several times. This is anchor bias. It is illegal. You cannot have orders made with false evidence. The court has been informed.

It is a calculated risk to tell smaller lies to cover the big one. Like there was no 911 phone call. Deny a child's call for help. My son asked me rape culture was.

Rape culture: a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse.


14 views0 comments