Right to be Heard & Informed

e. Right to be Heard & Informed

Note that all parts highlighted in bold is what is illegally omitted from our laws and enabling
secret war crime. Reading the laws by skipping the bolded wording is roughly how our laws
read at the present time.


Due to way the wording is selected throughout our laws, the only party to a family court matter to be considered by the judge is the Children’s Aid Societies. The public expectation is of fair hearings so the judges just have to pretend to listen in a “staged charade”. The judges can just rubberstamp the decisions made by the Children’s Aid Societies that are told to them in the backroom or by hints or signals given in court. It is peculiar that the Society is the only party considered, but at the same time, are not legal entities of the native land. To be legally considered true Native you must be governed under the laws of the land, of which the Children’s Aid Societies are not.

In the formatting to produce papers that the court sets out for the public to follow, in the very onset there is an option: i. For a matter to be heard orally, or ii. in writing. Either way, the court requires perfectly organized complicated papers be drawn up and filed. That doesn’t mean judges are required to read them by our present court protocols. The forms designed leaves no option to be heard in “writing and orally”, as the obvious steps set out are to file your papers and then have a hearing of additional oral argument.

5.02(1) RCP -- MULTIPLE PLAINTIFFS OR APPLICANTS - Two or more adult persons who are not disabled and where no conflict of interests exist, may be represented by the same solicitor of record may join as plaintiff's or applicants in the same proceedings where, (a) they assert, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, any claims of relief arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;
(b) all common questions of law or fact may arise in the proceeding; or
(c) it appears that their joining in the same proceeding may promote the convenient administration of justice and will not prejudice any parties rights or freedoms.

5.03(2) RCP -- CLAIM BY PERSON JOINTLY ENTITTLED -- An adult plaintiff or applicant who is not disabled and where no conflict of interests exist, who claims relief to which any other adult person who is not disabled is jointly entitled with the plaintiff or applicant shall join, as a party to the proceeding, each person so entitled.

SECTION 7 (2) (CLRA?) WHO ARE PARTIES - PROCEEDINGS - For purposes of a proceedings, a person who is affected by a motion is also a party, including a child affected by a proceedings relating to custody, access, property, recovery from loss and or harm, child protection, adoption or child support.

RULE 14 -- (11.1) LATE DOCUMENTS -- No documents for use on the motion may be served or filed after 2 p.m. two days before the motion date unless:
a) there were aggravating circumstances interfering,
b) they could not be reasonably obtained for reasons outside of the persons control,
c) the documents are relevant to the issues being decided, and
d) consideration being extended to response time and interm conditions of the parties, if needed.

14 (3) FLR - PARTIES TO AN APPLICATION OR MOTION - A person who is affected by an application and/or motion is also a party, for the purposes of the application and/or motion, including a child affected by the application and/or motion relating to custody, access, child protection, lawful care and control, property rights, recovery from loss and or harm, adoption or child support. (Also see 7. (2) FLA: WHO ARE PARTIES)

19. CLRA -- PURPOSES -- The purposes of this Part are,
(a) to ensure that applications to the courts in respect of lawful care and control, custody of, incidents of custody of, access to, the views, rights, freedoms and best interest of the child, the rights of the other affected parties and guardianship for children will be determined on the basis of the best interests of the children primarily but not excluding consideration of the rights of other parties and reasonably concluded and based on evidence shown and equally considered by all affected parties, including the child;
(b) to recognize that the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction by judical tribunals of more then one province, territory or state in respect of custody, access, rights and or parental issues, of the same child ought to be avoided;.
(c) to recognize that the consecutive declining of determination by judical tribunals of more then one division in respect of the custody, access, rights and or parental issues, of the same child ought to be avoided;
(d) and to make provisions so that the courts of Ontario will, unless there are exceptional circumstances, refrain from unreasonably exercising or declining of jurisdiction or determination with which the child or any other party has need of relief or a right to and a closer connection to, i. the residence or school the child was removed from if the child was removed, or ii. the lawful residence of the child and considering the original parents area of right to protection jurisdictions;

25. CLRA -- DECLINING JURISDICTION -- A court having jurisdiction under this Part in respect of custody or access may decline to exercise its jurisdiction, in a non-prejudicial manner to the litigants, where it is of the opinion that it is more appropriate for a jurisdiction to be exercised outside Ontario or in another court venue, if the court endorses the traversal to that identified division.

29. CLRA -- ORDER VARYING AN ORDER -- A court shall grant an order under the Part that varies an order in respect of custody or access made by a court in Ontario where there has been;
a) a material change in circumstances that affects or is likely to affect the best interest of the child;
b) the child has been unlawfully removed or detained from the person having lawful access and or custody;
c) or there are other justifiable grounds to vary an order.

32. CLRA -- FURTHER EVIDENCE -- (1) Where a court is of the opinion that it is necessary to give or receive further evidence from a another person or place in or outside Ontario before making a decision, the court may send to the Attorney General, Minister of Justice, or similar officer of the place in or outside Ontario such supporting material as may be necessary together with respect,
(a) that the Attorney General, Minister of Justice, Convention on Aspects of Child Abduction or similar officer take such action as may be necessary in order to require a named person to attend or deliver the evidence to the court and / or parties before the proper tribunal in that place and produce or give evidence in respect of the subject-matter of the application; and
(b) that the Attorney General, Minister of Justice, Convention on Aspects of Child Abduction or similar officer or the tribunal send to the court and parties a certified copy of the evidence produced or given before the tribunal.

In Section 38., the child’s counsel doesn’t have to respond for the child if the Society instructs them not to, granting a severe disadvantage to the parent and child separately and can ultimately lead to unjust destruction to the family.

The Freemasons can just ungoverned choose to shut out the voice of a targeted child and use their contacts to control the child into their ring away from the parents. The Children’s Aid Society can instruct the child’s counsel to represent in support of the theft of the child from the original parents against the child’s best interest and void of the child’s right to be informed. The Monarchy, Freemasons and Children’s Aid Society’s are one in the same when addressing the problems of child abduction by authorities because their intentions work together against the native public.

38. CFSA - LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF CHILD - (1) A child (word omission) must have independent legal representation to submit the child's position by proper affidavit at all stages in a proceeding under this Part. (word omission = may)

In present law, the child is not considered by the court as a person and not granted their right to be a litigant regardless of age in violation of the Charter and former Bill of Rights. The child is considered the “Subject” of the matter similar to an object. The officials are allowed to cause insurmountable mischief to impede access to justice without being held accountable.

39. CFSA -- PARTIES -- (1) The following are parties to a proceeding under this part:
1. The Applicant/s and Respondent/s
2. The governed Society having territorial and faith jurisdiction in matters of child protection needs.
3. The child's original parent/s.
4. The child/ren affected
5. Where the child is an Indian or native person, a representative chosen by the child's band or native community.

40. ccc. INTERFERENCE WITH ACCESS TO COURTS: Any interference, action or omission of action or duty by a person, organization, agency, public service or official to prevent, impede or obstruct access, of a child or other party, to the courts runs counter to the rule of law and constitutes a criminal contempt of court of which the presiding judge shall order: N.A.P.E. v. Newfoundland (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 204, 44 C.C.C. (3d) 186, 53 D.L.R. (4th) 39 (6:0); B.C.G.E.U. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214, 44 C.C.C. (3d) 289, 53 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (6:0).

46. FLA - ORDER RESTRAINING HARASSMENT - (1) On application, a court must make an interm or final order restraining the applicant's;
i. spouse,
ii. same-sex partner,
iii. former spouse,
iv. former same-sex partner,
v. any other person or family member;
or an interm or final order restraining,
vi. an agency or organization from molesting, annoying, misleading, intimidating, failing to form or harassing an applicant, respondent or their children, or from communicating with the applicant, respondent or their children, except as the order provides, and may require the applicant's spouse, same-sex partner, former spouse, former same-sex partner, any party, agency or organization that may affect the child and quality of the original family to enter into the recognizance that the court considers appropriate when evidence is presented that proves the necessity of such protective measures.

The court does not have to consider the evidence submitted by the general public. They only legally need to acknowledge the Society’s point of view although the Society is operating as an illegal alien because they are ungoverned above our laws.

47. CFSA -- CHILD PROTECTION HEARING -- (1) Where an application is made under subsection 40(1) or a matter is brought before the court to determine whether the child is in need of protection, the court shall hold a hearing to acknowledge evidence submitted by affected/ing parties, (a) the child, (b) the parent or guardian from whom the child was removed, (c) a child protection agency, (d) involved police officers and (e) any other concerned parties to determine the issues and make an order under sec. 46. (2) (a) (i), Amended, or sec. 57.

Under British designed law we have no right to question the mental health of the social workers snatching our children. (Joyce Meyers Ministry and her family members are training them in Cambodia right now) Many social workers have no experience with raising children. Many of them targeted that type of job and have come from families that taught and fostered anti-social behavior such as pedophilia. They can be like a conspiring psychopathic machine, plague or swarm of blood suckers on the offence with no off switch, no apology, no choice of fight or flight. Social workers are people too and more likely to commit offences against children then the original parents.

54. CFSA-- ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT - (1) Where a child has been "shown by evidence" and proper court processes to be in need of protection from a parent, agency or organization, the court may order that within a specified time,
(a) the child; or
(b) a parent, person, social worker or foster parent, in whose charge the child has been or may be, attend before and undergo an assessment by a specified person who is qualified and unbiased to perform medical, emotional, developmental, psychological, educational or social assessments and has consented to perform the assessment.

For the most part the official are able to keep parents tied up in bureaucratic tortures aka red tape, or limbo for much longer then two years. While a person is tied up in unfair legal abuses trying to survive and dealing with that damage, they are unable to file new actions on top of already difficult and mentally taxing schedules. So, the right to file becomes out of reach and total victimization has occurred.


61. (4) LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS - FLA - No action shall be brought under subsection (1) after the expiration of two years from the time of the last incident or affect of that cause of action has ended.

In section 62. CLRA, again the original parents are not allowed to file a counter application, are not considered parties and their rights are voided completely for eligibility of needed or deserved relief concerning their own family and financial rights. If the courts unjustly separate the child as a party with rights to a property, they can order the sale of the child’s residential property in a manner that induces homelessness for opportunity to extort the child.

There are many overlapping issues that the courts can decide to separate, which avoids pertinent evidence, and can alter the true course of justice to the exact opposite of reasonable results that the public would expect under the circumstances. It seems to be a Freemason strategy to appear as a position of custodial care provider and manipulate the appearance of the order of events in cause and effect to present an illusion of correctness.

62. CLRA - JOINDER OF PROCEEDINGS - (1) An application under this part may be made in the same proceeding and in the same manner as an application under the Family Law Act, or in another proceeding.
(2) NATURE OF ORDER - An application under this Part may be an original application or counter application or for extensions of time and or the variance of an affecting order previously given or to supersede an order of an extra-provincial tribunal or other lower court division.
(3) PARTIES - The parties to an application under this Part in respect of a child shall include,
(a) the birth, original or biological parents of and the child;
(b) a true multicultural native or Canadian person who has demonstrated a settled lawful intention uncompromised by divided allegiances, unjustifiably separate or secret organizations or societies, sworn or otherwise and to treat the child as a child of his or her own family and respect the child’s lawful rights as a person;
(c) a person/s who had the actual care and upbringing of the child immediately before the first and original application;
(d) any other person whose presence as a party is necessary to determine the matters in issue is deemed a witness available for equal examination.
(4) COMBINING OR DIVISION OF APPLICATIONS - Where, in an application under this Part, it appears to the court that it is necessary (removed words) in the best interest of the child or any other parties at prejudice to have other unaffecting matters heard first, or that it is in the best interest of the child or other party at prejudice to have all affecting matters simultaneously determined, the court may direct that the application stand over under such other proceedings are brought or determined as the court considers appropriate, subject to section 26. (removed words: or desirable)
(5) WHERE IDENTITY OF CO-PARENT NOT KNOWN – Only where there is no presumption by any of the affected parties, including the child, of a co-parent and the identity of the co-parent is not known or is not reasonably capable of being ascertained, the court may order substituted service or may dispense with service of documents upon the co-parent in the proceeding.

Today’s laws do not treat a child as a person. Law, causes as a result, that the “object” child unjustly and by force belongs to the state, upon birth and desire of usually a Freemason and the original parents appear to be viewed as merely “disposable” wombs.

On May 15, 1998, two news articles are published. One explains how children are OK to be heard in court and another depicting the aftermath of sexual assault of young boys. (It is important for a child to “see” that they are legally protected from pedophiles, if they are not to become one or an enabler.) As exhibit EA-041 to my affidavit is the News Article, Children OK in Court, News (x2) , Abused kids become .... dated May 15, 1998.


64. FLA - UNITY OF LEGAL PERSONALITY ABOLISHED -- (1) For all purposes of the law in Ontario, a married person or child has a legal personality that is independent, separate and distinct from that of other members of the family, or a Children's Aid Society.

64. CLRA - CHILD ENTITLED TO BE HEARD -- (1) In considering an application under this Part, a court shall take into consideration the rights, circumstances, views and preferences of the child to the extent of the child's level of communication and apply these rights of the child from submissions in writing by a competent, independent counsel, including a swore affidavit by the child if their level of understanding permits.
(2) INTERVIEW BY COURT -- The court may videotape an interview with the child to determine the rights, circumstances, views and preferences of the child in judges chambers or in court and shall inquire from the child:
a) the level of understanding they have of the court system;
b) if they have been properly informed of their rights and available options;
c) their own choice whether or not to be actively present in court as a litigant while evidence is being given and heard.

It is a community matter when a child from the community needs to be taken into care, not an issue of the British Monarchy. The Monarchy and their imbalanced representatives need to bud out of the lives of those simply living in Canada. Independence means “stop the abuses” which the “hell bent” Monarchy clearly could not avoid temptation to torture and abuse, in these loopholes and false glorifications afforded by medias. Communities need to be considered self-sufficient with our tax dollars spent in resources and services rather then our tax dollar into these services making us stigmatized under forced control of the British Monarchy and their Freemasons.

64. CFSA: APPLICATION -- (1) This section applies where a child is the subject of an order for society supervision, society wardship or Crown wardship under subsection 57(1).
(4) OTHERS MAY SEEK STATUS REVIEW --An application for review of a child's status may
be made on notice to the society by,
(a) the child;
(b) any parent of the child, subject to subsection (5);
(c) the person with whom the child was lawfully placed by a legal society under an order found upon evidence shown for society supervision; or
(d) where the child, regardless of age is an Indian or a native person or multicultural native person, a representative chosen by the child's band or native community or any of the concerned multicultural native community members.
(5) GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL -- Whether or not the child is a Crown ward or where they have lived during the years immediately before the application, an application under subsection (4) shall be heard. An application may be dismissed by the court if found upon evidence and by reasonable processes and equal benefit of law to be: i. false and vexatious, ii. contrary to the wishes shown by proper submissions of the informed child, or iii. shown by material evidence that the application is contrary to the best interest of the child.

89. C. of J.A. - CHILDRENS LAWYER - DUTIES - (3) Where required to do so by an Act or the rules of court, the Children's Lawyer shall act as litigation guardian of a minor or a minors siblings individually who are affected parties to the proceeding and submit required documents on behalf of the child’s point of view and circumstances and no other person organization or agency shall influence the guardians position and duty to the child/ren or retain instruction or services from the guardian, who is a party to the same proceeding.

96. C.of J.A. - RULES OF LAW AND EQUITY - (1) Courts shall administer concurrently all rules of common and or family law and equity.
(2) RULES TO PREVAIL - Where a rule of equity conflicts with: i. a rule of family law, the rule of family law prevails in protection of child rights; and ii. a rule of common law, the rules of equity prevail, if there are no extraordinary prejudicial circumstances..

Our courts like to make sure that no parent is considered a person subject to damages when their children are abducted and or molested under the guise of authority. Freemason types see parents as an object to be simply pushed out of the way. Stealing raping and or killing ones children is one of the most damaging things that can be done to a person, in wide scale a nation, and it is unlikely that a monetary restitution would remedy.

116. C. of J.A. - PERIODIC PAYMENT AND REVIEW OF DAMAGES - (1) In a proceeding where damages are claimed for personal injuries or under Part V of the Family Law Act for loss resulting from the injury to, unjust separation from or death of a person, the court,
(a) if the affected parties request consent by a motion from the court, the court may order payment of all or part of the award or cost for damages or services to be provided permanently or periodically on such terms as the court considers just:

Our courts like to make sure that the public has no evidence of crimes that are committed by officials within the court room.

136. C. of J. A. - PROHIBITION AGAINST PHOTOGRAPHY, ETC., AT COURT HEARINGS -- EXCEPTIONS (2)(b) prohibits a lawyer, a party acting in person or a journalist from unobstructively making an audio recording at a court hearing, in a manner that:
(a) has been approved by the judge,
(b) without approval under the Charter section 7. and the Bill of Rights, if the purpose of the recording is for protection from crime and to obtain proof of any offences or violations within the courtroom or during proceedings that could cause injury or prejudice to a party, including a child in the views of whom makes or authorizes the recording, or
(c) by any party for the sole purpose of supplementing or replacing hand written notes.

The process of entering Orders can be used by the Freemason courts and Freemason preferred parties to alter the true meaning of the judges endorsement to the prejudice of the party who is not a member of the Freemason clique. The judge can intentionally make an endorsement non-legible and refuse to translate it’s meaning until after the appeal period is passed. If you can’t ready the endorsement and re-type it, you can’t enter it and therefore cannot file the appeal. They can just sit back and laugh together at this point.

ENTERING OF ORDERS – Entered orders shall read identical to the endorsement that it is copied from and completed by the court or justice presiding at the time of releasing the order to the parties. If the court does not complete this, the entering of endorsements can be dispensed with and be relied on as is. A justice is required to make endorsements and orders legible.

How would you feel if you child was abducted under the guise of law by persons involved in the same criminal organization that the court staff belongs to and your matters don’t even get in front of a judge. The registrar can dismiss your matters for almost any reason or type-O, and void access to a judge. Further even if your paper work is pretty and perfect, the clerks can remove pages that are vital as though they did not exist, after you leave the court but before they file it, and force the cause for dismissal.

REGISTRARS DELIBERATING IN PLACE OF JUDGE IN MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE - A registrar shall not deliberate on or grant a dismissal of an action that could cause a party or parties substantial prejudice or harm and such decisions and dismissals shall be made by a judge.

These law “omissions” are not truly applicable, as citizens have the right to true protections regardless that they are not written because they are “reasonable”. Also the criminal code does supersede, the family laws, Appeal Court protocols, prison rules and policies illegally implemented within police forces that cause the failure to protect children as these omissions were created by ongoing organized crime. There is no right, in our native country, for anyone including Queen Elizabeth, to profit or gain from crime against the land or people. We need to remove the massive volume of Freemason like infiltrators in the seats of control, out. We need to enforce a fairer society, today.