August 12, 2014
No response from any party.
Hunger strike, coffee tea water only
Day 1 no response
Day 2 no response
Day 3 no response comment to FMEP
Day 4 no response
Day 5 no response
Day 6 no response comment 3
Day 7 no response comment 4, 5
Day 8 no response
Wednesday. Reaffirmed the no response by Friday as final proof of corruption.
Thursday no response
Friday See Wednesday. Hunger strike has lasted long enough to prove the point.
Taking the weekend off, postponing events till next week.
---------------
August 18, 2014
Further to some interesting conversations on government using child support as revenue, should it go to government or the family.
One said most have drug addict parents, why give them more. I don't have the stats but it must be obvious for a working person to note it, nor am I an addiction specialist so I'm sticking with the children's rights.
Another, the child support is deducted from their welfare check, (yes it is), so they said the child support is paid. My response is a 1 in 10 child poverty rate going to a 1 in 5 in a decade so something must be screwed up.
The payor of children on welfare isn't paying for the kids, but is replacing the funds government spends on state assistance.
Our social safety net is funded from general revenue equally, by all tax payors. The action of shoring up government spending by an individual or group of people is an unconstitutional tax.
This one isn't an official version although I believe it was generated within the system. The government loans the support money to the family and collect it from the payor when it comes in. I've read the entire act and cant find any legislation pertaining to any kind of an advance on child support. As a matter of fact when the family applies for welfare they must sign over their rights to child support to the government. Its right on the form and that means the child support paid is deducted from the family because the government owns it.
The governments addiction to its massive share of the booty is the principle reason it has blocked any form of shared parenting including funding hate pages against fathers with gun registry money.
To force even a single child to grow up in poverty by using its child support as revenue is totally reprehensible and btw its done illegally.
Another said why stop there why not address all the issues that put children into poverty.
I can't change a lot of the reasons for child poverty but I can sure point out where tens of thousands of children are forced to grow up in poverty because deadbeat governments are illegally seizing their support.
-------------------
This report concludes child support isn't working for the children. They missed how much child support is for the government. Viewed in that light child support is working better than government hoped for.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=21699
"This analysis concludes that the guidelines have no connection to economic studies on the average spending on children (and do not legitimately assess the costs of children), nor do they equitably distribute child maintenance obligations between parents"
The government says child support is for the children, its time they gave it to them.
Robert
No response from any party.
Hunger strike, coffee tea water only
Day 1 no response
Day 2 no response
Day 3 no response comment to FMEP
Day 4 no response
Day 5 no response
Day 6 no response comment 3
Day 7 no response comment 4, 5
Day 8 no response
Wednesday. Reaffirmed the no response by Friday as final proof of corruption.
Thursday no response
Friday See Wednesday. Hunger strike has lasted long enough to prove the point.
Taking the weekend off, postponing events till next week.
---------------
August 18, 2014
Further to some interesting conversations on government using child support as revenue, should it go to government or the family.
One said most have drug addict parents, why give them more. I don't have the stats but it must be obvious for a working person to note it, nor am I an addiction specialist so I'm sticking with the children's rights.
Another, the child support is deducted from their welfare check, (yes it is), so they said the child support is paid. My response is a 1 in 10 child poverty rate going to a 1 in 5 in a decade so something must be screwed up.
The payor of children on welfare isn't paying for the kids, but is replacing the funds government spends on state assistance.
Our social safety net is funded from general revenue equally, by all tax payors. The action of shoring up government spending by an individual or group of people is an unconstitutional tax.
This one isn't an official version although I believe it was generated within the system. The government loans the support money to the family and collect it from the payor when it comes in. I've read the entire act and cant find any legislation pertaining to any kind of an advance on child support. As a matter of fact when the family applies for welfare they must sign over their rights to child support to the government. Its right on the form and that means the child support paid is deducted from the family because the government owns it.
The governments addiction to its massive share of the booty is the principle reason it has blocked any form of shared parenting including funding hate pages against fathers with gun registry money.
To force even a single child to grow up in poverty by using its child support as revenue is totally reprehensible and btw its done illegally.
Another said why stop there why not address all the issues that put children into poverty.
I can't change a lot of the reasons for child poverty but I can sure point out where tens of thousands of children are forced to grow up in poverty because deadbeat governments are illegally seizing their support.
-------------------
This report concludes child support isn't working for the children. They missed how much child support is for the government. Viewed in that light child support is working better than government hoped for.
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=21699
"This analysis concludes that the guidelines have no connection to economic studies on the average spending on children (and do not legitimately assess the costs of children), nor do they equitably distribute child maintenance obligations between parents"
The government says child support is for the children, its time they gave it to them.
Robert
Child Poverty Hunger Strike
ReplyDeleteEver day that goes by without a response and action shows how far up the corruption goes that doubled the child poverty.
Since 2006 international investors have avoided investing in Canada in anything other than shippable raw resources and currency speculation.
In 2002 to 2006 Canada had a 1 in 10 child poverty rate. Some parts of the country have doubled it since. The risk reward graph for international investors is looking like a brick wall.
The government says child support is for the children, its time they gave it to them.
vox
no justice, no investment
August 14, 2014
ReplyDeleteFMEP
Some good news and perhaps not so good. I'm pretty weak from the first hunger strike so you have maybe a week before I reach the point of no return. The good news is that I'm making this very public and a lot of people are very concerned you are ignoring a legitimate request for information and that a second hunger strike has resulted. That is good news right, I did say this one was going to be very public.
There are many that, in case of an inquest, will demand an answer to how the child support in your clutches went into a legal aid lawyers pocket, including the RCMP. It will do you no good to lie because its documented including the two hearings on unjust enrichment that ThorNton lost. The only thing I didn't do legally and with full right was to file the paper work in the wrong order, for that I was found in contempt of court and sentenced, which I served out because I did file out of order.
The question will be asked loud enough to require the RCMP ask it and try to lie to them, it's called obstruction of justice, handcuffs. From your hand to ThorNtons pocket.
I suggest you answer the question quickly or get your paper work together.
Robert
Due to the last hunger strike I know I'm already to weak to do much more than next week. For that reason should there be no response by the end of the work week I'm going camping where I will continue the hunger strike for as long as possible.
ReplyDeleteIt is truly a crime to force hundreds of thousands of children forced to grow up in poverty because government pockets it.
16 years ago I would never have thought the government hated the people this much that they would trample on their children to increase revenue
I've had several discussions including the governments response to a 1 in 5 child support. It was concluded that they would rather let the hunger strike go full term and take the heat rather than give up all that cash. No surprise Day 7 means nothing to them which is why the hunger strike has been tied into FMEP releasing the information that allowed the child support they had their clutches on slip into a legal aid lawyers pocket.
ReplyDeleteIf it was legal why has there been no answer to how that came about after so many years of asking?
Two consecutive hearing on unjust enrichment was tossed out and the plaintiff threw an agreement for 2/3 of the assets in the trash bin so I should have been awarded court costs,,, but I wasn't invited to the hearing. Can't imagine what the judge was told but FMEP phoned the plaintiff to ask if she received the money, they said she replied she had. So why am I still in arrears in child support, like I've asked.
ReplyDeleteHow did more than enough to cover missed payments FMEP had their hands on wind up in a legal aid lawyers pocket?
I am not nor have I ever been in arrears in child support, FMEP knows it.
My first career was in the forest industry in stands of old growth rain forest. Moss up the ankles and a background of forest green with sparkles of emerald green in the morning mist.
ReplyDeleteMost have gone, including the old firebreaks and replaced with varying ages of second growth. During the second world war the demand for airplane spruce was so great prime trees of other species were pulled over and left. Most of it was cedar and was later salvaged, war won, trees salvaged.
Newer practices have provided selective areas rather than clear cutting an entire hill side or valley. The practice has potential but about 5 decades too late for the old growth. The practice has moved from old growth to second growth, about 4 decades too early, I have pictures of logged second growth hillsides covered with abandoned immature trees and stacks of many more truck loads ready for burning putting CO2 into the air instead of capturing it. Second growth in the first 40 years grows fast at the expense of quality. The older the tree gets the higher the quality and more valuable the wood. The larger trees that are harvested now are still of lower quality and that equals a loss in value of the harvested timber as well as the bigger loss of the immature stands. This whole government process of a sustainable rain forest has lost any standing in the headlong rush to meet the raw log export quotas.
Leaving the majority of under age trees to grab a handful isn't management and there is only one reason. The BC raw log export increases the federal government approved has put demand so far ahead of supply its the wild west out here. Between the current state of government and Gen U turning street age it should come as no surprise international investors only see risk and no reward in Canada.
The pictures tell the story, along with the 1 in 5,, gross mismanagement,, all of the story.
Stand by for my synopsis on the tar stands.
-----------------
vox 2010
The priority of exporting raw resources over value added industry is selling the herd because you're too lazy to cut the hay field.