Friday, March 29, 2013

its not just me

The first impression of most that read this blog is, it doesnt have much to do with me.
Even if you are a government employee that has never had children it has more to do with you than me.
History such as decades of denial over native residential schools to cooking the crime statistics to hide the latest results of using sole custody to generate a tax is the path government will follow. Deny deny deny.
Deny the property crime title of North America followed by more gangs per capita than any other place on the planet. Deny the latest child poverty record when employment is up and the majority of child support is paid.
I've asked what they have in mind for Gen U. Nothing, other than building bigger prisons. I object rather strongly to use prisons to deal with the victims of the courts excessive tax bias.
Government will have no hesitation in throwing a huge amount of money at Gen U to support their answer, "no one did anything wrong".
Where does anyone think the tens of billions is going to come from, deficit spending of more borrowed money?
Who is going to lend Canada money to hide such an egregious crime, expect interest rates to reflect it.
Higher taxes and service cuts with perhaps a little pass the hat cypriot style is guaranteed. The government will dig as deep as required, take that to the bank.
You can say it doesn't affect you much even if you don't have kids, wrong, it will affect everyone.
Gen U turning street age in 2015.


  1. After 5 years of research the results of the predictions I made 10 years are in.
    The predictions I've made on Gen U are now a certainty. The final proof is the latest child poverty record. With an election under way its not even an election issue, with any candidate of any party.
    The divorce act works the way it does because that's the way government wants it to. Couldn't be any easier to understand, child support is more important to the next election than the next generation.
    With little to do and of no mind to say I told you so I'll fill in my time on lighter issues.

  2. I've received another reply from the DOJ. I wouldn't bother listing it if it weren't for the complete change of wording from, I quote, "no one did anything wrong".
    They went to great lengths to explain that everyone did everything right.
    I didn't ask them to defend using sole custody to generate a tax, I asked what the plan is for dealing with Gen U.
    We can assume not answering my question indicates they have no plan other than the announced bigger prisons.

  3. The two replies from the justice department to my complaints range from no one did anything wrong to everyone did everything right. You judge, did everyone do everything right or did no one do anything wrong?
    Basic View.
    In 1995 the mother of my children packed up and left for as of yet unexplained reasons.
    We drafted a separation agreement that gave her 66% of the assets. We retained Peter Kennedy to formalize the contract. That should have been the end of the story.
    Instead she quit her job to qualify for a legal aid lawyer. Mr. Kennedy remarked she will get less in court.
    Although I have no direct proof the legal aid lawyer Thornton had his profit in mind when he took the case other than he moved tens of thousands in child support held by the courts to his pocket I suspect this wilful abuse of the system was counseled by the system.
    To hide the fact the child support held by the courts to make any payments I might miss while out of the work force with cancer the collection agency was informed I was in arrears. After many years of complaining FMEP finally phoned the payee and asked her if she received the money. I was informed by FMEP she relied yes. Unfortunately they had already set out what was described by one of my previous employers as threatening. It had the effect of a poison pen and even though I was on the top of the rehire list none would hire me, it literally took away my right to work flushing 35 years of sweat getting there.
    The only solid motive is the financial benefit to government. Besides the legal aid lawyer using child support to pump his rate to full the government although they deny it does greatly benefit financially using sole custody to generate a tax.
    The sole custody rate in all cases even with a whiff of a tax in the form of child support is 100%. After sitting in family court for 3 years, reading 5 years worth of decisions and another decade of research I have not found a single case to the contrary. When the family is self sufficient a form of shared parenting is the norm bring the average down to 94% sole custody.
    The results of generating a tax on the backs of our most vulnerable children are now in, 2 crime titles, another child poverty record, single parent families leading the charge into poverty, 2 disparaging reports on Canadian children including the mental health of our youth.
    The relies come as no surprise, government SOP, dismiss, distract, deny.
    They dismissed the 1998 report, For the Sake of the Children. They distract with suggesting changing in wording only away from terms like sole custody to parental responsibility meanwhile cooking the crime stats to hide the results.
    The latest reply to refute the government is financially benefiting is the denial stage.

  4. After the BC election.
    Dix the favorite after he announced no more pipelines gained immense popularity as most Canadians want value added industries from our raw resources and not fire sale exports.
    He lost all that support by ignoring value added popularity. He compounded that by suggesting the solution to the latest child poverty record is subsidized daycare.
    While many might not know child poverty root cause is using the divorce act to generate revenue they know it can't be caused by a lack of day care.
    Still no response from government on how they plan on dealing with Generation Upurs so the odds are well get a lot of finger pointing over the next few years, and nothing else.
    CU then.

  5. Just so no one is left hanging do not expect government to face facts. Like the missing exit strategy for sovereign debt its all about plausible deniability.
    BC lost 10,000 private sector jobs last month but added 19,000 public sector jobs. It takes 3 private sector jobs to support 1 public sector job. BC is in a huge job deficit Gen U will pay the price for, as if they didn't have enough
    We predicted the current state of today's youth s decade ago.
    I have moved on to another blog because the reporting on the children of divorce has ended, tabloids like the Toronto Star can report on the finger pointing. Sticking around to say I told you so isnt what some would call a victory so I won't waste your time there either.
    Buckle Up

  6. Still standing.
    On a personal note I'm still making monthly child support and rent.
    I've made it clear I'll never bow down to criminals. I've worked too hard all my life to live on my knees, besides, raising a finger is best done in the upright or dead bed prone.
    Generation Upurs is aptly named.
    Check your imagination at

  7. The former attorney general Shirley Bond is now the minister of labour. Ironic how she will now been in charge if programs targeting Gen U when she denys their existence, or is it.
    Its rumored the Clark government has a no paper trail policy. It stands to reason Suzanne Anton with a history of disregarding the laws of Canada is no the new ag.
    The new cabinet looks more like a battle line than a government except they have no opponents. They still haven't figured it out, politics won't stop Gen U from saying upurs.
    Unfortunately the failing global econl colonial economic system will grab the headlines but that won't change the results of taxing our mist vulnerable children.
    It seems unlikely governments will shift from income tax to consumption tax so let's assume the plan is to blame the global economy for the results.
    They underestimate the significance of 2 crime titles, a child poverty record and a dismal youth mental health report over the last 4 years.

  8. get it? They're going to invent an opponent to justify using the divorce act to generate revenue. Some fathers rights group that are blinded by the one statistic that say the courts are gender bias, the mother gets sole custody 87% of the time. What they refuse to see is the 100% rate if there is even a whiff of increase government revenue.
    They fail to see its single mother famines that are leading the charge into poverty.
    They fail to see its not what fathers have to say, its the mother's and the children the government has illegally confiscated child support from.
    That's what the battle line is all about. Its not about battling with shared parenting supporters, its not even about preserving the revenue. Suppress the truth before the real victims of a tax bias court comes to light, the children.
    Regardless Gen U will swamp their attempts as the global economy swamps the news.
    Now we know how government is going to deal with Gen U I don't feel the need to ask again.
    Thanks, Robert

  9. As the lawyers are complaining the government is ripping them off with taxes the first annoucment from the new BC AG Anton is tossing another $2M into the legal aid trough.
    This corrupt dysfunctional system is clawing back all the child support from our most vulnerable children but its the squealing pigs that get feed.
    What a bunch of sick bastards.

  10. For $85/hr a family lawyer does absolutely nothing in every case involving the custodial parent on state assistance. The case was decided in the first hearing to benefit government coffers, 100% of the time. Rare exceptions to drugged out crazies the divorce act has a sole purpose, government revenue.

    Its not enough to get paid to do nothing but future benefits include increased traffic in juvie and criminal court as a result of denying tens of thousands of children child support as well as a parent.
    Greedy sick bastards. If $85/hr isn't enough how about 5 to 10 for fraudulently representing justice.

  11. From the incredible, the government saying child support is for the children to the totally unbelievable. Today's headline, crime rate at levels not seen since 1972. Its really easy if you keep excluding large blocks of crime. Its so convincing even the police spokesperson listed reasons why "crime is down". Not doubt the creative crime rate is down but if crime were down the courts wouldn't be overloaded, we wouldn't be building mega prisons.
    I have to wonder who it is this fabrication is meant to fool, who canada is trying to hide the results of using the divorce act to generate revenue, on the backs of our most vulnerable children.
    If it were the publuc it would seem odd to cook the crime rate while ordering up mega prisons.
    Making the base political party reassured the tough on crime agenda is working, but again why mega prisons.
    International investors fled Canada in everything but raw resources and currency speculation in 2006 severely limiting economic growth across the board. They might buy it but its been my experience investors takes main stream information originating in Canada as suspicious.
    They tend more to think along the lines
    no justice no investment

  12. More used hay compliments of CMA study July 30/13.
    In a series of recomendations, #6 dealing with child poverty is devoid of facts.
    The facts.
    In 1990 Parliament voted unanimously to end child poverty by the year 2000. It was worse then, worse in 2010 and a new record set in 2011.
    Vancouver has a top G-20 economy and top in child support collected yet 80% of children livingin poverty in BC live tthere.
    It follows that historic numbers of parent and child support denied children have generated the 2009 record property crime not included in official statistics. More gangs per capita than any other place in the planet awarded Vancouver in 2010.
    I mentioned a few facts to CMA, with all the facts perhaps all those doctors can reach the right prognosis on this societal sickness.
    Child poverty is caused by government clawing back the majority of child support collected.