Posted on

Is restitution possible?

Where there is a wrong there is a remedy. Restitution of the family finances and dignity of fathers is the remedy for the systematic destruction of fatherhood in the western world. But is it possible? Examples of governments providing redress, including paying damages, and restoring dignity to previously persecuted persons abound. Classic examples are the WW II interned national citizens of Japanese descent in Canada and the USA., German reparations to Israel, apology and compensation to Chinese laborers for the ‘head tax’; and the recent apology to Canadian POWs by the Japanese government (see link).

Japanese government apologizes to Canada’s World War II POWs:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/08/japanese-government-apologizes-to-canadas-wwii-pows/

Posted on

Restitution for ex-fathers?


Here’s the story — fathers have had their children stolen from them. Then, the father’s money is taken fraudulently. Fathers have been robbed. It was not necessary, and it was not right. The law says where there’s a wrong, there’s a remedy. Here’s the remedy — restitution. Restitution of family, of finances, and of dignity. Join with all the other fathers, mothers, step mothers, step fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, associates and civic-minded individuals who are fighting the family court system to end the separation of all parents and children. The loan is due and payable now, with interest and damages for the loss of family, finances, and dignity.

Posted on

“What has become of my sacred rights” Abraham Lincoln

The fact of being a non-custodial or non-residential father (an ex-father) as a result of parental separation makes that man less than the man who has not been separated.

I insist that whether I shall be a whole man, or only the half of one, in comparison with others, is a question in which I am somewhat concerned, and one which no other man can have a sacred right of deciding for me.

If I am wrong in this—if it really be a sacred right in the judge in family court to decide whether I will be the equal of the unseparated father, then, after the judge shall have exercised that right, and thereby shall have reduced me to a still smaller fraction of a man than I already am, I should like for someone, deeply skilled in the mysteries of sacred rights, to provide himself with a microscope, and peep about, and find out, if he can, what has become of my sacred rights. They will surely be too small for detection with the naked eye.

Finally, I insist that if there is anything which it is the duty of the whole people to never intrust to any hands but their own, that thing is the preservation and perpetuity of their own liberties and institutions. (With apologies to Abe Lincoln)