Friday, February 3, 2012

Collection of background info Sept /11 - Jan /12


COLLECTION OF BACKGROUND INFO Sept /11 - Jan /12

This document today is intended for any writer who is researching the Ayn Van Dyk case for the purpose of telling her story of autism and the manner in which she was taken into custody by the Ministry of Children of B.C. for the purpose of protecting her - from who knows what? She loves her home and her parents and her brothers. She should be returned immediately. Read and you will agree.

The document was prepared by advocate Jean Nicol on Feb2, 2012. She writes that this list of sites was compiled at the request of someone wanting background information before speaking to Derek to arrange an interview. It may be useful to someone in a similar circumstance. What follows is Jean's collection.

"The following links all are from the blog FREEDOM FOR AYN. Ayn's supporters also have a website called JUSTICE4AYN.


Most of the following blog posts are Derek’s writings that I have collected over the past 5 months from Sept 2011 until Jan 2012. There are many more blog entries at the FREEDOM FOR AYN Blog site all directly related to Ayn and this story, as well as quite a few pictures.

  1. DEREK HOARE SEPTEMBER 2011 DAILY UPDATES
  2. DEREK HOARE’S EXPLANATION FOR NOT VISITING AYN DURING FOSTER CARE
  3. DEREK’S DECISION ABOUT NOT VISITING AYN
  4. DEREK’S OCTOBER 2011 UPDATES 
  5. PUBLIC INFORMATION RELEASE
  6. DEREK’S NOVEMBER 2011 UPDATES
  7. DRUGS CAN’T STOP TEARS
  8. DEREK’S DECEMBER 2011 UPDATES
  9. CHRISTMAS THAT’S GONE FOREVER
  10. LONG AWAITED CASE CONFERENCE
  11. NOT THE UPDATE WE HAD HOPED FOR
  12. Ron Unruh writes an excellent blog called GPS in which he includes some of Derek’s writings in some of his posts but those and more would be found in our blog. Ron has some very good posts about Ayn’s story, MCFD etc.
  13. The PAPA inBC (People Assisting Parents Association) website has the following specific link to a story about Derek Hoare entitled 'Removal of a 9-Year Old Autistic Girl in Abbotsford, British Columbia (16 June 2011)'
  14. Here is Derek’s ORIGINAL PLEA FOR AYN
  15. Outline of VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
  16. WHY DRUGGING AYN IS WRONG
  17. A SYNOPSIS: BC’s MINISTRY OF CHILDREN, PERSONNEL & PRACTICE
  18. The PETITION is quite an accomplishment
  19. This is a link to a document listing VIDEOS & PRESS RELEASES"
Postscript: I am confident that within the volume of material already chronicling Ayn's story there is an absolutely convincing case of unnecessary child removal, unconscionable delay in process, insensitive treatment of parents and family, unacceptable heartlessness to a child already challenged by the disabling affects of autism. Ron Unruh

4 comments:

  1. As a parent fighting the war to be a parent to their own children I am so pleased to see this blog continuing. There are thousands of children caught in this insanity across this country, and not only in this country. This is happening worldwide.

    http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/35814-governments-stealing-children-at-secret-family-courts

    http://www.davidicke.com/articles/child-abuse-mainmenu-74/36721-to-parents-who-have-had-children-removed-by-the-state

    http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/archive/club/700club101311_ws
    42 minutes 27 seconds into broadcast story about government child abduction

    http://www.cbn.com/media/player/index.aspx?s=/archive/club/700club100411_ws
    18 minutes 6 seconds into broadcast story about government child abduction

    I have seen the judiciary lauphing about the fact that protection hearings won't be heard within 45 days. Somehow this seems funny to people who make 300k per year and only need to work 6 months for that pay as many of them do. I've also heard judges tell parents 'they need a lawyer'. Really? why? Why do parents need a lawyer to be parents to their children? Why? Who set up child protection to be a matter for 'legalese' to devour to increase need for services, thus bringing in BIG BUCK for lawyers? The government isn't concerned with following the law anyway as we can all see from case after case.

    Clearly this is big scam to force service of lawyers, trials, judges, so called "experts" on innocent people. If MCFD takes your children you are guilty until proven innocent-and there is no way to prove innocence when the province has a bottomless well of lies, fabricated evidence, laws, 'experts', excuses, loop-holes in their quiver.

    http://www.canlaw.com/lawyers/liarson.htm

    Ask youself what is the purpose of a lawyer? The judges have all been lawyers. Court trials are not for telling the truth-they are for who tells the best lies. Parents & children don't stand a chance. Liars don't know what to do with the truth...it is a foreign concept to them. If you tell the truth in court they look at you like you've just landed from outerspace. The truth is not something they are even willing to comprehend or consider-best interest of the children? Yah, NO, not going to happen. Following the LAW?-give me a break! The lawless don't follow the law as they are above the law, "THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT". THE TRUTH is the children need to be returned in the shortest possible time-frame.

    I've also heard from countless lawyers that it very much matters who the judge is...now why is that? If judges are to be impartial and unbiased and follow the law, then it should never matter what judge you get. I've also heard that the judiciary always believes the government, ie, social workers, family development workers, police, MCFD 'expert witnesses' so again that is partiality and bias which is illegal. Criminal. So basically if the judges decided for what ever reason not to like someone, God help that person and their children.

    The government, MCFD, Ombudsman, MLAs, Minister for Children & Families, they don't care about these kids-they need people caught in this trap so they can go home and sleep good at night. Pure evil. Evil. The worst criminals in Canada have more rights than parents when Canada takes their children. Children are a gift from God and they belong with their parents, not in government-could-care-less care.

    Something reeks in this country-can you smell it?
    The contributors to this blog who know the truth can see that nothing changes-only the characteristics of the truly evil who have no concern for the innocent that are destroyed by these unGODly systems. No one in the government wants this fixed or it would have been fixed by now. The bigger the government, the less democracy for its citizens-we are not free.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Anon

    Sorry that you are one of these many parents.

    I appreciate the links you have sent. It’s unfortunate that the comment section does not permit live links just as you sent them.

    I know that more than one observer of the present child protection system and its accompanying legal and judiciary associations alleges that much of the motivation is monetary. I wish I had substantive evidence to convince me. I don’t need convincing that a lot of money changes hands.

    What concerns me greatly is the flaunting of law or legislated guidelines by which child protection is both mandates and scrutinized.

    Your opinions and expressions are understandable given your personal experience. It is true that all of the people in places of power and authority appear not to care much about the individual cases even though they speak positively about ‘families first.’

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the law does not protect the weak and the innocent it fails in its purpose. The Ayn van Dyke Case is unfortunately only one of many thousands of cases throughout the world. It's totally heartbreaking. I have great respect for Amie van Dyke and Derek Hoare as they continue the fight for their daughter's relase from captivity. God bless them.

    ReplyDelete

I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise