Words really hit home!

Oceans apart, day after day

And I slowly go insane

I hear your voice, on the line

But it doesn't stop the pain

If I see you next to never

How can we say forever

Wherever you go, whatever you do

I will be right here, waiting for you

Whatever it takes, or how my heart breaks

I will be right here waiting for you

Dear Josephine and Max,

I am writing these words to let you know that your Mom in France carries you deeply in her heart....

She is doing her best.....

Continue to pray that you will be home soon in France

because Home is where the heart is!

May God Bless you abundantly children,

Lo and behold

Sad state of affairs when a father writes in a report that "the children had adjusted to seeing their mother in jail"...
In the same document, when it is referred to the mother informing her children in December that she does not know when she will see them again.... the father writes "she could have said.......your dad and I will be working on when we can see each other and the judge will help us do that".

Scott Grant....you are the person who is dishonest with the kids.
In this same affidavit you provide pages worth discrediting your ex-wife with the sole purpose of preventing the children from seeing their mother.

People like you, are easy to read.
You are not at all interested in the children's welfare.
You have used your family connections to distort justice.
Your "sect", and I refer to ICC, indeed meets on BC justice property.
You lied to the Canadian public when you said you were surprised to see your wife in Canada.
I have a document in which the mediator (Pamela Jeffrey BC Attorney General) discusses Nathalie Gettliffe's trip to the province in spring 2006.
In the same series of documents (mediation) you signed your agreement that the children were better off with their mother and that France would remain their home...and in yet another document, again official BC mediation, you explained that your resorting to the BC courts (I refer to Justice Garson's revised order) was to enable you to obtain compensation money from the French government.

In the meantime, I ask a caring mother or father who may know Josephine and/or Max...... to let them know that there are Canadians abroad who are well aware of their suffering and are doing everything possible to help them obtain the right to be heard by a neutral judge in the presence of a lawyer...... their own!

Seeking information!

I received a copy today of an order dated March 8, 2007 emanating from Judge Garson forbidding Nathalie Gettliffe, French citizen, from speaking French to her children. Likewise she forbids the Gettliffe children from speaking French to their mother.
I am asking all concerned Canadians to provide me with any other documented proof on similar conduct of Justice Garson.
Further, based on reports received on Justice Holmes, please send this site any information you may have on similar behaviour from this judge.
United, ordinary citizens can get to the bottom of what is going on in the BC courts with regards to custody decisions.
I have also been advised that certain BC residents, not sure if they are Canadian citizens, have had their children removed from them subsequent to divorce decisions for no apparent reason.
Your information will be treated in total confidence. Please provide enough details so that official documents can be verified with court records.
Thank you.

BRITISH COLUMBIA JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS ANNOUNCED
OTTAWA, March 22, 2001 -- The Honourable Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, today announced the following appointments:
....
Nicole Garson, Q.C., of Vancouver is appointed a Judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court. She replaces the Mr. Justice Ken M. Lysyk who elected to become a supernumerary judge.
Madam Justice Garson received a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Saskatchewan in 1975. She was admitted to the Bar of Manitoba in 1977, and the Bar of British Columbia in 1981. Just prior to her appointment, Madam Justice Garson was a partner with the Vancouver firm of Campney & Murphy, praticing primarily in commercial and insurance litigation. She has been active with the Canadian Bar Association serving on various committees. Madam Justice Garson has been an instructor for numerous civil litigation courses through the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia. She was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1999.
Heather Holmes of Vancouver is appointed a Judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court. She replaces the Mr. Justice R.T. Low who was appointed to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
Madam Justice Holmes received a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Toronto in 1979 maintaining a position on the Dean's Honours List for all three years of study. She was admitted to the Bar of British Columbia in 1981. Madam Justice Holmes began practice with Shrum, Liddle and Hebenton (now McCarthy, Tétrault) in Vancouver later spending four years with the Criminal Law Section of the Department of Justice in Ottawa. At the time of her appointment, she was Crown Counsel with the Commercial Crime Section of the Office of the Attorney General of British Columbia conducting commercial crime prosecutions and from time to time, appeals in general criminal law areas. Throughout her career, Madam Justice Holmes has been active with various committees of the Canadian Bar Association including having served as an elected member of the Provincial Council for Vancouver County and as the Chair of the Legislation and Law Reform Committee.

Some inconsistencies in Benoit Ferradini!

Surfing the net I came across this article....
And being a little fed up with the biased journalism, I thought I would add my comments to the story.

Nathalie Gettliffe a commis beaucoup d’erreurs/ If you read below..you will see he talks about the prejudice of a group of Canadians.... it has nothing to do with Gettliffe making mistakes...it is Ferradini's attempt at disguising reported speech, which probably had its source in the prosecutor's office.
LYON MAGhttp://www.lyonmag.com/spip.php?article9916
Janvier 2007
Journaliste français installé au Canada, Benoît Ferradini a suivi le procès de Nathalie Gettliffe pour Radio-Canada. Il explique pourquoi cette enseignante lyonnaise a été condamnée à seize mois de prison pour avoir enlevé ses enfants.
Pourquoi la justice canadienne a condamné aussi durement Nathalie Gettliffe ?
Benoît Ferradini : Parce qu’au Canada, qui est un pays très légaliste, Nathalie Gettliffe est considérée comme une criminelle. Et là-bas, une femme qui enlève ses enfants est ni plus ni moins qu’une hors-la-loi. Mais si Nathalie Gettliffe a été durement condamnée, c’est également parce qu’elle a commis beaucoup d’erreurs depuis qu’elle a été arrêtée. Des erreurs qui l’ont totalement décrédibilisée. Why would a judge convict someone on anything other than the charges laid?
Quelles erreurs elle a commises ?
Les Canadiens ont trouvé stupide et arrogant qu’après avoir enlevé ses enfants, elle revienne tranquillement au Canada en pensant échapper à toute poursuite judiciaire. That's just it! Think about it. Why would an intelligent women have come back and taken such a risk, especially after all the legal decisions had gone against her. If I had been the judge.... I would have wondered why too. Further, if I were a little astute I would have asked the question to the accused at the arraignment hearing. And then upon production of the signed British Columbia Attorney General Mediation agreement by a competent lawyer acting on behalf of the accused..... wherein the father had signed permission for the children to stay in France with the mother ..... I would have said....what then seems to be the problem? Further if the accused's lawyer would have brought to MY attention the fact that the prosecutor Luchenko, facing me, was the partner of Scott Grant's mother..... I would have dismissed the hearing..... and asked the attorney general to investigate the conduct of Luchenko. Maybe not the Attorney General of BC as they don't recognise the mediation agreements they initiate! Just ask Pamela Jeffrey!

Ensuite, ils n’ont pas compris lorsqu’elle a annoncé qu’elle voulait se présenter à l’élection présidentielle en France pour échapper à toute condamnation !
If this journalist knew anything about French politics he would be aware that ordinary citizens with no political background can run for President or for the legislatives.
And it happens!

Enfin, les Canadiens n’ont pas du tout apprécié le livre qu’elle a écrit avec son compagnon, Francis Gruzelle, et dans lequel ils racontent son histoire. Car ce livre présente le Canada comme un véritable enfer, où la justice est noyautée par une secte, où les prisons ressemblent à Guantanamo... D’ailleurs, cette campagne médiatique contre le Canada lui a fait beaucoup de tort.
I find this statement incredible for a journalist who makes his living by writing stories!
Freedom of the press exists in Canada, doesn't it?
If there were slander in the story, why wouldn't Gettliffe and her partner be brought to court?


Nathalie Gettliffe a menti ?
J’ai interviewé Nathalie Gettliffe plusieurs fois. Et au cours de ces entretiens, j’ai relevé certaines incohérences dans son témoignage. Exemple : une fois, elle m’a affirmé que son ex-mari Scott Grant couchait avec sa fille ! Alors qu’elle ne l’avait jamais dit aux policiers ! Et quand je lui ai demandé des précisions, elle n’a pas été claire. D’ailleurs, elle n’a jamais accusé clairement son mari d’inceste. Mais s’est contentée plutôt de faire des sous-entendus...
Please read the court reports..... you can find them online.... the judge herself mentions the father sleeping with the daughter...as well she mentions the fascination that the child apparently had for her father's genitalia. Frankly, I was surprised that the judge included this in her decision but she did.

D’autres incohérences ?
En fait, c’est surtout son compagnon français Gruzelle qui a joué un rôle assez trouble. Notamment quand il a déclaré aux journalistes que Scott Grant battait ses enfants depuis qu’il en avait obtenu la garde au Canada. Il affirme même avoir un témoin ! Du coup, j’ai demandé des explications à Nathalie Gettliffe sur ces accusations. Et elle m’a avoué qu’elle n’était pas au courant de cette affaire !
Yes unfortunate if Gruzelle said this.... but in fact Grant used physical force to restrain Josephine on several occasions..... further, he is quite insensitive to the childrens' suffering as evidenced by testimony.
Mais son mari était tout de même membre d’une secte !
C’est vrai que Scott Grant est membre de l’Eglise internationale du Christ. Et Nathalie Gettliffe dit la vérité à propos du contrôle de l’emploi du temps des adeptes, de leur vie familiale, de la présence imposée d’un guide spirituel, de l’éloignement des enfants pour que les parents se consacrent à l’étude de la Bible... Mais il faut également souligner que depuis 2003 cette secte a beaucoup évolué : ses dirigeants ont changé, et il paraît qu’il y a moins de recrutements agressifs. D’ailleurs, il y a de moins en moins de plaintes contre elle. Ce qui a permis d’ailleurs à Scott Grant de dire qu’elle n’était pas dangereuse pour ses enfants.
This is hilarious.... a sect does not become less of a sect....further, it is well known that even so-called respectable churches such as vineyard (airport Toronto) have come under heavy criticism for encouragement and tolerance of demonic manifestations.
Having spent most of my life now, attempting as best as I can to follow Christ's example by helping others, I think I can say that a Christian ....is someone who loves his fellow human being and does not use deceit in order to obtain selfish gain. Vengeance has no place in the life of a Christian.

René would roll over in his grave!

War correspondent
He worked as an announcer and news writer at the radio station CHNC in New Carlisle, as a substitute announcer for CHRC during 1941 and 1942, and then at CBV in Quebec City. During 1944–1945, he served as a liaison officer and war correspondent for the U.S. Army in Europe. He reported from London while it was under regular bombardment by the Luftwaffe, and advanced with the Allied troops as they swept back the Nazis through France and Germany. Through the war, he made regular journalistic reports on the airwaves and in print. He was with the first unit of Americans to reach the Dachau concentration camp, and was profoundly touched by what he witnessed.
In 1947, he married Louise L'Heureux, with whom he would have two sons and a daughter. Lévesque worked as a reporter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's French Language sector in the international service. He once more served as a war correspondent for the CBC in the Korean War in 1952. After that war, he was offered a career in journalism in the United States, but decided to stay in Quebec.

On March 8th 2007, British Columbia justice Nicole GARSON court-ordered Maximilien and Josephine Gettliffe-Grant from speaking French to their mother.

What would René think of Nicole GARSON outlawing the Gettliffe-Grant children from speaking French, Canada's other official language?

What would lawyer Pierre Trudeau have said concerning this whole affair.

And John Diefenbaker over the treatment of the mother and the forced detention of the children in "the true north strong and free"!

I think all would have said.... this is a story of vengeance.... and has nothing to do with upholding the law of CANADA!

Let's hear it for the girls!

Nathalie Gettliffe: "Je vais me battre pour récupérer mes enfants"
SATILLIEU (AFP)
© AFP
Nathalie Gettliffe (d), lors d'une conférence de presse à Satillieu le 17 janvier 2007
La Française Nathalie Gettliffe, condamnée en décembre à 16 mois de prison par la justice canadienne pour l'enlèvement de deux de ses enfants, a affirmé mercredi à Satillieu (Ardèche) qu'elle allait "se battre pour (les) récupérer".
Mme Gettliffe, emprisonné initialement en Colombie-Britannique (ouest du Canada), a bénéficié samedi d'une libération conditionnelle alors qu'elle se trouvait à la maison d'arrêt de Fleury-Mérogis (Essonne). Elle a aussitôt regagné son domicile ardéchois de Saint-Alban-d'Ay.
Ses deux enfants aînés sont restés avec leur père au Canada.
"Mes enfants (Maximilien, 13 ans, et Joséphine, 11 ans et demi, ndlr) sont séquestrés, je n'ai pas le droit de leur écrire ni de leur téléphoner. Je vais me battre pour les récupérer et je fais toutes les démarches pour", a déclaré la jeune femme, 35 ans, lors d'une conférence de presse.
"Je me fais du souci pour mes enfants dont je n'ai plus de nouvelle depuis le 16 décembre", a-t-elle ajouté.
Arrivée au point-presse en compagnie de ses plus jeunes fils -Martin, 4 mois, né en détention au Canada, et Jean-Philippe, 17 mois-, de leur père Francis Gruzelle et de ses avocats, Nathalie Gettliffe, a expliqué combien son "combat" pour récupérer ses enfants était "juste".
"Une enquête sociale a été lancée en novembre dernier par le juge canadien des affaires familiales, qui statuera sur la future résidence des enfants d'ici mars ou avril", a-t-elle précisé.
Son avocat a affirmé avoir fait une demande auprès de la justice canadienne pour que Maximilien et Joséphine soient assistés d'un avocat dans le cadre de cette procédure.
"Leur vie est ici, en Ardèche", a expliqué Me Dominique Chambon. "Ils souffrent tous les deux d'un profond déséquilibre mental. Nous voulons qu'ils reviennent afin que la famille soit recomposée", a renchéri Me Samuel Cornu.
"Je suis très fatiguée et affaiblie. Je ne me suis pas encore remise d'un accouchement très très violent, beaucoup de sensations me manquent", a-t-elle déclaré, affirmant qu'elle avait souffert de "privations de sommeil".
"On ne m'a pas fait de cadeaux, ni en France, ni au Canada", a souligné la jeune maman, titulaire d'un doctorat en sciences du langage et qui a l'obligation de travailler" dans le cadre de sa libération conditionnelle.

Surfacing!

What a beautiful woman!

Yes beauty is within, this courageous woman who despite her shattered nerves continues to do her utmost to protect her children.

Nathalie Gettliffe spoke for the first time today to the press..... in her hometown of Satillieu Ardèche.

I will include some excerpts in the blog.

P.S. Perhaps the Vancouver Sun's artist should take some lessons from the AFP photographer....

Nathalie Gettliffe and her Children - Pawns in the International Chess Game Being Played With Children

Happy New Year...or is it?

Maybe for you and your family - but what about Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant, two young children forced to live with their father in Vancouver, after their mother was spirited back to France just before Christmas to serve out the rest of her sentence?

How do you think these children are feeling since the Supreme Court of British Columbia deported their mother and confined them to live in a country that has become a strange and terrifying place?

Jo and Max lived in France for five years with their mother until July 2006, when they were lured onto an aeroplane by one Father/Dr. Lucien Larre, currently under investigation by the College of Psychologists of British Columbia.

They were promised that their mother would be set free from prison if they flew to Canada. She was not. Their trust was shattered yet again. And now, they are subject to Lucien Larre, who has been hired by their father, Scott Grant, as an "interpreter".

Are you getting goosebumps yet??

Lucien Larre was interviewed by the CBC's Fifth Estate several years ago on national Canadian television, along with adult survivors of Larre's attempts to strangle them, slap them and confine them to a wheelchair.

Larre's response when the CBC journalist asks him if he truly strangled any children -

"Find me a dead one..."

The arrogance of a psychopath? Or just a very powerful person with powerful connections in government and the Catholic church?

Our concerns are:

1. Lucien Larre has unlimited access to Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe Grant. How do we know he isn't going to slap them or strangle them if they don't listen to him?

Where is the evidence that he is rehabilitated?

The Archdiocese of Vancouver seems to believe that Larre is an upstanding member of their community who is quite frank about his past. Oh really? Then why does Larre deny the crimes he committed against the victims who appeared on the Fifth Estate documentary?

(Yes, copies are available folks...)

2. Their mother, Nathalie Gettliffe, is prevented from protecting her children because she has been shipped back to France along with her infant son, as if she were chattle.

3. Francis Gruzelle, Nathalie's common-law husband in France, says that little Josephine is talking of suicide.

4. Scott Grant, the father, thinks it is perfectly alright to have Lucien Larre hanging around these vulnerable children - no wonder Nathalie felt she had no choice but to leave him and seek refuge with her children - his judgement seems to be impaired!

5. The children are now forced to attend Scott Grant's church in Vancouver, the International Church of Christ which is alleged to contain cult elements by experts in the United States and France.

6. The children have grown up in France, they were settled in France and they were protected from influence by any church group by their mother. Now, they are forced to live in a country they do not know, with a father who is a stranger to them and who cannot communicate with them because he doesn't speak French.

7. Nathalie Gettliffe plead guilty under duress. She was told that she could return to France if she plead guilty. Her infant son was physically assaulted in prison.

8. Nathalie Gettliffe had a legitimate defense. Section 285 of the Canadian Criminal Code states that if you removed a child from its habitual residence in order to protect the child, you have a legitimate defense.

9. The State has been playing Chess with Nathalie Gettliffe and her children, Josephine and Maximilien.

Ask yourselves - qui bono? Who benefits?

Lucien Larre - a Catholic priest with a shady past who was convicted of assaulting children

Scott Grant - a father who seems to be have duped by this Catholic priest and who is controlled by his ego

B.C. Crown Counsel - re-enforcing their motto: "might is right".

Gail Dickson - B.C. Crown Counsel who has been nominated as a Supreme Court Judge - just a coincidence, nothing to worry about.

The Family lawyers - their bank accounts just got fatter.

B.C. Politicians - another show of force against the meek to keep the masses in check.

Information leak!

Recently heard in France was the astonishing remark that certain Canadian officials made it clear that Gettliffe was to be found guilty!
And this regardless of whether she was justified or not in leaving Canada in 2001.
This apparently to give the warning to all foreigners living in Canada to think twice before returning to their home country with their children!

My question " Why weren't the circumstances surrounding her departure investigated?"
I was told that the case was getting too much media attention, that the government was caught with their pants down after the brutal arrest (due to the existence of the BC AG mediation agreement having been signed by the Canadian party), and that they felt they had no choice but to resort to damage control. The fact that Mike Luchenko (Scott Grant's mother's boyfriend) had used his public office to settle a personal score and had overstepped his boundaries with the creation of a second arrest warrant didn't help matters. Hence the government's decision to allow Heather Holt to sign the "official" arrest warrant, signed several days after the fact and only communicated to France 6 weeks later.

When France gave them the go ahead for dubious reasons.... (Nathalie Gettliffe's partner in France has political ambitions...he is running against the current Justice Minister Pascal Clément and will probably take the seat) BC justice moved forward.
Gaul decided to cover for the anomaly and they took on the position that the best defence was an offence...so they attacked Gettliffe vehemently.
They then deployed exceptional measures to wear Gettliffe down until she gave in to pleading guilty. The rest is history!

One final remark... Gettliffe only went back to Canada in April because she was under the impression that the Canadians had negotiated in good faith. And this based on the signed British Columbia Attorney General mediation agreement, issued January 2006, giving her custody of the children in France. This information is corroborated by official testimony.

Good luck British Columbia for the Olympics!
I am convinced you have lost a lot of potential visitors!
Maybe the Olympic Committee should look into the transparency of the BC legal system before deciding to do business there!

COLLEGE OF PSYCHOLOGISTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SUSPENDS DR. LUCIEN LARRE

Interesting...

Today our colleague received correspondence from the College of Psychologists of British Columbia in which it is stated:

"Dr. Larre's rights to practise have been suspended under Section 35 of the Health Professions Act, on an interim basis without any findings of fact being made, pending a hearing of the Discipline Committee of the College."

Right, now will someone please tell us if Larre is continuing to "work" with Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant, as per Scott Grant's wishes?

Or will someone with some sense like the Ministry of Children and Families please step up to the plate and investigate the situation?

We will continue to follow this situation in the best interests of Nathalie Gettliffe's children.

Stay tuned...

Discrimination against Nathalie Gettliffe in British Columbia Canada

Here is an "artist's" rendition of Robert Pickton, an alleged serial murderer who is on trial for the deaths of more than 11 women from Vancouver's East Side.

To look at this drawing, one has a feeling of curiosity, but because the artist does not show us the facial features of Pickton, we cannot feel any emotion towards him.

Why then would this "artist" depict Nathalie Gettliffe in such a negative and defamatory manner? (Drawing on the top left)

In our opinion it is simple: he is discriminating against this woman. The newspaper, the Vancouver Sun, which publishes the work of this "artist", is discriminating against Nathalie Gettliffe...and so it goes on until somebody puts a stop to it.

"Artist" Defames Nathalie Gettliffe in the Vancouver Sun

Have a good, long look at these two images. The first one, a drawing, by an artist, is supposed to be of Nathalie Gettliffe. It was published in the Vancouver Sun on December 04, 2006, along with a discriminating article by Jeff Lee. Now have a look at the second image, it is a photograph of Nathalie and her baby boy, Martin. Do you see any resemblance? Do you notice how the "artist" has contorted Nathalie's features, put a scowl on her face and distorted her image as a mother? This is called "defamation of character" and its intention is to incite hatred. The Vancouver Sun will be hearing from us, and so will their "artist" buddy.

B.C.Hosts International Forum on Child Welfare -Oh Really??

Minister of Children and Family Development
Hon. Tom Christensen
Phone: 250 387-9699
Fax: 250 387-9722
PO Box 9057
STN PROV GOVT
Victoria BC
V8W 9E2
Minister.MCF@gems1.gov.bc.ca

November 21, 2006

Dear Minister Christensen,

RE: SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF JOSEPHINE AND MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND THE INFANT, MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

We read on November 19, 2006 in the Press Release issued by your office, that British Columbia would be hosting an international forum on Child Welfare.

Of particular interest was your statement regarding the Ministry’s commitment to “strengthening services to build a more positive future for our children and youth.”

Your office goes on to speak about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, “UNCRC”, and Canada’s “theme” for 2006:
“The right of the child to be heard.”

While these words portray an honourable intention, the reality of the day in British Columbia for children like Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant and their infant brother, Martin Gettliffe-Gruzelle, is the complete antithesis of “positive”.

As you are aware, Josephine and Maximilien are the children of Scott Grant, a resident of Vancouver, and Dr. Nathalie Gettliffe, a French citizen who has been confined in a prison in British Columbia and denied bail for seven months, despite her pregnancy and subsequent birth of her son, Martin.

In July this year, both Josephine and Maximilien were lured onto a plane in France by Father/Dr.Lucien Larre, a man with a previous history of assaulting children in Saskatchewan, and brought to Canada under the impression that their mother would be immediately released from prison upon their arrival.
She was not.

Since their arrival in Canada and their forced cohabitation with their father, they are prevented from spending reasonable and necessary time with their mother.

It is our distinct belief that it is not in the interests of Josephine and Maximilien to be forced to live with their father against their will.

Josephine has spoken out about their living conditions with their father and she has told witnesses that they are not happy, that they do not sleep well and that they miss France.

The children are deeply distraught that their mother is imprisoned along with their baby brother.

Judge Garson recently acknowledged in November in the Supreme Court of British Columbia that the children were often “rude” and “angry” and “not affectionate” with their father. Surely this is evidence of their distress?

One may surmise, judging by Scott Grant’s very public statements in the local Vancouver newspapers, that he may very well be telling the children that their mother is “sick”. We know he has informed the public that she can see her children when she takes a “pill”.

We do not believe that a mother who acts to protect her children from harm is “sick” or that she needs a “pill”.
In fact, legislation in British Columbia and in Canada instructs us to report harm and abuse to children or suffer legal consequences.
We are also continually reminded by social workers and police officers that if we knowingly allow a child to be exposed to a harmful environment, that we could very well lose custody of the child.

Furthermore, we were informed yesterday that two attempts to strangle Dr. Gettliffe’s infant son, Martin, were made in the Alouette Correctional Centre where Dr. Gettliffe is incarcerated. These actions were apparently committed by another inmate.

Given this situation, we ask on behalf of the children and in their best interests, the following questions:

1. How does the Ministry intend to ensure that the voices of Josephine and Maximilien are heard in the Supreme Court and in the community, as stipulated by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

2. How does the Ministry intend to provide appropriate counseling and support to the children, as stipulated by the UNCRC?

3. Is the Ministry not concerned that the children only speak French and often do not understand their father?

4. Is the Ministry aware that Dr. Lucien Larre is allowed unlimited access to these children?

5. Has the Ministry investigated Dr. Larre to discover whether there is any evidence that he has rehabilitated since his convictions of assaulting two minors in 1992?

6. How does the Ministry intend to ensure the safety and well-being of the two older children, Josephine and Maximilien, as well as baby Martin?

7. How does the Ministry intend to assist Dr. Gettliffe who is nursing her infant while being forced to live in a harmful environment?

We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,


Canada Children First.
B.C. Canada


Copies to: Attorney General of B.C., Mr. Wally Oppal
Solicitor General of B.C., Mr. John Les
UNICEF
Louise Arbour, HCHR Geneva
Foreign Press













COPY

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

2006CFD0055-001399

Nov. 19, 2006
Ministry of Children and Family Development

B.C. HOSTS INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON CHILD WELFARE

VANCOUVER – B.C. is celebrating International Day of the Child by welcoming more than 1,000 delegates from 40 countries to WorldForum 2006, an international conference on child welfare, underway in Vancouver, Children and Family Development Minister Tom Christensen announced today.

“In B.C., we are continually strengthening our services to build a more positive future for our children and youth,” said Christensen. “WorldForum 2006 is a valuable opportunity for us to broaden our knowledge and perspectives and share our innovative practices with other jurisdictions.”

World Forum 2006: New Directions in Child Welfare is the 17th annual conference held by the International Forum for Child Welfare. As one of this year’s co-hosts, the ministry has contributed $500,000 to help stage the forum, deliver presentations on B.C.’s prevention and protection approaches and support the participation of 400 ministry employees.

This year’s gathering coincides with International Day of the Child, proclaimed to mark the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The theme in Canada this year is “the right of the child to be heard.” WorldForum 2006 celebrates this by providing an opportunity for 100 youth to participate as planners, presenters, delegates and volunteers.

“It’s fitting on this day that so many people who work in the field from around the world gather to share strategies and celebrate accomplishments,” said Christensen. “We hope and trust that everyone will take something away from the event that will enhance their work with children and families.”

World Forum 2006 runs through Nov. 22. For more information on the conference and its hosts, visit www.worldforum2006.ca

Why Attorney General of British Columbia Must Resign

Why A-G Oppal Must Resign
BC Attorney General Wally Oppal His dumb comment could cause a mistrial.
By Rafe Mair
Published: November 20, 2006


TheTyee.ca
We have, in this semi-lawless country, two daft attorneys general.

The federal chap, Vic Toews, distinguished himself in the 2004 federal election when on the eve of the ballot he accused the Liberals of being soft on kiddie porn.

It started when a man was sentenced to prison for a brutal sex slaying of a young Toronto girl. The assailant admitted that he was very fond of kiddie porn he accessed through his Internet connection. Toews suggested that because the federal Liberals, very much including then Prime Minister Chrétien, hadn't done anything about this stuff on the Internet, they bore a great responsibility for this tragic death.

The public turned out to be on the Liberals' side, which scarcely meant it was uncaring. The voters (though not, lamentably, in Toews's riding) thought that this was a scandalous accusation, trying to take advantage of a terrible crime by making it into a political issue. And they voted accordingly. The Conservatives lost in a tight race and many, including me, thought Toews lost it for them.

Now Mr. Toews has another bright idea. Policemen will be asked to sit on the council that recommends people for the bench.

Police would inject bias

Now I yield to no one in demanding that there be more transparency in the appointment of judges. I have long favoured open hearings for all superior court judgeships. But loading the council with interested pressure groups is hardly what's needed. The proper considerations are whether or not the candidate is a good lawyer in the sense that he knows the law, is of good character and is fair -- "fair" including the absence of prejudice, as far as any human can be.

ADVERTISEMENT
What does the policeman add to this? "I watched Bloggs in practice and noted he only took defence cases. He was always babbling on about 'reasonable doubt,' onuses of proof, prosecutor fairness and almost always challenged police evidenced. Hawkeye, on the other hand, was a brilliant prosecutor who gave no quarter. Sometimes when there was evidence that might help the accused and thus deny justice as we saw it, he didn't tell the defence lawyer. When we told him we wanted John Q Public prosecuted, Hawkeye never said there was insufficient evidence but said, charge that sleazy bugger and I'll get him convicted. On sentencing, he wanted everyone to be put away as long as possible. In fact ,we knew him as Hang 'em High Hawkeye. If we want to rest secure in our beds, Hawkeye is our man."

Now, if Toews doesn't want policemen on the panel so they can a get a judge that's "on their side," what's it all about? And, critical question here: Will a member of the defence bar also be on the panel to ensure that the criminals have a friend in the courtroom?

Blame the lawmakers

Mr. Toews would have us think crime runs rampant because judges are always lenient. The way to cure this, apparently, is to fix things so that acquittals are kept to a bare minimum. Even if the police blow the prosecution, jail the bugger anyway because everyone knows he's guilty.

Notably, Toews fails to note that while judges implement that law, politicians are responsible for making that law, including the penalties to be imposed.

Judges goof. Judges sometimes do things they ought not to -- that's what appeal courts are all about. But when you think of the thousands and thousands of cases heard around this land every day, we should thank God we're so well served.

Oppal's sin

Here in B.C., our attorney general must resign over remarks he made about the infamous Robert Pickton case. He may have caused a mistrial. The Honourable Wally Oppal, QC, made it clear that he was on the side of the prosecutors -- that he was B.C.'s top prosecutor and he could say what he pleased.

I find it utterly beyond belief that a former judge, a veteran of both our Supreme Court and our Appeal Court, should be so ignorant of the traditions of criminal law and prosecutions that have made our courts fair and seen by the world as such.

Mr. Oppal would have learned on his first day taking criminal law in law school -- that the accused is presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the Crown neither wins nor loses, but presents Her Majesty's case fairly. The Crown has obligations that policemen don't like very much, such as disclosing all relevant evidence to the defence even when the Crown doesn't intend to call that evidence. And to ensure that all the evidence is before the Court, even that which is adverse to the Crown's case.

Has Oppal so quickly forgotten the three Ms: Marshal, Milgaard and Morin? All men found guilty by false police evidence or investigations; all men who spent years in jail for an offence they didn't commit; all men who, but just a few decades ago, would have been hanged long before the true story emerged.

Every once in a while, we must pause and examine what our traditions are. Keeping an accused innocent until proved guilty and forcing the Crown to be fair means sometimes people will "get away with it." (As we have seen above, even this hasn't helped some accused.) This is the insurance premium people in a free country pay to ensure that a police state does not befall us.

Guiding precedent

But why do I say Oppal must resign?

Here's a recent precedent. Back in the late 1980s, the then attorney general had a private conversation with one of his deputies intercepted and recorded. In this conversation, Smith said some unkind things about a lawyer acting in a case in which the Crown was involved. When the matter became public, Smith promptly resigned. I suggest that Mr. Smith's deeds were far less serious than those of Mr. Oppal.

I should add that some of Mr. Smith's conversations to others were not the kind that Mrs. Smith would have liked hearing, but these were irrelevant except as personal embarrassments to Smith.

The sad part is that Toews and Oppal will get away with this conduct so unbecoming their offices. That's because the mainstream media won't hold them accountable, and so the public won't either.

2nd Letter to Wally Oppal, Attorney General of British Columbia

November 20, 2006

MR. WALLY OPPAL
Attorney General of B.C.
Room 232
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BCV8V 1X4
Phone: 250 387-1866
Fax: 250 387-6411

RE: NATHALIE GETTLIFFE; JOSEPHINE GETTLIFFE-GRANT; MAXIMILIEN GETTLIFFE-GRANT AND MARTIN GETTLIFFE-GRUZELLE

Dear Mr. Oppal:

We have not yet received a response from you regarding our letter of November 10, 2006, wherein we advised you of our concerns for Dr.Nathalie Gettliffe and her minor children, as named above.

In this instance, we bring your attention to an incident or incidents that have been reported to us regarding the Alouette Correctional Centre for women in Maple Ridge, British Columbia.
We are told that at least two attempts to strangle Dr. Gettliffe’s infant son, Martin Gruzelle-Gettliffe, have been made by another woman in prison. The infant boy, who is forced into incarceration along with his mother through the orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has been subjected to cruel and unusual treatment, as has his mother, by the Supreme Court orders which deny her bail.

Associates and colleagues have contacted the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner in Geneva, Louise Arbour, as her official intervention appears necessary to bring a halt to the ongoing violation of Dr. Gettliffe and her children’s fundamental human rights.

We remind you that a priest who previously had a criminal conviction for assaulting children continues to have unlimited access to Josephine and Maximilien Gettliffe-Grant at their father’s residence. We are concerned that your office has not taken this situation seriously. In fact, through vicarious intervention, the Crown Counsel of British Columbia appears to
be enabling this ongoing situation.

Does Crown Counsel or your office have evidence that Father Lucien Larre has rehabilitated and that he is no longer a threat to young children?

We hereby inform you that we hold the Attorney General of British Columbia and your office accountable for the safety and well-being of Nathalie Gettliffe and her children, Josephine, Maximilien and Martin, and we now trust that you will intervene in your official capacity to allow Dr. Gettliffe to exit the prison so that she may nurture her infant child in peace and have reasonable access with her two older children.
We further inform you that we hold the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

We would like to know, in writing, what your office intends to do to ensure the safety and welfare of this mother and her young children.

Sincerely,

Lisa Haeck
Canada Children First

Copy to: The Deputy Minister,
Lesley du Toit
Ministry of Children and Family Development
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Mr. Bruce McNeill
Director of Child Welfare, Fraser Region
British Columbia, Canada
Fax: (604) 586 4153

Attempted Strangulation of Nathalie Gettliffe's Baby in Prison, British Columbia, Canada

The following letter was sent on Monday, November 20th 2006, from Louis Ripault, a private investigator working on behalf of Dr. Gettliffe's family.
The letter is addressed to the high commissioner of the Human Rights Commission Miguel De la Lama, wherein Louis advises him of the following--English Translation--:

I have just learned that Nathalie's baby was the object of two attempted strangulation from an inmate in prison.

This underlines the urgency of an intervention from the High Commissioner of seeing Louise Arbour in person.

These attempts were acted by a co-inmate whose own child was taken away.

The answer from the authorities on this matter was to place the co-inmate in another building and to hand over to Nathalie Gettliffe a key to her cell and to the building.

This now makes Nathalie appear in the eyes of all inmates like a "guard without arms".

We understand with her being awake every hour in the night by the guards and the pressure from her own lawyers that she ended up pleading guilty.

You had attempted this summer to pass this matter to a service of emergency who did not recognize the importance of accelerating an intervention. So what are we to think now?

I advise you of your obligations to advise Louise Arbour of this matter.

The Attorney General of BC has all the power to stop the grave violations done on Nathalie and her children. Why then is he covering up the violations?

Louis Ripault

Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Advises Us to Take Sides

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

Why Was This Mother Allowed to Stay in France with Her Child, Yet Nathalie Gettliffe's Children were Forced to Come Back to Canada

Name of case
HC/E/FR 814 [27/10/2005;Cour d'Appel de Paris, 1ere Chambre - Section C (France);Appellate Court]
CA Paris 27 October 2005, 05/15032

Date of decision
27 October 2005

Requesting State
UNITED STATES

Requested State
FRANCE

Name of court
Cour d'Appel de Paris, 1ere Chambre - Section C (France)

Status of case
Final

Level of court
Appellate Court

Published/where available


Articles considered
13(1)(b), 12(2)

Articles or provision upon which disposition of case based
13(1)(b), 12(2)

Order
Appeal allowed; return refused.

Facts
The application related to a child who in December 2003 was removed
from her home in the United States by her mother and taken to France.
The child was 7 1/2 years old at the time and her parents shared
custody rights.
On 29 June 2005 the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris ruled
that the removal was wrongful and ordered the return of the child.

The mother appealed.


Ruling
Appeal allowed and return refused; the child was now settled in her
new environment pursuant to the terms of Article 12(2).

Cases and authorities referred to


Judges
M Perie, Pdt, M Hascher, conseiller, Mme Chadeville, conseiller deleguee.

Legal basis for decision


Art 13(1)(b)
The mother sought to invoke the grave risk of harm exception by arguing that: the father had taken drugs; the father's new partner had behaved inappropriately towards the child's step-brother; a return would separate the child from her step-brother and that a return would prevent the child from seeing her mother.
The Cour d'appel rejected these arguments and a request for a psychological evaluation of the child, finding that; the step-brother's accusations of drug taking by the father lacked detail and did not rebut the results of blood tests done on the father in March 2003; and that the allegations of seduction by the father's new partner had no relevance to the abducted child and her return.



Article 12(2)
The Cour d'appel noted that Article 12(2) was applicable to the application, more than 12 months having elaspsed between the removal and the initiation of proceedings.
In evaluating the child's settlement consideration was given to the fact she had commenced her third year of schooling in France, she was performing well and in a discussion with a school psychologist she affirmed that she wished to continue with her studies in France and to stay with her mother.

Pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the child's views were gathered and these confirmed to the Court that she was now settled in her new environment. The Court thereby ruled that the best interests of the child required that she not be returned to the United States.



Comments
The Cour d'appel relied directly on Article 12(2) of the UN Convention as justification for ascertaining the views of the child, rather than considering her objections within the separate Hague Convention exception of Article 13(2).
In this the Court was clearly influenced by the decision of the supreme civil jurisdiction in France, the Cour de Cassation, in its decision of 18 May 2005:

Cass Civ 1ère 18/05/2005 (Arrêt n° 891, pourvoi n° 02-20.613).

In this judgment the Cour de Cassation departed from previous rulings in finding that Article 12(2) of the UN Convention was self-executing and could thereby be relied on to allow children to intervene directly in private law proceedings in France.

The approach of the Cour d'Appel in considering the views of the child in assessing the issue of settlement does moreover mirror that adopted by the English High Court in the case of : Re C (Abduction: Settlement)(No 2) [2005] 1 FLR 938 [INCADAT cite HC/E/815].


THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 13(1)(b) IN FRANCE

The treatment of Article 13(1)(b) by French courts has evolved, with a permissive approach being replaced by a more robust interpretation.

Judgments of France’s highest jurisdiction, the Cour de cassation, from the mid to late 1990s, may be contrasted with more recent decisions of the same court and also court of appeal decisions, see:

Cass. Civ. 1ère 12 juillet 1994, Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 103];

Cass Civ 1ère 21 novembre 1995 (Pourvoi N° 93-20140), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 514];

Cass. Civ. 1ère 22 juin 1999, (N° de pourvoi : 98-17902), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 498];

And contrast with:

Cass Civ 1ère 25 janvier 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 02-17411), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 708] ;

Cass. Civ 1ère 14 juin 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 04-16942), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 844];

Cass. Civ 1ère 13 juillet 2005 (N° de pourvoi : 05-10519), [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 845];

CA Amiens 4 mars 1998, n°5704759, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 704];

CA Grenoble 29 mars 2000 M. v. F., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 274];

CA Paris 7 février 2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2001/21768), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 849];

CA Paris, 20/09/2002 (N° de pourvoi : 2002/13730), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 850];

CA Aix en Provence 8 octobre 2002, L v Ministère Public, Mme B et Mesdemoiselles L (N° de rôle 02/14917) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 509];

CA Paris 27 octobre 2005, 05/15032 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 814].

Updated 22 July 2006.


Copyright © HCCH

The Beginning of the End of Democracy

When the media refuse to inform, and the public ceases to question, it is the beginning of the end of democracy!!! - David John Thornton

In the Nathalie Gettliffe - Scott Grant situation we should ask if the Canadian and the French media have access to all the facts?
If they do and they are not publishing all of the facts, why is that?
If they don't have access to all the facts, is it because investigative journalism is a dying profession?

The public are asking questions - they have a right to be informed. Why? Because we have a moral duty, as individuals and a community, to look out for each other. Big Bad wolves prowl around by day and night, preying on the vulnerable, the weak and the poor...a lot of the time they are dressed as politicians, lawyers and people in positions of authority.

Inform yourselves, don't be caught unawares, read "Snakes in Suits" by Professor Robert Hare, from Vancouver,


"If you've ever watched in horror while a charming BS artist methodically tore the guts out of your group, your division, your company (... or your country for that matter) and wondered how on earth they managed to pull it off in broad daylight, this book will help you solve the mystery.

There really are human snakes among us and Babiak and Hare explain in detail what motivates them, how they operate, how to recognize them and, most important, how to neutralize their poisonous effects before it's too late.

No one ever said life was going to be a rose garden and there's a whole breed of individual whose sole function in life seems to be to insure it's not for the rest of us.

Just read the headlines. It's an epidemic: Enron, WorldCom, and their close cousins the neo-cons etc.

When the student is ready, the teachers appear. It looks like it's finally time for our society to recognize these people for what they are, acknowledge that they're not going away and deal with them with something other than wishful thinking and denial.

This book is bad news for the charismatic white collar criminal class. It's about time." Ken McCarthy, New York

Think about the children, and before you go to sleep tonight, say a little prayer for them - let us honour the trust our children place in us.

Nathalie Gettliffe Refuses to Meet With French Journalists At Alouette Prison in Canada

According to the Agence-France Presse, Nathalie Gettliffe, imprisoned in the Alouette Correctional Centre in Maple Ridge, near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, apparently refused to meet with a group of French journalists who had arrived with the purpose of inspecting the prison and the conditions under which Nathalie and her infant son, Martin, are forced to live.

She explained her decision in a handwritten document, underlining the possibility that all information regarding her detention could be perceived in a "negative manner" by the judge who will decide her sentencing at the beginning of December, next month.

A group of a half a dozen of French journalists visited the prison on Thursday, according to a trip organized by the Canadian Embassy in France, which was intended to review and report on the Canadian judicial system and the Canadian penitentiary.

Ms Gettliffe did not wish to meet the group. One of the journalists wrote a letter asking to speak with her, but she replied in writing something to the effect of, and we paraphrase, 'I cannot speak to you due to a sentencing hearing coming up on November 30 and the 1st December. All positive or negative information concerning my current conditions of detention can be perceived in a negative manner by the judge in charge of ruling. I remain therefore silent and in suffering, on the counsel of my lawyer. Thank-you again for caring about my case and Martin.'

Nathalie Gettliffe referred to her baby son to whom she gave birth on September 26, during her detention. The Canadian authorities indicated Wednesday that an audience devoted to the sentence of Ms Gettliffe would take place on November 30 and 1st December.

The 35 year-old mother of four pled guilty to the accusation to have removed, in 2001, the two children of her marriage with the Canadian, Scott Grant, an offence of a maximum penalty of 10 years of prison.

Her guilty plea avoids the trials that should have begun November 20. It remains for the judge to decide sentencing after having heard the respective arguments of the accusation and defense at the end of November.

The young mother was arrested in Vancouver on April 11 2006 and has been forced to remain in prison as two Canadian Supreme Court Judges have denied her bail.

The two children of Nathalie Gettliffe's marriage to Scott Grant are currently court-ordered to live with him in Canada.