French Publisher Releases Book by Nathalie Gettliffe and Francis Gruzelle About Her Incarceration

By Dan Ferguson Staff Reporter
Sep 29 2006

Former Surrey resident Nathalie Gettliffe gave birth to a son named Martin in a Lower Mainland hospital on Tuesday, according to a press release issued in France by the baby’s father, Francis Gruzelle.
Gruzelle said the child bears the same name as the famed French Holocaust writer Martin Gray and like Gray, the child has survived a “particularly hostile environment.”
Gettliffe has been held in prison since she was arrested on her return to Canada in April, five years after she went to France with two children from her marriage to Surrey resident Scott Grant.

The children, Max and Josephine, were reunited with their father in June after French courts ordered their return.
The case has generated considerable controversy in France, with supporters saying Gettliffe took her children to remove them from the influence of the church her ex-husband belongs to, the International Church of Christ.
Gettliffe supporters have pointed to a 1995 French government report that declared the church a “sect.”

However the report also defined several other religious organization as sects including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists and Transcendental Meditation without calling to have any of them outlawed.

Last week, a French publisher released a book by Gettliffe and Gruzelle about her incarceration.
Originally called “In the hell of the Canadian prisons” it is now titled “Letters from prison” and contains a series of letters from Gettliffe to Gruzelle, many complaining about her treatment while she was being held in jail, first at the Surrey Pre-trial Centre and then the medium-security Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge
Gettliffe’s trial before a B.C. Supreme Court jury in Vancouver is scheduled to begin Nov. 20.

Francis Gruzelle Speaks Out About Nathalie's Incarceration

VANCOUVER (CP) - A Frenchwoman detained by Canadian authorities for allegedly kidnapping her two children after a protracted custody battle gave birth to another child Tuesday, her partner said.

Nathalie Gettliffe, 35, gave birth to a baby boy named Martin while in custody at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women, Francis Gruzelle, the newborn's father, said in a statement.
Getliffe has been detained since April.

Gruzelle has openly criticized Canadian authorities for his partner's ongoing detention and her case has won wide media attention in France.
Last week, he told France-3 television that Gettliffe was "physically exhausted" and blamed her poor health on prison conditions.

Gettliffe faces up to 10 years in jail in Canada if found guilty on two counts of child abduction. She said she took her children to France in 2001 to remove them from the influence of their Canadian father, Scott Grant, because he was increasingly active in the International Church of Christ.

While Canadian authorities recognize the church, French authorities consider it a cult.
French authorities returned the 11-year-old boy and 12-year-old girl to Vancouver in July, reuniting them with their father, who had been granted full custody by a Canadian court.
Grant said Tuesday he was unaware of whether his ex-wife had given birth.
But he said she had changed criminal lawyers in recent days. Her current lawyer, Richard Fowler, did not return phone calls Tuesday.

Her civil lawyer, Vincent Pigeon, said he was unaware whether she had given birth.
B.C. Corrections spokesman Bruce Bannerman cited privacy laws for being unable to confirm or deny the birth.
"I know it's out in the press but I'm not able to give you any information about any offender who's under our care," said Bannerman.
Alouette warden Brenda Tole also cited privacy laws but suggested a call to the nearest hospital to the prison, Ridge Meadows Hospital.
The hospital would not comment and would not confirm Gettliffe was there.
Gettliffe's criminal trial is set to begin in November.

Nathalie Gettliffe Gives Birth to Baby Boy While Being Imprisoned in Canada

News Release - From Canadian Embassy in France



Paris, September 26, 2006 – Nathalie Gettliffe, a Canadian and French citizen being held in a minimum security detention centre in the province of British Columbia, gave birth to her child today.

The delivery took place in accordance with the rules set out by British Columbia’s correctional services. These make provisions for pregnant inmates about to give birth to be transported by ambulance to the nearest general hospital. Upon being discharged from the hospital, mothers and their newborns can be accommodated in detention centres until the legal proceedings against them have been concluded or until they are conditionally released or transferred to another facility.

The Alouette Centre, where Nathalie Gettliffe is being held, is a minimum security detention centre located on several hectares of land approximately 60 km outside Vancouver. Completely renovated in 2004, it has one- and two-person cells without bars on the windows. The cells open onto a common room where inmates can come and go as they please. There are 128 women being held at the Alouette Centre, six or seven of whom are pregnant. A dietician helps to prepare meals, and inmates’ special dietary needs are taken into consideration. There is a nurse at the centre and a doctor assigned to it.

Ms. Gettliffe is represented by Canadian counsel who can see her at any time. She receives visits from her maternal uncle who permanently resides in Vancouver. Finally, the Consul General of France also has unrestricted access to Ms. Gettliffe. Ms. Gettliffe is awaiting her trial on November 20 for child abduction after she failed to comply with legal decisions regarding the custody of her first two children. The children, who had been taken to France illegally, have been returned to their father, Scott Grant, in Canada. As mentioned last Friday in a news release from the French Foreign Affairs and Justice ministries, this was upheld by the French courts, in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1980.

Ms. Gettliffe contends she left Canada to get her children away from the influence of the International Church of Christ, to which the father belongs. However, decisions made and upheld by the Canadian and French courts giving the father custody of the children took into account all considerations brought to their attention.

Despite interruption of mediation begun by MAMIF (the French Justice Ministry’s international family mediation service), Ms. Gettliffe, who was several months pregnant, decided on her own initiative to travel to Canada on April 10, 2006, to defend a thesis at the University of British Columbia. She was arrested on April 11, 2006. The Canadian courts turned down her request to be released on bail.

The general reputation of the Canadian correctional system is good enough for it to have been cited as a model numerous times in recent years, including by a Parliamentary Commission of the French National Assembly which, in 2000, saw Canada’s system as the model they should follow in their country to achieve a more efficient penitentiary system. Following a visit to Canada (including British Columbia) in 2005, a United Nations committee drafted a report on the norms governing detention. The report was favourable towards Canada and in particular stressed that “Canada is a country governed by the rule of law, in which a strong and independent judiciary strives to ensure that trials are fair and exercises a generally vigorous control over the lawfulness of all forms of deprivation of liberty.”

For more information, please contact: Ralph Jansen, Communications and Public Affairs Unit Canadian Embassy Tel.: 01-44-43-22-90

Correctional Service Canada
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/

Alouette Correctional Centre for Women
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/corrections/centres/medium/location/alouette.htm

Nathalie Gettliffe Alleges Mistreatment in Prison

Pregnant prisoner alleges mistreatment

Nathalie Gettliffe is due to give birth any day not far from the place she calls a "safari" and in which her partner suggests she's been beaten and denied medical treatment.
Gettliffe has been housed at Maple Ridge's Alouette Correctional Centre for Women since May. She was arrested in April when she returned to B.C. to defend her PhD dissertation on allegations that she kidnapped her own children and spirited them away to France.

Her trial has been delayed until after the birth of her child.

Francis Gruzelle, Gettliffe's partner and the father of their unborn child informed a French television station that while in the Maple Ridge jail, Gettliffe had been beaten by other inmates and denied medical help.

In June, Gettliffe herself wrote a letter to Gruzelle that was later translated into English and posted on a website dedicated to lobbying for her release. Within the letter, she condemns Surrey Pre-Trial Centre, calls Alouette a "safari," and suggests that even though pregnant, she's been denied adequate food and medical attention.

Gettliffe goes on to write that she's "not the first victim of the 'legal' terrorism in the British Columbian justice system."

Corrections spokesman Bruce Bannerman, however, says that every inmate has the opportunity to launch a formal complaint.
Once the complaint is lodged, he says, "we would be able to deal with it at either the local level," or, he says, if need be, through the office of the ombudsman.
"We like to pride ourselves that we treat our inmates with respect and we provide a full range of services to all offenders."

Gettliffe faces up to 10 years on charges of child abduction. It is alleged that she stole her children away from their Canadian father during a custody dispute.
Gettliffe's reason for removing her children to France surrounded her ex-husband's involvement in the International Church of Christ, which, while recognized in Canada, is considered a cult in France.

Bannerman says that while in prison, inmates are treated to the same level of medical care as is offered in the community.
When Gettliffe goes into active labour, he explained, she'll be transferred out to an appropriate medical facility.

Once the baby is born, he added, the decision surrounding whether or not to keep the mother and child together in the prison "will be made in consultation with the offender and the other agencies...any decision on that is always done in the best interest of the child."

Edward Kruk Associate Professor UBC Speaks Out Against Injustice in Nathalie's Case

Feuding parents tear their children apart
Letter to the Editor – Vancouver Sun

Published: Friday, August 18, 2006

Although I normally support fathers in their efforts to reconnect with their children following separation and divorce, I cannot support the forced estrangement of Nathalie Gettliffe from her children's lives and her current incarceration. Although removing her children from Canada without their father's knowledge is a form of kidnapping with particularly devastating consequences for children, the forced removal of either parent from the lives of children via a judicially imposed sole custody order, absent a finding that the children are in need of protection from the parent, is tantamount to a legal form of kidnapping with similarly devastating results. A viable alternative exists in the form of joint custody or shared parenting.

Although there is no guarantee that a vindictive parent would not take a child away under a joint custody order, research clearly shows that when neither parent feels threatened by the potential loss of his or her child via the prevailing "winner take all" formula of sole custody, this kind of desperate act is rare -- and children are spared the legal abuse they are currently subjected to under the present system. Children need both parents -- as parents, not "visitors" -- which is possible only under joint physical custody after parental separation.

Edward Kruk

Associate Professor,

Leader, Separated and Divorced Fathers Project; Fatherhood Involvement Research Alliance,

School of Social Work and Family Studies, University of B.C.

© The Vancouver Sun 2006

Colin Randall from the UK Reports on Nathalie's Case

Posted by Colin Randall at 17 Aug 06 17:26
Tags: Crime, Family, Religion, Relationships, Nathalie Gettliffe

Outside France or Canada, few but net-surfing news junkies will have heard of Nathalie Gettliffe, a 35-year-old languages lecturer from Lyons at the centre of a bitter tug-of-love battle.

Should Nathalie Gettliffe be behind bars?

It is a sad but intriguing case involving a hopelessly torn family and allegations of kidnapping and religious extremism. Tomorrow, Nathalie, heavily pregnant with her fourth child, will learn whether she is to give birth as a prisoner or a free woman.

It is easier to explain if we start in less troubled times. At the end of the 1980s, Nathalie, still a teenager, met and married Scott Grant, a Canadian a few years older than her. They had a boy and a girl now aged 12 and 11.
Relations between the couple deteriorated. According to Nathalie (I use Christian names for convenience), the principal cause was her husband’s growing attachment to the Vancouver Church of Christ, which is linked to the US-based International Church of Christ (ICC).
The ICC has attracted fierce criticism over the years and is considered a sect in France, but not in Canada. Scott insists that he attends an ordinary place of worship that “acts like a Protestant church.”
“We don’t put our hands up and talk in tongues and stuff like that, he told the Vancouver Sun newspaper.
Sitting in Paris, I clearly cannot say what Scott's "attachment" involved or whether it is reasonable to criticise him or his church.

Nathalie Gettliffe
In any event, Nathalie decided to seek a divorce. According to Francis Gruzelle, her present French partner and the father of both her third child and the unborn baby, life had become impossible for her.
She was not permitted to leave British Columbia with the children without the court's blessing. She claims, however, to have been troubled by the effect Scott had on their children when he saw them after their separation.

Nathalie resolved to take the children back to France. Scott resisted, and the court supported him. She went anyway, in September 2001, making her liable to abduction charges.
Custody was granted to Scott, a ruling upheld in France, where the courts felt bound by the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Francis, supported by a highly vocal campaign in France, says this makes a mockery of justice because it ignores the details of the dispute, the children's views and what drove Nathalie to act as she did.

For nearly five years, the children continued to live in France. As the arm of Canadian law stretched out to reclaim them for Scott, the Gettliffe clan did its best to keep them out of its reach.
In April this year, already four months into her pregnancy, Nathalie did something that, for a woman wanted on kidnapping charges, seemed utterly stupid. She flew to Vancouver, and was promptly arrested and thrown into jail.

Most news reports I have seen say the visit concerned her PhD thesis at the University of British Columbia. Francis tells me the main purpose was to sign, with Scott, an interim agreement negotiated over the preceding months on the future care of their children.
She therefore believed, says Francis, that the matter was now being treated as a family case, not a criminal one.

Nathalie has remained in jail since. Tomorrow’s bail application is not her first and it would be generous to describe Canadian justice as seeming in any hurry to deal with it.
Her earliest bid to be freed pending trial was not decided until May, and was rejected on the grounds that she might abscond. The judge noted that the children were still in France and said she seemed to think she was entitled to defy court orders with which she disagreed.
Nathalie says the implication of this, and previous hints from Canadian officials, was that she might be freed if the children were voluntarily returned to Canada. Just like "an exchange of hostages", one supporter told me.

The latest bail attempt has been adjourned three times, to the exasperation of her Canadian lawyer and French supporters.
Whatever other considerations arise, it does appear that “doing a runner” is beyond a woman who has been confined to bed for long periods, has received visitors in a wheelchair and is likely, according to Francis, to go into labour within days.

Meanwhile, the two children are with Scott, having been picked up by gendarmes from a relative’s home in the French Alps in July and flown back to Canada.
Accounts of what they make of it differ. The Gettliffe camp says that on the two occasions she has been allowed to see them in jail, they cried their eyes out and said they would rather be dead than separated from her.

Scott told the Vancouver Sun, in a revealing interview published this week, that both children were pictures of happiness when they explored boxes of Christmas presents he had kept for them. He talked of them adjusting well to their new lives and said that it was now his duty to stop them coming to “hate their mom”.

There is a tendency, during highly publicised disputes between people of different nationalities, for the press of each country to adopt partisan positions.
Canadian reports tend to present Scott in a favourable light; the tone of some French coverage would make you think Canada was a corrupt tinpot state where human rights are routinely trounced.

I have tried to outline contentious events without judging the issues.
But I do have humanitarian misgivings about the treatment of Nathalie. It seems beyond belief that suitable arrangements, maybe involving French consular officials, could not have been found to avoid her spending a difficult pregnancy in jail.
I also think this tangled and heartbreaking affair should receive wider attention. It is not my job to choose between the respective parenting skills of Nathalie and Scott, or to decide on her guilt (however powerfully mitigated) or innocence.

If convicted, she theoretically faces up to 10 years. But this is British Columbia not Texas and surely no sane judge would contemplate a sentence of anything like that length, if indeed any custodial sentence at all would somehow make the world a better or safer place.

So we are left with Nathalie preparing as best she can for a trial in November and an aggrieved father trying to forge a loving relationship with the children they both brought into the world.
And Nathalie, who likens the difference between the two jails where she has been held to that between a zoo and a safari, is writing a book on the “Hell of Canadian Prisons”. Both she and Francis plan election battles - he against the French justice minister, she for the presidency.
I will note the outcome of the bail hearing as soon as I can, as a comment to this posting. Bearing in mind that this is a blog, not a news agency, anyone who cannot wait should search French internet news sources.

Footnote
* Late on Friday night (but daytime over there), a judge refused Nathalie's bid for bail. She will now give birth in custody unless an appeal succeeds. I will return to the subject soon.

Posted by Colin Randall at 17 Aug 06 17:26

Some of the Comments posted on the blog: (we have taken the liberty of deleting the ones donated by oxygen pirates.)

shane at 18 Aug 2006 12:24
Quelle honte!The whole situation seems to have been very dubiously dealt with by the French and Canadian authorities, with those poor children stuck in the middle and whisked away by a battalion of helicopters, armed guards, telesurveillance etc. And why not tanks and anti-aircraft weapons. They are obviously dangerous criminels...
I can understand why Nathalie wanted to protect her kids from such nefarious influences. Pity the French government didn't support their national citoyenne.

Sarah Hague at 18 Aug 2006 13:37
Gratuitous offense Mr. Randal, you could not let it go without getting a dig in about Texas, a state about which you are very probably ignorant, other then what you believe you know. Pity …
Sohail Kayani at 18 Aug 2006 16:17
Worse than a Brazilian TV Series 2
Could it be that there is petrol involved, or an oleoduque?

richard of orléans at 19 Aug 2006 07:31
amazingI see in today's Figaro that Nathalie will remain in prison. It astounds me that she risks 10 years for 'abducting' her children...probably if she had shot her ex, and pleaded guilty she would be out on bail and perhaps risk a couple of years of prison.I don't know who is the innocent party in this battle - what horrifies me is the effect on the two children being torn apart and probably brainwashed in the process...

Louise at 19 Aug 2006 07:39
No bail
Bail was refused (see footnote).

Colin Randall at 19 Aug 2006 09:14
Re: Gettliffe thesis
I have to believe Monsieur Gruzelle is being disingenuous, at the very least, when he claims Madame Gettliffe was travelling to Vancouver to sign a mediation agreement. Her imminent Ph.D. thesis defence date was posted on the University of British Columbia's website at the time she was arrested. Although it has since been removed from the website when she failed to appear at the examination due to her arrest, I saw the initial posting, as did many other people. That makes me wonder how much of what Monsieur Gruzelle claims to be the truth of this matter should be believed. There is a publication ban on information related to this case at the moment, and I suspect things will become clearer when the trial begins.

James Hamilton at 20 Aug 2006 14:48
illegal arrest(s) and detention...Arrest(s)and detention of Nathalie Gettliffe are so illegal that High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour asked her services in Geneva to react to the 15 pages memorandum I sent her, end of July.So Canadian government has now less than 3 months to answer questions from OHCHR, about many violations of Canadian laws, Chart of rights, International Pact, etc...There is some flavour of "Vancouvergate" behind this story...

Louis Ripault at 21 Aug 2006 06:49
Non coupable
Despite a suggestion from my former colleague Kim Fletcher (on the Guardian website) that I am too mild-mannered in my responses to belligerent readers, I find myself wondering why some people find it so hard to read. Anyone familiar with the English language would see that I have sided with Nathalie Gettliffe on the issue of bail, and on nothing else.

Colin Randall at 21 Aug 2006 11:27
International Church of ChristThe ICC is indeed a very controversial organisation, even in the United States. It has been banned from a large number of US College Campuses for its aggressive targetting of young students. Although religious "cult" is a term used in the United States, their activites are difficult to restrict (as in most democracies.) But it is not unreasonable to think that someone might be concerned at their impressionable children having contact with this organisation.
For a anti-ICC view readers might want to look at the web-site http://www.reveal.org/ which is run by former members.
More objective seem the decisions of Harvard, Georgia State University, Boston University, Tufts, Northeastern, Princeton, NYU and dozens of other universities to ban the organisation. This is a pretty big step for a US college, in what is a quite religous country, especially with an avowedly "Christian" group, and must be seen a raising many red flags.
I am a bit puzzzled by the reference to Texas -- the ICC is/was based in Boston, and its efforts at Texas colleges were very controversial in Texas.

MacK at 21 Aug 2006 12:10
Partner's with Dual Passports
There is an element of hypocrisy to UK coverage on this issue. After all, the wife of Christopher Meyer, Lady Catherine Meyer, famously spent years trying to get her children back from her ex-german husband who had abducted them to Germany, with the vocal support of the British press for their return under the Hague Convention.
You cannot pick and choose when to obey the convention, but many signatories appear to do so; France in this case appears to have been very dilatory in complying with its obligations -- On the other hand Canada seems to have downplayed concerns on religious freedom grounds, which illustrates one problem with the convention is that some countries will tend to ignore issues that other will regard as very important in issues of custody.

MacK at 21 Aug 2006 12:17
English may be my second language but, Colin Randall's mild-mannered protestation to the contrary, his retailing of this sad story does read as more sympathetic to Nathalie Gettliffe.

James Hamilton at 21 Aug 2006 13:44
lAW/JUSTICE.....or humanité & common sense .Who's right or wrong is not really the issue here. Of course I have my own opinion which I expressed and was 100% censored for - every word except the silly second word which was a puny joke.
The real issue is what is and is not legal. Law should = Justice, but of course none of us imagine this is so.
The Commission for Human Rights and Louise Arbour thereof have serious doubts...and so do I!
There's something smelly about the way things were done - even if you do not give your personal opinion.....and from a humaine point of view the conditions of Nathalie's detention seem somewhat rough.
No more to be said because of the terrible blue pencil (worse tha Damocles)!

Diane Rauscher-Kennedy at 21 Aug 2006 14:00
Dad vs Mum
Anyone one know why custody was granted to the dad in the first place? More stable job, etc?
If you read up on the cult, oops, I mean ICC, I think anyone outside would not want their kids to have anything to do with anyone inside it.

Nathalie Gettliffe: Jailed Mother Writing a Book About Prison near Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Friday August 11, 2006
The woman who defied a court order to take her two children from Surrey to France is writing a book about her arrest and imprisonment when she returned to B.C. in April.

Nathalie Gettliffe plans to call the French-language edition "In the hell of the Canadian prisons."
She's reportedly writing it with the assistance of her boyfriend, French writer Francis Gruzelle, who has told supporters of Gettliffe that the book will be published in September.
Plans are for an initial press run of 300,000 editions, 100,00 in English.

According to Internet postings by Gettliffe supporters, the book will allege Gettliffe was mistreated during her six-week stay at the Surrey Pre-trial Centre before she was transferred to the medium-security Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge to await trial on child abduction charges.

The book is expected to repeat complaints by Gettliffe supporters in France that an "influential" relative of ex-husband Scott Grant, (Michael Luchenko, B.C. Crown Counsel prosecutor), was involved in arranging the necessary legal paperwork to have Gettliffe arrested when she returned to B.C. in April to complete her PhD by defending her thesis before a panel of professors at UBC.

The name cited by the supporters is in fact a Crown prosecutor who has no direct involvement with the case, but is romantically involved with Grant's mother.
"L'affaire Gettliffe," as it is known, has generated headlines in France, most focusing on Gettliffe's claim that she took the couple's children, Max and Josephine, and fled Canada in 2001 because Grant belongs to a church defined as a religious sect in France.
ICOC: a cult of Christianity
Theologically, the International Churches of Christ is a cult of Christianity.
Sociologially, the movement has many cultic elements as well.
The cult is experiencing a deep crisis, with its founder - who at first resigned, but soon became ‘lead evangelist’ for one of the movement’s churches - trying to fly a new flag over the mess he created.
Founder Kip McKean and other leaders in the ICOC movement refuse to be held accountable for their beliefs and actions.
The ICOC continues to be unbalanced and dangerous.
Research resources on the International Churches of Christ

Grant, a Surrey man who is a member of the fundamentalist International Church of Christ, says the claim is smokescreen to divert attention away from Gettliffe?s refusal to obey the law.
Some French news accounts have described Grant as the chief financial officer of the church in Canada, when he is in fact employed as a financial planner with a private Vancouver-based firm.
In July, French authorities turned Max and Josephine over to Grant, and they returned to Surrey with their father.
Since then, the children have been making regular supervised visits to their mother at the Maple Ridge jail.

In a letter posted online, Gettliffe said the difference between the Surrey and Maple Ridge facilities was the difference between a "zoo" and a "safari".
She complained about a May 8 lock-down of inmates that kept her sequestered in her cell while she was being held in Surrey.
One Internet posting by a Gettliffe supporter indicates it was to protect her from other inmates, who had come to believe she was "ratting them out" to the guards.

Gettliffe, who is pregnant with Gruzelle's child, said the Alouette centre was an improvement over Surrey, but still "pretty bad".
"Guards have total power, rules are not written anywhere, and therefore they are free to do whatever they want," Gettliffe writes.
She complained that she was not allowed to take food back to her cell from dinner one night and was not allowed to eat when she arrived late for dinner a different night.
Gettliffe is scheduled to have another bail hearing on Friday.
At a previous hearing, she was declared a flight risk and ordered held until her trial on child abduction charges.

Nathalie Gettliffe: Jamais sans mes enfants!

lundi 17 juillet 2006
Nathalie Gettliffe : jamais sans mes enfants !

Il y a un mois environ, l’attention des lecteurs d’AgoraVox était attirée sur le sort de Nathalie Gettliffe, emprisonnée au Canada, pour avoir un comportement maternel qui n’est pas sans rappeler celui de Betty Mahmoody, qui a fait connaître son histoire avec son livre Jamais sans ma fille, pour l’amour d’un enfant. Mieux vaut ne pas à avoir à écrire ce genre de bouquin.Des médiateurs sont intervenus, avec quelle compétence ? Médiation mal ficelée ? Probable. Les systèmes judiciaires se sont entendus... Les gendarmes sont venus, les enfants de Nathalie Gettliffe ont été remis à leur père, financier d’une secte peu recommandable (si l’on en croit nos députés). Nathalie Gettliffe, en attendant, se sacrifie pour ce en quoi elle croit. Elle est restée en prison pour ses enfants...

Le 6 juillet dernier, des gendarmes, sur mandat de la Justice française qui s’est alignée sur les décisions canadiennes, se sont rendus au domicile de la soeur de Nathalie Gettliffe, en Savoie, où les deux enfants kidnappés étaient cachés. Les deux enfants ont ensuite été remis à leur père, Scott Grand, responsable financier de la secte Eglise internationale du Christ, destination, peut-être, le Canada. Malgré la prison, Nathalie Gettliffe s’est sacrifiée. Elle n’a pas voulu céder... ni s’aider, car cela serait revenu, pour elle, à abandonner ses enfants...

Nathalie Gettliffe, jamais sans ses enfants, est toujours en prison
Deux jours avant, le compagnon de Nathalie Gettliffe, le journaliste Francis Gruzelle, était placé en garde à vue pour outrage à gendarme puis présenté au parquet pour soustraction par un tiers de mineurs cachés par la famille et, enfin, enlèvement et séquestration de mineurs. Après avoir été entendu par le Juge d’instruction, il a été remis en liberté, sans être mis en examen.

Josephine et Maximillien: La récupération des enfants s'est faite dans l'inhumanité la plus complète

Les deux enfants dont la garde est disputée par leurs parents ont été rendus à leur père canadien, tandis que leur beau-père échappe finalement à la mise en examen.

L'AFFAIRE Gettliffe vient de prendre un nouveau tournant. Alors que la tension semblait avant-hier monter d'un cran, avec la restitution des enfants par les forces de l'ordre à leur père canadien, des signes d'apaisement sont apparus hier, avec la libération de Francis Gruzelle, le compagnon de Nathalie Gettliffe.

Après 48 heures de garde à vue à la brigade de recherches de Tournon (Ardèche), ce dernier est ressorti libre, échappant contre toute attente à la mise en examen requise contre lui par le procureur de la République de Privas, Christophe Raffin.

Après une perquisition à son domicile mardi matin, Francis Gruzelle avait été placé en garde à vue, sur la base de deux plaintes déposées contre lui pour outrages aux gendarmes et menaces à l'encontre de l'ex-mari de Nathalie Gettliffe, Scott Grant. Ces motifs avaient ensuite été étendus aux chefs de «complicité d'enlèvement d'enfant de moins de 15 ans et séquestration», Francis Gruzelle ayant organisé la fuite des enfants pour éviter l'application d'une décision de justice ordonnant leur retour au Canada. Cachés dans la banlieue d'Albertville, en Savoie, chez des cousins éloignés de leur mère, Joséphine et Maximilien, âgés de 11 et 12 ans, ont passé la journée de mercredi aux côtés de gendarmes et d'intervenants médico-sociaux.

Une secte en France mais pas au Canada
«Totalement abusives et fallacieuses !», s'exclamait hier Me Dominique Chambon, faisant référence aux 48 heures de garde à vue de son client Francis Gruzelle. «Le vrai motif, c'est qu'il fallait le neutraliser le temps de récupérer les enfants.»

De son côté, Francis Gruzelle se dit «très amer». «La récupération des enfants s'est faite dans l'inhumanité la plus complète, accuse-t-il. Ils ont été emmenés sans pouvoir récupérer aucune de leurs affaires, et sans pouvoir nous embrasser, leur grand-mère, leur petit frère et moi.»

Tenus dans un endroit secret avec leur père, les enfants devaient immédiatement repartir pour le Canada. «Là où ils retomberont complètement sous son emprise», peste Francis Gru zelle qui, comme Nathalie Gettliffe, accuse Scott Grant d'appartenir à l'Eglise internationale du Christ, organisation considérée comme une secte en France mais légale au Canada.

C'est pour cette raison que Nathalie Gettliffe dit avoir fui ce pays, en 2001, avec ses enfants. Ce qui, au regard de la convention de La Haye, est considéré comme un enlèvement. C'est lors d'un voyage au Canada, le 11 avril dernier, qu'elle a été interpellée et placée en détention provisoire. Son jugement est prévu le 16 octobre prochain devant la Cour suprême de Colombie-Britannique, où elle encourt dix ans de prison.

Enceinte de sept mois, elle devait comparaître hier devant le tribunal de New Westminster, dans la banlieue de Vancouver, pour obtenir une éventuelle remise en liberté conditionnelle.

Une Lettre de Nathalie

Maple Ridge, le 1er juin 2006
Cher Francis,
Cela fait maintenant une semaine que j’ai été transférée du zoo au safari. Je suis toujours en cage mais j’ai un peu plus d’espace pour me retourner. J’avoue qu’après avoir passé six semaines dans l’enfer du centre correctionnel de Surrey, j’ai eu quelques difficultés à m’habituer à mon nouvel environnement.

J’avais l’impression d’être un animal tapi dans ma cellule les premiers jours : il m’était difficile d’occuper l’espace autour de moi et d’organiser ma journée. Mon espace ayant été restreint pendant six semaines et le rythme quotidien ayant été scandé par les enfermements répétés en cellule, j’avoue que je n’avais même plus le goût de sortir dehors.

Les premiers jours, j’avais l’impression d’être une somnambule marchant sans pouvoir traiter l’information autour de moi. Petit à petit, les sensations reviennent, les réflexes de survie se remettent en place. Je comprends mieux maintenant la peur de prisonnières avant leur sortie de prison. Il leur faut réapprendre à fonctionner dans la société et ce et ce n’est pas évident quand toutes les libertés nous ont été enlevées et quand nos droits les plus élémentaires sont bafoués.

Je m’habitue donc petit à petit à mon espace mais les imprévus sont une constance dans cet environnement. Quand je pense avoir compris certaines choses, d’autres évènements surviennent et remettent en cause la grille d’interprétation que j’essaie de mettre en place.

Par exemple, hier, après avoir téléphoné à l’avocate que je n’arrivais pas à joindre depuis deux jours, je suis arrivée à 5h07 à la cuisine pour le dîner du soir. Apparemment les portes de la cafétéria ont été ouvertes plus tôt (d’habitude on mange à 17h) et à l’heure où je suis arrivée la plupart des femmes avaient fini de manger. Résultat : la garde à la porte d’entrée m’a refusé l’entrée à la cafétéria et je n’ai pus avoir à manger. Je lui ai expliqué que j’étais enceinte, rien à faire.

Aujourd’hui, midi, nous avions des hamburgers. Je n’ai pu manger que la moitié du mien car si je mange trop à la fois, j’ai des remontées gastriques étant donné que le bébé est assez haut. Je suis donc sortie de la cantine avec la moitié de mon hamburger. Peine perdue : la garde de sortie m’a demandé de mettre mon hamburger à la poubelle car je n’avais pas le droit de sortir avec une partie de mon repas. Je lui ai expliqué pourquoi (enceinte, remontées gastriques). J’t’en fou, elle m’a dit de faire une demande aux services santé pour que je puisse amener une partie de mon repas à l’appartement. J’ai donc dû mettre la moitié de mon burger à la poubelle.
Voilà, les gardes ont tout pouvoir, les règles ne sont inscrites nulle part et donc chacune s’amuse de nous. Réjouissant !

J’ai vu le consul et Cécile Walk lundi dernier. Ils étaient surpris d’apprendre que j’avais été transférée. J’ai pu leur expliquer que la première surprise était moi-même quand le mardi j’ai demandé à quelle heure l’audience avait lieu le lendemain et que j’ai appris mon transfert à 9 heures du soir. J’avais très peur d’être transférée pour ne pas que je sois à l’audience (manigances courantes qui m’ont été rapportées par différentes prisonnières). J’ai appris le mercredi par l’avocate que l’audience avait été annulée.

J’ai aussi appris par une garde que mon transfert n’a été approuvé qu’a la dernière minute. Apparemment, version officielle, la direction de la prison ne voulait pas m’envoyer au centre Alouette parce que mon dossier est médiatisé. Dans ces cas-là, les prisonniers sont isolés (souvent au trou) de manière à ce qu’aucune information ne circule. Cela confirme donc que la direction a essayé de réduire au minimum mes communications vers l’extérieur.

Par rapport à l’incident du 8 mai, quand toutes les personnes de notre appartement ont été enfermées ; en résumé, j’avais le choix entre des violences physiques que j’aurais subies si je déménageais dans un autre appartement et les violences de l’institution. Comme j’ai « choisi » de rester dans ma cellule d’origine, j’ai dû être enfermée. Point final … Je pense que la bonne « réponse » aurait été de me laisser la liberté de sortir de ma cellule et d’expliquer aux autres filles que je n’avais rien à faire avec l’histoire de harcèlement.

J’ai pu finalement voir le médecin cette semaine. Résultat des courses, en 8 semaines j’ai pris un kilo. J’ai des contractions régulièrement et je suis très fatiguée. Le docteur m’a donc ordonné de me reposer et de rester allongée toutes les après-midi. Je ne vais donc pas travailler mais surtout je ne peux pus aller en cours de justice car je ne supporterai plus les voyages. Comme le procès doit durer une dizaine de jours il va falloir attendre la naissance du bébé pour le procès.

J’ai aussi une infection urinaire. J’attends la confirmation du labo mais à ce jour je n’ai pas de médicaments et je suis vraiment épuisée. Aujourd’hui, je pleurais comme une madeleine sans raison simplement de sur-fatigue. Je n’arrive pas à récupérer et je m’affaiblis donc de jour en jours.

Si je n’avais pas été enceinte, je pense que j’aurais passé tous les jours avant mon procès au trou. C’est du harcèlement et de la torture, je ne vois pas d’autres mots.

Ces techniques pour faire « craquer » les prisonniers sont des procédures communes en Colombie Britannique, province par excellence du Far West (Opposé de Phare-Ouest). J’ai eu connaissance de manière détaillée de ces techniques par une prisonnière et en racontant son histoire, tu auras une idée jusqu’où les choses peuvent aller.
Cette femme a un oncle qu’elle apprécie beaucoup. Régulièrement, elle va pêcher avec lui et elle est invitée à manger chez lui et sa tante. Cet oncle possède une double vie et est impliqué dans le trafique de drogues. Il y a de ça quelques mois, la police canadienne a son bateau qui transportait 2 tonnes de drogue.

Son oncle a pu se défendre et faire annuler le procès sur un détail technique. Depuis, la police est sur les dents pour essayer de le reprendre en flagrant délit de trafique. Sachant que cette prisonnière apprécie son oncle, la police s’est employée à torturer cette prisonnière pour qu’elle leur transmette des informations qu’elle ignore et pour faire craquer son oncle.
Tout d’abord, la police l’a arrêtée de nombreuses fois en plein milieu de la nuit chez elle alors qu’elle vit seule avec sa fille qui a maintenant 14 ans. La police la mettait en garde à vue pendant quelques heures et la relâchait car il n’avait pas de mandat d’arrêt.
Ensuite, la police est allée voir son patron lui disant qu’il devait renvoyer cette femme parce qu’elle était impliquée dans un trafique de drogue. La police a raconté que s’il ne la mettait pas à la porte, lui-même (le patron) serait soupçonné de trafique de drogue. Il l’a donc renvoyé mais, apparemment, il pleurait.
Plus tard, la police a commencé à suivre tous les déplacements de cette jeune femme. Elle croyait qu’elle devenait folle. Sa meilleure amie a aussi été suivie par la police. Finalement, la police arrêtée cette jeune femme avec un mandat d’arrêt et 30 accusations auxquelles elle devait répondre.

Au même moment, sa voiture a été confisquée pour voir si elle contenait de la drogue. La couronne lui a refusé de pouvoir sortir de prison avant son procès et sa fille a été placée sous la « protection » des services sociaux. Pendant son incarcération dans les cellules de garde à vue, la police est venue régulièrement lui offrir de l’argent si elle voulait parler des activités de son oncle, ce qu’elle a refusé ignorant sa double vie.
En cellule, les gardes ont refusé de la nourrir. Ils ont aussi refusé de lui donner une couverture et un matelas pour les nuits. Régulièrement, elle a demandé du papier toilette pour aller aux W.C. Ceci lui a été refusé aussi. Elle est restée plusieurs mois en prison en attendant que la couronne pose une date pour le procès. A court d’argent, elle a perdu sa maison. A 38 ans, elle n’a plus rien !
Finalement, elle a craqué et elle a décidé de plaider coupable pour 4 des 30 accusations bien qu’elle soit innocente pour toutes les accusations. Son raisonnement : il faut absolument qu’elle récupère sa fille qui ne va pas bien. En plaidant coupable, elle n’a pas besoin d’attendre le procès et la peine qu’elle encoure sera plus courte que son attente.
Elle a été condamnée à 7 mois de prison mais elle peut sortir dans quatre mois. Pour cela, elle doit suivre des programmes pour les drogués (bien qu’elle n’en soit pas une). On pourrait croire que c’est une mauvaise farce, mais c’est la réalité. Le pire c’est qu’elle sait qu’en sortant elle sera de nouveau torturée et harcelée jusqu'à ce qu’elle parle.

C’est à en être malade. Donc comme tu vois, je ne suis pas la première victime du terrorisme « légal » de la justice britanno-colombienne.

Mon système immunitaire est à bout et je redoute le pire. En effet, j’ai appris dimanche dernier qu’il y a une épidémie d’une infection de la peau appelée MRSA. Cette infection est très contagieuse et même les anti-biotiques les plus violents ne fonctionnent pas toujours. J’ai appris l’origine de l’épidémie par hasard lorsque le service santé m’a appelée pour faire un test sur ma peau et m’a demandée de donner un échantillon de ma salive.

J’ai refusé ces deux tests car la procédure paraissait louche. En fait, c’était une étudiante en médecine qui faisait des recherches et qui avait « oublié » de dire aux prisonnières que ces deux tests étaient facultatifs.

J’étais vraiment en colère d’apprendre que cette étudiante pouvait récolter des informations sur l’ADN des prisonnières sans leur accord. De nouveau, j’ai risqué le trou car les instructions venaient des gardes de la prison. Ceci confirme que le système de détention est complice des chercheurs qui prennent les prisonnières pour des rats.

Voilà, les affaires continuent et je survis. Je sais que tu te bas comme un diable, que beaucoup de personnes te suivent. C’est vraiment encourageant. Fais plein de bisous aux enfants et plein de tendresse à Jean-Philippe.
Je t’aime très fort
Nathalie.

Letter from Nathalie from Prison

Maple Ridge, June 1, 2006

Dear Francis,

It has been one week now since I was transferred from zoo to safari. I am still in a cage, but I now have a little more space to move around. I must admit that, after having spent six weeks in the horrible correctional center in Surrey, I had some difficulty adjusting to my new environment.

During the first few days, I felt like an animal crouching in my cell: it was difficult for me to occupy the space around me and to organize my day. Since my space had been so limited for six weeks, and the daily routine disturbed by repeated confinements in my cell, I must admit I didn’t even feel like going outside anymore.
I felt like I was sleep-walking without being able to process the information coming to me. Little by little, sensations return, survival instinct comes back. I now understand the fear of leaving the prison that inmates often experience. They must learn again to function in society; this is very difficult when all liberties have been taken away and when our most basic rights are scorned.

So, I am becoming accustomed, little by little, to my space. However, unexpected events occur constantly. When I think I have learned something, other events occur and disturb the perception frame I am trying to establish.

As an example, yesterday, after having called my lawyer whom I had not been able to reach in two days, I arrived in the kitchen at 5:07 PM for dinner. Apparently, the cafeteria doors were opened early (we usually eat at 5:00) and when I arrived, most women had finished eating. As a result, the guard at the door refused to let me in and I did not eat dinner. I explained that I am pregnant and need to eat, but to no avail.

Today, we had hamburgers for lunch. I could only eat half of mine, because I have gastric reflux if I eat too much at a time, since the baby is high. Therefore, I left the cafeteria with half of my hamburger. No chance: the guard made me throw it in the trash since we are not allowed to leave with food. I explained the reason why I needed to keep it, but she said I needed to make a request to the health services to be allowed to take food into my cell. So, I had to throw my half hamburger into the trash.

Guards have total power, rules are not written anywhere, and therefore they are free to do whatever they want. Pretty bad.

I saw the Consul and Cecile Walk last Monday. They were surprised to learn that I had been transferred. I was able to explain that I was the first to be surprised: on Tuesday, I asked the scheduled time of the hearing for the next day, and I learned at 9:00 pm that I would be transferred. I was worried that they would transfer me so that I would not be able to attend my hearing (this is common practice, according to several inmates. On Wednesday, I learned from the lawyer that the hearing had been cancelled.I also learned from a guard that my transfer was only approved at the last minute. The official version is that the prison management did not want to send me to the Alouette center because my case is being covered in the media. In these instances, inmates are isolated (often in solitary confinement) to prevent information from being spread. This confirms the fact that the management tried to reduce my communication with the outside to a minimum.

Regarding the incident on May 8th, when all the people in our section were confined; in short, I had the choice between physical violence suffered if I had moved to a different section and the violence from the institution. Since I “elected” to remain in my original cell, I had to be confined. I think the right “answer” would have been to allow me to come out of my cell and to explain to the other inmates that I had nothing to do with the harassment claim.
I finally got to see the doctor this week. In 8 weeks, I gained one kilo. I have contractions periodically and I feel very tired. The doctor told me to rest and to lie down every afternoon. Therefore, I do not go to work, but, which is worse, I cannot go to court because I will not be able to tolerate the trips. Since the trial should last about 10 days, I will have to wait until the baby is born before going to trial.

I also have a urinary infection. I am waiting for confirmation from the lab, but to this day I have not received any medication, and I am exhausted. Today, I was crying continuously for no apparent reason, just from exhaustion. I can’t recover and am becoming weaker every day.
If I had not been pregnant, I believe I would have spent all the days until my trial in solitary confinement. This is harassment and torture; I don’t know any other word to define it.
These techniques to break down prisoners are common in British Columbia, the typical “Far West” province. I learned a detailed example of these practices from an inmate and when I tell her story, you will have an idea of how far abuse can go.

This woman has an uncle whom she likes very much. She used to go fishing with him and would eat with him and her aunt. The uncle leads a double life and is a drug dealer. A few months ago, Canadian police seized his boat with 2 tons of drugs.

The uncle was able to defend himself and have the lawsuit dropped because of a technical detail. Since then, the police are trying to catch him again. Since they know that this lady likes her uncle, they began to harass her to obtain information – which she does not have – and to catch her uncle.

First, police arrested her several times in the middle of the night. She lives alone with her 14-year old daughter. Police would keep her in custody for a few hours and release her, since there was no warrant.

Then, police went to see her boss and told him that he should fire her because she was involved in drug traffic. They told him that if he didn’t fire her, he would be suspected of complicity to drug traffic. Therefore, he fired her, but she says he was crying.
Later, police began to follow this lady everywhere. She thought she was going crazy. Her best friend was also followed by police. Finally, police arrested the lady with a warrant citing 30 indictments.

At the same time, her car was confiscated and searched for drugs. The crown refused to release her from prison before her trial and her daughter was placed under the “protection” of social services. During her incarceration in custody cells, police came regularly to offer her money if she would talk about her uncle’s activities. She refused, since she knew nothing of his illegal activities.

In the cell, guards refused to feed her. They also refused to give her a blanket and a mattress. She did not have toilet paper. She remained in prison for several months, waiting for the Crown to schedule the trial. She was financially ruined and lost her house. At 38, she has nothing left.
Finally, she broke down and decided to plead guilty for 4 of the 30 indictments, even though she is innocent on all counts. Her reasoning is that she must get her daughter back because her daughter is not well. By pleading guilty, she does not have to wait for the trial and the sentence may be shorter than the waiting time.

She was sentenced to 7 months but will be released in 4 months. She is required to attend drug rehab programs even though she has never taken drugs. You could think this is a bad joke, but it is reality. The worse is that she knows that when she gets out, she will be again tortured and harassed until she talks.

It makes me sick. As you can see, I am not the first victim of the “legal” terrorism in the British Columbian justice system.

My immune system is weak and I am scared. In fact, I learned last Sunday that there a skin infection epidemic called MRSA. This infection is very contagious and even the strongest antibiotics can’t always cure it. I learned of this epidemic by accident when the health services called me to perform a test on my skin and asked me to give a saliva sample.I refused both tests because it looked suspicious. Actually, a medical student was doing research and had “forgotten” to tell inmates that these tests were optional.I was really angry to learn that this student could collect DNA samples from inmates without their authorization. Again, I risked solitary confinement because the instructions came from the prison guards. This confirms that the prison system is an accomplice to researchers who use inmates as lab rats.

Here you are. Life goes on and I am surviving. I know you are fighting as hard as you can, and I know that many people are helping. This is encouraging. Please give the children lots of kisses for me and give my love to Jean-Philippe.

I love you very much,Nathalie

Nathalie Gettliffe Spends Mother's Day Behind Bars

Mother’s Day spent behind bars
The Leader, Canada
By Dan Ferguson Staff Reporter May 14 2006

A pregnant woman arrested for abducting her own children from Surrey to France will spend Mother’s Day in a B.C. jail, a Richmond Provincial Court judge ruled Thursday.

In denying Nathalie Gettliffe’s bail application, Judge Margaret Rae said Gettliffe has refused to return her son and daughter to the custody of their father, Surrey resident Scott Grant, despite repeated orders by courts in Canada and France. While Gettliffe, who is five months pregnant, offered to post bail and even wear an electronic monitor, the judge said the woman has nothing to keep her in Canada and every reason to return to France.

Ex-husband Grant was pleased. "I’m ecstatic that the court saw through all the lies," Grant said. He was talking about French news coverage of the case, some of it generated by Gettliffe’s French boyfriend, Francis Gruzelle, a journalist who has written several stories accusing Grant of belonging to a cult. Grant, a financial consultant who belongs to a fundamentalist church, has repeatedly denied the claims.

Gruzelle was the reporter who wrote the first stories about the international custody fight shortly after Gettliffe left Surrey with her son and daughter for France in 2001. During a 2004 interview with The Leader, Gettliffe denied that she was romantically involved with Gruzelle, saying he was only a friend who was sympathetic because he had lost his wife to a cult.

However, recent French news reports describe Gruzelle as Gettliffe’s companion and father to a nine-month-old son with her as well as her unborn child. Gruzelle’s ex-wife recently came forward to describe Gruzelle as an embittered former spouse who accused her unsuccessfully of cult involvement during a custody fight.

Some French news reports have also referred to complaints by Gruzelle and Gettliffe that a relative of Grant’s was handling her prosecution. Grant said his mother’s common-law husband happens to be a Crown prosecutor who is not involved with the case in any way.

A specially appointed independent prosecutor has been handling the matter. In a French-language television interview following the Richmond ruling, Gruzelle expressed outrage, saying that keeping his pregnant girlfriend in jail could lead to a miscarriage.

He also repeated claims that Getliffe had come to Canada for a mediation meeting with her husband, something Grant says isn’t true. He maintained he only learned that Gettliffe was returning to Canada when he performed a Google search and stumbled across a University of B.C. website that revealed she would be appearing before an examination panel of professors at the university to complete her Canadian Ph.D.

Grant alerted authorities, who arrested Gettliffe on arrival and charged her with abduction in contravention of a custody order. Her next court appearance is set for July.

Surrey Leader.com

Technorati Profile

Look at the Corruption Inside the Judiciary - USA - Case 1

Feds investigate child porn on P2P networks - 65 arrests, 1,000 cases
announced 5/14/04 AP Washington "A nationwide probe into child
pornography trafficking using Internet file-sharing networks has
resulted in 1,000 investigations and at least 65 arrests, federal
officials announced Friday. The broader investigation centers on the
growing use of "peer-to-peer," or P2P, networks that allow users to
connect computers directly with one another to exchange files
rather than using traditional Internet servers that are easier
to track."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4980441/

this one paragraph fwd from L Moss Sharman More details in
pornography case -

Responding to a motion by Stephen W. Thompson's lawyers, a U.S.
prosecutor defended the seizure of a "monstrous" cache from the
EX-JUDGE'S Shore home. By John Shiffman Inquirer Staff Writer
5/13/04 Camden

"A federal prosecutor said yesterday that a "monstrous collection" of
child pornography kept by a former state Superior Court judge had been
lawfully seized from his Shore home. In a legal filing, the prosecutor
said Stephen W. Thompson's cache of child pornography included
"thousands of images of naked or partially naked children engaged in
sexually explicit conduct." At one point, the judge kept 20 such images
on the laptop computer he used on the bench in Camden County, according
to Assistant U.S. Attorney Diana Carrig. From the desktop in his
chambers, Carrig said, Thompson e-mailed a Web site that sold child
pornography and downloaded information from a "travel sex guide" site.

Thompson is charged with possession of child pornography and traveling
to Russia to videotape himself having sex with a teenage boy."

Men Who Lead Two Lives....Another Look At the Corruption

Submitted by Lynne Moss-Sharman:
Los Angeles Times, Gayle Pollard Terry
April 18, 2004

Secrets in Bakersfield - Rumors of a powerful cabal were whispered for years. Then the local newspaper investigated. By Gayle Pollard-Terry, Times Staff Writer 1/27/03

" "For more than a generation," the story said, "Bakersfield was run by a cadre of men who led double lives. To the public, these men were members of the community's most visible institutions, its justice system and the media. "But in truth ... these men -- a sprinkling of county executives, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, even the newspaper's publisher -- were part of a loose-knit, secretive network. "Some were homosexuals who preyed upon young men and boys, then used their positions of power and influence to protect one another from possible ramifications.

Occasionally, however, the preyed-upon lashed out, leading to a string of murders involving young gay men and their prominent older male suitors." In the late 1970s and '80s, the victims included two millionaires, one of whom was on a county crime commission; the Kern County personnel director; the owner of a fashionable hair salon; and a 14-year-old girl who attended parties thrown by Bakersfield's one-time police commissioner, who committed suicide after being charged with providing marijuana to minors. With the exception of the girl, whose case was never solved, the murders were committed by teenage or young adult men who said they had had sexual relationships with the victims."

http://www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-gayle27jan27.story
latimes.com

AND ANOTHER ARTICLE:

Judge won't let convicted Bakersfield child molester post bail
by Brian Skoloff, AP Writer 3/15/04

"In Bakersfield alone, 46 people were arrested in eight alleged child molestation rings. Thirty were convicted, eight had their charges dropped and eight struck plea deals that kept them from prison. Twenty two of the 30 convictions were later reversed for reasons including legal technicalities, prosecutorial misconduct or faulty jury instructions."

Link (copy and paste):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/
2004/03/15/state1714EST0111.DTL

AND MORE:

two fwds from L Moss Sharman - Child Porn Hearing Opens - South County husband and wife are accused of 90 felony counts each, including videotaping and molesting a 5-year-old girl. By Mai Tran 4/9/04 "The videotape gave authorities a roadmap that led to a locked chest stored in a bedroom closet of the couple's home containing 216 videotapes and CDs, many of them depicting the couple having sex with children, investigators said. Investigators said they did not know who sent them the tape or who had the access or time to record snippets from so many movies. Thursday's testimony offered a first glimpse into the case against David Hwang, 31, and his wife, Sheila Sikat, 23. The hearing, which was continued until April 20, will determine whether the couple should stand trial. Orange County sheriff's investigators contend the tapes and CDs reveal six children being molested."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-molest9apr09,1,3749389.story?c oll=la-headlines-california

Man accused of killing family members had mass suicide plan Brian Skoloff, 4/8/04 AP "Marcus Wesson devised a plan nearly a decade ago for his children to kill themselves if authorities came to retrieve the clan, according to a police detective testifying at a preliminary hearing on charges Wesson murdered nine of his kids. Wesson maintained strict control over his many children and would inflict "weeklong spankings" if they broke his rules, which included *NOT* talking to men outside of the family, Fresno homicide detective Carlos Leal testified that one of Wesson's adult daughters told him. The 20-year-old girl said the family was forced to study the King James Bible twice a day and listen to Wesson preach, Leal said, adding that she claimed Wesson began molesting her and her sisters when they were as young as 5."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/0 8/state1703EDT0122.DTL

>From American Journal of Public Health - The Economic Burden of Hospitalization Associated With Child Abuse and Neglect Posted 04/02/2004 Sue Rovi, PhD; Ping-Hsin Chen, PhD; Mark S. Johnson, MD, MPH Abstract and Introduction Abstract Objectives: This study assessed the economic burden of child abuse-related hospitalizations. Methods: We compared inpatient stays coded with a diagnosis of child abuse or neglect with stays of other hospitalized children using the 1999 National Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Costs and Utilization Project. Results: Children whose hospital stays were coded with a diagnosis of abuse or neglect were significantly more likely to have died during hospitalization (4.0% vs 0.5%), have longer stays (8.2 vs 4.0 days), twice the number of diagnoses (6.3 vs 2.8), and double the total charges ($19266 vs $9513) than were other hospitalized children. Furthermore, the primary payer was typically Medicaid (66.5% vs 37.0%)." http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/472527

ABUSERS KEEP CUSTODY OF THEIR VICTIMS 70% OF THE TIME:

When Children Tell And No One Listens - October 1997 - By Sherry A. Quirk, Esq. "...some of the worst cases are those where authorities were notified of abuse and had determined that the child was at risk, but nevertheless left the child in the care of the abuser....Studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases." http://www.yesican.org/articles/childrentell.html

When Children Tell and No One Listens

When Children Tell And No One Listens
October 1997

By Sherry A. Quirk, Esq.

Bio: Sherry A. Quirk, Esq., is a member of the firm of Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand. Ms. Quirk practices extensively in the legislative and administrative areas, and over the past several years has devoted significant time and effort to the issue of sexual abuse of children.

In 1992, Ms. Quirk also established and continues to supervise Verner Liipfert's pro bono project on behalf of victims of childhood sexual abuse. She is the President and co-founder of One Voice: the National Alliance of Abuse Awareness and its public policy project, the American Coalition for Abuse Awareness.

One Voice, a 501 © (3) entity, is a national alliance of adult survivors and child victims of sexual abuse, their supporters, child advocacy organizations, non-offending parents, health care and legal professionals who are seeking to improve the quality of life for children and adult survivors of sexual, physical and emotional abuse. One Voice is active in educating the public, the national media and our members of congress on preventing the victimization of children, supporting the right of victims to seek redress through the courts and assuring access to appropriate treatment for victims of abuse. Ms. Quirk can be reached by e-mail at ACAADC@aol.com

- - - - - - -

Americans are more aware than ever of the tragedy of child abuse: our national and local media carry daily reports of children who have been beaten, imprisoned, starved, burned or sexually and emotionally abused. Shopping carts, milk cartons, billboards, newspapers all carry the message that children should tell if they are being hurt and that to prevent abuse, just call a hotline and help will arrive.

However, we are slowly awakening to the fact that, even if suspected abuse is reported, this does not always result in safeguarding the child from further abuse. In fact, some of the worst cases are those where authorities were notified of abuse and had determined that the child was at risk, but nevertheless left the child in the care of the abuser. We are also learning that not only the woman who flees domestic violence is at risk from further violence, but that her children are often the innocent witnesses to her being battered -- or additional victims. And in far too many cases, the batterer has not only revenges himself on his former partner, but hurts or kills the children as well.

But there is an aspect to this violence in the family which so far has escaped the public's attention: the granting of sole custody or unsupervised access to the batterer or child abuser. According to the American Judges Foundation, "One of the most common reasons given for resuming an abusive relationship is the fear that the abuser will act on the threats of taking the children from the victim. Studies show that batterers have been able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in approximately 70% of challenged cases."

The idea that batterers and child abusers are awarded sole custody even when there has been a domestic violence conviction or reliable evidence of sexual abuse may seem so bizarre as to be unbelievable to most Americans. Even those who have experienced this admit that they never would have believed it possible until it happened to them. They thought that if their child made an outcry, help would be there for them. They thought that judges would look at a history of domestic violence, weigh the medical evidence, listen to the words of their children, and choose to protect the child. Instead, as the American Psychological Association states in its report on Violence in the Family (1996), "Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers…Some professionals assume that accusations of physical or sexual abuse of children that arise during divorce or custody disputes are likely to be false, but the empirical research to date shows no such increase in false reporting at that time. In many instances, children are frightened about being alone with a father they have seen use violence towards their mother or a father who has abused them. Sometimes children make it clear to the court that they wish to remain with the mother because they are afraid of the father, but their wishes are ignored."

Fathers, too, sometimes find themselves caught in the gears of the court when they report abuse their children have disclosed at the hands of stepfathers or their mother's boyfriend. These mothers are at times more interested in protecting their partner than safeguarding their children. Such cases underscore the importance of having the best interest of the child at heart, and that the protection of the child should be the goal of our child protection system. It goes without saying that each case must be judged on its own merits.

As far as we know, no one has addressed the long term affects of this betrayal upon children who told about being abused but were silenced or ignored by the judicial system and given into the hands of those who had abused and violated them. Susan Smith is an anecdotal example: a mother who, as a young teenager reported abuse by her stepfather, received no help, and proceeded to murder her own children. Told that the court would protect them from the abuser, how can abused children then believe that they deserve help and protection? And as Randy Burton, Esq., of Justice for Children has remarked, "The public's perception of widespread abuses in the family courts has created a crisis in confidence in the judicial system in general."



Please join us in drawing attention to the re-victimization of children through a court system which allows batterers and child abusers to have unrestricted access to children. Let your state and national representatives know about this grave problem and educate your local and national press.