Background facts - PART 1

Chronology of events:

October of 1990: My wife and I separated and the 3 kids were living with me, while she was supposedly finishing her last semester of her teaching degree. I was working as a union painter full time, earning about $22.84/hr. I was paying $300/mo child support, paying off debts from our marriage, I signed over to my ex-wife my half interest in our 4 acre property in Oregon, was paying all costs of daycare for our children, and paying for a psychologist to help our sons deal with the break-up of the marriage.

December 1990: Work had fallen off and I could no longer afford my family lawyer, John Staley. My soon to be ex-wife began refusing access to my children.

On the first Monday of January, 1991, I was given layoff notice by my employer. I immediately informed my ex-wife of this event. The economy in California, at this time, was a disaster. Major corporations were fleeing the state because of draconian  anti-corporate legislation. There were no jobs in my trade and the situation looked likely to deteriorate further. In fact, it did. 

January 22, 1991: California Judgment made in my absence setting child support at $300 per month.

By late spring of 1991, I decided to return to my birth country, Canada, and look for work. I arrived in British Columbia with $60 in my pocket, a 1981 pickup truck, my tools and a few personal effects. I immediately found work and notified my ex-wife and children where I was.

September 29, 1992: 1991 California order finally dated and entered, and somehow modified to $550 per month.

Despite ongoing communication between myself and my ex-wife, Catherine Godric, I was not informed of either of the above legal actions until sometime in 1996. During this period I had made voluntary payments as I was able.

During the first half of 1992, I worked as a painter sporadically until June, when I was injured on a job. My doctor advised me to find another line of work, due to the likelihood of chronic episodes which would get progressively worse. I was periodically on welfare. I did not apply for disability assistance. Instead, I enrolled in East Kootenay Community College to complete my education.

I had three years of university credits from the late 1970s. During my marriage, I had an agreement with my ex-wife that I would work to support the family, and she could finish her degree. When she was working, it would supposedly be my turn to get my degree.

Total earnings from tax records from 1992: $5,574; 1993: $5,147; 1994: $3,495.

In July of 1994 I graduated with honors from E.K.C.C., now College of the Rockies, with an Associate of Arts. During this time I lived on student loans.

I applied to Simon Fraser University and was accepted for the Fall term. I moved to Burnaby. I was living on student loans until my graduation, supplemented by some part time work.

Total income for 1995 from tax records: $915; 1996: $1,967; 1997: $7,027

During the period 1993-1997, my ex-wife only allowed visitation once or twice per year with only one child at a time. I bore the entire expense of these visits, including travel.

During one of these visits, one of my kids remarked that he had overheard his mom bragging to someone on the phone that she had “lied to the Court.” Both my son and I assumed that she was talking about the 1991/92 hearings and Order.

In the spring of 1996, I was notified that a California Court Order, which I believe to be the 1991/1992 order, had been registered with the B.C. Family Maintenance Enforcement Program. According to B.C. Court records, the California Order was registered in B.C. on or about February 24, 1994. I have a copy of a letter from the B.C. Attorney General designating the Provincial Court in Kimberley, B.C. as the registration court.

The stress of four years straight of post secondary studies, living on student loans, not being allowed to see my children, and finally the immediate threat of enforcement of a court order that I could not possibly pay, and firmly believe to have been fraudulently obtained, caused me to have an emotional breakdown, midterm. I took the rest of the semester and the summer off, to recover and try to deal with the legal issues.

Here we go again! this time it's me........

I've been taking the background on this blog, mainly because it was Nanc's story, Nanc's journey, and Nanc's past. Now that is completely resolved, but sure enough, another dragon raised its head.

This one's on me. It's the ongoing saga of the tragic breakup of my first family, my ex-wife's duplicity, the insane bureaucracy and avarice of the California Family Support division and the Alameda County District Attorney's office. British Columbia's Family Maintenance Enforcement Program, AKA: FMEP plays a major role by their blind enforcement of an illegal order from California, one that was proved to a B.C. Judge's satisfaction to be improperly obtained, unjust, unfair, and unenforceable in B.C.. Yet FMEP continues on, periodically. I say the last bit, because I have attempted to satisfy FMEP several times, and explained the legal issue several times, but they keep coming back. Probably with each new generation of eager young enforcers out to make a name in the organisation.

Nanc's story was that of a battered woman who fought back against the forces trying to push her into exmarital oblivion with as little justice and compensation as possible.

Mine is the man's version of systemic injustice in a marital break up. I will tell you how my children were legally taken away from me during the divorce process, and how I was denied any real access to them. I will tell you all about how the "system" of family justice in two jurisdictions with incompatible laws, supports each other and enforces issues involving money, but NOT any issues of custody, visitation, or even contact. I will expose some of the techniques California uses to make sure that a father NEVER stops having to pay.

I am 55 years old this year. My kids are now 25, 27, and 28. Two of them served in Iraq with the U.S. Army. FMEP just garnished my wages and put a lien on my car. They have been taking my tax returns and GST rebates for decades. I've had enough. It's time for one man to stand up and break the reciprocal agreement between B.C. and California. My case will do it. There is just too much wrong in what has been done.

Here we go, I will be posting a chronology of events and a list of the legal issues on point.

Meus Verum is David Oliver-Godric

Chilliwack Progress - Local group benefits from court victory

Chilliwack Progress - Local group benefits from court victory

Supreme Court case winner donates $15,000 to group running shelter for battered women

Supreme Court case winner donates $15,000 to group running shelter for battered women

Nanc gives to other women

Nanc Rick will be presenting a donation to Bobbi Jacobs of the Ann Davis Society on Monday, April 19 at 10am. The address is 9475 Williams St. in Chilliwack.

Ms Rick recently won a landmark family law case (Rick v Brandsema) at the Supreme Court of Canada. Rick is most commonly cited for its discussion of the importance of meaningful legal advice in spousal negotiations, its emphasis on the duty to make full and honest disclosure, and its call for deference to findings by trial judges, including conclusions about vulnerability and exploitation in the family setting.

"Another important principle established in this case," says West Coast LEAF (Legal Education And Action Fund, an intervenor in Rick) Executive Director Alison Brewin, "is a firm statement that getting legal advice does not automatically mean both parties are equal. The Supreme Court recognized that having some legal advice does not ensure a fair agreement. Too often, women in BC can only access a few hours of legal representation. If the Court of Appeal decision had stood, imagine what it might have meant for women trying to challenge an unfair agreement."

Finally, her eight year battle won, Ms Rick desires to give further assistance to women in situations like hers. She has chosen the Ann Davis Society of Chilliwack as a worthy recipient of funds that will make a real difference in some women’s lives.

Members of the public and the press are welcome to the presentation and Ms Rick will be available for comment.

Our thanks to all!

Nanc and I would like to wish everyone who has read this blog and stood by us throughout this ordeal a MERRY CHRISTMAS! (and other holidays!) We know that you are many and diverse. We thank you with all our hearts. We hope that our efforts, and those who helped us, will make life a little better for some.

Churchill WAS right when he said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Good Luck to all those who stand up for what is right, put everything on the line, and move the stakes a little further down the road to a truly just and civilized society....

and kick some narcissistic sociopaths in the ass!

FOR THOSE WHO THOUGHT IT WAS ALL OVER...

This nightmare continues, but Nanc won again today. Meanwhile, the abuser bought two farms this year. Who came out ahead? Thank God for the wisdom of the Justices on the SCC, or Nanc would have had nothing but her scars.

FROM THE SCC

MOTION FOR RE-HEARING / DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE AUDITION :

32098 Nancy Rick, also known as Nanc Rick v. Berend Brandsema, also known as Ben Brandsema, and Brandy Farms Inc. - and - Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (B.C.)

Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ.

The motion for an extension of time is dismissed. Had the motion for an extension of time been granted, the respondents’ application for a rehearing on the issue of costs and for an order that the trial judge’s order on costs be restored would have been dismissed. The appellant is entitled to her costs of the motions.

IT'S A WIN!

Nanc WON!!!
We are very happy with the outcome. This does allow Nanc to close a long, dark chapter in her life. It does clearly state the duty of full disclosure (you mean it wasn’t before???). It does clearly state that one spouse cannot create vulnerabilities in their partner and then take advantage of them (again, this wasn’t clear before???).
We think, however, that the decision begs a couple of further questions:

1. OK, the husband hid money and misrepresented values to defraud his wife. His “penalty” is then to repay the amount he owed in the first place. Um, where is the disincentive to keep doing this? The SCC has just said that it is still worth trying to do these things! If you do get caught, the worst case scenario is that you will have to pay the rest of what you owe! If you pull that in a commercial negotiation (selling a product or business, etc,) you will be charged with fraud and go to jail, or at least pay hefty fines. In this case, it is more akin to ENRON, Conrad Black, etc. Nanc was a full partner in the businesses and had done more than her fair share to build it up over the years. Now the ex gets the full ongoing benefits of her efforts for a minimal one time cost. Why are the rules different when a spouse is the shareholder being defrauded rather than public shareholders or partners? Is this really the public policy message that the SCC and legislators want to send?

2. It is clear from the media reports that most reporters did not ask the questions, “what does the judge mean by ‘mental instability’? What particular ‘mental disability’ was present in this case? Where did it come from?” The answers will surprise most readers of the media stories: Nanc has PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome). Yes, the same mental instability that some soldiers suffer from following prolonged and intense life threatening combat. Her therapist (an expert in PTSD that treats police officers and other emergency personnel) called it the worst case he had ever personally seen. Where did she get it?

DECISION TIME!!!

The decision will be posted tomorrow at 10:45am on the SCC website.

A door will close upon the past for Nanc. This has been a devastating experience for her, and less so for me, as well. There is no putting the past behind while something like this is going on. We are both ready for the end - and the beginning of a new life. Nanc's great concern at this time is that the SCC recognise the human rights issues underlying her personal story, and provide some protection for the spouses who come after her.

May there be an end to the inequity!