BRITAIN - WE NEED YOUR VOICE
"As with any international treaty, it is essential that the Convention is subject to
[consistent] interpretation throughout its 73 States Parties[…]
To facilitate the goal of [consistent] interpretation,
the Hague Conference established in 1999
The 'International Child Abduction Database' (INCADAT)."
Dr. Peter McEleavy & Marion Ely (page 1):
The INCADAT Correspondence Guide
[See 'Introduction']:
[consistent] interpretation throughout its 73 States Parties[…]
To facilitate the goal of [consistent] interpretation,
the Hague Conference established in 1999
The 'International Child Abduction Database' (INCADAT)."
Dr. Peter McEleavy & Marion Ely (page 1):
The INCADAT Correspondence Guide
[See 'Introduction']:
“In our opinion..."
"respondent has failed to demonstrate that such a settlement has been established…
because of the age of the child a [3 year old female]; it is unlikely
that the child can properly be said to be established in a
community involving such matters as school, people,
friends, activities and opportunities..."
(Alessia is also 3)
[UK Court of Appeals] Soucie v. Soucie 1995 SC 134, 1995 SLT
4148,1995 SCLR 203
"respondent has failed to demonstrate that such a settlement has been established…
because of the age of the child a [3 year old female]; it is unlikely
that the child can properly be said to be established in a
community involving such matters as school, people,
friends, activities and opportunities..."
(Alessia is also 3)
[UK Court of Appeals] Soucie v. Soucie 1995 SC 134, 1995 SLT
4148,1995 SCLR 203
"There is [no] doubt that a judgment obtained by fraud can be set aside,
either by order made in a fresh action brought in fraud, to impeach it,
or on appeal to the Court of Appeal by adducing fresh evidence
sufficient to establish the fraud."
"House of Lords: BOODOOSINGH V RAMNARCE, [Court of Appeal]
Privy Council, March 08, 2005, [2005] UKPC 9;
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood cited at Para 18
either by order made in a fresh action brought in fraud, to impeach it,
or on appeal to the Court of Appeal by adducing fresh evidence
sufficient to establish the fraud."
"House of Lords: BOODOOSINGH V RAMNARCE, [Court of Appeal]
Privy Council, March 08, 2005, [2005] UKPC 9;
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood cited at Para 18
“Where a party deliberately misleads the court in a material matter,
and that deception has probably tipped the scale in his favour
(or even, as I think, where it may reasonably have done so),
it would be wrong to allow him to retain the judgment as unfairly procured.
'Finis litium' is a desirable object, but it must not be sought by so great a
sacrifice of justice which is and must remain the supreme object.
"Moreover, to allow the victor to keep the spoils so unworthily obtained,
would be an encouragement to such behaviour, and do even greater harm
than the multiplication of trials."
Giving leading judgment on Fraud in the Court of Appeal;
Holroyd Pearce LJ at p379
BRITAIN - WE NEED YOUR VOICE
and that deception has probably tipped the scale in his favour
(or even, as I think, where it may reasonably have done so),
it would be wrong to allow him to retain the judgment as unfairly procured.
'Finis litium' is a desirable object, but it must not be sought by so great a
sacrifice of justice which is and must remain the supreme object.
"Moreover, to allow the victor to keep the spoils so unworthily obtained,
would be an encouragement to such behaviour, and do even greater harm
than the multiplication of trials."
Giving leading judgment on Fraud in the Court of Appeal;
Holroyd Pearce LJ at p379
BRITAIN - WE NEED YOUR VOICE
ALESSIA SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROTECTED UNDER
THE UK 'DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT'
“like cases are to be tried alike”
"[6]. ‘The Doctrine of Precedent’ means that judges at first instances […]
are [bound] by and thus obliged to follow decisions of the Court of Appeal
and House of Lords (now, of course, the Supreme Court)
relating to the same subject matter as the case
which the first instance judge is hearing.
"Furthermore, the Court of Appeal is
[itself] bound by its own previous decisions."
Division in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50:
Lord Justice Wall at Para 4 et seq [emphasis added]
(SEE FULL CASE BELOW)
THE UK 'DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT'
“like cases are to be tried alike”
"[6]. ‘The Doctrine of Precedent’ means that judges at first instances […]
are [bound] by and thus obliged to follow decisions of the Court of Appeal
and House of Lords (now, of course, the Supreme Court)
relating to the same subject matter as the case
which the first instance judge is hearing.
"Furthermore, the Court of Appeal is
[itself] bound by its own previous decisions."
Division in Re D (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 50:
Lord Justice Wall at Para 4 et seq [emphasis added]
(SEE FULL CASE BELOW)
CIRCUMVENTING THE TREATY
(1) Numerous foreign decisions in Hague's INCADAT database support the above arguments (made by the UK). The majority of commited Member States consistenly rule that it would only circumvent the purpose & objectives of the Hague Convention, and ultimately reward parents who wrongfully remove and retain children, if they are allowed to hide behind an Article 12 claim of "acclimatization" and then further allege that to return abducted children to their prior home would cause them "psychological harm" under the other manipulation and misuse of Article 13(b) of the Convention.
(2) This perversion of justice essentially allows 'subjective-standards' to facilitate a foreign court’s manipulation of the Treaty in favour of their nationals by creating a pretext for discretionary decisions and thereby rendering the Hague Convention for internationally abducted children largely ineffective to accomplish its true objective and purpose.
(3) The very Preamble of the Hague Convention itself declares that "it is the wrongful removal & retention that causes "harmful-effects" to the child, and it is the Convention's primary purpose & objective "to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence"...
... not to create opportunities to refuse their return!
(1) Numerous foreign decisions in Hague's INCADAT database support the above arguments (made by the UK). The majority of commited Member States consistenly rule that it would only circumvent the purpose & objectives of the Hague Convention, and ultimately reward parents who wrongfully remove and retain children, if they are allowed to hide behind an Article 12 claim of "acclimatization" and then further allege that to return abducted children to their prior home would cause them "psychological harm" under the other manipulation and misuse of Article 13(b) of the Convention.
(2) This perversion of justice essentially allows 'subjective-standards' to facilitate a foreign court’s manipulation of the Treaty in favour of their nationals by creating a pretext for discretionary decisions and thereby rendering the Hague Convention for internationally abducted children largely ineffective to accomplish its true objective and purpose.
(3) The very Preamble of the Hague Convention itself declares that "it is the wrongful removal & retention that causes "harmful-effects" to the child, and it is the Convention's primary purpose & objective "to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence"...
... not to create opportunities to refuse their return!
BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
“A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is [void] as a matter of International law.”
– Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, Art. 19, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
“A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty is [void] as a matter of International law.”
– Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, Art. 19, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY
TO THE PURPOSE & OBJECTIVE OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION
TO THE PURPOSE & OBJECTIVE OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION
|
(1) Friedrich,78 F.3d 1068 (at Para 29):
“A removing parent must [not] be allowed to abduct a child and then when brought to court complain that the child 'has grown used to the surroundings to which they were abducted.' Under the logic of the Convention..." “… it is the [abduction] that causes the pangs of their subsequent return.” (2) Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204, 220 n.14 (1st Cir. 2000): “We disregard the arguments that grave risk of harm may be established by the mere fact that removal would unsettle the children who have now settled in the United States..." … "That is an inevitable consequence of their removal.” (3) Clarke v. Clarke, 2008 WL 2217608 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2008): “a Mother [cannot] turn a nine-week visit to the United States into an almost seven month stay and then claim that the child is 'acclimatized' in the United States so as to [shift] habitual residence"... “This court noted the respondent cannot take advantage of the time-lapse in which she led the petitioner to believe that she was planning on returning to Australia to claim that the children have become “acclimatized...” "it is precisely this type of behaviour that undermines the purpose of the Hague Convention.” 
THE UK TURNED ITS BACK ON THE PRIMARY PURPOSE & OBJECTIVE OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION AND VIOLATED BART'S BASIC RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS
|
(4) Evans v. Evans (U.K. 1988) [Court of Appeals]
(Civ. Div.) No. AD 1716 of 1988: The Father asks the Court to consider this UK case in the Court of Appeals, wherein the mere fact that a UK decision ‘might’allow the misuse of the Article 13(b) exception: “only serves to drive a coach and horses through the provisions of this Convention, since it would be open to [any] abducting parent to raise allegations under Article 13." (5) EU COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003: Article 11 (Para 4): 'The Brussels Belgium II Revised': "A court [cannot] refuse to return a child on the basis of Article 13b of the 1980 Hague Convention, if it is established that [adequate] arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his or her return." 
THE HAGUE CONVENTION WAS ENACTED TO PROTECT WRONGFULLY REMOVED & RETAINED CHILDREN
|
|
UK BREACH OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT OF 1998
CHAPTER 42: 'Acts of Public Authorities' "[6.1] - "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right..." "[7.1] - " (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may-- (a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or (b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any in [any] legal proceedings, but only if he is [or would be] a victim of the unlawful act. |
|
ALESSIA MUST BE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES
"An International Convention, expressed in different languages
and intended to apply to a wide range of differing legal systems,
[cannot] be construed differently in different jurisdictions..."
"The Convention [must] have the same meaning and effect
under the laws of [ALL] contracting states."
Lord Browne Wilkinson: United Kingdomre H
(Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72, 87
"An International Convention, expressed in different languages
and intended to apply to a wide range of differing legal systems,
[cannot] be construed differently in different jurisdictions..."
"The Convention [must] have the same meaning and effect
under the laws of [ALL] contracting states."
Lord Browne Wilkinson: United Kingdomre H
(Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72, 87
THE EUROPEAN UNION ALSO PROTECTS MEMBER STATES
FROM WRONG HAGUE DECISIONS
"The courts of the Member State, to or in which the child has been
wrongfully removed or retained, should be able to oppose his or her
return in specific, [duly justified] cases..."
"However, such a decision [could be replaced] by a subsequent decision
by the court of the Member State of habitual residence of the child
[prior to the wrongful removal or retention]."
"Should that judgment entail return of the child, the return [should] take place
[without any special procedure being required]
for recognition and enforcement of that judgment in the Member State
to or in which the child has been removed or retained [.]"
EU COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2201/2003 [Para 17]
27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction, recognition,
and the enforcement of foreign judgments
EUROPE - WE NEED YOUR VOICE
FROM WRONG HAGUE DECISIONS
"The courts of the Member State, to or in which the child has been
wrongfully removed or retained, should be able to oppose his or her
return in specific, [duly justified] cases..."
"However, such a decision [could be replaced] by a subsequent decision
by the court of the Member State of habitual residence of the child
[prior to the wrongful removal or retention]."
"Should that judgment entail return of the child, the return [should] take place
[without any special procedure being required]
for recognition and enforcement of that judgment in the Member State
to or in which the child has been removed or retained [.]"
EU COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2201/2003 [Para 17]
27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction, recognition,
and the enforcement of foreign judgments
EUROPE - WE NEED YOUR VOICE
THE UK ' DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT '
LORD JUSTICE - SIR NICHOLAS WALL
To FULLY understand the point of UK ‘precedent’: we refer to the recent case heard by Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the UK Family Division in Re D (Children) [2010]EWCA Civ 50. We have chosen this case specifically because the applicant, like Alessia's father, was also a 'litigant in person' and was appealing a decision of the lower court. In the first part of his judgment, Lord Justice Wall explains in very great detail, for the benefit of the applicant, the ‘Doctrine of Precedent’ and grounds on which "permission" to appeal may be granted...
* If the below is held true - Alessia should have been returned home to the United States; alternatively, her American father most certainly had a "COMPELLING" enough reason why his appeal [should] have been heard...
Lord Justice Wall at Para 4 et seq [emphasis added]:
|
"4. There are, of course, only two bases upon which permission to appeal can be granted. They are both contained in Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 52.3(6), which reads as follows’ - 'Permission to appeal may be given only where: (a) the court consider that the appeal would have a real prospect of success; [or]… (b) there is some other [compelling] reason why the appeal should be heard."
"5. "I propose to address each of these headings in turn. Before I do so, it is necessary; (1) I explain to the applicant (who is not a lawyer) one feature of the English Legal System which is relevant to [both] limbs of the rule, [namely] the 'Doctrine of Precedent'; and (2) that I explain how the Doctrine of Precedent impacts on the present case." "6. ‘The Doctrine of Precedent’ means that judges at first instances […] are bound by and thus obliged to follow decisions of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords (now, of course, the Supreme Court) relating to the same subject matter as the case which the first instance judge is hearing. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal is [itself] bound by its own previous decisions." |
"7. There is also authority for the proposition that Circuit Judges […] are bound by the decisions of High Court Judges:- see the decision of the Court of appeal in Gloucestershire County Council v P. and others [2000] Fam 1 at 3B-C, 8C-D and 12G.’
Lord Justice Wall emphasises again at Para 9: "9. ‘However, where a superior court – be it the House of Lords [or] the Court of Appeal has either stated a [principle] or given guidelines to be followed by judges hearing particular categories of cases, the judge at first instance [has to follow] that principle or those guidelines[.]" Prior English case law, American case law, Canadian case law and many other countries that ratified the Hague Convention, clearly illustrate that cases procured by fraud can be impeached and that deception and removal under a 'false premise' cannot change habitual residence. "The Convention [must] have the same meaning and effect under the laws of [ALL] contracting states."
|
|
UNITED KINGDOM
CASE LAW ON "FALSE PREMISE" (as it relates to Habitual Residence) I. APRIL 2008: B v D 2008 EWHC: 1246 (Fam): Paras 23 & 1. Baron J: • “1.… Any consent by the mother beyond consent to short-term education had been obtained on the false premise that the marriage had a long-term future and had been vitiated because of the father’s failure to make full disclosure of his underlying motivation. • “23…I am [clear] that if he had told her the [truth] about his ‘view of the marriage’ she would [never] have agreed to the children staying in Portugal after the August holiday. Whatever consent was drawn from her during this period, it was therefore obtained on a false premise.” – CHILD ORDERED TO RETURN II. Re L (Abduction:) [2007] EWHC 2181 (Fam) [2008] 1 F.L.R. 914. Bodey J: “Where a removing party knows and assumes that the formerly consenting party would [not] make a choice to continue at the time of the actual removal if he or she knew the [full] facts, it is my view that the consent defence fails even though original consent may never have been expressly withdrawn." – CHILD ORDERED TO RETURN III. C v H (Abduction:Consent) [2009] EWHC 2660 Family Division.March 2009: Munby J: Lord Justice Munby cited that the child’s habitual residence did [not] change within the meaning of the Convention. The Judge ruled that the actions, words, and intentions to change habitual residence must first be: “evaluated in the context in which they had been used; “in the light of the parties’ relationship at the time;” and “in the light of their contemporary [understanding of where things stood and how things might develop.” – CHILD ORDERED TO RETURN IV. RE P-J (Abduction) Habitual Residence: Consent) [2009] EWCA Civ 588 [2009] 2 FLR 1051: Consent, or the lack of it, must be viewed in the context of the ‘[realities]’ of family life, or more precisely, in the context of the realities of the [disintegration] of family life.’ – CHILD ORDERED TO RETURN V. Re B. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1994] 2 FLR 249, [1994] Fam Law ; Court of Appeals: LEGAL BASIS: ‘Removal [&] Retention’-Hague Convention Articles 3 and 12). This UK Judge ordered the child's return because the left-behind parent's rights were breached when this child was [fraudulently] taken to Wales. – CHILD ORDERED TO RETURN VI. June 2009: P-J (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 588: In this UK appeal, counsel for Mother argued: (1) the President erred in law directing himself that habitual residence may still be settled, “even though it is temporary”; (2) However, Ward LJ found no fault. English Law stated as follows: [64] “I do [not] accept the question of a possible non-return by the mother or children [….] (a) she was aware that the husband did not accept or [contemplate] that they should separate, (b) she knew that he was expecting and planning for the whole family to return in July/August 2008 and (c) that her own state of mind was one of lack of decision, retaining the hope that the marriage would still work.” [48] “Having heard the evidence of the mother and her sister, it is not in dispute that the act of removal was ‘surreptitious’ and that the immediate intentions of the mother and the arrangements for removal ‘were concealed from the father and designed to present him with a fait accompli’ […] – CHILD ORDERED TO RETURN ALESSIA'S HABITUAL RESIDENCE
REMAINS IN THE UNITED STATES Evidenced by ascertainable facts: The mother 'voluntarily adopted' the United States, 'particularly Texas', for a settled purpose. Her deception had hoped to stage a continuing appearance of their regular, habitual mode of life in America; the ‘continuity’ of which would appear to persist (albeit by subterfuge) ‘despite their temporary absence' to visit relatives in the United Kingdom. Therefore, setting precedent under English Law (link below) ANY enforced presence by reason of subterfuge or kidnapping to the UK under false premises, "would be so overwhelming a factor it would negate any voluntary will to be where one is." Further, since they were not married and Simmone insisted she had NO plans to marry the father; he would be an 'illegal-alien' in the United Kingdom and could be deported at any time... " If a man’s presence in a particular place or country is 'unlawful', eg in breach of the immigration laws, he can NOT rely on his unlawful residence as constituting ordinary residence."
Alessia’s Father was walking into a baited trap... A 'fait accompli.' He was [fundamentally] mistaken as to the character or effect of the mother's true intentions; a clear [mistake of fact] that, even putting her evidence at its highest, [vitiated] any alleged agreement by the father as there was clearly [no] ‘consensus ad idem' (meeting of the minds).
ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE It was irrefutably illustrated that there was certainly a "sufficent degree of continuity that continued to exist for this family at their habitual residence in the United States - despite their temporary absence. Everything about this family was left at home in Texas and everything about their ‘habitual mode of life’ in the U.S.continued to persist 'and remained consistent.' Evidence corroborated by the U.S. Department of State, the local Police, the FBI, the U.S. Bureau of Diplomatic Security, TWO Senators and a Member of the House of Representatives, the child's clinic in Texas confirmed the mother herself carefully-coordinated a doctor's appointment for Alessia the WEEK after they were scheduled to return to America and (under peanlty of perkury) she had just 'legally' reasserted the child's habitual residence with the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services - FIVE DAYS before leaving on vacation to England. They left all of their clothing and personal items at home in Texas, purchased round-trip tickets, and entered Enterprise Rent-a-Car, "to get a quote for a car-rental whilst on vacation in England." Evidence was submitted from the mother's 'Mummy Group' in the United States, TWO rabbis, and nearly TWENTY Affidavits and/or statements confirming the mother's deception & conspiracy to abduct the child. Despite their "Temporary Absence" they continued to remain habitually resident in Texas... Alessia's U.S. benefits had JUST been reinstated by the mother days before their trip... she not only carefully-coordinated the above mentioned doctors appointment for the child... but the clinic submitted a SECOND document that "neither parent requested copies of the child's medical records"... an obvious action made by any parent moving to another city (let alone to a different country). The American father NEVER applied for a visa as he was only and always just a VISITOR... there were NO going away parties... he made NO change of address... AND he continued looking for jobs in the United States whilst he was visiting family in the UK... not only had they purchased round-trip tickets... there were NO plans or reservations canvassed to ever return to the United Kingdom in the near (or distant) future... AND ON THE EVIDENCE... WE NEED YOUR VOICE
|
UNITED KINGDOM
CASE LAW ON "FRESH EVIDENCE" (and Fraud) I. G (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1232 Para 20] Fresh evidence became available to the court: Thorpe LJ stated that if the prior judge had opportunity afforded to the Court of Appeal then a different decision may have been reached. – APPEAL GRANTED II. Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 854, [2008]: "Appeals will usually be granted wherein a judge has misdirected him/herself in law or has failed to give sufficient weight to a particular aspect of the case; "or where there is [new] evidence subsequent to the hearing;” – APPEAL GRANTED III. Re F. (Children) (Abduction: Removal Outside Jurisdiction) [2008] EWCA Civ. 854, [2008] 2 F.L.R. 1649 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 982]: "a trial judge who felt compelled to discharge his original order for return in the light, inter alia, of the ruling in Re M. had his judgment overturned. The Court of Appeal did not, however, comment on the ruling of the House of Lords and the case ostensibly turned on the existence of [new] evidence, pointing to inevitability of the mother's deportation." – APPEAL GRANTED 
LAST TEXT MESSAGE BART SENT TO SIMMONE (JAN 15 2010) AFTER DISCOVERING PLANS TO KIDNAP ALESSIA
THE LAST TIME BART HAS SEEN ALESSIA
BREACH OF DUE PROCESS & HUMAN RIGHTS
Alessia’s Father did not have the benefit of a [fair] adversarial proceeding, as he was unable at various stages of these proceedings to even adduce arguments and evidence considered relevant to the case within terms of Articles 30 & 23 of the Hague Convention. He did not have an opportunity to effectively challenge arguments and evidence [erroneously] adduced by the opposing party with evidence he had available in either the lower court - and was denied "permission" to do the same in the Court of Appeal. The Appellate judge not only refused his request to seek permission to appeal - he denied him the right of Due Process and Natural Justice to submit fresh evidence to prove the entire judgment had been procurred by fraud; followed by another refusal to appeal to the UK House of Lords (now the Supreme Court). All of the father's arguments which should have been viewed objectively and relevant to the resolution of Alessia’s case were [not] duly heard and/or they were not even examined by the court. Therefore any alleged factual and legal reasons for this [arbitrary] decision were [not] arrived at fairly and/or impartially. These actions were in direct violation of Articles 30, 23 and 8(g)(f) of the Convention, as well as a direct violation of well-established English law, International law, and a Human Rights violation pursuant to Art 6 § 1 of the ECHR Convention for a fair and impartial trial. In any event: "Newly Discovered Evidence"... "corroborated by the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Office of Children’s Issues, the FBI, the Department of Health & Human Services, and Plano Police Department 'confirms' conspiracy to kidnap the child, to deceive the Petitioner and not return the child to the United States." Therefore, the foreign judgment is subject to non-recognition."The United States is entitled to exercise jurisdiction over the Child, as her entry into, and her remaining in, and her jurisdiction in the United Kingdom were perpetrated by 'Unjustifiable Conduct'."
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT No. 08-01-00246-CV: Velez v. Mitsak (on Due Process): “It was surely not contemplated by drafters of the Convention that the provision requiring contracting states to use the most expeditious procedures available to implement the objectives of the Convention would override a party’s right to present evidence on possible defenses as provided in the articles or on considerations of whether a foreign judgment was obtained by fraud.” Carrascosa V. McGuire: Case 2:07-cv-00355-DRD-ES Document 25, Filed 02/08/2007; Pages 16, 18 & 19: “The glaring departure of the Spanish Court from the mandate of the Hague Convention, recognized by its total failure to determine Innes’s rights of custody under New Jersey law - the law of the state in which Victoria Solenne was habitually resident immediately before her removal. The Court never mentioned the applicable New Jersey Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]... Despite the fact that a court has the power to decide wrongly, a decision such as this can [not] stand because, on its very face and applying the facts found by the Spanish Court, the decision is outside of the terms of the Hague Convention. This is not simply judicial error to be corrected by appeal. It is a departure from jurisdiction conferred by the Hague Convention. The Spanish Courts, not the New Jersey courts, violated principals of international comity by failing even to attempt to apply New Jersey law and the order of the New Jersey courts and by applying Spanish law where the Convention mandated that it apply New Jersey law.” “Comity prevails if [a] foreign judgment‘does not prejudice the rights of United States citizens or violate domestic public policy.’” EVEN ENGLAND WILL [NOT] RECOGNIZE FOREIGN JUDGMENTS UNDER THESE CONDITIONS
Pursuant to English Law, U.S. Law, International Law, and the Hague Convention... The United Kingdom did [NOT] have Jurisdiction over Alessia.
WE NEED YOUR VOICE
|