What follows is a chronology by date,
of some significant FACTS in Rosana’s abduction.
All FACTS noted are supported by written and taped records and documents.
All German and American officials named and quoted in the chronology, are invited to supply any evidence to the contrary, if any FACT listed here is incorrect.
No one in the U.S. State department, the American embassy/consulates, nor the German court or legal system, is expected to respond with evidence to the contrary since FACTS are irrelevant to the cowardly ethnic/political government agenda,
in which our American children are abused.
Rosana Joy Sug Wayson was abducted from her native Brazil Dec. 17, 1997,
with the help of German officials. Basic rights violations against Rosana
continue today through German courts. .
Facts
1997
Dec. 17, 1997: ROSANA was abducted to Germany from Brazil, using falsified documents supplied by the German State Department.
1998
Jan 21, 1998: Lawyers paid by the German government lied to the Brazilian Family court that the Brazilian decision would be obeyed in Germany.
Jan 22, 1998: Rio de Janeiro; the German consulate refused to investigate German interference into the family court process, which included sending a former military 'strongman' to intimidate the Brazilian family court judge, and the consulate refused to give any information about ROSANA.
February 1998: Frau HUGEL-BRUCHHAUS of the Gummersbach Jugendamt (An authority developed by ADOLPH HITLER, to build his Nazi Youth Corps, and still operating under the same guidelines and rules.) declared ROSANA was illegitimate, thereby depriving her of substantial rights under the German 'legal system' which discriminates against illegitimate children, and exerts more state more control over them. Frau HUGEL-BRUCHHAUS supplied a false address for ROSANA, and rejected all paternity documents, and all American and Brazilian documents. The only Brazilian document she displayed was the Brazilian custody decision.
March 1998: The Gummersbach Jugendamt insisted on German mediation. Mediation took place. ROSANA won back her right to regular visitation with her non-German father, and unlimited mail, e-mail, and phone contact with her father, under a signed mediation agreement, identified later as a legal contract by German Judge BENDER.
April 1998 ROSANA's father discovered a counterfeit psychological report in the Jugendamt records, purchased from a German speaking psychologist hiding in Brazil. This had been translated to German and inserted into the official German record. . The report criticizes MARK WAYSON, but it is contradicted by the genuine official Brazilian court report, citing the healthy relationship ROSANA has with her father, and her need for it. As part of the pattern of discrimination against foreigners, the official report was never translated to German. Responding to a request for a copy of the Counterfeit report, Frau HUGEL-BRUCHHAUS tampered with the official records, and the false report disappeared.
May 1998: A "WIESNER" of the German state department wrote a letter justifying human rights violations against ROSANA by referring to mysterious (non-existent) "consular law."
June 1998: under accepted mediation guidelines, ROSANA's father presented the final Brazilian visitation decision at mediation to serve as a 'blueprint' for ROSANA's future.
July 1998: New family law was passed in Germany requiring judges to pro-actively provide visitation. Gummersbach and Cologne 'family courts' continue to ignore the law.
August 13, 1998: The Jugendamt allowed ROSANA arbitrarily, to lose all contact with her non-German father which she won through the mediation ordered by the Jugendamt.
Sept. 1998: Frau HUGEL-BRUCHHAUS promised to work to re-establish the visitation rights ROSANA was guaranteed under the mediation. Another lie. She did NOTHING. (The German Jugendamts discriminate against nearly ALL foreigners.
The Jugendamts play an important ongoing role in the Court supervised ETHNIC CLEANSING of part-German children, and their separation from their foreign parent. Between August 13, 1998, and March 1999, ROSANA's father wrote the Gummersbach Jugendamt 15 times in German. He begged them to deliver mail to ROSANA which was being refused to her. The Jugendamt NEVER responded.)
Oct. 1998: ROSANA's father filed a visitation petition in Judge MAIWORM'S so-called "family court" This included a petition for ROSANA's travel to Alaska for Christmas 1998, as ordered by the professional Brazilian family court. (Judge MAIWORM never answered the petition until the following March. Judge MAIWORM violated the German law and constitution, and denied ROSANA all contact with her non-German father and family.)
1999
January 1999: ROSANA's father petitioned the U.S. State department for help to stop the illegal ethnic cleansing of ROSANA, and to intervene to stop criminal activity against ROSANA as an American citizen. WILLIAM FLEMING was assigned the case.
Jan. 21, 1999: Gummersbach police officers threatened, insulted, and assaulted ROMANA father outside her kindergarten. (MAIWORM's court had previously been notified Mark would be at the kindergarten that morning.)
Feb. 23, 1999: Just prior to the announced visitation hearing in Judge MAIWORM's court, the Gummersbach police filed false felony charges against MARK WAYSON.
Feb. 23, 1999: German attorney KONRAD LUGENMEISTER HACKER of Gummersbach, announced in Judge MAIWORM' court that he would strip ROSANA of her non-German citizenship. German family Judge MAIWORM allowed his court to be used to orchestrate this human rights violation. HACKER also boasted in court of his knowledge of "corrupt judges."
March 9, 1999: ROSANA's father, following professional advice, began waiting outside ROSANA's house each morning, to reassure her she has not been abandoned. Judge MAIWORM, as well as police were notified. ROSANA was delighted to see her father, however briefly!!!
April 1999: Frau HUGEL-BRUCHHAUS abruptly without notification, transferred ROSANA's case to a mental health clinic where attorney HACKER enjoys an exclusive mediation contract. HUGEL-BRUCHHAUS claimed Attorney HACKER had told her to do it, and she had obeyed.
April 1999: An honest German prosecutor dismissed ALL charges against MARK, and opened a criminal case against a German citizen, for filing false charges. The prosecutor requested investigation of both the German citizen, and the police involved in the assault. Chief ZIMMERMAN, and new chief, BENNINGHAUS, of the Gummersbach police refused to investigate the German or their own officers. (BENNINGHAUS was apparently rewarded for handling the cover-up of ZIMMERMAN's misconduct, by being made the chief when ZIMMERMAN was quietly transferred.)
May 1999: Hacker returned to MAIWORM's court, and proudly presented evidence of the human rights violation, he had announced in February . . . He was congratulated, and Judge MAIWORM entered evidence of an illegally cancelled passport, and ROSANA's illegally cancelled native birth registration, into the court record, as proof she was no longer Brazilian. (Mark immediately began the long process of restoring ROSANA's native citizenship.)
June 1999: WILLIAM FLEMING of the U.S. State Department, responded to these reports of human rights violations against ROSANA, by reporting that he was "pondering" the case.
July 1999: the German prosecutor filed criminal charges against a Gummersbach citizen who is HACKER'S client. HACKER has no difficulty finding a Gummersbach judge to dismiss the charges against his German client, because they resulted from a complaint by a foreigner.
Sept 19, 1999: American Central Authority, MARY MARSHAL, of the U.S. State department preemptively decided that the United States would NOT protect ROSANA's human rights, and wrote a false statement that the HAGUE TREATY does not apply to ROSANA. (It does. But her letter is typical of the standard bait and switch technique employed by the Office of Children's Issues. MARSHAL's subordinate, WILLIAM FLEMING had been directed to send the HAGUE TREATY application earlier to generate a little hope.)
Dec.4, 1999: Office of children's Issues official, James SCHULER, and members of the Bureau of diplomatic Security sent a bizarre false warning to ROSANA's Jugendamt, through the American embassy, that "Nazis"at the Jugendamt were in danger of being killed. ( SCHULER has never been required to explain his concern for the safety of his "Nazis" abusing American children in Germany, over concern for the human rights of American children, but maybe none is needed, considering where he works.)
Dec. 9, 1999: WILLIAM ARMOR, supervisor of 500 people at the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (on tape) agreed to investigate the misconduct by OCI, and the security violations by Bureau of Diplomatic Security personnel. ARMOR lied. ARMORS personnel are mandated to prevent events like the Kenya embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS COLE in Yemen, and the 9-11 attacks. They are not supposed to be assisting the Office of Children's Issues, who were helping the Germans commit human rights violations against American children, but they do. Therefore, WILLIAM ARMOR launched a full scale cover-up. This has included discrediting others with false reports, and "courageously" continuing to injure ROSANA directly. Her human rights, as well as the lives of seventeen sailors, and the thousands of lives lost on 9-11 are obviously less important than protecting state department careers.
Dec. 11, 1999: A Herr PUTZ, leader of the Gummersbach Jugendamt sent a letter to Judge MAIWORM, claiming that "NAZIS" in his Jugendamt have been threatened.
Dec. 15, 1999: ROSANA's father forwarded this information to the German police and reminded PUTZ in a letter, that 'open' membership in the Nazi party is now illegal in Germany. Neither PUTZ nor the police responded.
Dec. 21, 1999: Family Judge MAIWORM refused to follow procedures, and answer an emergency request that ROSANA have one hour with her non-German father, to receive Christmas presents. Instead he 'suggested' to Attorney HACKER, in writing, a 'legal' tactical way to stop the ONLY contact ROSANA has had with her father since Aug. 13, 1998, that of waiting quietly outside her house to greet her in the morning.
2000
January 2000: Brazil became a signatory to the Hague Treaty.
January 2000: A petition was filed with the Cologne appeals court, by attorney SABINE CHROSCIEL, asking that MAIWORM be replaced on ROSANA"s case because of prejudice and violation of procedures. .
Feb. 23, 2000: WILLIAM ARMOR repeats his promise to investigate the security violations by the Office of Children's Issues and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Again he lied.
Feb. 24, 2000: WILLIAM ARMOR'S supervisor, PETER BERGEN, working directly for undersecretary of state CARPENTER, promised to investigate and report back to MARK. Another state department lie. He did NOTHING. MAIWORM responded by admitting the charges against him were correct. He admitted he had not followed court procedures, and that he was prejudiced against ROSANA's non-German father.
March 2000: Despite the ethical and legal ramifications, and MAIWORM's admissions, the Cologne appeals court voted to leave MAIWORM on the case anyway. MAIWORM did not recuse himself, having long before demonstrated he is way below the ethical standards required, but seldom observed, in the German legal system.
June 2000: President CLINTON met with the German Chancellor regarding abducted American children. Mark was advised that ROMANA was one of the ten high profile cases (there are thousands!) which the president would discuss. The meeting resulted in NO progress for ROSANA's or any of the other cases.
July 2000: ROSANA's father received confirmation of ROSANA's Brazilian citizenship being restored. The Germans immediately set out again to strip the citizenship, even requesting that ROSANA's father be criminally charged for registering Brazilian ROSANA JOY SUG WAYSON, as a Brazilian.
Sept. 13, 2000: As part of his efforts to strip ROSANA of her Brazilian citizenship, Judge MAIWORM filed a false affidavit stating that MARK had "never" filed for visitation in Germany. Untrue of course, because MAIWORM himself presided over the visitation case. But HACKER needed help with trying to take the Brazilian citizenship, and Judge MAIWORM has been very obedient to HACKER. MAIWORM also included the bizarre statement in this document that he was going to grant ROSANA visitation. In the years passing since that particular lie, MAIWORM never did grant any visitation.
October 4, 2000: Following an incident in Dusseldorf, German Chancellor GERHARD SCHROEDER, called for a "Revolt" by the decent majority in Germany, to stop right wing extremist crimes against minorities. He cited the need for "civil courage" to carry out this revolt...........but did more than a very few in the German government hear SCHROEDER'S courageous call?
2001
March 2001: Then German Central Authority WOLFGANG WEITZEL was one of the 'few' who had the courage to implement the law, and the Hague Treaty on ROSANA's behalf. He filed a civilized petition based upon ROSANA's Brazilian citizenship, to give her the guaranteed access she wants. Shortly after he filed the petition, WEITZEL was replaced as the 'German Central Authority' by the German Justice Ministry.
May 2, 2001: Judge ANGELIKA RIEGER, of the German Justice Ministry, wrote ROSANA's father to provide the ONLY official explanation offered for the human rights violations against ROSANA. RIEGER referred to a 1938 law, which was the cornerstone of HEINRICH HIMMLER's Third Reich Lebensborn program, as the official justification for the human rights crimes against ROSANA.
August 2001: Before being assigned to Germany, Ambassador DANIEL COATS stated in his confirmation hearings, that he would make a "priority" of American children abducted to Germany. He fooled his colleagues.
Oct. 12, 2001: Judge NIEPMANN interviewed ROSANA. ROSANA insisted she wanted contact with her non-German father. Wrong answer! Since then ROSANA has been repeatedly forced into more interviews with Judge NIEPMANN and her agents. Despite the pressure, ROSANA was strong and the record reflects that she continued to insist she wants to have her father in her life. Several so-called visitations were arranged by Judge NIEPMANN, but judge NIEPMANN established such degrading and frightening conditions, that the Attorney hired by the German Central Authority recommended to ROSANA's father that he not continue, because it was so hard on ROSANA.
Oct. 29, 2001: Judge NIEPMANN criminally attempted to blackmail MARK into dropping all cases to protect ROSANA's human rights in exchange for the "possibility" of visitation. MARK refused to be blackmailed.
Nov. 12, 2001: Judge NIEPMANN twice repeated her blackmail demands in a German court, in front of witnesses. MARK again refused to participate in the human rights crime against his daughter.
Dec. 4, 200l: BRIAN FLORA, ambassador COAT's "Minister-Consular for Consular Affairs," met with ROSANA's father in Berlin for almost a whole hour. FLORA refused to examine or accept evidence of the criminal activity by Judge NIEPMANN, and the human rights violations. FLORA advised ROSANA'S father that Ambassador COATS and the United States would do nothing. BRIAN FLORA advised MARK to, "....wait until ROSANA is 21....." before trying to contact her.
2002
January 21, 2002: BRIAN FLORA wrote a letter to MARK, alleging his regret, and confirming that Ambassador COATS would do NOTHING.
Feb. 2002: In response to a congressional inquiry, BRIAN FLORA writes a completely different letter to Senator TED STEVENS, in which he makes false accusations against ROSANA's father. These are stupid as well, since all are refuted by German witnesses and the record. This is standard state department procedure when lying to congress. Write one thing to the citizen and another to the congressman. Fortunately Senator STEVENS provided MARK with a copy of the FLORA letter.
March 2002: MARK wrote Ambassador COATS reporting that FLORA was lying. A German witness also wrote the ambassador in English (The ambassador to Germany reportedly has little or no German language skill.) explaining that FLORA's letter was false. However, the perverted political-economic U.S. human rights policy requires that embassies be staffed with in house liars like FLORA. Therefore Ambassador COATS loyally repeated FLORA's lies to Senator STEVENS, even embellishing a little himself, and made no inquiry, despite the evidence.
May 29, 2002: Ambassador Coats wrote Senator Stevens the letter characterized in the initial comments above, which basically supports the German ethnic cleansing of American children.
May 2002: Herr WEITZEL's corrupt replacement, German Central authority Frau SPEICH warned Judge NIEPMANN of the criminal complaint filed against her for criminal blackmail, and human rights violations. SPEICH concealed the complaint and did not forward it to the criminal prosecutor as required.
June 2002: The Koeln police. specifically a Herr LEHNE and a Herr FUCHS, made it very clear they would not accept a criminal complaint from a foreigner against a German judge. The Koeln police president supports his corrupt police and refused to respond to a complaint of such police misconduct, because it was filed by ROSANA's father, a foreigner.
July 2002: Apparently emboldened by Ambassador COAT'S refusal to protect an American child, Judge NIEPMANN responded to the Hague petition for ROSANA's human right of access to her foreign parent, by ordering four more years of separation for ROSANA. In her final decision, Judge NIEPMANN included several outright and easily refuted lies, including a claim she has a non-existent letter from MARK, stating he does not want visitation. Judge NIEPMANN lies with little worry. German courts do not accept evidence, testimony, or facts from foreigners, and foreigners are not permitted to call witnesses to defend themselves. Nor do the German courts stop or investigate criminal activity by other judges, even though they are constitutionally required to do so.
August 2002: German Central Authority, Frau SPEICH fired the excellent German attorney, HENRICH POTTHAST, who previous Central Authority WEITZEL had hired to act in ROSANA's behalf. In order to protect her criminal friend, Judge NIEPMANN, SPEICH refused to file the appeal which the German attorney requested as necessary because of Judge NIEPMANN's criminal behavior.
Oct. 2002: MARK filed an appeal with the same Cologne Appeals court which had permitted the unethical biased Judge MAIWORM to remain on the case.
Oct. 23, 2002: ROSANA's Brazilian attorney, Dr. CECILIA da SILVA ZERAIK, reported that an ethical, honest, professional Brazilian appeals court, had decided that ROSANA's Brazilian citizenship had been improperly taken from her. The Germans lost their appeal to complete this very important human rights violation as a step in ROSANA's ethnic cleansing.
2003
Jan. 2003: The German Cologne appeals court set a hearing date for March 6, 2003. In four and one half years, this would be the first time that evidence has been allowed from ROSANA's father, IF it is actually allowed? The case filed by the German Central Authority, was filed under the HAGUE TREATY, calling for a decision in "six weeks." The March 6 date will be TWO YEARS since the Hague application was filed! Justice delayed is justice denied, and interminable stalling by the German family courts is standard procedure in alienating children from their parents.
Feb 2003: The appeals court ruled that ROSANA's father could NOT call an expert to evaluate the psychological damage done to ROSANA by the Jugendamt, the mental health clinic where HACKER, the attorney who launched the human rights violation, works, and others directly involved in the abuse. No reason given. However, the appeals court has allowed the Jugendamt which tampered with the official records, and refused to communicate with ROSANA's non-German parent, to remain in the case as a party. The appeals court has also allowed an established child abuser to remain as a party in the case, because she was appointed by Judge NIEPMANN, to defend NIEPMANN, following MARK's refusal to respond to the judge's blackmail attempts. There have been several ex parte communications already between the appeals court and these parties, which have not included MARK, who is the ONLY party acting on behalf of ROSANA.
March. 6, 2003: Justices GOEHLER-SCHLICHT, SCHWAB, and VOORHOEVE, of the Cologne Appeals court, overturned the Judge NIEPMANN "Hague" decision, ordering separation of Rosana from her father for four more years. The appeals court arranged immediate child-friendly and positive contacts between Rosana and Mark, and ignored the advice of a so-called "expert" from Sommerberg who favored contacts under lengthy oppressive supervision, and security measures.
The appeals court also made it very clear that they would NOT even consider allowing the forfeiture of any of Rosana's human rights, in exchange for the
right to contact with her father.
At the end of the appeals court hearing, extremist Attorney Konrad Hacker of the law firm, "Konrad Hacker & Thomas Gärtner," Alte Rathausstr. 2-4/Wilhelmstr.,
51643 Gummersbach, filed more false documents in the Cologne appeals court.
Filed in the Portuguese language, these "documents" had handwritten notes in
German, alleging that Mark is the parent filing cases in Brazil against Rosana's rights.
April 15, 2003: After a review of Hacker’s latest ‘work’, Rosana’s Brazilian attorney,
Dr. Cecilia da Silva Zeraik, notified Judges Goehler-Schlicht, Schwab, and Voorhoeve, of the Cologne appeals court, that the “documents” Hacker had presented to the appeals court March 6, were computer printouts, and publicly available. Further, Dr. da Silva Zeraik clarified to the court that the printouts are not the instruments they are alleged to be in the German handwriting upon
them, and she again clarified for the official record, and the court, that Mark
Wayson is NOT the parent listed as the petitioner in the human rights violations
to strip Rosana Joy Sug Wayson of her basic rights.
May 15, 2003: A false entry was made into the record, by the appeals court,
that Mark is the “petitioner” in the Brazilian cases against Rosana.
May 21, 2003: It became more apparent that the appeals court protection of Rosana’s basic rights, apparently extends only to the courtroom of the appeals court building in Cologne Germany. An appeal hearing to strip Rosana of her Brazilian birth registration, was held in Rio de Janeiro. This was the same violation (a criminal offense in Germany) which Hacker had announced he would carry out, in Judge Maiworm’s court
February 23, 1999.
May 23, 2003: It was learned that Dr. da Silva Zeraik, had won the appeal, preserving Rosana?s birth registration, which controls Rosana's legal name and Brazilian citizenship.
July 10, 2003: Mark reported to the court that several individuals had stationed an attack dog on Rosana's driveway to be alerted to attack her father, when Rosana passed by. Judge Goehler-Schlicht finally ordered a hearing be scheduled 9-11-03, and two visitations to take place in August upon Mark's return 8-26-03. This proved to be another Goehler-Schlicht lie. All was cancelled.
July 12, 2003: Following one unanswered request to the German appeals court,
to correct the official record, Mark again contacted Rosana's Brazilian attorney.
August 4, 2003: Responding to a confirmation request, Judge Goehler-Schlicht cancelled promised visitation for Rosana, because it was "inconvenient" for the German parties. She said that if Mark could change his reservations (almost impossible in August on short notice) and come immediately, she would arrange visitation for early August.
August 5, 2003: A United Airlines ticketing agent managed to find a seat for Mark to travel to Germany. The agent had recently married a man with a daughter undergoing judicial ethnic cleansing in Germany, and therefore was well aware of the German family court corruption.
August 7, 2003: A few hours before Mark was to board a flight to Germany, judge Goehler-Schlicht flip-flopped again. She said she would only schedule visitation for a few hours on 8-19-03, and suggested pressuring Rosana for additional time. Mark had to cancel his trip. The expense just for this one underhanded trick by the appeals court cost Mark more than $1,000.00. But draining foreign parents financially is a standard tactic of the German courts.
September 4, 2003: The appeals court then suggested two weekends for Rosana with Mark In September, and some other visitation. Objections to the visitation were allowed until 9-14-03.
September 5, 2003: No objections were made. Mark accepted the visitation as proposed.
September 17, 2003: Violating legal procedures, the appeals court, accepted a late petition full of lies from the German attorney, Lugenmeister Hacker. Only foreigners are held to court rules and procedures. Not following the procedural rules is another policy of the German appeals courts.
September 22, 2003: Mark learned that the promised visitation had been changed once again. The court cancelled the weekends after they were sure Mark had paid a non-refundable hotel deposit reserving a suite for he and Rosana.
The appeals court also finally appointed a new guardian for Rosana. Frau Anne Plache -Schmidbauer, a German lawyer, is an admitted drug addict who regularly files false reports for this appeals court to help build the .fourth Reich.. She stated she has no respect for foreign parents, and rejects any foreign citizenship for a white part-German gentile child. (Her family prefers she be referred to as .Frau Plache-Pferdescheise. so they can dissociate themselves from her right-wing behavior.) ( Her law firm is almost as popular with right-wingers and neo-Nazis, as Konrad Hacker.s, in Gummersbach.)
September 26, 2003: Mark arrived in Germany to learn that the appeals court had lied again and changed a promised visitation. Mark and Rosana got two short visits on this trip.
November 11, 2003: One of two short day long visits Mark had with Rosana, in November.
November 30, 2003: Judge Goehler-Schlicht advises Mark that his multiple petitions to restore Rosana.s basic rights in Germany, would be heard at the hearing 12-04-03. Another lie.
NOTICE: JUDGES VOORHOOVE, GOEHLER-SCHLICHT, AND SCHWAB, OF THE COLOGNE FAMILY APPEALS COURT, ALLOW JUDICIAL ETHNIC CLEANSING OF ROSANA JOY SUG WAYSON TO CONTINUE VIRTUALLY UNINTERRUPTED!
(Is this just another of those Third Reich habits the appeals courts cannot break?)
December 4, 2003: After months of stalling, the Koeln appeals court judges Goehler-Schlicht, Voorhoeve, and Schwab, finally held a hearing nearly three years (Hague treaty calls for six weeks) after Rosana Joy Sug Wayson.s Hague case was filed. It was a farce! There wasn.t even a pretense of due process. Mark was not allowed witnesses, not allowed to present evidence, not allowed to make a record for appeal, not allowed to have a human rights observer present, and not allowed to cross examine an admitted addict, Anne Plache-.Pferdescheise. who had filed a false report, contradicted by facts on the record.
December 4, 2003: The hearing was abruptly halted when Mark again would not agree to human rights violations against both Rosana and himself, in exchange for visitation. Judge FeigeVoorhoeve, was particularly angry that Mark objected to Hacker using the courts to build the fourth Reich with gentile Caucasian children, judicially kidnaped by German authorities.
Devember 4, 2003: After the hearing, and cowering behind Judge Goehler-Schlicht in the hallway, Judge FeigeVoorhoove, shrieked at Mark, ordering he and a companion to leave the building.
December 12, 2003: The Appeals court issued an obvious illegal decision, mandating that Mark submit to various human rights violations, in order to see his daughter a very limited time for the next year. All judicial appeals by Mark, are forbidden for one year. (Another constitutional violation by this corrupt appeals court.)
2004
January 15, 2004: Mark again notified the American Consulate in Dusseldorf, and requested, as the State department is mandated to do, a formal objection to human rights violations against Mark, an American citizen, by this German authority, the 21st Cologne Family Appeals Senat.
January 15, 2004: A constitutional court appeal on Rosana's behalf was filed in Germany.
January 16, 2004: The U.S. Consulate.s ethnic cleansing officer in Duesseldorf, MARION RAM, revealed she had been working closely with a right wing party boss, and professed supporter of German ethnic purity, on Rosana's case, and she had agreed that the United States government would assist the appeals court in carrying out human rights violations requested by this right-wing party boss, including the seizure of Mark.s passport
February 2, 2004: German border officials refused to participate in the illegal passport confiscation, and eventually, after steady pressure from Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Duesseldorf Consulate reluctantly wrote the court that they too could not participate in the human rights violation against Mark.
However, German-American national, Marion Ram, of the U.S. Consulate, was busy, helping the right-wing cause another way. She told both a judge, and a clerk in the appeals court that Mark was not welcome at the Consulate because the workers were afraid of him. She described Mark as "aggressive" and as "dangerous."
(Mark has never been to the consulate, never met with Marion Ram, her husband, or any of the workers at this consulate. He has communicated only with Marion Ram by e-mail, which was copied each time to Senator Murkowski.)
Having failed in their passport confiscation, the court sent an inflammatory untrue stigmatizing kidnap warning to the Frankfurt Airport border police.
Mark wrote Marion Ram.s supervisor, Consulate Knowles, filiong a complaint of Marion Ram.s behavior. He also asked whether he as an American, could come to the Consulate. Mr. Knowles, obedient to State Department, and Ambassador Coat.s policies, never responded. Ambassador Coats has made it very clear the U.S. embassy and consulates are in Germany only to serve the German interests, and not those of Americans who are victims of human rights violations by German officials. Right wing German party officials have easy access to the Consulates, but American parents do not.
March 4, 2004: Violations of the Appeals court order occurred almost immediately by the German party. The Appeals court refused to enforce their own order. They sent the case back to Judge Birgit Niepmann. Judge Niepmann is still under both criminal and administrative investigation for the criminal blackmail committed in 2001, as a result of the complaint filed by Mark.
April 4, 2004: Judge Niepmann refused to remove herself from the case, claiming she was not biased despite the charges against her from Mark, which remain open.
(Some dates since March may be incorrect. In violation of the court procedures, Mark has been entirely cut off from all court actions. This is entirely consistent with the level of corruption, unethical and criminal acts, which characterize the behavior of German Hague Family Judge Niepmann.)
(Judge Niepmann is trying to get a seat on the Cologne appeals court. This misconduct by her, proves she should fit right in there.)
May 6, 2004: A Judge Wippenhohn-Roetzheim enters the case..
May 15, 2004: From Rio de Janiero where Mark is defending Rosana.s basic rights in the Brazilian system, Mark sends an appeal to Judge Wippenhohn-Roetzheim, asking that Judge Niepmann be removed from the case for bias. Mark asks for a hearing to present evidence of criminal and unethical behavior by judge Niepmann, and the lies she wrote into her decision.
May 24, 2004: Judge Wippenhohn-Roetzheim responds. Consistent with Cologne German family court policy, she allows no hearing, evidence, or witnesses, for Mark because he is a foreigner. Obediently, and to protect her colleague, (The court president is now Judge Lauman) she writes that she sees no bias in a judge ruling in a case where one party (the foreigner) has filed a criminal complaint against the judge,and the case is still open.
June 2, 2004: Mark filed an appeal of judge Wippenhohn-Roetzheim.s decision to the appeals court.
June 10, 2004: Mark heads for Germany on his 64th trip since his daughter was abducted by her mother with the assistance of German officials.
June 12, 2004: Mark was forced to hire a lawyer to access his files. All parties are entitled to access to their files, but again the General prosecutor and the Appeals court violated the rules.
June 25, 2004: Mark was notified by the German parties that in August they would not obey the court order from the 21st Appeals Senat in Cologne. An emergency request was filed requesting the Senat enforce their own order.
July 6, 2004: Appeals court Judge FiegeVoorhoeve turned down the appeal of bias against Judge Niepmann, without even reading the appeal.
July 21, 2004: A second emergency petition was filed requesting that the 21st Senat enforce their own order giving Rosana the contact in August which the court had ordered. No response.
July 22, 2004: Lawyer Sabine Chrosciel reviewed the files looking for a memo with false accusations which reportedly had been placed in the file by an outside judge. Nothing was found. (THIS FALSE MEMO WAS LATER DISCOVERED IN 2005 AFTER THE FILE WENT TO THE GENERAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.)
July 19. 2004: Never having ever read the first petition, Judge FiegeVoorhoeve turned down a second request from Mark to present evidence of bias by Judge Niepmann.
August 25, 2004: In violation of the court order, Rosana was illegally removed from Germany, so she could not visit her foreign father, Mark, as ordered. Prior to the violation, the 21st Senat (specifically Judge FiegeVoorhoeve) had been served with no less than THREE emergency petitions, notifying the court that the violation was going to take place. No action by the court. No surprise.
August 28, 2004: Judge Bergmann issued a decision that the German parties had violated the order from the 21st Senat of the Appeals court. Further, she ruled that Rosana could not be separated from Mark on holidays. Judge Bergmann is unique in the Cologne system. She is NOT part of the 'Cologne Felt' which is the nickname for the layers of corrupt officials which operate in Cologne. (Judge Bergmann's correct decision was unilaterally ignored by subsequent courts.)
September 2004: Mark approached the 21st Senat regarding the violations of the Senat's court order by the German parties in the case. Through a secretary, Judges Goehler-Schlicht, and FiegeVoorhoese advised Mark to apply for the 1000 euro penallty against the German party. Judge FiegeVoorhoeve also recommended that Mark petition for jail time for Rosana's mother.
October 15, 2004: With the criminal investigation still open against her, Judge Birgit Niepmann returned to the case to handle Marks' petition for the 1000 euro fine, which the Appeals court judges had directed Mark to request. (Mark did NOT request any jail time for Rosana's mother.) However, Judge Niepmann ruled that Judge Bergmann was wrong, and the German parties had not violated the Appeals court order.
(Judge Niepmann was subsequently moved into the Cologne court administration to "cool off." She works directly for Judge Lauman, who is famous for his infamous statement in 2000, that the, "...court is not responsible to protect the people, but to protect the system itself,....even if it is corrupt." As noted previously, she is a party darling, known for her obedience to, and support of, the right wing party agendas. Such biased discriminatory actions are what have endeared her to her party, but they want her to have a little lower profile while the criminal case against her is still open.)
October 19, 2004: VICTORY! After nearly seven years of litigation by the German government, the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled that Rosana Joy Sug Wayson has the right to keep her full name.
December 2, 2004: Still another letter from Mark offering evidence was sent to Justice Minister Zypries in Berlin regarding the criminal acts by Judge Niepmann. Like all previous letters it remains unanswered.
December 25, 2004: In violation of the court order, Rosana was again cut off from Mark on Christmas day. As instructed, Mark went to Cologne, but the assigned judge for holiday emergencies never showed up for work.
2005
January 4, 2005: Lawyer Chrosciel filed a new Hague petition for Rosana's access to Mark required by law and international treaty. The Treaty calls for resolution of such cases within six weeks.
January 2005: A Judge Rohde was assigned the Hague case. He works under Niepmann, and therefore did absolutely nothing, ignoring the law and the time requirements.
January 12, 2005: Unbelievably the 21st Senat turned down Mark's appeal of the denial of his application for penalty fees to be paid by the German parties. This was despite the fact that this very Senat had directed Mark to apply! (The cost of all these procedures are staggering. The German family courts rely upon destroying foreign parents financially. Therefore, the recommendation by Judges Goehler-Schlicht and FiegeVoorhoeve in September, may have been just another trick to cause Mark expenses.)
February 11, 2005: A petition for penalty money for the Christmas 2004 violation of the court order was filed and assigned to Judge Rhode.
February 27, 2005: With a witness present, Mark met with Judge Rhode, since more than the required six weeks have passed since the Hague petition was to be answered.
Judge Rhode had already made a decision, but was too cowardly to tell Mark this.
He did acknowledge that contact with Mark was one of Rosana's basic rights.
He then stated he was ignorant whether there was a "waiting period" before anyone was entitled to their rights.
Judge Rhode admitted that this was a Hague case.
He admitted that contact with Mark posed no danger to Rosana.
(Judge Rhode is fundamentally dishonest and lazy. Unknown to Mark at the time of the conversation, Judge Rhode had already dodged his duties and sent the case to Gummersbach where there is no Hague court. )
When questioned about the new 1000 euro penalty case also before him, Judge Rhode suggested he would not 'risk his career' with this case.
March 1, 2005: German Justice Minister, Zypries was sent an affidavit evidence regarding the criminal case against Judge Birgit Niepmann. (To date no response.)
March 15, 2005: Upon learning of the secret false accusations placed in the file by Judge Christian Schmitz-Justen, lawyer Sabine Chrosciel began a written dialogue to try to establish why the judge had falsified the document and placed it in Mark's file. Mark had not been in Germany at the time Schmitz-Justen claims he met with Mark, and had in fact never even been in the building where Schmitz-Justen claimed the meeting took place. In corresponding with lawyer Chrosciel, Judge Schmitz-Justen exposed himself as a complete liar. A copy of this exchange was sent to the German Appeals court which is considering an appeal by Mark.
March 17, 2005: The 21st Senat took over Rosana's case from Judge Rhode.
March 2005: The 21st Senat refused to act upon an emergency request which would have entitled Rosana the access to Mark which the 21sr Senat had itself ordered. 'Judges needing vacation time' was the reason given for the procedural failure.
April 2005: Rosana again missed the contact with Mark which had been ordered for her by the 21st Senat. The 21st Senat, predictably, did absolutely NOTHING! The very court designated to protect her, instead continue to trample Rosana's basic rights)
May 15, 2005: Mark wrote the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt requesting the records upon learning that the Consulate had illegally (in violation of the 1980 Convention on the Rights of the Child) taken Rosana's American passport in 1998 at the German party's request. Mark requested the record of the illegal seizure. Strangely the German Central Authority had included the seizure as relevant in a false child support claim which they had filed in Alaska for the German party.
June 2, 2005: A hearing was held by the 21st Senat. Despite promises that she would allow Mark to speak, Judge Goehler-Schlicht refused to permit Mark to speak further when he requested that the false record from Konrad Hacker, submitted to the appeals court in march 2003, be corrected.. Konrad Hacker had announced and carried out human rights violations in Judge Maiworm's Gummersbach court. In the Appeals court, Konrad Hacker stated that Mark had committed the violations. Despite OVERWHELMING evidence from German and Brazilian courts that Hacker was lying again, Judge Goehler-Schlicht herself has entered into the record that Mark, the foreigner, rather than Hacker, the self-professed 'party boss' had carried out the horrible human rights violations against Rosana.
June 2, 2005: Rosana was forced to state that she did not want her legal names used any longer. Rosana has been under unbelievable pressure from the courts and other right-wing Authorities like 'Guardian ad litem' Anne Plache-Schmidbauer, to give up her basic rights. However, Rosana has told Mark privately that she is proud of her 'Wayson' name, and she is very proud to be a Brazilian.
(The Nordrhein-Westfalia German courts, the German authorities, and certainly a Guardian ad litem like Anne Plache-Schmidbauer, wouldn't dare carry out such basic rights violations against a Jewish or Israeli child. Nevertheless, with the growing anti-Semitism in Europe, one has to question with suspicion, why such violations are being openly carried out by these same authorities upon gentile part-German children?
Equally disturbing is that apparently everything is 'For Sale' by the United States, including our children. The failure of the American Ambassador, Daniel Coats, or any Secretary of State, to respond to the human rights crimes against an American child, carried out by Christian Caucasian, economically important Germany raises other serious questions about how 'safe' we are from our own government.)
July 1, 2005: U.S. Consulate employee Daniel Dannach responded to Mark's request for records with a completely useless bit of consulate prattle. Mark wrote back, and Dannach subsequently refused to respond, to the request, instead referring Mark to a useless website put up by the U.S. State department. Obviously this is the Consulate's first step in protecting his colleague(s) boss(es) from inquiry or action against them for their violation of Rosana's rights in 1998.
July 18, 2005: Appeals court president, Judge Johannes Riedel responded to Mark's request that some action be taken against Judge Christian Schmitz-Justen. He responded that it didn't matter if the claim was false. He made it clear that German judges have the right under Article 97 of the German constitution to do whatever they wish, including falsifying documents, lying, and committing crimes against children and other individuals.
October 20, 2005: Mark sent still another written request to Justice Minister Zypries to continue with the administrative investigation into the 2001 criminal behavior of Judge Birgit Niepmann. Mark also sent a request to General prosecutor Linden, to stop stalling with the criminal investigation into the 'illegal urging' committed in court by Judge Niepmann.
October 25, 2005: Dr. Linden has been the General Prosecutor since 2002. No less than three of his colleagues/deputies have retired without taking the correct actions on the case against Niepmann. On Oct 25, a "Mr. Prohl" sent a letter to Mark, stating the Mark's complaint had been turned over to Appeals court president Johannes Riedel,...........the same individual who just completed a 'Cover-up' of misconduct by Judge Christian Schmitz-Justen.
November 2, 2005: Mark was advised that the German Central Authority has solicited a second Affidavit from the German party in the Child Support case which has been sent to Alaska. The first affidavit, filed in October of 2004, was not notarized until march of 2005. Nevertheless, a Judge Schmidt, the court president there, acted upon the affidavit in December of 2004, three months BEFORE it was notarized.
Proof was provided that the 'order' from Judge Schmidt was not an 'order', proof was provided that the affidavit by the German party was false, and the misconduct of Judge Schmidt was reported to the German Central Authority. Their response is typical. Rather than take any action against a 'German party' they have simply requested a new Affidavit.
December 5, 2005: Lawyer Sabine Chrosciel filed an age appropriate Hague petition with the Hague court in Cologne.
December 25, 2005: Rosana was separated from Mark for the tenth consecutive Christmas. It is illegal, and Cologne Hague Judge Bergmann, a rare honest judge, had ordered that Rosana be with her father on holidays and vacations. This order was ignored by the 21st Appeals court, which uses the separation of the child from the foreign parent on all holidays, birthdays, and vacations, as an important and effective brainwashing tool.
2006
January 2006: Hague Judge Rhoeda, working under Judge Niepmann, has refused to implement previous court orders. Eventually he improperly sent Rosana's Hague petition to the local court in Gummersbach.
January 24, 2006: Judge Maiworm withdrew from the case, citing the lack of expertise in the local court. (Correct for once)
An appeal was filed because sending a human rights case to Gummersbach is without any legal precedent.
March 23, 2006: Demonstrating their contempt both for Mark and Rosans's basic rights, and the law, the 21st Appeals court ordered the Hague petition be decided by Judge Maiworm in Gummersbach.
April 6, 2006: Judge Maiworm withdrew from the case for reasons of prejudice against Mark. (German pdf document - also found on Deutsche Seiten page )
April 10, 2006: Rosana turned twelve years old. Mark was there from March 23, until April 19, but the Fourth Reich courts again refused to provide Rosana any access to her father on her birthday, for the 9th straight year, nor any contact during Mark's stay in Germany.
May 22, 2006: Mark left for Germany on his 79th overseas trip since Rosana was abducted to Germany from Brazil.
May 30, 2006: A meaningless bogus hearing is scheduled in Gummersbach for a non-Hague judge to rule upon a Hague petition. It is completely invalid with no legal precedent, but no surprise in the German court system. Judge Jaeger will hold the hearing. He is the 27th judge, aside from the justices in the constitutional court, to have some legal or illegal involvement in Rosana's case, since her abduction to Germany.
May 30, 2006: Judge Jaeger of Gummersbach violated the correct procedures and conducted a hearing he is not authorized to conduct. Judges often operate well outside the law in Germany.
May 31, 2006: A petty official from the Central Authority knowingly incorrectly informs Alaska that Mark has no Hague case. The Central Authority was the agency which filed the Hague case, but this international Treaty gives both Mark and Rosana rights which the Fourth Reich is now eager to eliminate. The German Central Authority also supplied the false information to carry out a criminal fraud case, in trying to extort multiple child support payments.
May 31, 2006: This same petty official, Herr BAEYENS, wrote a letter to Mark's lawyer which is substantially different from the Alaska letter. This official relies upon the lack of german-speaking officials in Alaska, to falsify documents, and mislead Alaskan officials, but he can't fool a German lawyer.
June 9, 2006: The Cologne 21st Appeals Court had ordered that Rosana's vacation time be split. Mark had requested the first half and sent a travel confirmation which was given to Judge Jaeger. Judge Jaeger made his decision but did not release it.
June 22, 2006: Judge Jaeger waited until he knew Mark was airborne to Germany, and could not change his travel plans before releasing his decision. Judge Jaeger 'split' the vacation by giving Mark a few days spread out through the summer, he knew would be impossible to meet because of other previously announced commitments, and the cost prohibitive multiple trips to Germany.
July 18, 2006: When questioned about the role of the German Central Authority in the fraudulent attempt to collect child support money simultaneously in two countries, BAEYENS from the German Central Authority made the bizarre claim that hr could not answer because all his communications with the German party, have to go through the court in Gummersbach .
August 12, 2006: Rosana's human rights lawyer in Brazil marries. Rosana is invited, but not allowed to attend.
September 14, 2006: German Central Authority official, BAEYENS, makes the announcement to Mark's German lawyer, that he can't send the responses of the German party to her until those responses are translated into ENGLISH ! BAEYENS is an eager and obedient liar, but often too stupid to remember to whom he is lying.
September 15, 2006: The Cologne 26 Appeals Court, which is also NOT a Hague court, hears an appeal of Judge Jaeger's May 30 decision on a Hague case, as a non-Hague judge. The 26th Court ignores the law, the German constitution, and obediently rules along the party agenda to do whatever is necessary to separate Rosana from Mark, her non-German parent.
September 15, 2006: Presiding judge Andreas Zingsheim, did admit in the hearing that no civilized country other than Germany would leave a child in the custody of a parent committing human rights violations against their own child. He also acknowledged that guardian ad litem, Anne Plache-Schmidbauer of the right wing law firm, Dieter & Plache-Schmidbauer, was lying, but Judge Zingsheim and the 26th Appeals Court lack the civil courage to protect Rosana by removing such a dangerous liar from the case, or to protect Rosana by changing custody.
September 19, 2006: Judge Maiworm (the Gummersbach judge who used his family court in 1999 to arrange Rosana's 'Germanization') suddenly declared he was no longer biased. Maiworm's formal court decision earlier this year that he IS biased against Mark is posted in German on the 'Deutsche Seiten' of this site. Obedient, subservient to the party, Judge Maiworm has apparently been directed by the party to take some action in the case, which outweighs any ethical standards theoretically in place in the Fourth Reich Justice system. .
October 6, 2006: The 26th Appeals Court issued an opinion which would provide day visits ONLY between Mark and Rosana over the next two years. The travel costs alone would be more than $60,000.00. The court pretended that Rosana had voluntarily made the list of dates. Two days later she couldn't recall one of those dates. Rosana had been forced to write out a list and experts agree that there is no better evidence of ethnic cleansing than such a document prepared by a victim like Rosana.
October 10, 2006: This offer was rejected because multiple experts agreed that this would not be in Rosana's best interests.
October 15, 2006: Mark in Alaska, learned of this decision and faxed an immediate request for reconsideration, and a request to prepare an adequate and complete 'Protokoll.' (This is the official record. )
October 16, 2006: The 26th Appeals court responded immediately to Mark's lawyer, asking if Mark was filing a petition.
October 20, 2006: Gummersbach Judge Schoellman found that Judge Maiworm is NOT biased, despite Maiworms' formal court decision that he is biased.
October 23, 2006: Mark formalized his petition requesting an accurate record and adherence to the law by the appeals court. The 26th Appeals Court then stalled well into November in order for Mark's appeal time to run, before stating they would NOT make an accurate record, and would NOT follow the law. The 26th Appeals court signaled they too would participate in the ethnic cleansing by falsifying the proceedings with an incomplete sanitized official record.
November 9, 2006: Judge Schmitz-Justen set up a hearing regarding the obstruction of Rosana's child support. He was careful to wait until he knows Mark won't be in Germany and could be called as a witness to implicate BAEYENS in the subordination of perjury which he committed in July 2006, in order to create a false record that someone else other than he was obstructing Rosana's child support monies.
November 13, 2006: It was learned that on this date the German constitutional Court, had accepted a petition regarding the 26th Senat’s refusal to provide Rosana access to her father and family beyond Dec. 31, 2006.
November 15, 2006: Mark is notified that the Cologne 26th Appeals court will NOT correct the record, and will NOT protect Rosana's basic rights in Germany.
November 16, 2006: Judge Schoellman from Gummersbach, apparently ruling along strict party lines, formalized her decision that Judge Maiworm, was ‘not biased’ even though Judge Maiworm himself had formally and repeatedly declared his bias in court.
November 24, 2006: This decision by Judge Schoellman of Gummersbach was so outrageous, that even a timid German press might report it, so an appeals court overturned the Schoellman decision. Judge Jaeger was assigned Rosana’s case.
December 23, 2006: Mark saw Rosana for the last time. (As of July 2007)
2007
February 19, 2007: The German Supreme Court issued a directive that both Rosana’s and Mark’s basic rights be restored according to law. The directive was intended to reduce Mark’s costs which average out to hundreds of dollars per hour for time with Rosana, and to establish some civilized contact for Rosana.
February 23, 2007: Judge Jaeger held a Hague Treaty hearing in Gummersbach. He is not authorized. Jaeger is not trained or authorized to hold such a hearing under the international Treaty. He is therefore little different from Judge Maiworm. (Jaeger was unaware of the Supreme Court decision at the hearing.) He said he would issue a decision in March.
March 01, 2007: Mark faxed Judge Jaeger requesting a faster decision. A favorite trick against foreigners by the courts, is to so delay decisions that by the time they are issued, the access ordered is past or nearly past, making appeal impossible. By putting off the chance for appeal, the foreign parent is forced to return to the same endless circle in the local courts, which repeat the same offenses over and over and over.
EVENTUALLY GERMANY ALWAYS LOSES THESE CASES IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF THESE AND OTHER TACTICS, BUT THEY SIMPLY PAY A FEW THOUSAND EUROS IN FINES. AND THEY DON’T CARE. THE VICTIM CHILD IS OFTEN AN ADULT BEFORE THE E.C.H.R. MAKES THEIR DECISION. THE FOCUS OF THE GUMMERSBACH COURT AND COLOGNE FAMILY COURTS IS TO RESTORE A WHITE GERMAN POPULATION BASE, THROUGH JUDICIAL ETHNIC CLEANSING.
March 09, 2007: Receiving no response, Mark again faxed judge Jaeger, reminding him that in 2006, he had waited until Mark was actually airborne to Germany, before issuing a decision requiring a change of plans which was both practically and financially impossible. Jaeger never answered. Foreigners have virtually no rights in a German family court.
March 16, 2007: Having learned of the Supreme Court decision, Judge Jaeger then wrote a very flowery decision suggesting he was following the Supreme Court directive, but later refused to enforce his own decision.
March 27, 2007: Judge Jaeger was formally informed in writing that Rosana would not be available to her father, despite the Supreme court’s order. Jaeger did nothing.
March 30, 2007: Judge Jaeger received a petition that he enforce the order which he had issued. (He never did.)
April 10, 2007: Rosana turned 13 years old. The German courts now have a record of separating Rosana from her foreign father and family, on every birthday, every Christmas, every vacation and every holiday, for ten straight years! Alienation through the courts is critical tool in their ethnic cleansing program.
April 12, 2007: Based upon both the Supreme Court decision and the anticipation that possibly this time the courts would enforce their own orders, Mark traveled to Germany from Alaska and went to pick up Rosana for an overnight visit. She never appeared.
April 13, 2007: Mark returned to Rosana’s German address again, since there was a possibility of a misunderstanding on the previous day. Rosana never appeared.
March-April 2007: Approximately at the end of March, Judge Jaeger was contacted and informed that a weekend in May for which he had also ordered access, conflicted with a wedding in California to which both Mark and Rosana had been invited. Jaeger apologized for the conflict, and directed Mark’s lawyer to request an alternate weekend which he would grant.
April 17, 2007: Mark’s lawyer filed the petition for a weekend in May, which Judge Jaeger had directed her to file, and which he said he would grant.
April 19, 2007: In Alaska Based upon Judge Jaeger’s assertion that he would grant the weekend in May, Mark purchased a plane ticket for Germany to meet Rosana for a long weekend of May 16th through May 20th.
April 19, 2007: An appeal by the German party of the order which had already been disobeyed was filed by the German party, and the appeals court incredibly accepted it, but violating rules and accepted procedures on behalf of the German party is a regular practice of the German courts.
May 8, 2007: Upon learning of the German party’s appeal, Judge Jaeger bailed out of the case, despite there being no legal precedent for doing so. It was speculated that the party official, or appeals court administrator (who could well be one and the same individual) ordered Jaeger to drop the case in order to create further delay.
May 11, 2007: Mark’s attorney reminded the appeals court of the travel requirements and requested expediency in the decision.
May 15, 2007: Mark was forced to again absorb the pre-paid costs of the trip to Germany, since Jaeger had scurried out of the case, and the Appeals court continued to stall.
May 22, 2007: Mark’s attorney again petitioned the appeals court for urgency.
May 25, 2007: The 26th Senat of the Cologne Appeals court issued their decision, granting Rosana access with Mark on June 21st,…however the court waited until,…
June 15, 2007: .... a Friday, to mail their decision, knowing that it would not reach Mark’s lawyer until Monday, June 18, 2007, which made it impossible for anyone to reserve and accomplish travel to Germany from Northern Alaska, in time to meet Rosana on June 21, 2007.
June 22, 2007: Mark’s lawyer was notified that Rosana would not be available for the rest of the summer, and no availability was projected for the rest of the year. If the German courts can manage one complete year of no contact with Rosana before she turns 16, then the German courts can cause the Hague International Treaty to no longer be valid.
July 14, 2007: Mark filed an unusual appeal with the German Supreme Court, asking them to enforce their decision of February 19, 2007, even though they are charged with deciding constitutional issues, rather than managing individual cases.
Correction: The June 22, 2007 entry above is incorrect. Since Rosana had a Hague access case, a year’s separation will not invalidate implementation of the Treaty.
July 19, 2007: A clerk with the constitutional court returned Marks’ petition because it was too late. Petition was not late and considerable time and expense were involved in proving eventually that the petition had been filed on time.
(Germany only allows 30 days for an appeal to be filed, even when it is for a constitutional violation. This short time limit and the costs involved, eliminate most complaints, especially for foreign parents living outside Germany. It is ONLY because Mark has received timely ongoing translations and assistance from several decent real Germans over the last ten years, that he has been able to meet numerous appeal deadlines from Alaska.)
Sept. 5, 2007: The German constitutional court ruled then that it made no difference whether it was late or not, but they refused to enforce their decision of 2-19-07, which essentially ordered the lower courts to stop their ethnic cleansing of Rosana. The court offered no reasoning, but one expert speculated that this highest court has been openly disobeyed by the lower courts in the Goerguelue case, and is therefore afraid of exposing themselves to further loss of credibility until that case is completely settled.
Nov. 28, 2007: Mark went to Germany to collect documents to file a case on Rosana’s behalf with the European court of Human rights. This must be filed by March 5, 2008.
2008
Jan. 14, 2008: A petition to the European Court of Human Rights petitioning restoration of family and basic rights for Rosana and Mark was sent to the court in Strasbourg France.
|
