This may be a first, actually. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has the story.
If you have been following the issue, international child abduction is a big issue between Japan and America at the moment–Japan and several countries, actually. Japan’s lobbyists in Washington were unable to shut down congressional inquiry into the topic, and Representative Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) made it a big issue. There are estimated to be about 170 American children being held in Japan–usually by the other, Japanese, parent, but sometimes by a more distant member of the child’s Japanese-side family.
The whole trouble really is that Japan does not recognize joint custody. So what happens is the Japanese parent, who is either non-custodial or joint custodial, decides to make off with the child back to Japan. This is kidnapping. The Japanese government knows that we consider it to be kidnapping, but the runners of that country have played their usual games when it comes to the rights of foreign people.
Some readers and other commenters want me to point out that the problem of child custody also affects parents inside Japan–who may or may not be Japanese. They feel that the focus on this issue has been too much on the international aspect, and not the simple fact that sole custody is arguably a rule of law that should have been pushed away long ago, instead of pushing one of the two parents away. They feel that efforts should be made to persuade the runners of Japan to put in place a more enlightened, 21st century rule.
This whole debate has been long and drawn out, much like World War II was after Midway. I think both the group advocating for international standards has a point, and those within Japan seeking internal reform also make valid points. I know that the two groups have experienced some tension, and fortunately I didn’t get caught in the cyber-crossfire as tends to happen with people who blog on Japan-side expat topics. I also know that it’s really apples and oranges, even though it’s kids at the heart of it. Domestic Japan could still reform its laws, and then simply give them lax application when it comes to foreigners. I think anyone knowing how the people who run Japan can be, know that that is quite a possibility. (Not a certainty, but a strong possibility.)
So the pressure from America should really continue until all the kidnapped children can come home for the holidays . . .
[Update 12/24/11: From what I read on Tony DelVecchio’s site, the girl coming back to Wisconsin is the first American child released by Japan– since 1945, I would gather.]
[Update 12/24/11 Number #2: The Harper’s article that is a link above was the one about efforts to get the U.S. Congress to support justice for the “Comfort Women” during 2006. A lobbying firm basically shut that effort down. The key paragraph you need to know is this one:
Japan has always been able to block attempts to pass a congressional resolution on the exploitation of comfort women, partly because it runs a lavishly-funded Beltway lobbying operation. The Bush Administration has quietly assisted in attempts to block a resolution on comfort women. According to Mindy Kotler, the director of Asia Policy Point, a research center on Japan and northeast Asia, the Administration views Japan as the key regional bulwark against an emerging Chinese regime that may be hostile to the United States in the future. “The administration wants Japan to be a central part of America’s Asian security architecture—above Australia, India, and the British Navy,” she said. “Any issue that the Japanese have defined as disturbing has been shunted aside to ensure that nothing upsets the alliance with Japan—and I mean nothing, whether it’s a trade dispute or taking responsibility for the comfort women.”
]
[Update 1/2/12: Among those 100+ comments below, which are, at first, pot shots among the various Left Behind Parent faction activists, and, then, maybe some more serious and worthwhile comments, someone asked me if I had, basically, just come to observe this issue last week. Well, no. In fact, I had commentary about it in late 2009, here:
That one was already my fourth post on Savoie v. Savoie. And, as you can see, I am 80%-20% on that one. I am basically saying the same thing then as I do now, in 2012.]
[Update 1/2/12 #2: By the way, that part about not being the crossfire of the back and forth between the two factions is obviously a stale comment at this point.]
Hoofin 
You are correct Hoofin…its apples and oranges. And the whole thing is emotionally charged.
The conflict comes between the groups from a few parents try to confuse the real differences in their cases and the rest of the cases. They try to lump all of us into one basket…which we are not …legally. They also play fast and loose with the words…. abduction, kidnapping, etc…
Really there are 3 kinds of groups. There are good solid ex-pats living in Japan who have found themselves in this situation, who take responsibility for their decisions and actions that placed their children under Japanese jurisdiction-laws-customs-traditions, and genuinely want to affect change within Japan. Then there are parents like myself who are living outside of Japan (all my life in the U.S.) , and took every possible precaution under our laws-customs-traditions, to ensure that our kids don’t become subjects of Japanese laws customs traditions ..and most importantly-jurisdiction…who want our government to enforce that decision and protections in spite of the Japanese truculence on this issue.
And then the third group is the ones who are trying to confuse the facts and differences between the legal foundations in each individual case. They do this by demanding that the (U.S.) govt grant them an exception to the laws-customs-traditions-and jurisdiction that they themselves submitted to voluntarily, and have acquiesced to. (which by the way is exactly what the Japanese abductors are doing with their govt).
You stated in bold…”this is kidnapping”
The question I would like to hear you answer is….. is it really “kidnapping” when the Japanese govt doesn’t have any legal prohibition against it, and it takes place on Japanese soil?
Thanks,
Patrick Braden
Patrick, let me be clear first about how I am using the word. When the parent who doesn’t have custody, or only has joint custody, takes the child outside of America, it is kidnapping.
That’s not me. That’s Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001204—-000-.html
Arguably, it is also kidnapping when it is an American minor whom the Japanese non-custodial parent won’t let the other parent visit. You are correct, though, that if the Japanese government denies custody to the one parent (usually the father), the Japanese don’t see this as any sort of parental abduction. I am not certain, but I believe this was the fact pattern with Commander Paul Toland. He trusted the people who told him to trust in the Japanese system—when, in fact, Washington State would have had jurisdiction and probably would have granted him at least joint custody. [Update: Now it is clear from the material Patrick Braden offered in the subsequent comment, that the reason Commander Toland couldn’t avail himself of Washington State was because Mrs. Toland began a Japan action and proceeded with it, where, for some reason, Cmdr. Toland delayed perfecting the Washington State action.)
I appreciate that there is a big dispute going on within the Left Behind community. I really want to stay out of that dispute, and simply focus on the instances where American law applies and the Japanese are foiling that law. I recognize that there are other instances where the Japanese law alone might apply, and it gives a result that is hurtful to both Americans and to Japanese non-custodial parents.
Patrick B.
I disagree with you interpretation of the facts. Japan has told the lie of it “not being illegal” so many times, that everyone seems to believe it. It is illegal, but by coming it is not, Japan staves off a flood of extradition requests.
It *IS* illegal in Japan…. the Japanese Government is just not honoring their own laws and constitution. In addition, certain *Japanese* factions are trying to confuse the two issues. Trying to use the excuse of protecting Japanese mothers fleeing *allegedly abusive* foreign fathers as justification for not reforming the entrenched bureaucracy of the Japanese courts to match the law.
The Japanese constitution clearly states that foreign treaties are to be honored — see article 98: 2) The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of
nations shall be faithfully observed.
Japan has signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Children (ratified in 1994), which clearly states in Article 11:
1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.
2. To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements.
The UNCRC further covers, in numerous articles, the various rights of child-parent interaction. It even covers cases with parents living in separate countries – no matter where the child was born, the divorce occurred, etc.
And even states in Article 10:
2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis.
So, simply put…
Japan is violating it’s own constitution by not honoring its treaties and international HR obligations — this is very different than claiming it is “not illegal.”
As we all know, even if Japan signed the Hague tomorrow, it is not retroactive. That combined with Japan’s track record for ignoring treaties, does leave much hope for existing, and even future, cases.
Therefore, the types of cases are “legally related”. As the legal basis for the resolution for both domestic Japan and international abductions cases, is largely dependent on getting Japan to uphold it’s own constitution and the related international treaties that Japan has already signed – such as the UNCRC. In addition, the Japanese “institutional resistance” to both types is rooted in the same misguided organizational psychoses.
Frankly, all the “in-fighting” between the different parent organizations is just counter productive. Rather than tossing stones around, I would suggest that a more productive route would be for the various groups to find common ground on which to come together.
I noticed you said “allegedly abusive”[,] McPike. So you have to think about it from their side a little bit and I want you to try to be honest. What would you say to the Japanese people who are debating the Hague in Japan right now, if they pulled out a LA Police Polaroid photograph from about 2003 or so, from a case where the photograph is all anyone needs to see. But for arguments sake, lets say they could even can show a deposition of the apartment manager who witnessed numerous abusive acts against this 85lb Japanese woman by the perpetrator named?
How do you respond?
I would respond in the following ways:
1) “allegedly abusive” because:
a) until someone is proven guilty, it is common to assume they are innocent – hence “allegedly”
b) since I have actually live in Japan (which I believe you stated you never have), I have a reasonable understanding of how the Japanese system works. DV claims are easy to make, and generally excepted by Japanese courts despite any proof.
c) Also, the Japanese system doesn’t have a “no fault” divorce system, so a reason must be given and DV is a valid reason to give, generally without having to provide proof
d) Socially, it is easier (e.g. less shameful) for a Japanese wife to falsely claim “abuse” vs. the more often true “thing just didn’t work out”, where she might have to take some responsibility.
e) How does it apply to the many cases of children taken away from mothers?
f ) One Japanese wife I personally knew, tried to claim that her husband expecting her to keep promises was “DV”. To me this further demonstrates that many of these DV claims are out of touch with common sense.
g) Japanese attorneys that I have spoken with, have admitted to me that false DV claims are not at all uncommon in Japan; and even easier to make against foreigners.
h) By claiming abuse (legit or not), single mothers with children will receive extra benefits from the Japanese governments.
2) Your child was abducted… were you physically abusive? If not, you help prove my point. If so.. well then, I don’t know what to tell you – get help. Anyhow, this is a generally baseless argument leveled against foreign parents. In cases where DV is real then they should be addressed appropriately – but again, those are a small percentage.
3) Laws exist to attempt to ensure that “justice” is practiced, rather than the convenience of popular, if misinformed, opinion. Japan essentially functions in reverse, allowing popular, if misinformed, opinions to override the law.
4) Like most people with weak positions, you completely ignore that key points of my argument and latched onto a something silly that you thought you can use as a wedge. Mainly, you ignored the fact that what Japan is doing in action, directly violates the UNCRC and therefore the Japanese constitution. Why don’t you respond to that point? Or the actual substance of any of my other comments?
5) I suggest that you consider taking a class in logic. I mean this to be helpful, not derogatory. We folks tend to let emotional attachment to a position rule, and don’t have enough training in logic to either properly defend it, or realize that their emotions have tricked them into taking a faulty position.
I’m perfectly willing to have my positions proven faulty and be swayed, but that is only going to happen if someone logically refutes them and/or logically demonstrate a better position. Ad-hominem attacks and childish rebukes won’t do it for me.
I am really interested in that United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child reference. It sounds like a type of unenforceable, “feel good” legislation that the ratifying countries ignore. Are there persuasive arguments that come out of Japan’s having signed it?
It is not merely that Japan signed it… It is that Japanese constitution specifically states (article 98) “The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of
nations shall be faithfully observed.” I’m not a constitutional expert, but my understanding is that the Japanese constitution is somewhat unique in this regard. But since they signed it, they must “faithfully observe” it, or else they are violating their own constitution — which is what is happening.
I discussed this with a Japanese law professor, who basically concurred that Japan was likely out of line constitutionally.
You Know… Its funny. I guess McPike didnt read what I wrote, or just didnt want to answer it. Like I said, its a West Los Angeles Police photo of a girl who was badly beaten around 2003, and there is a deposition also, and Police reports. So that being the case, is it really just “alleged” physical abuse? What about once the Japanese folks who are debating the Hague, have it in their hands? You defined your requirements as… “without proof” … isn’t an actual photo and a deposition going to be proof enough for them? Regardless of what any Japanese attorneys say to you, about allegations in Japan, that’s not what I was asking, and it’s not relevant to the scenario presented. Then there are the vicious statements infused here and there in your “response” . “were you physically abusive?…..I don’t know what to tell you – get help.”-where does that come from? That three years of logic class seems to have trailed out onto some distant branch here…and I guess in your mind it also seemed like a good time to take a few swipes at me… I guess. Maybe 4 of them at a time would be the way it was taught in your class? 1) “were you physically abusive? – get help.”2) “Like most people with weak positions, you completely ignore,.. “3) “you…latched onto a something silly” 4) “I suggest that you consider taking a class in logic” Those 4 insults would be labeled “attacks” if one was in that highly accredited and esteemed organization known as bachole. But those attempts at subtle insults actually look like childish rebukes to me. Which of course when someone else proffers them, they just wont do it for you Right? Thats what you said anyway….there is some disconnect here in your logic. Did you have to pay for those classes?
I’ll use a little simpler logic here…..So lets address the strategy now. I asked that question about what would you say….to see if you could put 2 and 2 together, and propose something constructive. There are ACTUAL abuse cases. Documented by photos, depositions of witnesses, and law enforcement, and the victims just might even talk about it to the GOJ or the USG too. Think about it, the LAPD are under the DOJ. (even you said there are a small percentage McPike) Now. Here’s the big strategy question for you; How do you propose to address those cases where there is evidence of abuse by the western father, as the Japanese have been saying for over a year now?
And just to be clear to help you focus on a logical answer, I am not asking about the UNCRC, not the Japanese Constitution, not talking about what some attorneys say, not talking about emotional attachment, not talking about what your logic requirements are for being swayed or proven faulty…. I am just asking about how to respond to the actual existing documented abuse cases?…like the one described.
Try to color in-between the lines on this one.
Hey Hoofin, because you seem interested in the UNCRC….let me take you to the short version of the cliff notes on my opinion here. The U.S. would never ….ever sign the UNCRC ……and if Susan Rice does push to get is signed while she is Obama’s delegate, as she said during their election campaign back in 2009, it will be risking a lot for every American child. I don’t think that she could ever be successful in that endeavor with American people. If by some slim margin of political trickery it were to happen and the U.S, were to sign…we will without a doubt, see a U.S constitutional amendment on the subject.
It sounds like one of those things that gets treated like the metric system. If the general public knew more about it, they would be very much in favor. The treaty’s problem is that it has to get through the Senate. Maddow found an interesting quote on Twitter about how the Senate filibusters virtually everything now. I wish I could find it.
Hey I found some old postings I sent out to parents around the New Years holiday in 2007/2008 …4 years ago now. I thought Hoofin may like to see where I was on the issue when I was the only person lobbying in Washington… For over 2 and 1/2 years, I showed up in those Congressional hallways, at the DOS, at Think Tanks, and Law Conferences in DC and worked long days lobbying alone. Even left behind parents in Virginia and living near DC scoffed at my time spent working up there, but of course they got de-briefings anyway. Over 100 days each year….for almost 6 years now…and Last year (in 2011), I logged 129 days there. Except for one day (June 12 2008) when I invited two people to a hearing that the Chairman invited me to, and one other day in 2006…I worked alone because no-one believed anything could be done, and no-one else would bother to show up, much less pay for the plane tickets and Hotel bills….Today, there is hope for every parent because I laid a foundation so wide and so strong, nothing can happen to it. So if I am a little protective of it, I paid my dues….. all the while people like Toland scoffed. Make no mistake, trying to confuse the clean clear facts of straightforward cases with [supposedly] controversial
and abusivecases is the intent of Toland and Savoie, and raising the tide for all ships has always been my goal.————————————————————————————————
Published November 1 2007— The new Japanese Prime Minister will be coming to Washington to meet with George Bush . We would like to ask for everyone who can possibly come and support our efforts in person , to come and spend a few days in Washington . There plenty of other things to do there aside from our planned activities and it is a beautiful city . We can steer you towards several other things to do that will be helpful to our common goals , and will give you new insights into how things work between the 2 Governments. But primarily , we need your support for our main events. The meeting between Pres Bush and PM Fukuda will be taking place November 15th . Please take a few days and come to Washington with us and support our cause . You can contact me here , or call me directly by phone for more details .
Thanks,
Patrick Braden
————————————————————————————————–
Published November 7th 2007—- edited for space here…This dynamic sort of sets up Japan as the linchpin to US and world security in Asia .
Japan has continued to hold the US and other world governments hostage, over their position on the NK abduction issue .
All the while they completely refuse to acknowledge all of the American and foreign children illegally kidnapped to , or held in forced separation from their American parents in Japan.
Japan used to stand silent , and try to just wait it out and hope the issue went away . The good news is that now , with the political popularity raised in Japan over their firm stance against NK , virtually every single (Japanese) politician has gone on the record denouncing abductions and kidnapping . In fact , Shinzo Abe tried to make abduction an act of terrorism . The overwhelming response of the Japanese people is proof that even Japanese people do not believe that abduction or kidnapping is acceptable in a global society today . Do NOT let anyone tell you “it is a cultural thing” …. or “that’s the way we handle divorce and child custody in Japan” …. the Japanese people can speak for themselves , and none of them believe that parental abduction or kidnapping is acceptable as a societal norm .
Call your Congressman and Senators and tell them that every time a Japanese comes in to their office to lobby the NK abduction issue , they can respond by addressing the Japanese abduction of our children . And until Japan resolves THAT issue …to OUR satisfaction , we don’t need to give them anything . Especially not control to our security in Asia.
You can listen to the C-SPAN Washington Journal from early this morning where I called in to explain the truth about this resolution , to the powers that listen to the show in Washington . I stumbled thru it a little bit with the delayed echo in my ear from the broadcast, but I got the message across . They had Rep Ed Royce on earlier , he is one of the co-sponsors of HR 3650 . The call-in happened about 1hr 42 minutes in to the program if you want to hear it .
I recommend everyone call-in to the Washington Journal program and think of a way to link their topic to our issue , and speak the truth to the power in Washington.
Please join us in actively pursuing a real resolution to Japanese abduction of American children. NOW!
Sincerely ,
Patrick Braden
————————————————————————————————
Published Pearl Harbor day 2007—It appears that the Japan of 2007 has not changed in many ways from the pre-war Japan . Much of their actions may still be driven by the Empirical rule-the-world viewpoint that had to be stopped in WWII. Many significant parallels may be drawn between the history of the 1930s and 1940s, and today with relation to the Japanese view of themselves and their corresponding actions.
I want to suggest that this is a good opportunity for all of us to memorialize and draw attention to the lessons of history. Japan continues to defiantly operate in numerous areas, as if they are not a part of our global society. They are not up to international standards on numerous issues in spite of the way they appear to the rest of the world.
Today, for their handling of international child abductions, Japan has been demarched by most of the industrialized world, and their response has been zero.
If you see a Pearl Harbor Day event, stop in and talk to those fellow Americans and any Japanese people involved.
Help spread our story.
Sincerely,
Patrick Braden
———————————————————————————————–
Published December 30th 2007 —edited for space here…On Dec 21 2007 , I was informed about a new change in how the State Dept now handles its recommendations to the administration.
Previously, the State Dept only recommended that the administration discuss Intl Parental Child Abductions (IPCA’s), when “appropriate meetings or opportunities arose”.
So the administration reads the recommendations of the State Dept, and then uses their reports to guide the discussions in higher level bi-lateral meetings. If the State Dept determines that the purpose of the upcoming meeting planned, is not appropriate for discussing our issue, IPCA is NOT included in their report to the administration prior to that meeting. So basically, it appears that up until now , the State Dept very rarely recommended that IPCA be brought up in meetings with Japan. On December 21 2007, 4 months after another false and insincere promise from the Japanese MOFA to look into my case, the State Dept changed their recommendation procedure. Now, every time a report is required by the administration for bi-lateral meetings with Japan regarding ANY issue … an addendum will be attached describing the lack of progress on IPCA’s of American children in Japan. This is a result of pressure on the State Dept from Capitol Hill, and is a clear demonstration that work with your Congressman and Senators will produce some kind of results. It is a far FAR cry from returning our children, but until now, it has been hard to actually measure anything that could be called progress. It also demonstrates that even the State Dept believes the time for Japan to reciprocate, is long, long overdue. Now is the time for us all to engage our politicians and raise the pressure on the State Dept so that the negotiations with Japan actually produce some kind of tangible result. If the State Dept has the support of several politicians from Capitol Hill , they will do something. As many or all of you already know, the State Dept has in the past, not done much of anything for our children or us, that actually appears to be advocating for our American children that are illegally held in a foreign country.
Consider this past years interactions in Washington DC between both Governments;
Apparently, when Prime Minister Abe came to Washington with all of his MOFA delegations and staffers, there was not even 1 single “appropriate meeting or opportunity to raise the issue”. This sad fact has been confirmed by a letter that I received, written on behalf of our President. Even when the new Prime Minister Fukuda came in November, I have been officially told that once again, our issue was NOT raised with any of the MOFA officials or Prime Ministers staff who came to meet with our administration. Additionally it was NOT raised by any of the administration, State Dept, or Congressmen who met with the 8 Japanese Diet members who came to defiantly promote the Japanese Abductee agenda to our government, the very same week in Washington. Although, I was told by one Congressional office, that our issue, would be volleyed back at the Japanese, when and if they come knocking at THAT specific Congressional office. AND… I personally handed each one of the Diet members and their staff and entourage (including Takeo Hiranuma himself), one of the Global Future flyers I handed out at previous events, and a flyer made up for me by the Polly Klaas Foundation with large pictures of my daughter on it.
If you sincerely support a change in how our government deals with the Japanese government regarding kidnapped American children, I urge you to take some action right now with your Congressman and Senator. The door has been opened for us by the State Dept, we must demonstrate to them that we are serious while we have the chance.
Sincerely,
Patrick Braden
————————————————————————————————
Published Jan 28th 2008—edited here for space—Maura Harty is the person credited as being the creator the OCI back in 1994. Regardless of whether or not it was the best tactical plan for resolving these abductions, it was to be a central point of contact for us to liaison with our govt on the issue of our internationally abducted children.
The OCI …like it or not, is where we are directed. And now we are facing a big change in leadership there. We have to hope that we get an energetic, persistent , and more patriotic replacement for her job. We need a tough fighter, who would really work harder negotiating with Japan to return our kidnapped children. It would only be fitting if Harty’s replacement would address the Japanese child abduction issue, as their top priority after coming into the office. After all, Japan is THE COUNTRY where State has never made ANY progress.
I am suggesting that every member of our group should contact the State Dept very soon… and regularly…, and express your concern and hopes for Harty’s replacement.
Sincerely,
Patrick Braden
For the record
and to avoid one of McPikes mistake or error bombs….I lobbied and worked alone from November 2006 until after H Res 125 passed the House unanimously on March 11th 2009 ..But even then no one came until April 2009, when I talked a group into joining me in a series of Congressional staff meetings (which they all had never done before) . Today, I am proud to say that I still hear all of them reciting and repeating language I developed and refined thru the previous 2 1/2 years…. So I am Happy every time I hear things like “Black Hole”, and no child ever returned, and even the MOU Tony… that one was one of my original proposals…don’t mistakenly credit the BACho[mers] with that idea, even you are falling into one of their traps…. Only because I don’t care much… ask Kevin on that one…we just had a chat on that a few months ago. And honestly, I have backed away from the MOU anyway, there are some problems there we can talk about. It may not be the best thing.Hoofin said: Re the UNCRC….”It sounds like one of those things that gets treated like the metric system. If the general public knew more about it, they would be very much in favor. The treaty’s problem is that it has to get through the Senate. Maddow found an interesting quote on Twitter about how the Senate filibusters virtually everything now. I wish I could find it.”
Absolutely wrong about public being in favor of the UNCRC if they just knew more…. The more the UNCRC gets notice and attention…. the more that U.S. citizens (and the Senate) will block it, and defend US children against it. Without a doubt.
Not sure why you put the twitter from Maddow in here…she was just taking a swipe at the Republicans, and from what you posted, I dont even see where it was relevant to UNCRC….everything has to go thru all three branches to become law.
From Braden, “everything has to go thru all three branches to become law.”
Perhaps this is part of the problem. You are mistaken with regard to the structure and function of the US. Government.
Only two branches are involved in creating law. http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/How_a_bill_becomes_a_law
Here’s the simplified version if you prefer:
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
The Judicial branch doesn’t get involved with things until they have already become law, and are challenged in some way.
http://www.enotes.com/judicial-branch-reference/constitutional-role-judicial-branch
—–
Also…
You have yet to respond to my point, that contrary to the mantra, “Child abduction is not illegal in Japan” – which is oft repeated by DoS as justification for not doing their duty and for interfering in any attempts at extradition – that since Japan has signed the UNCRC (it doesn’t matter if we have or not, it is a treaty based on human-rights, not reciprocation), which clearly states both that child abduction it wrong and that States have a responsibility to battle against it and negotiate with other States.
And that the Japanese Constitution clearly states that treaties must be “faithfully observed”
You have instead try to change the subject and deflect the argument.
If you cannot debate on ideas and positions, and can only deflect and try to attack a person vs. their ideas — then I suggest that your position cannot be very strong.
—–
I will leave you with this parting comment – the opening line from “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine:
“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom.”
——
Anyhow, since you don’t want to actually debate ideas…. I’ll leave you to it.
You are right that, for something to become a federal law, all it needs to do is to pass each house of Congress, and be signed by the President. Alternatively, it can be vetoed by the President, and passed by 2/3rds vote of each house of Congress.
Most family law, though, is governed by the states.
Yup Hoofin…. I thought I was clear enough on how I stated it, and you clearly saw it and understood it that way. House , Senante , President is the three step process on a bill becoming law. But not Sherlock, he saw an opening and wants to attack at every opportunity .Old Sherlock Pike found a way to reinterpret some tiny little irrelevant semantic aspect what I was saying , and used that as a way to take a few more shots–(Read Attacks) at me. And all along, this is part of their strategy….attack me on everything. But I can take it because I have right on my side…but then this IS the hypocritical part….McPike and all of the bacholes try to be the first to claim THEY are the ones being attacked. They think that by being FIRST to type it from their computers on the internet, that somehow reality then becomes what they say (read type) it is. But the truth is (as you are now discerning) that’s what they do in response to anything. Then it is an immediate claim of their victim-hood as verification. They are very angry individuals…watch the videos of them screaming into bullhorns and ask yourself, how does that image show anyone in Japan that this parent will or can provide any child with a good home.
Moving on….
So maybe McPike will read this and still want to debate the Japanese Constitution with me again….I aint bitin, and I don’t have time for someone who ONLY wants to type on the internet…I meet with people face to face and exchange important ideas, and I do that mostly in Washington….but I also do it on the phone, and lastly, on the internet because I type slow….and I really don’t see THAT particular constitution as anywhere remotely high in my priority list of my work load. But let me say this…. If he wants to work on it…by all means I hope he goes and finds some Japanese Constitutional lawyers and policy makers who want reform or enforcement…Oh and by the way, a heads up tip for him….because he is merely speculating about a subject he is clearly naive on…..when I talk to them (which is several times a year in DC) all they want to talk about is article 9. So see if you can figure a way to link a solution on those two issues.
This exercise has been good, has forced me to brush up on my argumentation skills, which are rusty.
—-
I lot of people really don’t like to play fair though… so let’s remind everyone about intellectual honesty.
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
”
Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
Two intellectually honest tactics
There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest.
”
—
McPike’s axiom on debate: *NEVER* take a losing argument to it’s conclusion.
===========
===========
Braden Original Statement: everything has to go thru all three branches to become law.
Braden Revisionist Statement: I thought I was clear enough on how I stated it, and [Hoofin] clearly saw it and understood it that way. House , Senate , President is the three step process on a bill becoming law.
McPike Response: Your statement was perfectly clear, and do you see the difference between your before and after statements? The House and Senate are *1* branch. Your original statement clearly stated “three branches”, *not* a “three-step-process” as stated in your “revisionist” statement.
Intellectually dishonest tactic: Redefining words, Rejecting facts or logic as opinion
Critique: Your *facts* were attacked. You made a factually incorrect statement. *Now* if you, merely made a misstake in your original statement… you shouldn’t attack me and “name-call”, which just intellectually dishonest, the intellectually honest thing to do, would be to merely to be say,
“Oops, my bad.”, “Brain fart.”, “You’re right, what I actually meant was…”
(a) You would come across as sincere that it was just a mistake.
(b) You would have more credibility
(c) It would be over, and we could just move on to the next point of debate. ** See McPike Axiom of Debate above ^^^^
—-
Hoofin Comment: Most family law, though, is governed by the states.
McPike Response: I’m not sure how that changes things? Or makes what Braden said any less accurate. ***This latter may not have been you intent, but Braden latched onto is a form a justification that, my revelation of his misstated fact was unjust in some way; and you didn’t comment one way or another leaving your intent ambiguous.
(a) At the State level, the process generally works more of less the same. The legislative branch presents a bill to the Gov/Exec-Branch. The Judicial Branch in not involved in the process.
(b) The context was in relation to the UNCRC, which is a treaty, and therefore must be dealt with at the federal level. It isn’t “family law”, it is a “International human-rights treaty”
===========
===========
Braden: But not Sherlock, he saw an opening and wants to attack at every
opportunity. Old Sherlock Pike found a way to reinterpret some tiny little irrelevant semantic aspect what I was saying , and used that as a way to take a few more shots–(Read Attacks) at me.
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic Used ^: Questioning the motives of the opponent, Rejecting facts or logic as opinion, Mockery, etc.
McPike: I saw a flaw in your *facts*. I didn’t twist what you said. I didn’t call you a name. I didn’t take it out of context. You made an unambiguous statement, which was factually wrong, deal with it. You statement was seemingly clear and articulate; it was neither tiny, nor irrelevant. You made a statement that was factually incorrect in such a basic way, that it was logical to conclude that your knowledge of the workings of the government were flawed. Most people in the country probably don’t have a good grasp on how the Government works; most slept through Social Studies, or it was so long ago that they only vaguely remember it.
===========
===========
Braden: And all along, this is part of their strategy….attack me on everything. But I can take it because I have right on my side…but then this IS the hypocritical part….McPike and all of the bacholes try to be the first to claim THEY are the ones being attacked. They think that by being FIRST to type it from their computers on the internet, that somehow reality then becomes what they say (read type) it is.
… words, words, words…
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic Used ^: Scapegoating, Mockery, Changing the subject, etc.
McPike: Will there ba a fact at some point?
===========
===========
Braden: But the truth is (as you are now discerning) that’s what they do in response to anything. Then it is an immediate claim of their victim-hood as verification.
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic Used ^: Scapegoating, Mockery, Changing the subject, etc.
===========
===========
Braden: They are very angry individuals…watch the videos of them screaming into bullhorns and ask yourself, how does that image show anyone in Japan that this parent will or can provide any child with a good home.
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic Used ^: Name-calling, Sloganeering, Vagueness, Scapegoating, Mockery, Changing the subject, etc.
===========
===========
Braden: So maybe McPike will read this and still want to debate the Japanese Constitution with me again….
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic Used ^: False premise, Mockery
McPike: You say “again”, but you have yet to debate me on the Japanese Constitution.
===========
===========
Then more unrelated words, and deflection.
===========
===========
Braden, at el.
You seem to still be missing the point… I not for you or against you, (as I’m not even clear what you about – can you tell me???)
Patrick, you are still wrong about how a proposal becomes a law. I think you are saying that the judge is the final arbiter of law in our system, and so, when a statute or other rule is before a judge, there is more assurance that the rule will be respected. (Current example, the so-called Obamacare, properly known as the Affordable Care Act.)
Hoofin said” [Update 1/2/12 #2: By the way, that part about not being the crossfire of the back and forth between the two factions is obviously a stale comment at this point.]”
Laughing…. I told you to buckle your seat belt Rick!
Well… you are right about the use and definition of kidnapping here. I may have overlooked one word in your statement…”Back” … but I re-read your statement and I see the context in which you said…”this is kidnapping” was following “…off with the child back to Japan.” The key word there is “back” implying from the U.S.
That talks about jurisdiction, and original jurisdiction. That is the main foundational issue that delineates all cases.
So to make the distinction….a child taken from the U.S to Japan as described IS Kidnapped and IS Abducted and Jurisdiction is definitely in the U.S..
BUT, a child who was born in Japan, raised in Japan, and is separated from their American parent who may be living in Japan under whatever circumstances that parent chose, IS subject to Japanese laws customs and traditions…and most certainly IS under Japanese jurisdiction. Sad as that case or set of circumstances may be.
Those children are not and can not be subject to the U.S. law you referenced. No matter how many different U.S. courts that parent my try to get to take jurisdiction away from Japan…it can not happen.
The Case you mentioned (Toland) is a perfect example of how original jurisdiction must be respected and maintained unless both parties agree to move it. AND the U.S. courts have verified that fact, over and over in that specific case. Additionally its a perfect example of the third group of cases I mentioned before. The cases where a citizen asks the Govt to grant them an exception the laws, customs , and traditions that they voluntarily submitted to and acquiesced to in another country.
I am sure I dont have to tell you this, but be very wary of internet sources that are not vetted by law-enforcement or courts, as they are the only finders of facts.
You can see much of that case here;
Click to access 350700%20respondent.pdf
and here;
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.advancedSearch…
[Hoofin’s note: I believe that case is here.]
and in the Rockville Maryland court records.
But a cliff-note narrative is like this;
Peter Paul Toland properly submitted himself to the Japanese courts for mediation and then divorce in the Japanese court after he refused to pay the $10,000 to his wife that was ordered by a Japanese judge as “solatium for his illegal acts against her”. Then he apparently paid only a couple of the court ordered monthly child support payments in 2003 and refused to pay any more.(he may owe about $60,000 in unpaid arrearages currently) Then he waited until the very day in which the divorce and division of the marital estate was to be certified in that court, to have his attorney withdraw as counsel, which delayed the final documents by six months (including the division of assets, which ordered his wife’s share at $105,000) (and he never did appeal) ……Which then becomes the time in which the proceedings in Washington State began, after Etsuko Futagi was served with the Wa. papers. But the Washington Judge ruled that they could not transfer jurisdiction back to the US, Japan already properly had jurisdiction, and Toland had hired Kensuke Ohnuki as his counsel, and was represented there by Ohnuki thru numerous proceedings under that original and proper jurisdiction. Then the Wa. appellate court ruled and upheld the lower court ruling. Then his next attempt at a U.S. case was in Virginia. So the Virginia court dismissed him for forum shopping, with a written letter admonishment…then shortly thereafter, his wife was found dead in a subway station bathroom in Japan….About four years after the separation began.
Then the next attempt in a U.S. court was in Maryland fairly recently. In that case the judge wrote a 20 page decision that is an amazing document protecting original jurisdiction ….although the concept is really quite simple and basic in terms of law.
That 20 page ruling, is now under appeal…. and now another appellate court will probably uphold the ruling against him, and rule in favor of all persons who want to protect the original jurisdiction of their cases. That redundant ruling does come at a serious expense of the Maryland and U.S. taxpayers, and of course the Futagi family as well. But if it protects original jurisdiction, I am all for a higher court upholding it..
One of those U.S. judges went so far as to make it clear in court, on the record, stating “Toland’s position is tantamount to blackmail”.
I dont know anybody who says “trust in the Japanese system”, and I have no idea who told him what in 2003. The Dept of State has definitely notified American citizens (via their website) that “American citizens will find themselves greatly disadvantaged in Japanese courts”.
I suppose that Wa State would be able to take jurisdiction…. if they had lived there.
Anyway…. we digress.
I am grateful that people like you are paying close attention to the definitions and use of words like “abduction” and “kidnapping.”, and even “jurisdiction”.
People who play fast and loose with words like those, are actually doing a huge dis-service to the actual victims of abduction and kidnapping. In fact, it depletes resources that would go to the actual victims, and lowers the morale of supporters and advocates. It may help to emphasize or draw attention to someones argument, but that comes with a price that is paid by the true victims.
Patrick says:
Laws, yes. “Customs and traditions” is sort of vague. You know there are instances when Japanese will argue that a “custom” or a “tradition” will trump a law, and usually that’s when they want to do something illegal.
Actually, jurisdiction is something that a court either has or it doesn’t. In some circumstances, the parties can agree to jurisdiction—but a court can say, sorry, no jurisdiction here. When a court does have jurisdiction, though, they almost always must exercise it.
What seems to have happened in the Toland case is that Washington State was a place that would have had jurisdiction, if Commander Toland had been more on the ball with filing and serving. As it’s clear from the resources that you pointed me to, Mrs. Toland (Etsuko) was able to go to Tokyo Family Court and get a ruling more quickly than Toland in Washington. Because of that, issue and claim preclusion (collateral estoppel and res judicata), which are common law doctrines, came into play. Washington State court system had to respect the final decision of the Tokyo Family Court, unless it was overturned on appeal in Japan. It was not appealed.
When you say “law enforcement or courts” are the “only finders of facts”, I think you have it wrong. Any one can find facts. Normally, it’s the jury that finds facts. I think you mean the only facts that are going to carry weight, when it comes to who wins and who loses, are ones coming out of court proceedings. I am not sure that law enforcement, i.e. police, play into any of the fact finding, since this is all civil process.
It sounds like Cmdr. Toland tried to get a case started in Virginia, since he had moved from Washington state. His wife passed away in October 2007.
What is interesting is that the Maryland appellate court did agree to hear the appeal. So they are either going to emphasize some point from the trial level, or overturn something. I was not able to find the Maryland trial case–the 20 pages mentioned.
From what Commander Toland testified to Congress, the advice he was given around 2003 or 2004 was to trust the Japanese system. I, personally, would not–because foreigners rarely, if ever, win there. But then, I would also not trust certain state court systems here in America.
I realize that every non-custodial parent feels like their child has been “abducted” or “kidnapped” from them; but, in some instances, yes, it is a kidnapping. In the Wisconsin case, it was kidnapping. I think Savoie’s fits the elements as well. Children in Japan who are Americans, and being held by a non-custodial parent, might also be considered to be kidnapped, I suppose, at least by the U.S. government. As you point out, if the custodial parent is Japanese, and the children are based in Japan, then the situation is really no different than any domestic Japanese one. (That is to say, one without the international element.)
I feel the best solution for everyone is that Japan should allow joint custody in as many situations as warrant it.
Ah, here it is. Commander Toland’s testimony.
Sometime before 03:28, Toland is advised by some attorney connected with the Yokosuka base that his wife’s leaving with the kid is a “private” matter, and, on a follow-up comment, it seems he was told to trust the Japanese system to resolve it. This was so, even though Washington state would have had jurisdiction. It’s also clear to Paul Toland, although he only uses the word “forfeit”, that issue and claim preclusion (which I mention above) came into play once the Tokyo family court had made a decision in Mrs. Toland’s divorce and custody case.
Patrick, is this you, by the way?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hif07g8M-YIHoofin said Re the Toland case[,] “Actually, jurisdiction is something that a court either has or it doesn’t. In some circumstances, the parties can agree to jurisdiction—but a court can say, sorry, no jurisdiction here. When a court does have jurisdiction, though, they almost always must exercise it.”
So that is exactly why I said Tolands case is the perfect example…he has brought 4 actions against Etsuko Futagi in the U.S. (one was against her family after she was found dead in Japan) and so far those actions resulted in 6 sitting U.S. Judges having said; “sorry no jurisdiction here” to him. Which helps all of the U.S. jurisdiction cases hold strong and preserves the rule of law. (although that was not his original intention).
Now… As even one more U.S. Appellate court looks it over, you can confidently bet that (if there are three judges in that court), that number will climb to nine U.S judges protecting the rule of law from another assault.
Patrick, I’m not sure you’re right. One element of res judicata is that the parties must be the same. In this latest judicial move, the defendant is the grandmother—not the late wife. I have never practiced in Maryland, of course, but I am not sure that Maryland has to recognize Tokyo Family Court decisions that involve the grandmother, if Paul Toland did not participate in the later proceeding. I don’t know the answer to that.
Usually when an appeal is cut-and-dry, the appellate court just lets the trial court’s ruling stand.
Hey Hoofin, thanks for finding a better link.
Your link reminded me of another point in that Washington State Appeal decision. The Appellate judges saw Tolands appeal as frivolous and ordered him to pay Etsukos attorney fees. That was 2007, he refused to pay them until recently. Except what he did instead of paying the family, he put the funds into an account that they intentionally can not access. Sort of like an escrow he decided on, but it leaves the effect of still financially starving the family of Etsuko.
This kind of legal court trickery and wrangling is not straightforward and certainly was not the intent of the court. The Japanese people see that very clearly. That is not the worst aspect of it though. What is is that Japanese people see that and think all western men wont follow court orders, or western men will try to weasel out of any court ordered payments to a Japanese woman somehow by way of trickery. This coupled with the original abuse “fine” he was ordered to pay in the Japanese court, coupled with all of the years of unpaid court ordered child support payments, coupled with the unpaid division of the marital estate money…. has a net effect of showing that he just wont pay anything to Etsuko or her family, no matter which countries judges order it. So that becomes a severe negative publicity image that all of the other LBP’s in America (or around the world) who are left stained by. And its a stain that wont come clean for the rest of us who followed every court order that was ever handed to us.
This is just a few aspects of one case that is emblematic of why we didn’t want Toland in our group. If you want to call that a difference in strategy…their your words…I call it a difference in morals.
Hey Hoofin, when you say “Patrick is this you?”, Please specify for your readers who you are directing the question to. Someone else who wrote all of that doubt-filled argument on every point in my post, is claiming to be “Patrick” ….but me….I am not afraid to give you my real entire name which is Patrick Braden. I wonder if the other guy is trying to confuse your blog readers.
My name is Patrick Braden, and I am the guy in the video here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hif07g8M-YI
My email address and phone number is everywhere …you can call me or email me.
You can also find me involved in these news stories from the last 7 days at any of these web addresses ;
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/us-girl-reunited-with-father-1.1204162
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1347872545001/wis-father-regains-custody-of-daughter-taken-to-japan
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/ann/news/web/html/211225000.html
http://www.headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20111224-00000516-san-soci
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20111224-OYT1T00472.htm
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1224/OSK201112240035.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/fox-point-man-reunited-with-abducted-daughter-g13iboa-136173978.html
http://www.cbs58.com/news/local-news/Father-Reunited-with-Daughter-after-International-Custody-Dispute-136190593.html
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/136195283.html
http://news.yahoo.com/us-girl-reunited-father-4-years-japan-100225064.html
Or any of these from last month:
http://www.wisn.com/r/29824614/detail.html#.TssYbFr5FJo.gmail
http://www.wisn.com/r/29821425/detail.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/plea-deal-may-be-struck-in-custody-case-3135858-134270968.html#
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/134233028.html
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/134288908.html
———————————————————————————-
Tuesday
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111122p2g00m0dm113000c.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/wisconsin&id=8441174
http://www.divorcelawyertarrantcounty.com/2011/11/wisconsin-case-highlights-problem-of-international-abductions-to-japan.shtml
http://www.wisn.com/news/29836839/detail.html
http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/134308813.html
http://www.wsaw.com/home/headlines/WI_Girl_May_Become_First_Returned_From_Japan_in_Custody_Battle_134313388.html?storySection=comments
http://matthewjensenlaw.com/blog/2011/11/22/wisconsin-court-orders-japanese-woman-to-return-child-to-u-s/
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Wis-dad-wins-custody-of-daughter-taken-to-Japan-2281952.php
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/134224923.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111123a4.html
Hey..Hoofin, If you are moderating my last posting…just delete it and post this one. I am a little new to the computer tech world and I thought your reply was someone else responding…but after a second look at the comment thread layout, I realized I misunderstood who was posting what (my mistake again). Self flagellation as we speak.
So to answer your question, yes that is me in the Youtube video you posted the link for. That was shot at my third annual DC Cherry Blossom festival protest,,,my daughter was born in the middle of the Cherry Blossom season…definitely the hand of God.
“and usually that’s when they want to do something illegal.” – yup …same with individual people everywhere, “lets ignore the existing laws and rules, and play by my new rules” usually comes out when you are about to get tricked.
“…Wa State was a place that would have had jurisdiction,if …” -that’s a fallacy and just spin. Intended to mislead and obfuscate. If my grandfathers milk cow didnt have that swingin udder, it would have been his Bull.
“When a court does have jurisdiction, though, they almost always must exercise it.”-Yuuup, And it is wrong for any court or one party to try to steal it away, unilaterally.
“get a ruling more quickly than …” – you are forgetting or omitting the part about they were living there for some extended period of time ….and at the time of …..and long before the ex-pat parent-child separation….and he hired an attorney in Japan (Ohnuki) and engaged in the legal process long before anything was ever filed in Wa. The process in Japan requires both parents to go thru mediation before they will let you get to the divorce. So the process actually began much earlier.
“It was not appealed.” -yup… that one different action might have changed the entire complexion of this case and maybe Etsuko would still be alive today.
“tried to get a case started in Virginia…” -yup..after one court and the appellate court said no way…he thought he could just do the geographic cure. The Virginia Judge didnt like that.
“Maryland appellate court …” – yuuuup. One more higher court decision on the way. Just as soon as both sides pay for their appellate lawyer bills that is.
” the advice he was given…” well, we weren’t there, so its his word against a JAG officer from 9 years ago. Either way, he’s the victim …right?
For someone as legally well informed as you are….you know to Watch-out for interpreting testimony as fact?
“I think Savoie’s fits the elements as well. Children in Japan who are Americans” – [Hoofin’s note: Redacted comment here that doesn’t meet my standard for dialogue. Also, I am going to have comment right in this next paragraph, because it seems that some of what is being said have been mere assertions by the Noriko side.]
There is some very clear debate on both sides of this one. Try her side for a second.
A Japanese woman who married a man… who had Japanese citizenship supposedly, read, wrote, and spoke Japanese, was doing business in Japan, had attended Japanese university on HER fathers dime….
[Chris Savoie tells me that you are confusing “dai-san houshounin” 第三者保証人 (or “third party guarantor”) with some sort of payment. In fact, it is a person involved in the securing of a scholarship. This means that it was not “HER father’s dime”.]
she has some kids with him, born and raised almost all of their 7 years in Japan.
[Chris Savoie tells me that his son was born in California. That makes him an American, clearly—no matter where he was raised.]
Was later tricked into coming to Hog Wallow Tenn and then served with divorce papers when she arrived and finds out about the years of infidelity.
[This sounds like assertion, not fact. Chris vehemently denies it, and I myself would be livid if someone decided to just go saying something like that. My own advice is that one should not go saying these kinds of things unless one can be reasonably certain, or has first-hand knowledge, of such incidents.]
That woman’s expectation at the time of her children’s birth’s ….of where her kids would live their lives, doesn’t count? They lived in the U.S. only 5 months when they settled there…what she didnt know, was that under the UCCJEA , those kids would have gone back to Japan without any court order violation on her side. Full Stop.
[This is obviously opinion. For whatever reason, Noriko came to Tennessee, and she could have said ‘no’. As I have said on my site maybe two years ago, there seemed to be a certain amount of “arranging” that went on with this whole Kyushu-Tennessee move. I don’t want to offer an opinion about UCCJEA, because, from what I see, it applies among the states, not countries.]
But she was tricked and angry probably…oh yea, and she wanted the money back for her fathers loans to him for his schooling…..according to the Franklin County court records.
[Per above, there were no loans according to Chris Savoie. There is also no Franklin County in Tennessee.]
It always comes back to the money…..whether the Tenn court actually could have had jurisdiction, if she had not voluntarily submitted….. is pretty clearly the pertinent question, and the answer is NO. But she wanted the money…it was bait. She submitted…the rest is history (although there are some very colorful anecdotes we’ll save for another day.)
[Tennessee gained jurisdiction because both Dr. & Mrs. Savoie lived in Tennessee at the time of the divorce. Saying “voluntarily submitted” is a bit loaded, because any time anyone goes anywhere, aren’t they voluntarily submitting? The whole argument that the one side of the Left Behind group makes is that many LB Dads “voluntarily submitted” to Japanese law, and so, therefore, they want to settle matters in Japan. Why doesn’t it work in reverse?]
So “it fits the elements”?? only by the skin of a Tennessee warthogs (one) tooth. (In Tennessee you can always tell the attractive warthog from the other warthogs on the street by their one tooth- thats a hillbilly joke!) And she probably pissed off the judge…. but then again so did he…. the judge almost threw him in jail during their divorce proceedings according to the court transcript. [Hoofin’s note: I would have to see the transcript. Things can get emotional in a divorce proceeding. But, again, I would have to see it.] Then he really endeared the judge by suing him….but hey… [Hoofin’s note: Redacted here, as it came across as a cheap shot]. I am still waiting for my paperwork that he has promised me sooooooooooo many times. I cry every time I go to the mailbox and the process server is not there.
Once again… we digress Hoofin… can we get back to the GOJ lobbyists in Washington.
I spoke with Ray …who was THE lobbyist for the Nation Of Japan in Washington back in 2008. He seemed like a decent fellow…. but I hated what he was doing for them regarding our kids. Lets talk about what a lobbyist actually does for money when he tries to squash something in Congress about abducted American Children. How does a guy like that sleep?
Patrick Braden
Please redact or delete the above posts from Mr. Braden that concern me and my minor children. He has made many untrue, defamatory and false light comments about me and my minor children and has claimed to attain this blatantly false information citing authority from “official sources” that are also false. You know how to contact me for details. He is so completely off base about details of my personal life and the lives of my innocent minor children that it would be ludicrous to even comment point by point. Suffice it to say that Braden is patently lying about me and my minor children and is and citing false sources of “information” to lend credence to his lies. I appreciate your kind cooperation in not allowing malicious defamatory statements about me and my children to be published on your forum. Unfortunately, it seems to me that Mr. Braden is obsessed with character assassination of me and my children with false statements and continues this pattent of highly disturbing voyeuristic and defamatory behavior on just about any forum where my name is mentioned in relation to the international abduction issue.
Chris, as you know, I try to keep the comment side of my site pretty open—but I will take out anything that is crossing over into a shot. This is because I don’t want my site to become the surrogate target range in the internecine battles that have developed among the Left Behind Parents. I’ll have some more to say about this at some point. I feel that you got handed an injustice both by your ex, and by the Tennessee court system–with an assist by whatever unit in Homeland Security looks into people flying in and out of America. (If they’re going to spend all this money on “helping to keep us safe”, I’d like to see it put to good use.)
Hoofin said; “I feel that you got handed an injustice both by your ex, and by the Tennessee court system–with an assist by whatever unit in Homeland Security looks into people flying in and out of America. ”
Hoofin, could you describe a little bit about how you feel Mr Savoie got handed an injustice from the court system? By my perspective, he really got handed a huge gift when she came to the U.S. and submitted to the court here…and the Tennessee court took the case.
As to DHS; EVERY SINGLE CHILD who has been taken out of the U.S. without the U.S. parents prior knowledge or permission, suffers a huge injustice…so please dont fail to acknowledge all of the others Hoofin…it sort of makes you look like you are picking favorites amongst all of those children.
Gotta run…it is the end of the year and friends are a waitin.
Savoie got handed an injustice because Tennessee ruled that he should have joint custody, and Noriko Savoie ruled that he should not—and high tailed it with the two kids to Japan.
Hoofin, you are forgetting something which explains a lot of Savoie’s defensiveness (
and his lawsuithappyness). That he is at least partially responsible for Noriko taking the kids and going home. Can’t say I blame himfor not wanting to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actionsthough, and certainly don’t think what Noriko did was right, just understandable.Noriko had the right, through the divorce and custody agreement, to take the kids back to Japan over the summer.
Christopher was worried she would not return and tried to stop her from going back.
The courts originally blocked Noriko from returning to Japan with the kids but ultimately gave her permission to go.
Noriko went to Japan and returned to Tennessee with the children.
Only after all that did Noriko decide to take the children back to Japan. Why? My guess would be she did not want to have to deal with Christopher trying to keep her and the kids from going back to Japan in a year. If Christopher hadn’t backed Noriko into a corner there’s a good chance he’d have access to his kids right now.
I know that the Savoie case has been fleshed out in various internet fora, not just on the television. There is a contingent that takes Noriko’s side, and one that takes Chris’, and probably quite a few people in between.
As I’ve said, I’ve felt that Chris got stuck by too much “arranging”. A lot was done, by him, to get under the Tennessee jurisdiction. He did get it, and he did have it, and it all was good. It still is good. The one flaw in the whole thing is that Noriko probably knew that she could just make her own custody arrangement and go back to Japan. That was the one thing that Chris could not control, in the end.
I am tired of debating the Chris Savoie thing.
You are right Hoofin, he did a bit too much “arranging” if you like that word better than tricking. All of the discussion so far on the Savoie case is about the earlier satges and actions. The there is the big clincher in the end though. It makes the failed snatch-back, the “arranging” for Noriko to come to Tennessee, the citizenship and all other details look pale. Chris Savoie was in jail and faced with a choice. 1) sign an agreement to never contact his kids again in Japan and get out of jail ….or 2) sit in jail and wait for some greater diplomatic resolution to protect his relationship with his kids.
He signed off on his kids….
I know,I know….. I absolutely already know…. McPike will insist intellectual verbosity, mockery, jabberwocky, dishonesty, factual ineptness, misspellingz, history revision, intentional delay, obfuscation, animal cruelty, and global cooling together with some other psychobabble assessment of what I say…no matter where, when , or why or how factual it is…then he will insist on debating the Japanese Constitution again. But I am just a simple guy, and I like to keep things simple. But Mcpike wont actually discuss how Savoies signing off on his kids affects all of the other parents negatively. The most shocking action, from the point of view of ANY parent, is that Mr Savoie, just signed off on his kids to get out of jail. Which again confirmed the Japanese propaganda against all US LBP’s. He is batting 1000. (for the other team)
Let’s again remind everyone about what intellectual honesty is:
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
”
Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
Two intellectually honest tactics
There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest.
”
—
McPike’s axiom on debate: *NEVER* take a losing argument to it
’s conclusion.===========
===========
*** Braden’s entire post
is intellectually dishonest. Rather than debate my previous rebuttals to him, he responds to someone else about a completely unrelated topic, tosses my my name in the mix, and tries to use this unrelated post to pretend that he is refuting me with yet moreintellectually dishonest tactics.Given that his entire post
is intellectually dishonest, I will just point out the highlights…===========
===========
Braden: I know,I know….. I absolutely already know…. McPike will insist intellectual verbosity, mockery, jabberwocky, dishonesty, factual ineptness, misspellingz, history revision, intentional delay, obfuscation, animal cruelty, and global cooling together with some other psychobabble assessment of what I say
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic ^: Changing the subject, Citing irrelevant facts or logic, Sloganeering, Mockery, Scapegoating, etc.
[Hoofin’s Note: this is, like, the majority of what has been going on today. And that’s down from 85% over the weekend, from all quarters.]
===========
===========
Braden: no matter where, when , or why or how factual it is
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic ^: Changing the subject, Citing irrelevant facts or logic, Sloganeering, Mockery, Scapegoating, etc.
McPike: I’m totally open to facts,
when you present some?Especially some that are relevant to the previous debates that you keep avoiding?===========
===========
Braden: then he will insist on debating the Japanese Constitution again.
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic ^: Mockery, Rejecting facts or logic as opinion, etc.
McPike: You made, in the original comment that started all this, a claim. I presented an argument to refute you claim. You have launched a series of unrelated topics, claiming to be rebuttals, and you falsely tried to indicated that we had already debated the veracity of you original claim – which you didn’t.
===========
===========
Braden: But I am just a simple guy, and I like to keep things simple.
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic ^: Changing the subject, etc.
===========
===========
Braden: But Mcpike wont actually discuss how Savoies signing off on his kids affects all of the other parents negatively…. words, words, words.
Intellectually Dishonest Tactic ^: False premise, Straw Man, Changing the subject, Citing irrelevant facts or logic, Scapegoating, etc. [Hoofin’s Note: I am not so sure it’s what you say. As I am following these very longwinded posts, each side seems to be lightly addressing the opposing sides’ issues, and then launching into bromides. Your laundry lists of criticisms of other people’s posts seems to be along that line. This is pretty clearly not a debate, and more like a thing where each side sends over a load, maybe to demoralize the other. It reminds me of a movie I saw in the Mad Max series, where “two men enter, and one man leaves!”]
McPike: The is so blatantly dishonest.
> I was never asked to discuss it. You are changing the subject completely to avoid honest debate on the topic we were discussing. You are essentially “running away” from one argument and trying to fabricate another.
—————
Mr. Savoie apparently intentionally fails to recognize, in spite of repeated reminders, that falsely accusing someone else of defamation is in itself defamatory. As chronicled in the thick Savoie file in the Wiliamson County, Tennessee court system, it appears his children’s needs consistently came in second place to his own. The records show that in Japan he was largely an absentee father, who then uprooted his children and their mother to Tennessee, in order to divorce their mother and immediately remarry. After his newly-minted ex-wife took the children to Japan, Savoie made himself a public figure, got his mug and his children’s pictures on tv, and later made headlines by filing and publicizing a hopelessly off-base and doomed lawsuit against a judge. All this makes the father of “Balloon Boy” look like Ward Cleaver in comparison. He fancies himself as someone with public significance in relation to the international abduction issue, but as a public figure, he will not answer direct public questions about facts in the public record.
I agree. Chris goes to the legal language very quickly, and if any of that from yesterday was directed at me, I just brush it off. The courts are Lancaster County (Pennsylvania) Court of Common Pleas, or, alternatively, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It is important, though, for people bickering on the internet to keep in mind that the internet is not some kind of “Free Pass” zone for behavior that is tortious or criminal. I think that is really his point. It’s mine.
I don[‘]t [think] Braden gives a crap about you[– ] its your arogance and sense of entitlement that put put you in the position you are in, I guess you were the rational one that tried to reabduct your kids. There are consequences to action that you fail to grasp.
Well Hoofin…say hello to the real Mr Christopher Savoie…..it all sounds reasonable….but it is lies…If you or anyone wants some certified Franklin County Court records on the facts as determined by the court there, and as mentioned by my previous postings….send me your email address.
For the record…. All of the court records on the Savoie case are from the Williamson County Chancery Court Clerk in Franklin Tennessee…my friend Ryan kept calling it the Franklin County Court when I first heard about it…and for some reason, I always say it that way….but it really is in Williamson County, and the town of Franklin Tennessee. Anyone who would try to say that is some kind of dishonest representation is really grasping for straws…and obviously has nothing else.
I have the sense that there is quite a history going on among the BACHome-affiliated Left Behind Parents and the Global Future ones . . .
And one more thing… check in With Tony over at the left-behind agitator to get a detailed explanation of how these guys work at hiding the facts….they will possibly be filing DMCA complaints, they may write up logical and legal sounding complaints and send them to the Blog Provider, the ISP provider, your Facebook page, and anywhere they can…..it all looks legal and somewhat reasonable, but its just an attempt to hide their dirty dirty facts. And squash anyones voice who helps to shine light on them and expose their fraud.
This ought to shine a spotlight on what we are dealing with here:
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/14/debito’s-dubious-and-disingenuous-dmca-diatribe/
Yes, I know Debito is running with his own agenda nowadays.
Something else to consider Hoofin- Ask him to provide proof that what he is saying is true. This guy has nothing factual to back-up ANYTHING that he says…except his own say-so, his own self -reported and self typed “story” on the internet …..and on the “family of scoundrels and reprobates” website known as Bachome…where a group of these guys, ALL with horrible facts in their cases tries to bully and dominate the internet content on this issue…. as well as deceiving the supportive and sympathetic public. All he can do is try to cast doubts and aspersions against those of us who shine the light. He will try very hard to sound reasonably legally threatening in an effort to scare you into removing the truth from the internet…and then when all that fails, he will try to pull your plug. We are going to test your conviction to the truth probably. Again, contact Tony at the left behind agitator ,and ask him for the response and process to unwinding these guys scam complaint process if they try to mess with you. Their Cyber-bullying tactics are pretty aggressive. Buckle your seat-belt.
Hoofin, there are many false statements above by Braden but I am not going to debate this individual because his claims are without merit and I do not want to lend him or his group any undeserved credence or engage him in any manner with his lies and atrocious, malicious conduct. Please remove or redact his posts about me and my children and my family because they are indeed false and cast me and my family in a false light. This will be my last post and should serve the dual purposes of fulfilling my notice responsibilities under the Tennessee and other relevant defamation statutes and giving you the sufficient notice on spoliation. Please archive the messages if you choose to delete them or redact them as requested. Thanks!
See, now I thought Hoofin was being very fair and impartial with respect to Dr. Savoie’s case, and yet he is here being threatened with a lwasuit for something he didn’t even say. How do you like them apples, Hoofin? [Hoofin’s Note: I am trying to be a fair moderator, and so I am putting my notes in here. It may be little known, but I did go to law school, so you read the situation when it comes to threats. I think Dr. Savoie really doesn’t want to be mischaracterized on the internet. Who would?]
This is the nature of the BACHome beasts — make public assertions as to the merits of your case and then either 1) threaten to sue anybody who questions those facts, 2) make fraudulent copyright violations claims to have such questions removed from public view (I have ample proof of fraudulent activity, along with ISP addresses of the perpetrators), or 3) say “It’s lies, all lies!” and simply shut down further discourse.
[I know this as, “internet for me, but not for thee!”, as a 2003-era blogger. It has its roots in the 1980’s and ’90’s Politically Correct environment on college campuses. I have already been through the basics of people who want to push you off because they don’t agree with what you’re saying.]
Mr. Braden made a number of claims regarding the Savoie case which the good doctor found objectionable and “defamatory.” I think it might be a good opportunity, then, for Dr. Savoie to respond to these assertions publicly, so let’s take them one by one and give Chris a chance to clear up any misunderstanding. I do not wish to take sides in this current debate and am only interested in giving Chris the chance to clear his name, if in fact what Patrick says is untrue.
[I don’t think it’s really anyone’s call to put out questions about people’s personal life on a website, and then insist that the other people answer them. When you think about it, how fair is that? It is clear that there are two sides in any family dispute–at least two sides. So how will “answers” particularly resolve anything. They usually just lead to more “questions” of doubtful relevance or weight.]
1) Was Dr. Savoie married in Japan and thus subject to Japanese jurisdiction at the time with respect to any subsequent divorce proceedings?
[Yes and no. Yes as to married, right? But no as to “subject to Japanese jurisdiction . . . with respect to any subsequent divorce proceedings.”]
2) Is Dr. Savoie a Japanese citizen or an American citizen? Under Japanese law, as we all know, accepting Japanese citizenship requires that one renounce his or her previous nationality. On previous occasions, Dr. Savoie has said that, as a Japanese national, he still retained joint custody with respect to his children and thus was within his rights to reclaim/recover/reabduct his children after his wife abducted them from Tennessee. It would seem difficult to sustain an argument that Dr. Savoie was protected under Japanese law with regard to custody by virtue of his Japanese nationality and yet seek the assistance of the American government as a U.S. citizen when such protections are not afforded to him by the Japanese government.
[Per an earlier post of mine, he is both. I think the dual citizenship confused matters.]
3) Did Noriko Savoie’s father in fact pay for Dr. Savoie to attend Japanese university? And does this provide sufficient motivation for the former Mrs. Savoie to accept Dr. Savoie’s divorce settlement?
[According to Chris, he was only a “third party guarantor” on a scholarship. I assume this means that, if, for some reason, a course of study had not been completed, the guarantor may be on the hook. So, no, it would not provide sufficient motivation. And my own opinion in that whole money part is that none of us really knows what Noriko’s motivation was.]
4) How long did each of Savoie’s children reside in Japan, and how long did they reside in the United States? This question is relevant with respect to the intent of the Hague Convention, which attempts to define the minor children’s “habitual residence.”
[This is an interesting question. Both children are Americans, and one was born in America. I would ask you: does the Hague Convention trump a joint custody decree by one of the signatory countries?]
5) How did Noriko Savoie come to live in Franklin, Tennessee? Mr. Braden claims that she was “tricked” into going there. What were the specifics involved as to any agreement the couple made to have her relocate to a place like Franklin, Tennessee, which would seem an unlikely place for a Japanese national to choose to reside in? (It’s not Honolulu, LA, or New York, by a long stretch — places where a Japanese national might feel more comfortable and have the companionship of other Japanese expats.)
[Noriko Savoie came to live there by plane, most likely. It is hard to trick someone to get on a plane. It must have been disguised as something else.]
6) How long after arriving in Tennessee were divorce papers filed, and who initiated the divorce action?
[Wait, first she is tricked to get on the plane. Then, she is handed divorce papers?]
7) Was there marital infidelity on Dr. Savoie;s part as Mr. Braden claims?
[This is one of the low-blow cheap shots that you shouldn’t repeat if you don’t have first-hand knowledge. Do you? How would you like someone saying that about you? To me, it sounds like it came out of one side’s divorce filings. I wouldn’t be surprised if “form” divorce filings don’t have that as one of the paragraphs . . . ]
8) Did the judge in Tennessee really threaten to have Dr. Savoie jailed over the course of the divorce proceedings?
[I don’t know. Divorces get heated. That’s why Philadelphia had metal detectors in front of the Family Court chambers in the early 1990’s, before they became routine after 9/11.]
I would welcome Dr. Savoie’s public response so that the questions Mr. Braden has raised can be put to rest once and for all.
[Somehow, I feel, answers would not put these questions to rest when it comes to some inquirers . . . ]
Shalom.
Tony Del Vecchio
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot:
9) Weren’t the couple actually legally divorced in Tennessee? How then could Japanese joint custody protections apply to Dr. Savoie?
As I understand it, the divorce was in Tennessee. There can be a divorce in Tennessee, even if the marriage was in Kyushu or somewhere else in Japan. I assume Japan recognizes the divorce. (They do recognize American divorces, right?)
The custody issue is different. Almost as a rule, in Japan, there are no joint custody awards. It is either one parent or the other, and almost always the mother. (I know of one instance where it was a father instead.) In contemporary times, in the United States there is generally joint custody. Sole custody used to be common, but now it is rare. In some states, even the grandparents have visitation rights.
To me, the whole trouble seems to be that Japan does not allow joint custody. They don’t allow it in domestic situations, and they don’t allow it in international ones. Secondly, Japan doesn’t honor the custody decisions that come from foreign courts. So, in effect, Japan grants custody in those situations to whichever parent has the children in Japan. It is very much like the Tokugawa era, where the daimyo’s family had to go live in Edo every other year. Only in this instance, it’s more than a year.
I don’t know why Japan doesn’t adopt the modern rule. It would save a lot of grief, and would also eliminate a lot of international embarrassment. And, also, it would no longer discourage OTHER people who might like to have an international marriage from joining up with a Japanese and having kids. Maybe that is the problem–the Japanese runners don’t want interracial marriage, and so this is why they keep sole custody. But it doesn’t explain why they don’t allow it for domestic cases either. Maybe there, they would rather just not have divorces. Or mistresses and lovers, but not divorces. It’s hard to figure out.
Myself, I like clear and fair rules. They really help. Some people like hodge-podge and unfair ones. Got me. I get a headache trying to figure out why.
Actually, those questions were for Dr. Savoie. But thank you for answering them so completely and flawlessly, Hoofin. You do seem extraordinarily well-informed as to the particulars of Dr. Savoie’s case for an impartial observer.
By the way, let me just say that one’s man’s “mischaracterization” is another man’s valid query.
FYI, Dr. Savoie publicly interrogated me with a series of questions as to my academic credentials while at the same time publicly libeling and defaming me. Turns out the esteemed doctor was very much mistaken in his baseless assertions, but never formally and publicly apologized for what he said, couching all his backpedalling responses in pseudo-legalese meant to distract the unwary observer the way a snake charmer distracts a cobra. So please spare me the anguish over “cheap shots” if you please.
Let me understand something. You’ve just been threatened with a lawsuit for allowing a free discourse on a topic to exist on your blog, and yet you feel no sense of outrage or indignation over this. Why is that, Hoofin? You now have a direct experience as to what these people are capable of. You are either deliberately ignoring the reality that is knocking at your door or else are immune to it somehow, I don’t know which.
To be perfectly frank, I’m finding your blog to be anything but impartial, and in fact see you very clearly aligning yourself with one side over the other. I make no pretense about where I stand on these issues and with which folks. I never put forth the proposition that I was trying to be “even-handed,” unlike yourself, sir. Maybe a little less moderation and a little more free reign would permit the truth to emerge. If, indeed, that is what we are seeking here.
You asked about the origin of my revulsion and subsequent disassociation with certain left-behind parent groups. Rather than waste my time rehashing everything here, here are a few links from my blog which make my position clear:
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/13/why-i-no-longer-endorse-the-bachome-organization-reprint-from-my-facebook-notes/
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/13/eight-left-behind-parent-“strategies”-that-are-doomed-to-failure/
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/14/the-cancer-will-come-your-life-will-be-shortened/
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/14/william-lake-and-douglass-berg-on-the-japs-redux/
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/13/of-tall-tales-and-crn-japan-the-ballad-of-captain-william-lake/
There’s lots more. Feel free to check out the rest of my blog for more details.
Right, Tony, I realize there is a split, and that the organized Left Behind parents are in the two opposing camps.
What I know about Savoie’s story is either what I read in the media, what I read from you guys, or what I read from Chris directly. There really aren’t very many other sources—everyone claims to be explaining the same incident. It just sounds like only so much litigation. Each side brings their set of facts.
I am trying very hard to be fair and impartial. The only people telling me that I’m not, are those involved with the internet spat. I hope to show all you folks that the real problem is that you don’t get to see your kids, and it’s unfair. In some cases, what the possessing parent did was merely hurtful. In other cases, outright criminal.
A lot of the recent arguments, though, seem to go just to jurisdiction. Well, sometimes jurisdiction is in America. That’s what happened with Chris, and that’s what should have happened with Commander Paul, (especially, as a military guy). This is totally different than being in Japan and only having Japan as a recourse.
Hoofin said; “[This is one of the low-blow cheap shots that you shouldn’t repeat if you don’t have first-hand knowledge. Do you? How would you like someone saying that about you? To me, it sounds like it came out of one side’s divorce filings. I wouldn’t be surprised if “form” divorce filings don’t have that as one of the paragraphs . . . ]”
So nobody ever would say that about me….But it is something that Savoie has admitted his infidelity in press and in person to others….and its clearly not refuted by him or his attorney in the court..has your journalistic criteria been met yet Hoofin?
Chris Savoie says that he did not, and so, I see it as allegation and not “fact”. A lot of Left Behind parents do not come forth, I am told, because they don’t want to fall into this situation where somebody goes and tries to dig up things from their relationship, or try to find other people to badmouth them, just because they want to fight publicly for their children. There are 170 cases of Americans according to the state department, but I’m only counting a fraction of that online. I see why.
Hoofin, I like your blog posts and appreciate your interest in Japan Child Abduction. However, if possible, please don’t allow your site to become a forum for cyber bullies who seem to only be interested in dividing the left-behind parent community and attacking other parents. The one primary principle that respected child rights advocate groups like the “Bring Sean Home Foundation” and “Bring Abducted Children Home” abide by is the principle of never publicly attacking other parents who have been victimized by the terrible scourge of parental child abduction. Unfortunately, there is a small splinter faction that misdirects their anger toward other parents via attacks primarily in public forums. Some even have entire blogs dedicated to attacking other parents. They distort facts about cases that they do really not know about and cause nothing but pain and anguish to many many parents who have already suffered enough. Please do not let them hijack your respectable site. Thanks. Commander Paul Toland
Commander Toland, I have discovered this. I don’t understand exactly why there is this split, as anyone viewing the various You Tube recordings of Left Behind Parent events from 2008 and 2009 would see many of the people apparently posting here [were] together, united, on the issue of following U.S. laws, and for fair custody agreements under Japanese law.
Unfortunately, as fast as I can do even a cursory investigation of what authentic facts there are about each individual’s situation is, more postings come. So I might indeed have to shut down the thread, which is regrettable, because I would like to see ALL the fathers get to see their children. And I would like to see ALL the international marriages that can’t be continued come to some amicable dissolution.
It baffles me why there is this internal divide going on; but then again, I study the Episcopal Church in America, and you see this sort of thing going on all over the place in that denomination. So I appreciate your advice, and will have to be a harder moderator when this topic comes up.
This is Toland’s typical approach, i.e., playing the victim whereas the truth is he and his minions at BACHome are highly accomplished “cyber-bullies.” You keep asking what the reason for the split was. Let me tell you a little story then about my own break with the group BACHome.
Shortly after the earthquake on 3/11, Sec. Clinton arrived in Tokyo to express solidarity with the Japanese people following this great humanitarian tragedy and show America’s commitment to reconstruction efforts. One left-behind father — John Gomez — suggested that we “take advantage of this opportunity — yes, OPPORTUNITY — to try to speak with her about the left-behind parent issue. I was appalled at this suggestion and replied that I’d wait until they recovered all the dead bodies first. This was apparently seen as a statement not “in support of the cause” and I was subsequently mocked, ridiculed, and pilloried by over a dozen BACHome members and affiliates on their distro list. I was called a “crazy person” by some woman named Donna Duke, and accused of collusion with the Japanese government on the left-behind parent issue by some French person named Jacques Colleau, to mention just a couple of the many remarks directed against me.
At the same time, BACHome, with “expert” scientific analysis by the esteemed Dr. Savoie, decided on a new hare-brained strategy, to wit — Japan is now so toxic from radiation that the US government must effect the immediate return of all children previously abducted by Japanese nationals in the past. It must be remembered at this point that nearly 25,000 human beings were dead or “missing” following the earthquake and tsunami. (This “strategy” didn’t work then and isn’t working now, yet BACHome persists in following it to this day, like pit bulls with their jaws clamped around a tire swing.
In addition, BACHome started a list of children “missing since the tsunami,” including Randy Collins’s son (who lives in Chiba close to my daughter — I know because I once helped Randy in the past get information on his kid’s school), and Bruce Gherbetti’s daughters (whose children live in the same house the children’s family resided in for years before the tsunami).
I was a member of BACHome for about a year and a half before this, Hoofin, and supported their activities throughout my association with them. But I ultimately found the actions of many of their members to be morally repugnant and made a clean break with them, forever and always. You can choose to support these people and apologize for them and rationalize their actions if you wish. That’s your choice. But don’t expect that any of us here — Patrick Braden, Scott Sawyer, and myself — to go along. We all know who and what these people (i.e., the BACHome “leaders”) are, and are not likely in our lifetimes ever to be convinced of their essential goodness and humanity.
Just one more point: Don’t think, as Toland claims, that we are some sort of small, fringe group. A great many people I know personally have expressed the same sort of revulsion with this organization as we have and have also stated that they, too, will have nothing further to do with them.
Yes, so it is something along the lines of a split over strategy. That is not uncommon in groups.
As you can see, Tony, I let everyone’s comments in. But I also have my own view of the matter. This leads me to end up giving that sort of “80-20” support that some people are O.K. with for the 80, and others just write me off because they aren’t getting 100.
It is hard for me to see how any of the parent’s groups speak for the whole, because out of the 170-or-so American children, I am only counting maybe 10 BAChomers.
I can see why they’re upset with the U.S. Government, all for different reasons. I am not sure that their expressing that to the government is helpful or detrimental. You have to remember that some of them, like Toland and Savoie, have good reason to be upset with one arm of the government or another.
I can also see why a my-way-or-the-highway approach would really piss off others with differing views on how to go about it. Especially in the wake of 3/11, which was seen as a “good thing” done for Japan by America. (I don’t know why our military alliance isn’t equally seen as a good thing, but, for some reason, it’s not.)
See now, I thought we were all supposed to be directing our anger at the Japanese government, which i don’t have a problem with. Go to my original blog:
http://tony-and-liliana-delvecchio.com/
and browse around to see what the US government has been doing on our behalf. These people at BACHome believe, like children, that what has affected them takes precedence over everything else, and everybody else for that matter. Any impartial observer would recognize that the efforts the State Department has been making on behalf of perhaps a few thousand altogether of its 300,000,000 citizens has been more than appropriate, and in fact, American left-behind parents should be extraordinarily grateful for what they have accomplished to date.
Please tell me what good reason Toland and Savoie have for being pissed off at our government. Savoie in particular should be kissing State’s ass for expending huge amounts of political capital for springing him out of the Japanese hoosegow after he and his associates tried to reabduct, sorry, reclaim, his children on a public street in broad daylight in a foreign nation. That is my opinion, of course, for all you ersatz lawyers reading this. Furthermore, the State Department has been actively pursuing this issue with their Japanese counterparts — discussing it with officials at every opportunity, participating in joint diplomatic initiatives with other affected countries, making public statements before the press, and on and on. BACHome’s criticism of the US government is borne out of both an abysmal ignorance of the depths of Japanese recalcitrance and the nature of change through diplomatic means. Japan is a sovereign nation, and the US government can no longer engage in gunboat diplomacy to get its way.
So despite the pretenses of some BACHome “leaders” as to an understanding of Japanese culture and the workings of international diplomacy, these people continually demonstrate an immature and self-centered view of the realities we adults have long since come to grips with. What is required is patient yet respectful pressure on the US government to pursue the matter with the FOREIGN government of Japan to the best of their ability. Calling our officials “incompetent” and claiming that they “put economic interests above that of our US citizens:” and other such claptrap that issues from the mouths of these people IS counter-productive to the cause, and that’s one of the reasons why I have distanced myself from this ill-informed and wrong-headed organization.
Now, unless you have a child you wish to be reunited with and unless you too see the simplistic “strategies” of the BACHome organization preventing you and others from reaching the goal of being reunited with your child, I’d suggest that you really don’t have a horse in this race and thus have nothing to lose by throwing your support behind the WRONG people. You aren’t directly involved in this matter now, are you, Hoofin? Because sound arguments do seem to bounce off your chest like bullets off of Superman.
Tony D. says:
This is one aspect of the thing though: I am not “throwing my weight” behind the BACHome group. I wrote about the Wisconsin reunion, which is something that is keyed to ALL Americans. It’s probably of interest to a lot of Japanese to, because the “game”–as the woman in the Nightline comment put it–now is different. It is: you show up in America as a child kidnapper and your ass goes in the jail until the child reappears. So this is story with a happy ending and a moral.
Yeah, Tony, right, I don’t have a kid. And I’m not a Left Behind parent. My Japan issue right now is an employment one, and it’s a hybrid. One of the defendants, nominally, and one of the laws I am relying on, is “Japanese” (a Japanese subsidiary of an American multinational, and the Japanese labor standards law). But the judge is in America. So jurisdiction is a BIG issue to me, especially when America has jurisdiction in a case. I read damn near everything I can get my hands on, if a judge is either accepting or rejecting jurisdiction, and why.
I am very careful about who I support, because I am a fairly active blogger, and I was a fairly active editorialist locally back home in the 1980’s and ’90’s. You only get followed to the extent you can be entertaining and/or persuasive. Although, much of what I write is read months or years after the fact. (A core of several hundred regulars, and then “passers-by” in the thousands who search on the key issues I write about.)
I’m letting your side have the say, and I’m letting any other group, too. The only editing I’m doing is taking out shots, and I am being very clear where and why. Sometimes, my own comment has to go right in the text. This is trying to be fair to everybody, but it’s also be fair to my readership. I feel I am doing a pretty good job, even though my costume is a little tight and the cape gets in the way of the keyboard.
That’s slickly said, but Mr. Toland perfectly describes the offenses of “Bring Abducted Children Home,” the splinter group he founded and which started in 2010. The Global Future working group of parents was founded in 2006, and has been established on Capitol Hill ever since. All progress and success on this issue tracks back to Global Future, including the lawful recoveries of several children. Instead of answering questions about controversial facts of his own case, which were established by numerous courts of law, he assails unnamed bogeymen. It’s a puzzle how a public figure who actively cultivates media, and is the figurehead of a supposedly “respected child rights advocate group,” has repeatedly-adjudicated, unpaid judgments against him, and then uses victimhood to avoid directly answering questions about them. This behavior does not serve the movement well, and acts to the detriment of children whose parents have not generated a set of controversial and bad facts, before and after their tragic separation from their children.
I would like to.comment as i feel all these bachome zealots are doing huge damage to fathers that have clear cut case. I do not care personally about the details of what these people believe to be true but what is. This.group.tries.to.get attention and sympathy by any means necessary that does harm to un questionable cases. Spin the facts right paul and chris i.was there in the planning meetings for bachome. You want to create a false victimhood. Are you going to file a suit for me speaking honestly, the truth is one a significant level many of these victimized parent bear considerable reponsibilty for their dilema and rather thab act like men they chastize others and bully those that have a clear focus on their kids. Gomen naasai goes a longer way that un realistic demands and allowing other tos shoulder our personal.burden while facts suggest otherwise. You would get more respect and sympathy if you acted in a responsible manner and did not blame.others for what are clearly and unequvocally our own choices. Pls excuse typos,
Thank you. It is most unfortunate that you have to moderate your forum at all, especially over an issue where we should all be united in primarily directing our anger where it belongs….at the Japanese government. I appreciate the sincerety of your reply and thank you again.
Be clear on one point here, Hoofin: Solidarity is on BACHome’s terms, and theirs alone. Dissent is not tolerated in the their organization. And while Toland now claims here in this forum that our anger should be directed “where it belongs — at the Japanese government,” their organization regularly blasts the US government for what BACHome perceives as inaction on their part. I find this foolishness to be counter-productive to both my personal goal of being reunited with my daughter and the overall goal of left-behind parents to end this human tragedy. Toland and his buddies whine and complain that my government “is not doing enough” to settle the issue, whereas the truth is they have been actively involved in this issue for years. Had Toland followed his own advice as above he might have averted the exodus of rational left-behind parents that has been going on for years.
I will never “stand united” with the likes of Toland, Savoie, Collins, et al., in this cause, but will instead work with people who are adept at accomplishing meaningful change. I don’t need or require BACHome’s support, and, like others, am committed to wresting control of this movement from people that have hijacked it to further their own cynical ends. I’m through appealing to their sense of decency and their common sense because, quite frankly, I don’t believe either quality exists among the elite members of their mad monk fraternity. This is my opinion and my firm belief.
Hoofin,
Don’t be fooled by the bogus attempt at suave-toned surface-talk…. or the attempt to steer the attention and discussion away from the facts. More than anything else in every single case, the truth matters. Neither Toland or Savoie will ever respond to the facts. You can get the entire transcript in audio form from the Maryland case and listen to Peter Paul Toland say he never actually asked to see his daughter after he and his wife split up. Not once.
That’s in court, and in the record, and easy to get. The attempted obfuscation and avoidance before he finally answered is like a cartoon too. On the internet here, or even in any other forum, you can only get a spin story that doesn’t match with the actions or the record. When you read between the lines of the facts…it gets much worse. Both [gentlemen] did exactly as I predicted in my very first post (before you actually brought any named case into our discussion) they tried to lump us all into one basket, and then play fast and loose with the facts.
Think about it, and keep your eyes on the facts and the storyline demonstrated by the parents actions and their documented facts. Ask any attorney, you can[‘]t necessarily trust the words of your client, unless they match up with the facts in the record. Do your due diligence Hoofin. There is no substitute for doing your work. There is no internal divide going on. . There are people who take responsibility for their actions, and there are people who want to try to get the USG or the JG to grant them an exception to the laws they are properly under. We discussed that some after you initiated the subject in your original blog posting.
Right, Patrick, fine and all–but it’s pretty clear that there is a dispute between you, maybe Tony and few others on one side. And the BACHome group on the other. Whenever I write about the subject, I get my share of e-mails (usually), where someone wants to point something out about the BACHome faction. You say about “finding the truth”. Well, what I would really want to know (and probably anyone interested in reading the comments through) is:
What caused the split. I mean, really?
I don’t believe it’s this talk about the BACHomers seeking to get governments “to grant them an exception to the laws they are properly under.” Let me just review:
1) With Commander Toland, he was advised by some unsophisticated JAG to seek a resolution in the Japanese courts. Toland was not required to use the Japanese courts. He got bad advice. When he went to Washington state and tried to do a divorce there, the late Mrs. Toland got through the Japanese process more quickly, and so there was “res judicata” and “collateral estoppel” (issue and claim preclusion in Washington state). Frankly, it sounds to me like he got bad advice. There is nothing nefarious about getting bad advice–there is a lot of bad advice given to foreigners in Japan. A lot.
Now, trying to get relief through Virginia, and maybe through Maryland, is a tough row to hoe. Because there is already the Japanese judgment that went to finality. That’s U.S. common law. There may be some avenue to do something stateside, because the grandmother now has custody. (The original litigation was between Mr. and Mrs., not the grandmother.) But even there, it might be that issue and claim preclusion prohibit a U.S. court from deciding anything. Or, it may be that they can decide, but they must use the facts as found by the Japanese court in its earlier decision. I can only speculate, and I don’t know the fine points of the rule.
2) With Dr. Chris Savoie, as I said here at the time (2009), it looked like he did some “arranging” beforehand to get a divorce stateside, probably knowing that Japan is a sole custody regime where the mother, as a rule, gets custody. You assert that Dr. Savoie was looking for something out of the U.S. government. But he was only getting what anyone can get, and what Cmdr. Toland would have gotten if he had more vigorously pursued a Washington state decision. So he got a divorce and joint custody in Tennessee. And then his ex-wife promptly absconded to Japan with the kids. You know how that is from personal experience.
The problem with divorce situations that are not amicable, or, where there is a certain amount of tragedy aside, is that there are plenty of people around the divorced people’s circles to go around badmouthing. And Japanese who want a certain end in situations are very good at badmouthing people–don’t let the stereotype of shy and quiet fool you. So if you pick through divorce proceedings, or custody matters, you aren’t going to find the stereotypical Japanese. You are going to find someone who is bent on demonizing the other side, or making them out to be unreasonable, or a half-dozen other unpositive traits. I bet for the 170 something kidnapped children in Japan, the Japanese have a little dossier on how rotten the Left Behind parent is.
So as it goes with jurisdiction, Commander Toland should have had jurisdiction in Washington state absent a final decision in Japan. He is probably trying to get jurisdiction in Maryland versus the grandmother, and I will wait until the appellate court there rules. Dr. Savoie did properly get jurisdiction in Tennessee.
“he was advised by some unsophisticated JAG to seek a resolution in the Japanese courts. Toland was not required to use the Japanese courts. He got bad advice. ”
really? how else or where else was he going to get the divorce?
How does washington take jurisdiction in your opinion?
He was living on Japanese soil for a long time with his Japanese wife…. the child was born there…. thats where his ‘illegal acts against her’ happened, The mediation began…etc….once again you omit the beginning.
Patrick, you fellas need to go back and look at the Washington state case again. Plus–and this is very important–read up on issue and claim preclusion.
In Toland v. Toland, it says:
What the judges were both concerned about was whether the Japan case was “final”. This means, claim preclusion or “res judicata“.
I don’t know why Commander Toland chose to acknowledge the Japan forum action, which was filed after his Washington state one. And why he didn’t “perfect” his Washington state action. (It looks like an attorney screw-up, actually.) Had Toland gotten a Washington state divorce—if even by default—before the Tokyo action was final, then the Washington state judgment was controlling as res.
When the military ships you out, you still retain “domicile” in the state you last lived in. (You, of course, have domicile where your residence is if you are stateside.) It is extremely hard to be without domicile, as an American, in some American state. When I lived in Japan, I had domicile in New Jersey, until I came back—which was to Pennsylvania. Now, my domicile is Pennsylvania.
I suggest that your gang read up on the law, before you go picking at snippets in the legal opinions or the testimony. It’s clear in the Toland Washington court case that the court is focusing on whether the Japan judgment is final, not whether Japan had exclusive jurisdiction. You see that it only had jurisdiction over Toland because he submitted to the chuusai (mediation) after she filed there—and surprisingly, after he had previously filed in Washington.
Patrick, this was asked and answered somewhere else. I refer you back to the Washington state case. Paul would have had jurisdiction in Washington state, had he:
1) perfected the earlier divorce filing in Washington state, which may have even been a default judgment if the wife did not respond; or
2) refused to participate in the mediation in Japan.
Clearly the product of bad advice. Someone gave him bad advice.
Adding another point…
US Courts generally determine custody jurisdiction based on the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA allows for a court to “exert jurisdiction” in cases where human-rights are being violated by court that would otherwise be considered to have jurisdiction.
The Japanese courts are commonly considered to be out of touch with the international human-rights norms… especially in these cases.
I should have said, “commonly considered *by those familiar with the Japanese system*….”
One more thought that might help you to understand. And lets take the word Toland out. By your theory. if Tony had just run to Washington and filed for his divorce there…. before his wife got a final judgement in japan…Washington will have jurisdiction is that your theory?
Now lets look at the “rule” or theory you are establishing in the converse.
So you are saying that a Japanese citizen living in the U.S …. who runs to Japan and gets their judgement first, while the American parent and child who are still living on U.S. soil … in that case japan takes jurisdiction? You realize thats what the Japanese abductors do right? only difference is they take the child with them. So are you beginning to see why so many judges in both countries have ruled in favor of Japanese jurisdiction in that case?
Yes. And no. If the Japanese person begins an action in Japan and that action is finalized before any other action (not just in America, but any place else in the world), then that action is entitled to res judicata. This is what the various judges in Washington and Virginia are focused on. Res judicata, also called claim preclusion, is a common law doctrine. You find it in common law countries. It is a rule that says if a matter was brought to a final judgment in one place, the other court is not going to disturb that judgment.
Now, to be finalized in Japan, it may mean that both parties participate. If Japan does not have “PJ” (personal jurisdiction) over the American, then it is not likely that the judgment would be “final”.
What should have happened is this:
1) Paul initiated his action in Washington, where he was domiciled. He perfects it by serving the wife, and does whatever the court requires for him to move the action forward.
2) The wife initiated her action in Tokyo. Paul refuses to participate in that action, because Japan does not have PJ over him, and because he already has the Washington action.
3) The wife should not get a final judgment. If she does, the court in Washington should not consider it final, because it is the effect of a default judgment where the court did not have PJ over the defendant (Paul).
[Quick edit: I think, in this instance, Japan would not have had jurisdiction over Paul because of SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).]
There is also the issue of Japanese Courts often passing ruling without following the appropriate service of legal documents per the HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS.
Hoofin said:
Hey Hoofin, can you go find that and show it to me here?
[My response: No, obviously.]
From what I have seen…(and I wont swear that I have seen every single thing) what I think you are saying here doesn’t exist. And it goes a little further because together with the rest of this blog content, it implies that someone from Global Future (although there are lots of people out there who are just scholars, or interested for some reason in this subject ,and know the difference and just don’t like what they do. I am just asking you to just direct me to that place on your site where you have written on this subject before this string, and someone posted something back to you and wanted to point something out about the bachole faction.
There is one correction I will offer…..The town in Tennessee is not actually Hog Wallow. And for avoidance of doubt…. NOT every single member of Bacho[m]e has dirty bad facts in the record of their lives with their former spouses or children. They may actually have several innocent supporters who have never questioned or looked into the true facts of the 6 or 7 “leaders” of their group. But I will be glad to discuss them any time, or debate those facts publicly with any of them. To the innocent and misled members, I hope you do your due diligence too. Your future with your children may depend on it, and there are some stains that just will never come clean.
Only because you said you need to see the transcript Hoofin;
I copied some of the transcript here addressing the points you mentioned.
One beginning clarification…. the actual name is The Chancery Court for Williamson County, at Franklin Tennessee. He got me on that one…. Chalk one up for team Savoie. … and that the son was born in calif and lived there for something like 10 months after birth, before spending the rest of his 7 YO life in Japan.. But those are big mistakes? obsessed?, untrue?, blatantly false?, disturbing?, patently lying?, citing false sources?, highly disturbing voyeuristic?, false light?, defamation?, lies?, malicious?, atrocious?, not even close to any of those at all. Impressive and long list of negative and defamatory adjectives he is using to describe me….but wait a second….didnt Toland just say that that kind of talk would be breaking one of the chiseled in stone, Cardinal Rules of one of the only two possible (relatively new) highly-esteemed, self-bonafide, and certified advocacy organizations?? I swear I just read that somewhere. ….Those are minor details that really aren’t relevant to any of the main points…and you are falling for the look over here trick.
Of course he vehemently denies anything where there is wiggle room. But you will find out sooner or later…. its eaither his “story” or you get the threats.
Reading your redaction’s, you may just be another person he has managed to scare and manipulate…and it looks like you are caving in to this guys harassing threatening pressure… We call that bullying. You gotta read his emails to his ex-wife… I wont publish them here….but they’re in the court record. I kind of like the “lets debate what the definition of a Japanese word is” to avoid dealing with the issue or question….but I didnt see that anywhere in the transcript…. but on blogs I guess it flies a little bit further.
And UCCJEA provides the concept the same criteria used by the Hague to establish country of habitual residence for the child…..word it how you like. Which came first? the chicken or the egg.
The clerk of the chancery court is available by phone and copies pages for about 50cents per and will mail them…as per open public record.(you get 4 pages on one 8&1/2 by 11 sheet)
hearing on-
March 30 2009
on page 36
Ms Story: Mr Savoie, you are going to have to stop having direct arguments with Ms. Moses, or the judge is going to get very angry with you.
The witness: I’m sorry
The court: What were here on is the restraining order. Were going far afield. And I’m willing to do that simply to help the parties resolve the matter if we can, but the court does believe that I need to consider these emails in context. So if there is a predicate to this, then somebody needs to supply it to me.
Ms Moses: The emails are harassment– I’m sorry the reason for the emails is
Page 37
cont…harassment from Dr Savoie. I have about four of them that–actually five of them, that I’d like to introduce–and the rest of them are not in Japanese., fortunately–but to show the …..
——————————————————————————————————————-
So apparently Savoie had this double restraining order against him… no emails and no phone calls allowed with the mother! That’s pretty extreme in a joint custody case. The actual harassing emails from Savoie to the mother in this court record look exactly like the ones he has sent me, oh yea….and Tony, Scott, William, Moises, Cheryl and who knows who all…even you are now on the list Hoofin!…although yours was reduced to just a few sentences…. all of the previous ones just go on and on and on… pages and pages of law-book drivel …copied and pasted into some kind of threatening manic collage. I never even read it all….
——————————————————————————————————————-
skip to page 38
Ms Moses:… they of course have been communicating via email until, fortunately, the parenting coordinators realized that it was very upsetting to Ms Savoie (the Japanese Ms Savoie), and they wont let Dr Savoie do that anymore.
Skip to page 39
The Court: Dr Savoie, you weren’t asked a question by anybody. Until you are, don’t speak . OK?
———————————————————————————————————————
So here they were talking about how he was trying to make things difficult for the mother by failing to do what he was supposed to do for her and the kids…he was obfuscating…and that is where the judge finally got fed-up with his games and interruptions. But the story is that she was a woman who was overwhelmed , transplanted, divorced, in culture shock, and fearful and looking for stability for her kids…and she needed assistance and the plan addressed him assisting her, except he manipulated out of his obligations or dragged his heels which made things harder for her.(this is all addressed again on pg 107 as well…and elsewhere.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Skip to page 40
Q by Ms Moses: You have not done everything you were supposed to do to make it easy for Ms Savoie to stay here; have you sir?
A by Savoie: is that a question?
Ms Moses: yes its a question.
A. I believe I’ve done everything i need to do under the agreement.
Q. Have you sir?
Skip to page 41
Q. Did you set up the education account for Ms Savoie?
A. yes I have Ma’am.
Q and where did you set it up?
A. I forgot which bank that was. I can get that for the court
Q Yes Sir.
And did you tell her that you did that , Sir?
A. Yes. …verbally i did.
Q. When did you tell her?
A. I forget when. I don’t–
Q. Part of her emails to her–
Savoie: I’m not allowed to communicate with her by email or by phone anymore.
Q. So you didn’t tell her did you sir?
A. To the best of my recollection, I did.
Q. When?
Ms Story: this is going a little far afield from the–
The witness: and–
The Court: Excuse me just a minute Dr Savoie–
The witness: I have it funded.–
The Court: Either I’m going to adjourn this and put you in jail for awhile, or you’re going to learn to follow the procedure of the court.
The witness: yes sir
The court: So when one of the lawyers is speaking, that means you be quiet. Is that clear?
Skip to page 45
Ms Moses: Your Honor, I’m not sure why this person is crying in the courtroom.
The Court: Well , I dont know either. I assume this is Dr Savoie’s friend.
——————————————————————————————————————–
In fact it was Amy (Savoie-now)…doing what she does with everyone to manipulate them…crying and playing the victim to illicit sympathy and gain advantage somehow.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Skip to page 98
A. (Mother) I actually clearly remember that email. That was– i was very, very –ath the peak of my frustration that my ex-husband divorced– I divorced a month ago, and he actually married three days before that email.
Page 99
He remarried that person–a woman whom he was having affair, so I was very depressed and– but also angry.
———————————————————————————————————————
The transcript goes on on all kinds of ugly ugly actions and details… financial trickery, threats of police and jailing her father, yelling in front of the kids, Savoie complaining that he needed to move to some other place for employment…since he was unemployed.. There is some very painful and personal hurtful stuff I wont write here. One of the more disturbing facts is that he lived 700 miles away from his wife and children in japan for about 80% of his time there.
There is So much more..we dont need to go on and on here…call the clerk and order your own copy…or i might go somewhere and scan you something if I really must.
Yeah, um, this is the kind of thing. Divorces are messy.
The more you guys go at it, what it seems to me is that there is a big dispute, really, about whether American courts have any say. And about who should get the joint custody in cases that aren’t your own case.
Everyone has to start being a lot more honest with me about why there is a dispute. Not whether the one side or the other are “the bad guys”. It sounds to me like the Savoie-Toland side is “bad” because they use the American courts. Or you feel that their putting matters out in the press tends to weaken the arguments of the Left Behind dads who are still in Japan. It’s something like that, right?
It is about psychology and projection Hoofin. There is really no consistent logic to the attacks. It is completely one sided. And someone needs to spoon feed to Braden yet one more time the difference between an accusation and a fact.
I have already said about how, if it appears in the other side’s filings, that does not make something “fact”. But I also have to let all sides have their reasonable say.
It would now appear that the esteemed Dr. Savoie also holds a doctorate in psychology, in addition to nuclear physics.
He would have you believe that what we do we do for fun and for no good reason at all — that every criticism leveled against Savoie and his BACHome associates is without merit, that all claims against him are unsubstantiated, and that people like Braden, Sawyer, and I are simply “trying to divide the movement” for no logical reason.
Does this make any sense to you whatsoever. Harken back to the fact that neither he nor Toland ever confront their criticizers openly, but instead hurl meaningless and purposefully distracting barbs at those who oppose him.
I was called a “cyber-bully” before (apparently BACHome’s new term of art) by Bruce Gherbetti who insisted that I meet him “man to man.” Only when I showed up alone and unarmed at the meeting I found Gherbetti accompanied by two “bodyguards” or “impartial third parties” or whatever you wish to call them. In any event, there was nothing “man to man” about the meeting.
I am more than willing to stand face to face with any BACHome member and publicly discuss all of these issues, but that will never happen, because at heart these people are wretched cowards who know full well that their fanciful version of events and idiotic “strategies” cannot stand the light of day. So instead they seek the support of the ignorant and ill-informed, and have them rally around their tattered flag.
I think that given the extreme measures that you folks seem to go to in order to attack other parents, could definitely be considered pathological (but I merely majored in psychology of 3 years, before deciding that people generally didn’t want to be fixed, and moving on to over endeavors – so you will likely disregard my input as well, as you will find it more convenient to disregard, rather than to actually consider your mental state)
If you are confident in your positions, why do you have to continually launch personal attacks all over the web? Why not productively debate ideas instead?
Ad Hominem attacks are generally a sign of weak positions, the inability to form logical arguments, and/or a poor understanding of what constitutes good logic.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanism
I am asking everyone to minimize the ad hominems, but one person’s ad hominem is another person’s “fact”—especially if they read about it coming from the opposing side of that other person’s court battle.
The irony in this posting right here is rich……Savoie is pontificating from his “extraplenipotentiary psychological knowledge base” and has personally opined some shortcoming that he would like to somehow convince others, is in me….Yet when you look at his user ID photograph closely, (the one next to his name) you will see an actual textbook example of Christopher Savoie’s false light and parental alienation tactics. In this type of abuse, the victim is the children. Astonishingly, this entire group of “child advocates” ALL have done this with their children on their Bachole signs. They actually printed this type of alienating abuse of their children for the world to see, and have no clue. Read them. In Savoie’s signs, Savoie is falsely projecting the denigration of his ex-wife, through the “false light speech” of his own two children. Those children never said any of that crap. Savoie is using his kids once again like pawns same as Balloon Boys father did…to promote himself at the child’s expense. By trying to force the delivery of his “message” through the children’s voices. There is no debate on this one either, this is parental alienation and a perfect demonstration of one of the ways Chris will abuse the kids and continues abusing them.
Projection, Parental Alienation, psychological child abuse. He really should just avoid the use of any $10 words…he would be so much better off.
Ironic that he would say this is about projection…and he doesn’t even have a clue.
No Mr. Braden, my undergraduate MINOR was in social psychology with an honors thesis in domestic violence research under Dr. Richard Gelles of U. Penn. and I will be staying in a Holiday Inn Express tomorrow night as well. Well, at least the honors research info is accurate. I even won an award for my work. LOL Look it up. Especially the stuff at URI. What is your formal educational background in the field, BTW? Do you have any significant formal education? Trust me, the reply to this question and your subsequent fully expected rage-ful attacks prompted by such a question will be truly diagnostic to the psychology experts out there. Another poster here is starting to catch on.
Again, what formal education do you have, if any? And don’t answer with how that is not so important or that it is irrelevant.
Yes, it is projection Patrick. Yours. Your (mis) use of words and overstretching your vocabulary to hide the obvious is also an interesting feature in that context. Very laughable, especially your spelling and grammer [sic]. LOL As are the obfuscations and specious arguments and inability to say anything positive that does not have the words me, my or I in it…. VERY telling to those in the know. As is the post about how famous you are in the media above. More of the same. After criticizing others like me for being in the media. LOL. You know what I am saying right? Wink wink. If I am right, you will not even see the contradictions. You will simply look for more imperfections in ME.
And BTW, why don’t you post those PDFs of the JUDGE SIGNED “restraining orders” you falsely claim were issued against me in “Franklin County” in “REAL COURT DOCUMENTS”. 😉 You know, the non-existent ones that you have SUPER SPECIAL ACCESS to in Winchester, TN where I never lived. 😉 Come on, in the spirit of Christmas Story 24 hour night, I triple dog dare ya! LOL
And further, how do you KNOW what my kids did or did not say to me or to their siblings in the presence of others or on the phone after the abduction? That’s even more creepy and stupid than voyeuristically reading my post divorce TRO hearing line by line without context or a legal education and getting it all wrong. And you are a liar. I have witnesses, Patrick. Several. Including but not limited to my flesh and blood children. Think about it. I would not be so stupid as to post things or write things in posters that I know they will see online if such statements were not true. You have that luxury of lying about your kid because your kid wasn’t old enough to know the difference between lies and the truth from you. Like how much time I spent with my kids or where I lived during my marriage or how often I went to soccer practices or gave them baths or took them to Hawaii or Europe or swam in the ocean with them. Or cleaned up their vomit when they were sick. Or dried their tears when they cried. My kids know. So you look like a liar to them too. Thank you for that. You REALLY look like a buffoon to THEM because of your ridiculous statements online, trust me. THEY KNOW whether their Mom or me or you are telling the truth. They are really smart kids. And that is the only audience that matters, Patrick.
That’s right, Zac and Rebecca, who will read this someday soon if not now, Mr. Patrick doesn’t tell the truth about me, does he? Isn’t he a silly guy? But having said that, please keep in mind that he also lost his baby girl so please pray for him. He is a very sad and angry man and Daddy thinks that’s why he says those silly things about Daddy like that he was living 700 miles away from you and never saw you when you were growing up. That’s a funny joke, huh? Anyway, you two and the other kids know the truth about your childhood and I trust you 100% to make up your own minds about who to believe because you are smart and sweet kids and I love you very much. You have my permission to love or believe whomever you want or don’t want to and to keep it a secret in your hearts. You are good kids and Daddy loves you, no matter what. I missed you so much this year. We will just have to light a lot more candles over the holidays when we see you. LOTS OF CANDLES! Guess who won the most gelt this year!? I bet you can guess. Next year I hope a miracle can happen here or there, my dearest little ones. For that we pray. V’imru. Stay tough, stay healthy, stay sweet and see you both soon. Love, Daddy XOXOXO
Chris just be cause you went to school does not mean you are educated. Tatoaba bill gates. Steve jobs.ghandi. Gamburi nasai. Knowledge is gained and wisdom is lived. Seems you are relying on school asa measure o f intelligence . I have a degree in not being a arogant self promoting
fool.Learn this. Be a man and be humble and dont be arrogant all your schooling has taught you little. No matter was is taught it is what is learned ?sensei“Tatoaba” sounds like an album from a Swedish pop group. You mean tatoeba, right?
Seems to me like some folks have “attention envy” of certain parents who have managed to get more publicity than others.
It all strikes me as rather counter-productive. We all have cases of abduction/denial of access. Rather than attacking other parents (as certain individuals seem to be vesting so much time in — to the point of contacting an Internet Journalist that had written briefly about me and trying to claim, without a shred of proof, that I didn’t exist), we should all be focused on attacking the folks that are clearly *in the wrong* — namely, the Government of Japan.
The main disconnect seems to be that some folks believe that the Department of State is saintly and can do no wrong; and other folks believe that the Department of State is more or less selling our kids down the drain.
I merely say, the proof in in the pudding…. in 20+ years:
How many children has the Department of State gotten returned from Japan? For how many children have they negotiated with Japan to arrange visitation? How many parental abductors have they attempted to extradite from Japan back to the US? How many MOUs have they negotiated on the Child Abduction Issue? How many times have they downplayed the number of cases? How many times have they turned parents away, so that the case count would not go up?
What’s that saying about doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results?
In any case, rather than arguing about the effectiveness of DoS… how about agreeing to disagree on that one, and working as a unified front on Japan? — that part that we all largely agree on.
All the “he said, he said” name calling seems, to put it generously, childish. To put it frankly, psychologically disturbed.
“Patrick McPike”, or whatever his real name is, likes to accuse others of “ad hominem attacks” and now puts forth the proposition that people like myself are “psychologically disturbed” because we refuse to swallow the heaping helpings of BACHome bullshit these frauds are trying to shove down everyone’s throat. (Let this stand, Hoofin.)
I, too, doubt your very existence, Mr. McPike, or should I say Eric Kalmus. I’ve seen your bogus “Letters to My Sons” blog which, in the space of some seven months, contains perhaps five such “letters” that are so brief and generic as to be lifted off a Hallmark card. The lack of any significant details about there lives is telling. Here’s a recent example:
“Hello my sons…
It is the holiday season. A time for families to be together. I am sorry that your mother refuses to soften her heart. We should all be together. We should all be a family.
I miss you all. I miss you my sons.
With love,
Your Father”
There are zero photographs of either of his “two sons” or of McPike himself.
Compare this blog with my own. My family history alone took me almost six weeks to complete. And the posts contain dozens of photographs of myself and my daughter, and an extraordinary amount of detail about our lives together.
http://tony-and-liliana-delvecchio.com/
When I asked “McPike” for some background on his case he blew me off with some happy horseshit about how, for reasons he couldn’t get into, he was “unable to discuss the particulars of his dealings with the State Department,” or something to that effect. Yet he is more than willing to blast our government officials for their apparent ineptitude and incompetence, pretty much in line with the BACHome dogma.
And while he was willing to answer a couple of my emails, when I suggested we get together face to face — as he supposedly lives (lived) in Yokohama — I never heard back from him.
“Patrick McPike” arose out of the ether a few months ago to preach the BACHome gospel of how badly we are all being treated by the State Department and even authored a pathetic “petition” to the US government to “publicly address” the left-behind parent issue (which they have been doing for quite some time, by the way, for those of us paying attention). And yet no one I know has ever seen an image of “McPike,” let alone actually met him.
In short, he is a species of phantom, in my estimation, a figment of some bipolar individual’s imagination.
I’ll be more than happy to debate a real human being, but am really not interested in debating a phantasm who appears out of the dark recesses of the BACHome House of Horrors whenever Paul Toland and/or Christopher Savoie decide to “take the moral high ground” and make their disingenuous calls for “unity” while at the same time deliberately avoiding any genuine public debate with those who disagree with them and their cynical “strategies” and simplistic solutions to the complex problems we face.
Ah….. Tony,
— I “arose” a few months ago, as you put it, because my children were abducted, and I was forced to enter this world of insanity.
— I am not preaching “BACHome Gospel”, I’m discussing both my personal experiences and my conclusions based on my personal research. All of which I clearly document and cite in my blog posts. As before, I suggest that you actually read my sources of information. Also as before, I invite you to debate opinions with me – but based on actual facts, not emotional and unsubstantiated claims.
— I don’t have a lot of photos of my children, because my wife took the computer that we keep them on when she abducted the children… not that it any of your business.
— I was unwilling to provide either you or Braden details of my personal case, as I had seen your blog postings and felt that you had patterns of maliciousness that made me uncomfortable with sharing any personal details with you.
— Likewise, I have no desire to meet you for the same reasons.
— Your entire basis for claiming that I am not me, and even more, claiming that I am Eric Kalmus – is merely because I don’t post enough on my blog to suit you?! Again, you Global Future folks need to really considering studying: Logic, Evidence, Argumentation, Proof, etc.
All the above is exactly why I choose not to interact with you further.
You guys constantly attack others that take a different view from you. You run around making baseless claims. You claim I’m not me, because I happen to have independently developed a view which you feel is similar to a group that you disagree with; and because I don’t post enough on my blog to suit you?
And you feel so compelled by this “evidence”, that you folks write to a Journalist claiming that I am a fraud; who has since told you guys that I am indeed real. Yet you still run around making these baseless claims. Go figure.
And, you don’t feel that this type of behavior could be considered pathological?
Tony,
I’ll just further point out.. that rather than deal with the merits of my arguments, for example:
—–
I merely say, the proof in in the pudding…. in 20+ years:
How many children has the Department of State gotten returned from Japan? For how many children have they negotiated with Japan to arrange visitation? How many parental abductors have they attempted to extradite from Japan back to the US? How many MOUs have they negotiated on the Child Abduction Issue? How many times have they downplayed the number of cases? How many times have they turned parents away, so that the case count would not go up?
—–
You started in on baseless claims and personal attacks – instead of actually discussing the issues. 😉
Whoa! Not so fast there, [guy]. I think you still got some splainin’ to do.
Let’s start with this curious fact, Mr. “McPike”. Why is it that an individual named “Patrick Smith” who has the Twttter account “@patrickinjapan” also links to your “http://letterstomysons.com/” website?
http://twitter.com/patrickinjapan
Patrick SMITH, who despite his moniker “patrickin japan” says that he is “Back in the USA” describes himself thus:
“Father of two American-Born sons abducted by their Japanese Mother and held captive by a broken Japanese legal system which condones and rewards child abduction”
Sounds familiar.
Before we get into the “issues” here, I need to know who it is I’m communicating with. You seem to have a convenient answer to the questions I raised before regarding your identity and the paucity of information about your “sons”, photographs of them (“They were all on my computer which my wife took.” PLEASE! Don’t insult my intelligence further. Don’t any of your relatives have any pics of these adorable “boys”?), your personal experiences with the State Dept., etc.
I’m going to ask you a direct question here, and I want a direct answer. Then we can discuss the issues and I can tell you where you’re off base. If you don’t care to answer, that’s your choice. I’ll just ask the question again on my own blog, which I plan to entitle “Who is the mysterious Patrick McPike?”
Here is my question: Why do both “Patrick McPike” and “Patrick Smith” both link to the same barren website entitled, actually, “Letters to Kai and Koh”?
[Hoofin’s Note: I am also interested in making more direct contact with Patrick McPike. The only connection to a “Smith” family appears in the Facebook page for Patrick McPike, where the sister is a Smith, and the parents are Smiths. Is McPike a middle name?
In the internet era of the 2010’s, it’s really hard to credibly “just appear” on the internet, without people starting to wonder if a pen name is being used. Sometimes people want to do this, since the issue involves sensitive matters. There are occasions, though, when people just want to be a sock puppet.]
Ah…. Tony.
At this point I don’t really care if you respond to me. I haven’t seen anything productive from you to date. You just accuse, attack, accuse, attack.
You and your attitude was the main reason that I always avoided Global Future. All the tirades on your site demonstrated a type of person that I didn’t want to have any association with… as such, any group that encouraged you, was one I wanted nothing to do with.
Your [this is some sort of psychobabble diagnosis] is causing you to look for “mysteries” where they don’t exist. If you actually took a moment and looked at it from the view that I have told the truth, then you would realize that answers to your questions are simple.
If you choose to continue to doubt my existence… that is *your* choice. The more you declare such, the sillier you look. And your mistaken view of reality has no impact on me.
Further, this is just more of the “jump through our hoops, and prove yourself worthy of our decoder ring”. And I don’t work that way.
[Hoofin’s Note: I am sure the point is understood, but you should look at it from the perspective of people who want to avoid engaging with sock puppets. From personal experience, I have been maligned by “real people” who were made up identities of (now) ex-Japan Exchange Teachers. Given that there are these strong feelings between the Global Future and BACHome/BSH factions, it really is no surprise that people would not want to engage with someone whose identity is not easily verified via the internet. This is why I invited you, yesterday, to send more bona fides to me (Rick Gundlach) if you chose.]
Hoofin- Does Toland ever actually identify the person who gave him the bum advice by name? It would be indelibly seared into my memory, yet I have never once seen it mentioned. Why not sue the attorney in question for malpractice? Regardless, he accepted the advice of his own free will; therefore, any subsequent jurisdiction discussion should be moot. I also thought intentionally misleading Congress was a crime. At the very least, most people bristle when rampant memory lapses occur during congressional testimony. [Hoofin’s note: Craig, no he has not identified the JAG, if it was a JAG. From the story, it sounds like this was a person in some sort of military legal assistance cooperative, so it may be someone who one wouldn’t remember the name of. Like, somebody who’s a lawyer says, “you should really deal with the Japanese about this!” and then, he took the advice. The real villain in the profession, as the story seems to me, is whoever had Toland sit on the Washington state filing. I still can’t figure that one out.]
Regarding Dr. Savoie’s case, an often over-looked fact is that he only obtained custody from Tennessee court after Noriko returned to Japan. By his own argument about having joint custody in Japan, she was perfectly within her rights to travel with the children. Wasn’t that his defense when he came to “repatriate” his children- he had joint custody so should be able to travel with them? He claims he was divorced in America so a retroactive custody order should hold, but still married in Japan so he had joint custody anyway. This observation is based solely on his public statements/ interviews.
A rather vocal Japanese LBP often complains about false charges of domestic violence, but readily admits (and has been published) that he only hit his wife twice.
I think the point Patrick, Tony and Scott are trying to make it that some individuals do far more harm than good- especially in terms of perception within Japan which is where the change needs to take place. Coming across as an aggressive bully who tries to manipulate the system or does whatever they want does not help anyone. Setting up a for-profit consulting service might lead some to question motives.
David Goldman and Moises Garcia were successful both legally and public perception wise because they fought the injustices within the rules (as warped as they may be). They were completely open, kept the focus on the children and did their best not to sling mud (at ex spouses or other LBPs).
Children absolutely deserve a relationship with both parents. They also deserve parents who act like responsible adults and role models. We could probably all benefit by keeping that in mind.
RE: Toland’s advice giver
If you really have all the names of people that you talked to immediately following your child’s abduction, then you are a better man than me. I was in a daze for weeks, if not months. Struggling to mentally come to grips with what was happening, and that no one would/could do anything.
RE. Savoie’s custody
Changing a custody award after one parent abducts another is reasonably common practice in US family courts. In addition, whether his ex-wife was legally within her rights to visit Japan with the children, she *was* in violation of both state (custodial interference) and federal (International parental Kidnapping Act) laws when she refused to return the children to America and denied access to the children.
RE: “I think the point Patrick, Tony and Scott are trying to make it that some individuals do far more harm than good- especially in terms of perception within Japan which is where the change needs to take place.”
A) I agree that Japan needs to change.
B) But, I think that you are drinking too much of the Japanese Tatemae kool-aid on this one…
C) Japan is unlikely to change without gaiatsu
D) Patrick B’s view seems to be that domestic-denial-of-access International-abduction cases are odds with one another (PB – feel free to correct me if you think that I am misinterpreting your other comments which lead me to this conclusion.)
E) and ultimately which method is best boils down to a matter of opinion. And rather than folks making personal attacks and calling people names, folks should instead be discussing ideas and solutions — and trying to either sway or be swayed through honest debate. We are stronger united than we are in childish bickering.
RE: Moises Garcia
This was a total fluke and we all know it. If he ex-wife hadn’t foolishly re-entered the US, he would still be nowhere.
RE: “because they fought the injustices within the rules”
Japan disregards the “rules” as you put it. The throw out both their constitution, and their international treaty obligations. Therefore, Japan is not a “country of laws” and there are no “rules” within to fight.
RE: “Children absolutely deserve a relationship with both parents. They also deserve parents who act like responsible adults and role models. We could probably all benefit by keeping that in mind.”
I agree with you completely on this. There seems to be a difference of opinion amongst parents however regarding what is “responsible”.
I agree with you completely here. But I don’t think that picking fights with parents
P. M.
I did not go before Congress to state my case. And yes, I do know all of the names as most people take notes when seeking legal advice.
I do not dispute custody orders can be changed. I did dispute falsely claiming he had sole custody before Noriko took the kids to Japan. He did not. She was primary custodian. I also disputed his assertion that he was divorced with a valid custody order and simultaneously married with joint custody. Good for the goose and all… Yes, she should have returned the kids according to the US courts; however, as the good doctor repeatedly points out, they are still married in Japan with joint custody.
Brasil is also notorious for ignoring rules/ laws- ask Goldman. Exposing moral lapses and taking the high ground is much easier when you can actually stand there without being exposed yourself.
If by gaiastu you mean assaulting your wife while attempting to reabduct your children to counter the image of foreign fathers as abusive goons, I must disagree.
Effective change always come from within. Perhaps the reason countries (including the US) routinely ignore treaties is that they didn’t fully accept them in the first place. Forcing something down someone’s neck leads to resentment and non-cooperation.
Trust me, I am the last person drinking too much Japanese tatemae unless attempting to have judges impeached, lobbying the Diet to hold others to account and starting a children’s rights advocacy group in Japan is accepting the situation.
To put my original comment about a few bad apples in perspective, how much credibilty would MADD have if the president were convicted of drunk driving and the the board let her keep the job?
Craig,
First off… I want to say “thank you”. While you have a firmly held position, unlike some of the other folks, your response is completely reasonable and seems intellectually honest.
Personally, I’m much more concerned with truth and honesty than I am with agreement or being right.
– Point 1: I don’t doubt your claim that you have kept good records. However, people are different; and respond differently to traumatic experiences. Again, I spoke to many people, but initially didn’t keep particularly good track of these people. Also, I would merely point out, that just because Toland hasn’t presented the name, doesn’t mean that he does not have it, nor that having it would provide him with a path to legal action to that person. Or, he could be like me, and just didn’t track that info very well.
– Point 2: I cannot argue the specifics of custody claims on the Savoie case. I have nether bothered to look at it at that level, nor found it relevant to do so. To me, it is largely nit-picking. That said, I think that you some of your statements are mixing arguments. As I understand it, when he went to Japan he had the US court order with full custody. When he was arrested in Japan, and the Japanese police ignored the US court orders, he merely pointed out, “fine, if you disregard the US court orders, then strictly by Japanese “law”, I am still married and therefore effectively have joint custody.” Again, I not claiming to be an expert on the Savoie case, and am open to be refuted (with actual proof, not hearsay), but this doesn’t seem to be trying to have your cake and eating it too. This seems to be trying to justify a position based on the “rules” that the other party claims to be using. Japan is the one who constantly tries to have it both ways. They claim (wrongly) that child abduction is not a crime in Japan, but then arrested and held Savioe for just that.
– Point 3: True. But they do at least have a system where one has a chance. As I recall, Goldman actually won (at least after his wife died), but then had to fight a series of appeals and stall tactics – by the step father – before actually getting his son returned. Japan has *NO* functional system. Therefore, I consider it apples and oranges.
– Point 4: This one I think is beneath you. That said… regarding your somewhat non sequitur claim, I think you are referring to the Savoie case? From what I’ve read, this was a claim initially made by his wife (who reported also claimed, “some white guy kidnapped my children”), but their was no supporting evidence and the witness testimony also contradicted the wife’s claims. Again, I am open to be refuted (with actual proof, not hearsay).
– Point 5: I don’t personally know much about your personal actions, but if your claims are accurate, which I have zero reason to doubt or question, right on bro! That said, you know that:
A) Japan uses tatamae also as a denial mechanism to avoid acknowledging a problem that they don’t want to deal with – it’s is easier to “blame the foreigners”.
B) Anyone questioning “the system” will ultimately be labeled a bully if they are persistant. “The nail that sticks out, gets hammered.” Japan doesn’t change without strong outside pressure, and even then, one could argue that they only change tatamae, but never really honne.
– Point 5: I disagree with you on this one – somewhat. No one made Japan sign the UNCRC (the US is not a signatory). Japan chose to sign it for its own political reasons. So basically, Japan wants the international benefits of signing these treaties, but does not want to have to honor them. Either way, their lack of desire does not diminish the legal realities of what is happening.
– Point 6: I agree with your analogy in principle, but don’t agree that it fits here. Again, I am open to be refuted (with actual proof, not hearsay). All I see is Japan making a bunch claims (but they make lots of false and unfounded claims, so that means nothing to me) and one group of parents, who think that their way is best, *aggressively* attacking another group of parents who have a different strategy. Rather than attack, which will go nowhere, why not have honest dialog and debate about the best strategies?
We parents are few when compared to the obstinate US and Japan political machines. We need to unite more, and bicker less.
Patrick M.
Thanks for the compliments- just a few quick replies then I will use my time more productively.
Point 1- Whether he remembers the name or not, Toland made a conscious decision to accept bad advice. For reasons unknown, he now paints the situation as if he was a victim of some dastardly conspiracy rather than a willing participant (i.e. he chose submit to Japanese jurisdiction). I readily admit he has been denied access to his daughter; but given the fact he willingly submitted to an admittedly horrible court system with an all but guaranteed outcome, his daughter was not “abducted”.
Point 2- Savoie’s case is a smoke and mirrors on many fronts. My main point was that it is somehow ok for him to try to play by 2 sets of rules, but not his ex-wife? Long story short- he also tried to (re) abduct his children across international borders. Hard to play the victim when your solution is the same as the original crime. Also hurts the movement at large when a “leading” organization condones/ encourages reabduction as a viable option.
Savoie would likely have been arrested for child endangerment in the US for
his actions. There is a legitimate reason why courts have bailiffs to enforce their orders (yes- I know Japanese courts don’t).
One minor point- Your information on why Savoie was arrested in Japan seems to originate from Savoie rather than any official sources.
Point 3- As someone who has been using the Brasilian system for over 3 years with nothing to show for it, I beg to disagree. I was just told to use the Japanese police/ courts to deal with the filing of false documents at the Brasilian consulate.
Point 4- Again- your source seems to be Savoie and his alleged accomplices rather than independent eye witnesses. Either way, he readily states he snatched is kids (sorry, hugged them and placed them gently in the car- see TV interview) before fleeing to the Consulate. According to his own statements, he had to attempt to penetrate a wall storm troops in lock-step to try to get inside (same interview). Snatching, fleeing police, and fighting through a barricade seems incredibly dangerous for children.
From a public perception standpoint, it is a disaster. An American man trying to “forcefully” spirit his kids away from their mother. Regardless of legal standing, it is just as bad as the photos of Elian Gonzales with a machine gun in his face.
Similarly, I personally have had to deal with a court that is concerned I will abduct my daughter back to America. (as have several other parents in Japan).
Consequently, I don’t think it is below me, more an acknowledgement of the PR and legitimate damage Savoie’s actions have caused. (I readily acknowledge and am grateful his arrest sparked a lot of interest and brought the conversation into the public eye.) As is often the case though, the initial trigger can eventually backfire when the whole story comes out.
Point 5- Too long of a potential discussion- I agree in part and disagree in part. Political expediency has little effect on the population at large. The majority of Japanese don’t see this as a major problem.
Trying to force the will and mores of America simply will not work. An American ignoring legitimate (albeit misguided) court orders (Toland) or trying to reabduct his children (Savoie) will not win the hearts and minds of your average Japanese (or American for that matter).
Point 6- I think it is perfectly apropos- re-abduction is the solution to abduction?? I only hit her twice, but she made it up??
As someone who has been involved with numerous government meetings, etc., I can say some people are simply not interested in honest and open dialogue or realistic and comprehensive strategies. As a former psych major, you should definitely appreciate that those who speak the loudest, usually have the least productive to say.
I agree wholeheartedly that time should be spent on more productive endeavors than attacks. Regrettably though, sometimes the wolf in sheep’s clothing needs to be exposed for the good of the entire flock.
Hi Craig,
Point 1 – I think that this is a bit harsh. You say that he made a “conscious decision to accept bad advice”, how was he to know at the time that this was “bad advice”? To this day, the USG refers parents to get a Japanese attorney, and basically conceding jurisdition to Japan by entering the Japanese court system.
And, common, people don’t look at Japan and expect to find such a backwards system. Knowing what we know now, would any of us have made the same choices? I really don’t think that it is fair to retrospectively arm-chair quarterback these things. In addition, his case is extremely old, and there was even less information back then than there is today.
Point 2 – I find the Savoie debate tiresome, but I’ll make a couple of points.
– Japan claims that abduction is not illegal, so why do they arrest fathers who reabduct their children? I would suggest that it is the Japanese position is just smoke and mirrors.
– Given the Japanese Police practice of daiyo kangoku and coercing confessions, I think that is it safe to say that if they had remotely any evidence that Sovoie attacked his wife in the course of
– I largely disregard “official Japanese sources.” They twist the truth, if not outright lie, despite whatever the facts may be – whenever it suits their purposes. How many months did it take for Japan to final acknowledge that Fukushima reactors had a meltdown? As you know, in Japan, tatemae is more important than honne.
Point 3 – I have no experience with Brazil, have no reason to study, and so I openly profess ignorance on the topic. What limited knowledge I have of Brazil, is merely from skimming some article on Goldman.
Point 4 – I again take the position that if there was any proof that he attacked his wife, the Japanese police would have happily thrown the book at him. So I take the side of the fact that he wasn’t charged with anything as evidence, that there was no reliable evidence to support the wife’s claims.
I freely acknowledge the point the he attempted to “re-abduct” his children. I also acknowledge that this will make the Japanese, as usual, take the “blame the foreigner” view, rather than looking at the fact that their system is broken.
I said that I felt it was beneth you, as you knew what I meant by gaiatsu, but rather than discussing that, choose to take a cheap shot a Savoie.
Point 5 – A agree that this is a long topic. But I think that it is an important one to start with Japan.
I disagree that most Japanese don’t see this as a major issue. I would instead suggest that most Japanese don’t actually know about it. After my children were abducted, I talked to several Japanese friends. They were completely shocked to learn how their own legal and custody system worked. Like most negative things in Japan, it is never really discussed, debated or examined. They try to deny the fundamental flaws of their system by *falsely* claiming that it is just a foreigner issue, and *falsely* claiming that it is all about protecting poor Japanese women from these foreign husbands, who they claim are pretty much all wife beaters.
Interested parties in Japan are yet again using Japanese xenophobia and ignorance of *the system*, to hide the real problems inherent in the systems of Japan and maintain the defective status quo.
Point 6 – To me you are combining a real arguement with an alleged arguement and trying to claim that both are fact.
(fact) Sovoie obviously tried to re-abduct his children.
– However, Japan keeps claiming that this is not illegal – so in their proclaimed world-view, there is nothing wrong with this. You seem to be playing into their hand of them choosing to follow a law only when convenient for them.
(claim) However, you also present the alleged claim that he attacked his wife during the re-abduction, in a way that implies it to be established fact. Again, given the mindset of the Japanese police, I feel pretty certain that they would have charged them if there was any truth to those claims.
—
Finally, I consider myself reasonable. I haven’t gone around attacking other parents. I have different opinions and stances on some issues, and welcome debate and call for us all to seek common ground on which to unite.
Yet, though unprovoked, members of Global Future have gone out of their way to attack me. Even trying to persuade a journalist that I was a fraud. The journalist verified that I am who I claim, that my case is real, informed the accusers from Global Future of this, and still GLobal Future folks are making that accusation on this very page.
To me, that clearly demonstrates that Global Future has a proactively aggressive agenda and is willing to carelessly toss around unfounded allegations against anyone whom they do not agree with – and continue to maintain those allegations even after they are proven to be false.
Mr. McPike, that’s a good idea–let’s discuss strategies. In your opinion, what should the U.S. government’s strategic response be when Japan confronts it with the small number of proven cases in which the U.S. father in fact perpetrated domestic violence (such as the case Braden referenced, which had gruesome and damning photographic evidence to boot)?
Hi Scott,
I don’t now much about you or your case. I googled you and found a little information. Looks like you are the father I heard about, who tried suing the Airline that allowed your children to board the flight to Japan. I’ve heard some folks suggest this was silly, but I commend you. The action, helped raise awareness, and sent a message of sorts.
—
I didn’t see anything to indicate that you have spent in time in Japan, so you may not be familiar with just how completely insane the DV claim system is over there. DV is easy to claim, proof is often not required (you must actually fight to get the Japanese courts to use rules of evidence), there are extra-benefits for making a claim, etc.
So any claim within of DV within should be viewed with skepticism and the case should be reviewed by an independent bi-national panel to determine its legitimacy.
The US system, while not ideal, is much better about determining the legitimacy of DV claims. However, we should probably review them too.
Also, many Japanese wives don’t “claim” abuse until they are in the Japanese system and can make the claims without needing to substantiate them.
All that said….
A) I would suggest the creation of a bi-national (our perhaps multinational with other victim countries like France, Canada, etc) review panel for those cases. In the meantime, they can focus on the majority of cases were DV claims where never made and/or never made until after the abduction occurred.
B) I refute your claim that Braden provided a sample “proved” case. He didn’t provide anything but a *claim* of a poloraid and a *claim* of a deposition from a third party.
– He didn’t even say if this was related to our cause.
– He didn’t demonstrate that any abuse actually took place.
– He didn’t cite what the was determined by the police.
– He didn’t even state whether there were charges filed or a court ruling.
If we take what he said at face value, all he said was that he has access to a photo of a Japanese woman. And a deposition of a single witness that may or may not be reliable. His further claim that, “the photograph is all anyone needs to see” demonstrates to me that either:
– He doesn’t understand what *truth* is.
OR
– He doesn’t care about truth.
And since I’m neither, familiar with the case he is referring to, nor has he presented anything but exaggerated claims based on unsupported and incomplete hearsay… I don’t think any responsible person should put forth his claims as an example of a “proven case”. Now, if he can demonstrate a court ruling on this case demonstrating a guilty verdict… then we can talk.
DV claims are easy to make. And photos out of context, while potentially emotionally charging, are evidentially meaningless – they are more akin to art than evidence. It is the kind of thing that PR firms do to persuade people of an issue… just look at all the negative campaigning in this election cycle.
We need to deal in facts and proofs.
—
All of the above, having been said…. I would suggest that your approach is a failing one. You are basically conceding to allow the Government of Japan to frame the argument. Once you do that (which in my opinion is what DoS is also doing), you have already lost. The Government of Japan will pick arguments and selected cases to support their argument of choice.
Where you abusive to your wife and children? I’m guessing not. So why allow Japan to use to use that minority argument to deny you and the rest of us access to our children?
This is why we need to reframe the argument around the Human-rights issue that it is, and stop letting both governments treat it like a series of individual “custody disputes gone bad.”
As Sherlock Holmes suggests, “I ignore the exceptions, they disprove the rule.”
Exception cases are generally how people with weak positions try to argue a point.
“Rather than attack, which will go nowhere, why not have honest dialog and debate about the best strategies?”
This is beyond ludicrous, coming from this pseudonym posing as a real human being. Identify yourself, “McPike,” and then maybe we can talk about “honest dialog.”
Oh yeah, and Craig: Right on bro!
Time to barf now.
Tony, simply put, you are being an illogical, [insult]. You guys keep claiming that I’m not who I am – when:
A) You cannot have any proof that I am not who I saw I am — Because I am who I claim.
B) You folks contacted a journalist claiming that I wasn’t me and that I was Eric Kalmus. The Journalist investigated, per your request, and found me to be real… and informed you folks of this fact.
C) Many people in the movement have personally spoken to me, or even met me, so to them your continued claims that I don’t exist, or that Patrick McPike is pseudonym, just loses you more credibility.
So, either you are are being an illogical, [insult] in the face of all reason and evidence… our your cohorts aren’t keeping you in the loop on that fact that I have been verified to be me.
Just for the Record McPike . I am the founder and CEO of Global Future. And no-one on behalf of our organization is questioning if you are who you portray yourself as. If you say you are a parent of two kids abducted from Tustin California…I will stipulate that that is what you say. And I will be glad to assist you in any way…. please come out to dinner with us and I will buy, and we can spend a day or 100 days in DC together teaching you the ropes. . That being said, someone may question what you say about who you really are, because there is a guy who works on the fringe of our community. He shows up every so often under a new fake identity. He has a serious mental illness issue, and long standing documented pattern of doing all kinds of things behind false identities especially on the internet. As if we dont have enough to deal with! But he has stolen real actual persons identities and opened credit cards and accounts in other actual persons names (one case involving three accounts in someone else s name, was a Japanese girl from West LA). So forgive anyone of us who may put you thru a vetting process. And hats off to the guys in Bachole for welcoming you into their ranks and vouching for you! I know they value your input highly…and it shows! Judging from your prodigious postings all over the internet on the subject, you may be destined for a very special and prominent position in that “highly esteemed” organization. Although you will have to jockey for your “leadership” role with some of the best Jockeys in our community. I have confidence in you though. I am also impressed with how quickly after your children’s “abduction”, my former acolytes have brought you up to speed on the subject…and I am especially pleased with all of the “catch-phrases”, policy subjects, and talking points that I taught all of them…. that I now see you quoting in your postings the same as they do. Hey even if I disagree with so many of them, on so many issues, when I hear them saying what I taught them, I know my message is getting out there. I think you will be a special member of Bachole and I am glad you have found “your people” and they have swaddled you in their cocoon of victim-hood…where you can regain your strength and “heal” at your own pace. . If you ever want my assistance on anything, please don’t think that anything negative that you have said so far in your journey, wont be forgotten…and that you cant reach out directly to me at any time. I am always here for parents, and we work very VERY hard at returning children to their lawful homes.
Professor McPike,
You admit that you missed the public boat on my son’s case and you say you are relatively new to the situation yourself, but your ignorance and lack of information and knowledge does not stop you from patronizing others who are better informed, and drawing conclusions that a lawsuit is “silly” (you’re the only one on record who has described it that way) or denigrating the most successful case ever as a “fluke” (Moises Garcia’s daughter did not magically materialize in Wisconsin). In my experience, I have found that a small number of parents behave like that because they are either desperate to establish some kind of public position on the issue without first establishing credentials or envious because they are incapable of producing original work and meaningful accomplishments of their own, among many other reasons.
Unfortunately, your long lecture ultimately paints you into the corner of defending the crazy bastards who have actually beaten their wives.
I condemn all of the crazy bastards who have beaten their wives. Do you?
You have not shared any real details of your case, McPike. Which court did you engage in?
These are simple questions that do not require 700-word answers.
[Hoofin’s Note: I would appreciate direct contact from Mr. McPike, addressing some of these concerns. If your case has had any involvement of legal proceedings, I am having trouble finding out about it through LEXIS or other databases.]
I think that you need to re-read my post – you seem to have mis-read it. I *commended* you on your lawsuit. I stated that I thought that it *helped raise awareness* and *sent a message*. I think that it was a positive effort and a clever stratagem.
—-
While, I acknowledge the facts that Dr. Moises made in the post here were not previously publicly available, I would still contend that the return of is daughter is it came through, was a fluke. He seems to have made it further through the Japanese system than any other parent I have heard of, *which is absolutely to be commended!*, but even though the court had apparently awarded (or upheld) him custody in Japan, they had still not been able to actually return his daughter to him. Ultimately, his ex-wife’s return to the US is what really got his daughter home for this x-mas. He may have eventually found a way to win out in Japan, but that would have been a different story and a different situation.
I call it a “fluke”, as it is not a formula that can be applied to other cases. We cannot rely on other Japanese abductors to make the same mistake of returning to the US.
This does not take away from Dr. Moises other efforts and successes. We may be able to use the same legal strategies that Dr. Moises used in Japan to gain/retain custody, to ultimately get Japan to finally order a child sent home.
Yes I too condemn, as you put it, “all of the crazy bastards who have beaten their wives.”
I’m not sure how you figure that my insist[e]nce that DV claims actually be supported by proof, puts me in a position to defend “crazy bastards who have actually beaten their wives.”
I’m too tired, with having to field the other posts, to bother responding to your other [ . . . ] comments.
Hoofin said “The real villain in the profession, as the story seems to me, is whoever had Toland sit on the Washington state filing. I still can’t figure that one out.]”
Really Hoofin? Is that how you would handle any serious case you are a party in? First of all, all of the decisions are your own. Your attorney gives you advice, but the decision is yours….no matter what. Full stop.
The “allegation” made against the JAG officer by Toland is that they “gave him bad advice”. And now by repeating that allegation on your blog, you may be a party to slandering or defaming that attorney without ever considering anything else. (Such as playing the victim card is just a pattern with Toland) So once again regarding the delay in serving Etsuko on the Wa case, you are blaming someone (Tolands attorney in Wa?) who you say gave him advice to “sit on the Wa state filing” …did you get that idea from something we can see, or just pulled it out of thin air in an attempt to argue in favor of Tolands “story”?
Before I ever answer any attorney with my decision, I make sure I understand what is going on, and what the ramifications are. I have asked for time to research all kinds of things….and I will not allow any attorney to just “make my decisions for me”. I spent almost 14 months in a law library a few years ago…I am so glad that is over! And I am glad to have moved the law books out of here…!!!
From day one, every aspect regarding my daughters life was a serious cause for research and clearer understanding if I wasn’t confident in my current level….I suggest that any responsible parent will place the highest regard on anything that could negatively affect any child’s relationship with their parent .
Patrick, you keep making the point that it isn’t clear to us observers who the original advice giver was to Paul Toland. However, again I tell you, that whoever it was that told Toland to rely on the Japanese court system and/or whoever it was that filed for Toland in Washington state and then had him sit on that filing, gave bad advice. Since it is a “story”, this person would be one of the wrongdoers in it. I don’t want to keep beating a dead horse.
Paul does not identify who told him to do this, and he has to accept the consequences—as quite often, if not always happens when professionals give bad advice. I would not expect parents to go study the law, to make sure that their attorneys are right. That’s nonsense, and there might as well not even be a legal profession then.
I realize the point you are making goes to whether there should be stateside jurisdiction. But SOFA allows stateside jurisdiction. If it was a JAG, the JAG should have known that. Maybe the JAG did give that advice, and Paul didn’t take it. But that’s not what Paul said.
If it was the Washington attorney who filed in Washington state, then why didn’t that attorney pursue the case? Did Paul Toland tell him, “no, no, I’m doing this Japan thing!” Well, it still means something got started in Japan, which Paul should not have been a part of.
Sorry, you can argue this six ways to Sunday, but I still feel that where US jurisdiction is possible, it should be taken. And I point out to you, that Moises Garcia did that, and that was part of his success.
As the father of the only abducted american children returned from Japan by legal means, I need to reply some of the statements here.
1)- I fully endorse Global Future and its member as a serious organization to help in the work of child abduction in Japan. I disagree with Mr. Toland when he said that both organizations (BACHOME and Bring Sean Home) never attack other parents. In fact, I was banned twice from participating in BSH forum after being publicly attacked by two parents from the BACHOME group. In addition, I had been hijacked in my Facebook account and website and I have to erase all the BACHOME member to protect my privacy. However, the date of my daughter arrival, my comments posted in Facebook where hijacked again. I traced the string as I left only one person on the BACHOME group with access to my account, and there I could find other BACHOME member invading my privacy.
Please also notice that several comments have been posted in different blogs disregarding my case a a “fluke”. There are only less than 20 people that know all the details in my case, therefore I totally disagree with the statement that I was lucky enough that my ex was stupid to travel to Hawaii. At the same token, can we say the same from Mr. Goldman?
Most recently, I have noticed activity from the Bachome group in their website by congratulating me about the case, and most recently an article at the Japan times. In both cases, they tried to attach my image to their group in spite of me sending letter requesting no to use my name or my daughter’s name as I don’t endorse the activity of the group and it is my opinion that this group make more damage than good.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111229f1.html
2)- As there are misunderstanding about the dimension of my case, let me give you a background.
I have been sole custodian in US since February 2008. My wife fully participated in the divorce action in Wisconsin who has fully jurisdiction. I was granted permanent custody on June 2009.
As many don’t know, I became sole legal custodian under Japanese law in Septemeber 2009. My US judgment was recognized in Japan by the Osaka High Court and Tokyo Supreme Court. The reason why Karina was not ordered to return was the “Lack of enforcement” (My opinion, this is the main problem in Japan, no the fact that they have a sole custody system). The case was dragged into appeal for nearly 2 years.
I went to fight custody in Japan 9 times. Finally, the Japanese Court agreed with me and issue its final opinion on October 2011. It is true, my wife was in Jail, but the appeal was in place since march 2011. People don’t know that the court could have given custody to the grandparents who could have tried to bargain more with the US Court. Instead the Japanese court reported:
– Sole custody should be kept to me (I never lost custody in Japan)
– For the first time, a Japanese court recognized the existence of Parental Alienation as a form of child abuse.
– For the first time, a Japanese court recognized that bicultural children need more than the Japanese culture as part of their heritage.
Unfortunately, Japanese media and the Japanese government are hidden this information. It seems that groups as Bachome and BSH also want to hide this information by disregarding all my victories in Japanese court and focusing only in the fact of my wife incarceration.
TBS (Tokyo broadcasting System) did an internal survey about the news, and Japanese opinion was in my side as well due to the facts mentioned about.
It is also unfortunate, that US national media were not interested in my news due to the fact that I did not allow them to show Videos of the reunification with my daughter. That is the same media that have covered stories for the BACHOME and BSH group.
Different than in such case, US local media (Wisconsin) was utilized in this case to minimize the exposure on the child.
3)- Role of congress:
I want to make public that I received a call from Congressman Smith the date of the arrival of my daughter to Wisconsin on 12/23. However, I decided no to answer as I knew that my name and my daughter’s name could be utilized for different purpose such as supporting the above groups. I went to Mr. Smith’s office several time during the time of my daughter abduction. the last one when my ex was incarcerated to request his support. Unfortunately, I was told by his chief staff that the office could not be involved in my case as their level of involvement in Japanese case was just to the level of raising awareness among all the congressional offices. When I urged them to act like they did with Mr. Goldman, they refused in spite of several arguments done by my attorney (who was present in the meeting) and other member of Global future. My question is why now that I was successful bringing my daughter from Japan with the help of Wisconsin Law Enforcement, his office is even mentioned in published articles and in the recent article published at Japan times?
If Mr. Smith would have intervened back in June 2011, Karina could have been returned quickly minimizing the severe parental alienation subjected at the end, and the issue could have become much bigger in terms of International Pressure over Japan. What a dream case, a strong case of kidnapping with US jurisdiction and strong legal case in Japan? what a wasted opportunity for all other left behind parents. I remember that Mr. Smith had a hearing on the parental abduction issue at around the time my ex was arrested, and when I called his office to participate in the hearing, I was told that I could not be included!!! But again Mr. Goldman was there together with other BACHOME people.
3)- I am a very fortunate person to have my daughter back at home. I wish the same for all the parents in the same situation independently of our differences. However, it is strategically wrong to assume that Japan will return all the children in block without reviewing the facts on each case, to be successful we have to recognized the following:
– Japan is a sovereign country.
– The US state department and US system is a complex system with integrated laws and regulations that need to be respected. Therefore, demanding the state department to do something outside their function is pointless. We need to work hard in congress to give tools to the US state department and US justice department to function properly in this situation.
– cases with strong US jurisdiction should be first in the list.
– Cases with DV, lack of child support (dead beat parents, unfit parents (parents on disability) should be discussed individually.
– lastly, cases with strong Japanese jurisdiction should be included under “Human rights” violation.
If we keep putting all cases in the same basket, it will be very easy for Japan to pick one of the weakest cases and make the strong cases look weaker. They tried this strategy in my case at the Japanese courts and it was quite difficult to eliminate.
I hope this explanation could suffice some of the question that have been formulated here. I agreed with the host that Wisconsin case is an important one, and I am willing to help other parents, but this has to be done with a strategy and no with emotion, otherwise Japan will keep dragging the process longer and we could have lost an important opportunity.
Thank you for your clear and informative post. All people with an interest in this issue, and other issues involving bilateral relations, could gain from thinking about these words.
Braden,
It wouldn’t let me respond to you above, so I have to respond here…
1) You are still changing the subject rather than addressing my claim that Japan is violating it’s own constitution.
2) You seem to be trying to suggest that this abuse case you are hinting at has something to do with me. But I’m not sure if you are suggesting that it has to do with *me* or the person that you all *keep claiming me to be*. If the former, I don’t know what you are talking about… so fill me in. If the later, I cannot help you as I’m not anyone but me, as I keep telling you – so I can’t speak to what happened to someone else.
—-
That said, police reports do not a crime make. People can lie; or make erroneous claims. If I give a deposition and state that I believe that you are really an apple…. does that automatically mean that I am right? Of course not! That is why we have courts.
In this case you refer to, was there even an arrest? Was there a conviction? I can’t really discuss something you only talk about in code.
And if there was a conviction for abuse in some particular case, what does that have to do with what Japan is doing — which is stealing jurisdiction, defying their own constitution, and violating human-rights?
And Dude, you are asking to for me to ignore “the UNCRC,… the Japanese Constitution, [and] what some attorneys say”. That is a silly rebuttal. “The legalities don’t match our argument, so let’s ignore them so that our arguments seem stronger.”
If we aren’t discussing legalities… and just fantasies, then what is the point?
—-
The above said… I already addressed elsewhere one suggestion for what should be done to deal with claims of abuse…
Have a bi-national (or multi-national) panel to review the cases, determine if the claims have validity, and determine if any valid claims are sufficient enough to warrant denial-of-access to the children.
This is merely one idea, and I’m open to others.
Again, I don’t think that my case is a “fluke” like the BACHOME group or others are preaching. The Osaka High Court opinion in my case read as follow:
” It is needless to say that it is desirable that the minor’s handover is carried out voluntarily. However, it is expected that the minor may show her resisting feeling about being apart from the current living environment”.
“the interest of realizing the childcare from the Father exceeds the psychological or physical burden that the minor will receive from taking the measures of direct enforcement. As such, we determine that it is still acceptable if the direct enforcement is done”
Judge Mitsuru Sakai (Osaka High Court, 9th Civil Division).
Unfortunately, as I explained in my previous post, some groups like the BACHOME, BSH and some congress members want to hijack the importance of the case, and try to minimize for reason unknown for me. My case doesn’t have less merit than Goldman’s case. In fact, I obtained a judgment that is even first among Japanese people, and there was not legal frame like the Hague Convention used in Brazil Case. As in the Goldman Case (As many other BACHOME, BSH and even Mr. Smith and the media seems to use as the standard), the abductors voluntarily returned the child to the left behind parents. I even went further as they have to bring the child here to US.
Has anybody noticed that “Patrick McPike” never answers a direct question? I asked something very simple here — Why is it that there is a “Patrick Smith” on Twitter
http://twitter.com/patrickinjapan
with the same story as “McPike” and who also links to “McPike’s” website?:
http://letterstomysons.com/
There’s also a “Patrick Smith” listed as one of “McPike’s” Facebook Friends, although his image is one of those pointy-headed ghosts and all information about this individual is restricted.
Instead of offering any sort of explanation. “McPike” takes the “moral high ground” and accuses me of attacking him (Cry me a river) and putting forth that reason to explain why he refuses to answer me.
Here’s his lame response, in case anybody missed it:
“Your [this is some sort of psychobabble diagnosis] is causing you to look for “mysteries” where they don’t exist. If you actually took a moment and looked at it from the view that I have told the truth, then you would realize that answers to your questions are simple.
If you choose to continue to doubt my existence… that is *your* choice. The more you declare such, the sillier you look. And your mistaken view of reality has no impact on me.”
I’d suggest that there is no reason, given the dearth of information about this character, as to why I should “[look] at it from the view that [he has] told the truth.”
I’d also suggest that my “mistaken view of reality” is having, and will continue to have, an impact on him (whoever he is).
And again, why are there no images to be found anywhere of “McPike” and his “sons”?
And why, unlike his buddies at BACHome, can no trace be found of any sort of history involving his case (most left-behind parents are very open about this)?
Trying to find out who “Patrick McPike” is is like chasing a phantom. His story reminds me of a sterile hotel room that could be occupied by anybody, and not the living room of an actual human being replete with any number of photographs, souvenirs, and memories that one would expect to go along with that.
Nor will he explain why he rails against the US government or provide any sort of background whatsoever to account for his apparent dissatisfaction with the same.
He provides, instead, proof of his existence thusly (guess my friends do “keep me in the loop” after all):
A journalist (whose name he fails to mention) calls a telephone number (which “McPike” provided) and asked to speak to a “Patrick McPike” (and the answerer identified himself as such). “McPike” then forwards a scan of an ID card with the name Patrick McPike on it and refers the journalist to his attorney, who then verifies his existence.
Allow me to account for all this, even though McPike will likely accuse me of pursuing mysteries where they don’t exist.
1) The telephone number was provided by “McPike,” so what?
2) I can purchase an official looking ID with my name on it from any number of street vendors on Kao San Road in Bangkok for about $10. (I can also purchase any number of university degrees, press passes, etc.) I’m quite sure a bogus ID can easily be purchased in any number of venues in the USA.
3) Were I to walk in to an attorney’s office and ask that person to represent me, I doubt that person would ask me for any sort of identification. In any event, as I said above, I could provide some sort of ID to an attorney whose primary interest would naturally be in getting a new client and running up billable hours.
No, [guy]. What is required here is actual details that can be independently verified. Again, you have no history, no images of yourself or your kids save one (we’ll get to that in due course as well, by the way), no physical presence anywhere that I can find, and no rational explanation for your infantile attacks on the US government (which, incidentally, has made great progress in bringing [J]apan into line and which is our best chance of bringing about a resolution to our issue). You deflect every query with more happy horsesh[*]t about how answering a person like me, or Braden, is somehow beneath you, and cunningly try to throw the onus back on us.
You are a sock puppet, “McPike,” in my estimation, until proven otherwise.
Keep digging holes, phantom. We’ll get to the bottom of this eventually.
I could be wrong, granted.
But I doubt it.
Happy New Year!
[Hoofin’s Note: I have offered Patrick McPike to send some bona fides to me, but he has yet to respond. He claims to be in Japan, but his postings do not come from Japan—not that that is dispositive.
Let’s review why sock puppetry is wrong: the sock puppet is attempting to portray him- or herself as someone other than the person who is actually doing the posting. Unlike a mere pen name, the sock puppet wants others (and usually the target) to believe that the message (usually negative) is not coming from one person, but from a different person. Sometimes, there are multiple sock puppets.
Internet dialogue has been around long enough that most people using it are taken aback by sock puppetry. It is not only an attack on the person who is a target, but also an insult to the rest of us who are being taken for fools as we are attempted to be misled.
My website comment section can be used for rough dialogue, but it’s not meant to be an avenue for members of different factions to deliver their shots. So if Patrick McPike wants to offer up the bona fides, I will go one route; and otherwise, please do not use my site for sock puppetry.]
Tony, I received sufficient bona fides this evening from Patrick to be fairly convinced that this is not Eric Kalmus. That is about all I can say. Each parent shares what they are comfortable with, and who they are comfortable with, I suppose.
Oh, well…in that case I’m TOTALLY CONVINCED.
Look, Hoofin. I don’t know who this cat is. I SUGGESTED he could be Kalmus.
All I know is that my Spidey-sense tells me this”McPike” character is NOT WHO he says he is. The background he does share through his ” Letters to Kai and Koh” website is thin gruel. And I’m not biting.
Either he’s a sock puppet or he’s hiding something, I don’t know which.
What I do know is that he’s ignorant both of Japanese culture and the workings of our State Department and the way international diplomacy operates, and that the statements and activities of him and his friends at BACHome and BSH are detrimental to our cause and have already set us back considerably.
And that’s about all I can say.
Tony, you real need to dial it down a few notches. You are basically fighting with someone who you think is a phony, but might not be. Patrick McPike shared enough with me to make me confident that he’s not Eric Kalmus. He might not go by “Patrick McPike” in real life, but he is not Eric Kalmus.
Point made that people’s internet credibility comes from whether what they share online is believable to the recipients. However, people are rightly hesitant to draw a privacy line where they choose.
This point is also clear. The LB Parents who allign with Global Future are less aggressive and support the State Department’s or other diplomatic initiatives, as well as Japanese authorities, let those guide the efforts. The BACHomers and BSHers are more aggressive and “in your face”, and don’t particularly think any of these governmental agents are doing all they can to bring the kids home, or for the parents to share the kids.
It’s just like the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s, and, to some extent, like the gay movement in the late 1980’s and early ’90’s. There is one group that feels hell raising is its own virtue (Black Panthers, ACT-UP), and others who want talk and quiet effort made at tangible remedies.
I happen to think that the latter is the better avenue, but I can’t totally shut out the former’s argument. Both seem to arise whenever there is a civil rights conflict.
Actually Tony you didn’t “suggest” you stated, “I, too, doubt your very existence, Mr. McPike, or should I say Eric Kalmus.”
In addition, I’m pretty you sure that several of your statements on this board could be easily construed as accusing me of committing one or more felonies.
Just an FYI….
Yeah, I’ve read your “real numbers.” Hello? The State Department can only present actual numbers of parents who have registered formally with them. You’re free to speculate (and I actually agree that the numbers are much higher) but our government must deal with the actual facts as they fiund them.
And I think it’s you who are doing the “character assassination” now. One person’s attack is another person’s criticism. Your vague accusations against me are meaningless. I dealt with specific instances of fraud, reabductions, racism, and libel by your friends at BACHome and CRN Japan. I am totally justified in my criticisms of people I find to be morally bankrupt and who are trying to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes.
I notice you avoid spelling out specific instances where I was in the wrong. Better to paint me as “an abusive attacker” and avoid the points I was making about these people.
Tony,
Simply put, not that it should matter, if you could actually defend your positions, I am “Patrick McPike.” You refusal to accept that is not my problem.
You don’t argue ideas, you merely attempt to discredit people with whom you disagree. To me, this is just intellectually-dishonest and a sign of a weak position.
My view is, that credibility is related to honesty of ideas and civil discourse. Your view seems to be one of, if you cannot compete on ideas, go for character assassination.
It is actually an age old tradition to debate ideas “anonymously”, the very discourse over the creation of our country was conducted through a series of anonymous essays – for example, the Federalist Papers which, although written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, where all published under the pen name of Publius.
That said, I’m not posting anonymously (although you choose not to believe this), just merely pointing out that it shouldn’t matter in an intellectually honest debate. But again, that doesn’t seem to be your purpose. As I’ve stated, you merely attack the character of the people that you dislike or don’t agree with.
Here is a very useful article that I found, it does a good job of explaining Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics.
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html
When you are ready to drop your character assassinations, and want to participate in honest-debate, I welcome it. And I might even be willing to meet up with you at that point.
But as long as you continue to use intellectually-dishonest debate tactics, I have no interest.
I agree that there is no real debate going on, and the thread is just deteriorating.
I don’t think the number is “thousands”. That’s part of the problem, in a sense. If it were “thousands”, then you’d see a lot more action. It really is something like 170. To me, it’s a small enough number that you would think Japan would just want the issue to go away. But, for some reason, they are letting it fester.
The number is not that zany 10,000 or so that someone put out there a few months ago, using the number of foreign marriages to Japanese. I think the person took the annual divorce rate and divided it by the number of marriages in a year. This is obviously bad statistics, because the annual divorces are coming out of a pool of ALL the marriages—not just those during one year.
Tony, thank you for presenting some of your postions, and presenting some form of reason for why you disagree with mine. It is still a bit on the overly agressive side, but it is finally something to start having an actual discussion with… [Hoofin’s Note: This part is a little bit patronizing, but you wrote so much, so I am going to let the whole post through.]
So, now that you are slowly starting to pull-back on the personal attacks and actually present some of your views relevant to the overall issue, we can talk a bit.
A) Yeah, a long list of Republicans. I’d just ask anybody reading this to recall that under the Bush Administration zero progress was made in advancing our cause. I myself was given the bum’s rush by the State Department back in 2004.
1) I don’t think you read the whole list. I seriously doubt that you can claim that the entire house of representatives is Republican. 😉 Also, most of the people I referenced were complaining back when Bush was in office as well – in fact Mowbray exposed a huge visa-system scandal run by DoS occurring after 9-11.
2) Sorry, but this is an example of a form of Intellectual dishonesty: My point was clearly that the idea that DoS is out of line is not a position just held by LBPs that you disagree with, or folks running around in tin-foil hats. You ignored my valid point that many reputable people disagree with DoS, and have for some time, and tried to present it as just a partisan issue. The truth is that the general bureaucracy at DoS largely remains consistant and often works on its own agenda despite which party is in power. As one Sr. Congressional Staffer I spoke to put it, “DoS is widely recognized as being the most inept bureaucracy of the many inept bureaucracies in Washington.”
3) For me, this is not a partisan issue. I think that both parties have dropped the ball and are screwing us. You will note, if you re-read the list, that many of them have been speaking out for since Clinton, through Bush, and now into Obama. It is the Government bureaucracy in general that is falling us, not a specific party.
B) I claim your position is erroneous because since Obama took office….
1) I don’t think that this actually diminishes, my position (but, with more in-depth discussion, you might persuade me otherwise) . I think there are several factors, and it is partially a “chicken and egg” debate scenario. You seem to feel that DoS has ramped up efforts of its own free will since Obama took office. Whereas, I feel that they have ramped up efforts due to (1) higher visibility brought on by parents being more outspoken and holding them to account (2) More congressional pressure, largely lead by Rep. Smith, HR1326 and the push for HR1940
>> As evidence for my view, I will point out the fact that even as late a May/June of 2011, when A/S Campbell testified in front of the Congressional Hearing, he was forced to acknowledge that DoS has never even asked Japan for the return of US children. Clinton, Biden and Obama mentioning the issue semi-publicly didn’t happen until *after* this testimony occurred and that fact was finally made public; an through continued pushing by both congressional members and LBPs. I’m new, and wasn’t aware of the issue since it happened to me, so I may have missed a reference i the past during my research, but I don’t think so.
C) And I’ve never heard one actual strategy emerge from the BACHomers except presenting “the real numbers” (pure speculation) and promotion of MOUs (which those lacking any true understanding of this culture thinks we can ram down the throats of the Japanese).
1) It seems to me, that you and BacHome likely don’t share strategies very much. That said, I wouldn’t disagree that there needs to be more Strategies in general than what I’ve heard floated around by all the various groups. Actually, I’d like to see more follow-through from everyone. BTW – I’ve never really seen a clear G.F strategy either. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I’ve just never seen it.. it you guys have a link I’d be interested to learn about the strategies you think will lead to success.
2) MOUs are common methods for structuring agreements and not an unreasonable request, esp. between two allies. Additionally, I would again point out, that it can be argued that due Japan having signed the UNCRC, one could make the argument that they are legally obligated to work on an agreement with other States regarding the issue of Child Abduction and Access.
D) Yeah, I’ve read your “real numbers.” Hello? The State Department can only present actual numbers of parents who have registered formally with them.
1) I going to assume that only skimmed it. I specifically point out the DoS attempts to turn parents away, in order to minimize the number of cases that get recorded – they did this to me, and several other newer cases that I am aware of. In other words, DoS actively tries to prevent parents from formally registering cases.
2) Additionally, DoS actively misrepresents the number of cases that have been recorded. I won’t get into all this again here… I suggest you re-read my post *and* read the many sources I cite to in order to demonstrate that this is a long standing pattern of behavior for which they have repeatedly come under scrutiny. It is to their benefit to do this for many reasons (a) to smooth relations with foreign countries (b) so that, since their track record for returns is abysmal, to minimize how inept they look.
3) In the congressional hearing, A/S Campbell (a) said that he was “aware of” any new cases – despite that fact there were several new cases in the period discussed; my own included. This is of course, the age old tradition of weasel words and half-truths used in politics. (b) the repeatedly attempt use the “active” case number and avoid using the “total number” in order to downplay the magnitude issue… etc.
D) I dealt with specific instances of fraud, reabductions, racism, and libel …
1) You avoided discussing *solutions* and debating *ideas* and just tried to discredit people you disagree with. I get that you don’t like some people and disagree with them, but (a) attempting to discredit your “opponents” personally doesn’t make your position correct (you might personally feel like you have “scored a point”, but it really doesn’t look that way to objective observers) (b) attempting to discredit your “opponents” personally doesn’t solve the problem (c) choosing to attack your opponents, rather than attacking their ideas, comes across as having a weak and unsupportable position. We should *all* knock off the personal attacks and character assassinations – IT IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE!!! Let’s debate ideas, and develop solutions!
2) I’m serious when I say that I avoided Global Future like the plague, because I just saw a series of personal rants against other parent that you didn’t agree with. I really think that you guys are doing yourself, and the cause a disservice by doing this. If you really have a position, you should articulate it. This is supposed to be about our children, not about one parent vs. another. Part of being adults is having honest debate about opposing ideas, and sometimes having to accept that we must agree to disagree on certain issues. You and I currently disagree about the validity of the methods currently being used by DoS (or at least regarding their motivations for their recent uptick in action), but just because we disagree, doesn’t mean that I think you are evil or a bad person – I merely think that you are mistaken. I get the impression (correct me if I’m wrong), that you tend to see these parents that disagree with more as being “evil”. Calling me names won’t dissuade me in my positions; only demonstrating to me that my ideas are flawed, or that your ideas are superior. However, in order to do that, we have to debate honestly and debate on the issues. But in order to debate honestly, one has to be willing to risk the chance that their own position might be flawed, need changing and that the other guy might actually be right about some things.
—–
Again, thank you for presenting some of your postions, and presenting some form of reason for why you disagree with mine. Hopefully, we can continue discussing ideas and get away the personal attacks.
Read more closely. “McPike”:
“or should I say Eric Kalmus”
was a question, actually. A probe, if you will.
According to Hoofin:
“Tony, you real need to dial it down a few notches. You are basically fighting with someone who you think is a phony, but might not be. Patrick McPike shared enough with me to make me confident that he’s not Eric Kalmus. He might not go by “Patrick McPike” in real life, but he is not Eric Kalmus.”
Whatever. What name do you go by “in real life” and why do you insist on using “Patrick McPike” instead? And how do you expect to establish any credibility whatsoever when nobody knows who you are, what happened to you and your children, and what your personal beef is with our government is?
As far as I’m concerned, you’re little more than a mouthpiece for the BACHome and/or CRN Japan organizations which they wheel out when the heat gets too hot in the kitchen.
Where are Toland, Savoie, Kalmus, et al. in this thread anyhow? As much as I personally find these people reprehensible and loathsome, at least I know who they are and where they come from. I’m more than happy to go head to head with any of them, but see, Braden, Sawyer, and i know too much about them for them to man up and face the music.
I guess that’s what happens when you do put your story out to the public the way they have. I wonder if that accounts for your reticence to tell your tale of woe? (That was a question, by the way.)
Now you’re comparing yourself to the Founding Fathers, much the same way Savoie likes to compare himself to MLK, Gandhi, and Jesus Christ. Interesting.
I couldn’t care less if I get the opportunity to “honestly debate” you, or meet with you face to face for that matter. You declined that offer already, by the way.
All I’ve ever seen from you and your cohorts is dishonesty, obfuscation, and distortions of the truth. You present as “evidence” of how our government is failing us speculative “real numbers” of abductions and falsely claim that the US government is deliberately ignoring the numbers you extrapolate. You claim that the State Dept, has thrown us under the bus (my rendering) and yet ignore any instance where I have pointed out — here in this blog, in fact — that that is not the case. The BACHome organization claims, as I have said before, that some of their children were “missing since the tsunami,” whereas in most cases their location had been known all along. I was besieged by false copyright claims due to my postings (I have proof from WordPress of this) while Toland, Savoie, and others were always welcome to debate with me on my blog (they chose not to and SOMEBODY resorted to this cowardly approach to silence my opinions). CRN Japan totally fabricated stories about how some guy “Mick Hogan” from Australia got beaten up by dark and sinsiter figures (this story was later “retracted”) and also how William Lake’s daughter was turned away after she came to the American Consulate seeking assistance “with the sun beaming down on her face as she knocked on the big, wooden door” or some such absurd prose to that effect (turns out she was never even at the Consulate).
The list goes on and on. Check out my blog for more examples of the bullshit these organizations have been slinging around.
In short, I find nothing honest or credible about what emerges from either you or these two organizations, your identity aside for the moment. The antics you people have engaged in have set us back from the goal left-behind parents try to reach, and you and your buddies will receive quarter from me as long as you continue to divert attention from the real culprit in this issue — the Japanese government and its antiquated and inequitable system of law. That’s why i oppose you and your freinds. I couldn’t care less who or what you really are, frankly. Come back to the true cause of the left-behind parents’ problems and you would have my full support and cooperation, whoever you are. Keep playing games and perpetuating falsehoods and you can all go jump in a Lake.
And I’d prefer if you address me as Del Vecchio from now on. We’re not on a first-name basis “McPike.” That is my real name, by the way. Always has been and always will be. Scans of my passport and Master’s Degree appears on my blog under the post:
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/13/liable-for-libel-you-betcha/
I remember the Mick Hogan thing, that Debito picked up on his blog. It sounded a little far-fetched. I thought someone was trying to punk the group.
I don’t really see where the BACHomers have been outright lying. I think they try to stretch it, and, to some extent, try to sling it. I’m not sure their tactics work; but, alternatively, I think credit can be given to them for putting the issues out in the public. So many people I’ve talked to had seen the Nightline piece.
I appreciate that there are these deep divisions. (I appreciate that now even more than a couple days ago.) I have to say, in all honesty though, that if I were a Left Behind Parent, I’d have my hesitation about dealing with any of you. Not that anyone is “bad”, but there’s an awful lot of bad blood.
From what I understand, the concern is that certain individuals, on both sides, have taken to digging in to the Left Behind Parents’ litigation, and finding the “bad stuff” that gets submitted by the opposing party in all contested divorces. Then, they use this as “fact” to go around and try to discredit that person.
Who would want that?
You have to consider that the internecine battles between Global Future and BACHome tend to discourage any other Left Behind Parent from speaking out about their family’s issue. There are 170 Americans in this boat, yet I count about 12 active people on the internet.
Why would anyone want to volunteer information into some goofy battle that, I assure you, would lead any disinterested party to say, “a pox on both your houses.”
Tony, I am fairly confident that this is not Eric Kalmus.
Tony,
Ah… Tony,
Yet again… you make false claims.
As yet another example – You claim:
“Nor will he explain why he rails against the US government or provide any sort of background whatsoever to account for his apparent dissatisfaction with the same.”
When you know that my reasoning has been on my site for months:
http://letterstomysons.com/2011/09/01/child-abduction-in-japan-the-real-numbers-part-1/
And, as I have also stated, I saw before I ever entered the “LBP Community” that you and certain others rail against people that don’t agree with you, and obsessively commit acts, which I consider to be character assassination, against them. As such, I avoid playing into the hands your attacks by not providing you with ammo to try and manipulate and distort.
I think it’s you who are guilty of character assassination, “McPike.” (Interesting that Savoie also talked about “character assassination” in a previous comment.) My blog deals with specific instances of blatant racism, fraud, reabductions, libel, and other assorted nefarious activities. You have yet to produce one piece of evidence, or one convincing argument, that what I say is untrue. I’m not going to “debate” your vague generalities. Tell me where I’m wrong on Toalnd, Savoie, Lake, Kalmus, et al., and then I’ll respond appropriately and show you where you’re off base. Until then, I’ll thank YOU to stop defaming ME.
In the words of my favorite law student:
“This will be my last post and should serve the dual purposes of fulfilling my notice responsibilities under the [Fill in the Blank] and other relevant defamation statutes and giving you the sufficient notice on spoliation.”
OK, so this is it then?
Tony: “You have yet to produce one piece of evidence, or one convincing argument, that what I say is untrue.”
—-
A) You statement is faulty, you cannot prove negatives.
B) You are still missing the point, I don’t really care; I’m not interested; I haven’t looked into it and don’t really intend to. Attacking other parents isn’t getting the kids back; and is likely hurting the cause over all. I think that it definitely reflects bad on the movement as a whole, and personally, it completely turned me off of you and your group immediately.
Besides, most of what I’ve seen is you guys posting “opposition testimony” and acting like it is fact.. and that is just nonsense. But again, I don’t really care who’s right or wrong about that stuff, it is just a vengeful time-sink as far as I’m concerned. Who cares! Will discrediting them magically make Japan return our kids?
You may/may-not know, but I used to link to your blog on my site (I’m not about “affiliation”, I’m about solutions – I didn’t even know about the different “factions” back then – I was just linking to anyone and everyone else that I stumbled across in the same situation)… but I dropped you after seeing that you were just dumping on other parents. The GoJ is the enemy – not other parents. I wish that you spent as much time developing and following through on plans to get the kids back as you did worrying about discrediting other parents that you don’t agree with.
Ah… Tony,
To suggest that people who disagree with the policies and procedures of the US Department of State (or any division of the US Government for that matter), are simply “ignorant both of Japanese culture and the workings of our State Department and the way international diplomacy operates” is just asinine.
But if you insist on maintain that fallacious position, you had best expand the circle of targets for your personal attacks:
You Should include:
Former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton – who has written several books suggesting the DoS is ineffective, sabotaging US sovereignty and needs to more or less be ripped apart and rebuilt – as the current bureaucratic entities within it are too corrupt for salvage.
Presidential Candidate and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich – Who has said that he not only agrees with Amb. Bolton, but would like him to be Sec. of State should Gingrich be elected.
Presidential Candidate and former MA. Gov., Mit Romney – who in an interview just this past week, stated that he was in agreement with Amb. Bolton’s view of DoS, had read his books and suggested that, if elected, he, Romney, would do just that. Romney also hinted the Bolton might be on his “short list” for the Sec. State position.
Former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms — Also, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, and Reps. Benjamin Gilman, R-N.Y., and Nick Lampson, D-Texas. – All of whom have been outspoken critics of how the State Department has handled international parental abductions – and have more or less accused DoS of lying.
(Probably former at this point) Senior attorney for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration *at the State Department*, Tom Johnson – Who has said, “The whole approach of the State Department is that they can’t embarrass other governments because it will make matters worse. It’s the quiet diplomacy argument: Who cares about complaining Americans; the job of State is to please foreign governments.” AND also, stated the the State Department Hague Reports amount to “fraudulent reporting.”
Author and Investigative Reporter, Joel Mowbray – Who, in a decade worth of articles and his book “Dangerous Diplomacy”, has repeatedly documented the the misdeeds of DoS and their mishandling of the child abduction issue.
Investigative Reporter, Timothy W. Maier – Who also has written many articles, again going back a decade, on the missteps of DoS on this issue.
Members of the US Congress of have co-sponsored HR 1940 – Which if you actually read it, is really an (weak) attempt to try to get the Executive Branch and DoS to actually do their job and act responsibly with regard to the dealing of child abductions.
The entire House of Representatives (sans Ron Paul), who voted on HR 1326 – which was a slap in the face to DoS and the Executive branch. It is congress’ way of saying, “Hey, you folks aren’t taking this seriously enough, so we need to step in and speak out against Japan since you aren’t.”
etc, etc, etc.
Let’s not forget all the founding fathers… who specifically developed a system of Government where the people would have the right and power to question the methods and motives of the US Government — and demand and enforce appropriate change in said government.
In any case… you keep claiming that my position is wrong, that I’m ignorant, that I haven’t a clue, etc. But you have yet to give any actual reasons why.
—-
Since you seem disinterested in intellectually honest debate, I will leave you to do… whatever it is you do.
Yeah, a long list of Republicans. I’d just ask anybody reading this to recall that under the Bush Administration zero progress was made in advancing our cause. I myself was given the bum’s rush by the State Department back in 2004.
I claim your position is erroneous because since Obama took office our Ambassador in Japan has participated in some seven joint demarches; A/S Campbell has held several press conferences on this issue and engaged in serious negotiations with his Japanese counterparts; LBP’s were afforded to opportunity in a half a dozen Town Hall meetings (where we were witness to temper tantrums by several BACHome individuals) and a dozen or so meetings at the US Embassy in Tokyo to express their opinions and contribute to the dialogue; and public statements have been made by A/S Cambell, Amb. Jacobs, Sec. Clintoin, and President Obama that directly address this issue.
You and your friends at BACHome ignore every effort our government has made to resolve our situation because it doesn’t fit with your agenda — WHATEVER THAT IS.
I’m through “debating’ you, Casper.
And I’ve never heard one actual strategy emerge from the BACHomers except presenting “the real numbers” (pure speculation) and promotion of MOUs (which those lacking any true understanding of this culture thinks we can ram down the throats of the Japanese).
No, sir, you and your associates are bereft of any real ideas as to how to resolve this issue, save bitching and moaning about how your government “isn’t doing enough!”
I WANT MY CHILD BACK AND I WANT HIM BACK NOW!!! WAAAAAH!! WAAAAH!!!
Grow up.
I agree that BACHome is a more stringent (more strident, maybe, I don’t know) group. They are “radicalized”, as I would say, and are more confrontational.
Generally, I would say that those kind of tactics don’t work. Slow and steady works. Of course, slow and steady means the other side can basically tell you to eat shit for years on end, and there is your meal.
Is it at least possible that Chris Savoie’s daring Kyushu maneuver put this issue to a head, where people in America notice stories about it much more than if he had just sat in Tennessee and ate shit? Is it possible that you benefit from certain “externalities” of the BACHomers radicalism?
Just wondering.
Hoofin “Is it at least possible that Chris Savoie’s daring Kyushu maneuver put this issue to a head, where people in America notice stories about it much more than if he had just sat in Tennessee and ate shit? Is it possible that you benefit from certain “externalities” of the BACHomers radicalism?”
—
I think that you are on point here – that this very likely the reality, and possibly part of the rift between the two groups. A quiet resentment of the actions that they seem to resent actually benefiting them.
But really, what human/civil rights situation has ever been rectified without confrontation?
As you pointed out – black segregation: Rosa Parks and the school bus; The “Freedom Riders”; James Meredith and the University of Mississippi; etc.
DoS and the USG is just as happy to ignore the issue as the Japanese government is. Just like the Japanese government has no incentive to fix it without foreign governments complaining; the USG has no incentive to deal with it if parents aren’t complaining.
To me, these seems like a fairly straightforward reality.
Except I don’t really see grabbing your kids off the street in exactly the same pantheon of events as refusing to move to the back of the bus. King wrote Letters from Birmingham Jail and didn’t complain about the food there. James Meredith actually led a quiet life after the enrollment controversy. I read somewhere that he had said his only dispute was that he was a resident of Mississippi, and wanted to enroll in the University of Mississippi–that he didn’t have much patience for the late 1960’s radicals in the black community.
I don’t see Chris Savoie in the same light. I meant daring more in the sense of chutzpah. The BACHomers are not principled civil rights activists. They more akin to angry militant groups.
I’m neither condoning, nor condemning.
But, I think that objectively it depends on context. *Not* moving to the back of the bus, was probably considered much more *militant* and *shocking* at the time, then a parent trying to recover their children in a country which publicly claims that child abduction is perfectly okay.
Heck, they have made movies about parents who have recovered children from countries where it *was* officially against the law. I suspect, that if Chris had instead been “Christina”, and world would have cheered her and condemned Japan for it’s injustice. I think that part of the issue is that most parents effected are fathers.
Also, I *heard*, but do not know for fact, that the Department of State was “in the loop” and the local consulate was waiting and prepared in advance to assist him.
—–
That said, I’ve interacted with BacHome folks some and surely didn’t find them militant. But we may have very different ideas about the definition of militant.
They mostly seemed to want to get congress to pass HR1940 (which I personally think is fairly toothless) and arrange the rare protest infront of the Japanese Embassy or what not. None of which struck me as particularly militant. Contrary to what the GF folks seem to feel, I found some “BacHome folks” were more sit-back and wait for DoS to do something, some where more aggressively questioning of the sincerity and methods of DoS.
I think that part of the issue could be, that many of the GF (and BH too for that matter) folks, have cases that are rather old… as such, they got years of the cold shoulder, so now that they are getting a little bit of love…
BTW – Have you ever seen the Congressional Hearing with A/S Campbell? I recommend that you watch it, it is rather revealing regarding DoS’ position. In my opinion, it opened my eyes and formed the basis for my impression that DoS was being too passive/apathetic and sell out our kids….
Below is the link.. but it started late, so you have to move it ahead about an hour and three minutes-ish (1:03):
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1335
Tony, do you wonder why this is such a difficult issue, when it appears there are “only” about 170 children affected? Why do you think the Japanese are taking such a long time to resolve what, to me, seems like a pretty easy issue when there are millions of children in Japan who are not affected.
There’s just no real incentive for them to cooperate, Rick. There is little upside to a Japanese politician coming out in support of the foreigner fathers (mostly) versus the “poor, abused Japanese mothers,” or the handful of Japanese fathers who actually do want to be a part of their children’s lives. Imagine the flak the government will take from the right wing when they force a “Japanese” (read: half-Japanese) child back to their habitual domicile and away from the arms of their loving mothers who simply “returned home to escape abuse at the hands of their foreign fathers.”
This is just one take on Japanese recalcitrance with respect to this issue. There are many more, including simple inertia and a historical reluctance to be told what to do by “outsiders.” It is not shame that will move the Japanese mind, as many of the self-proclaimed Japanese pundits assert. It is genuine, heartfelt guilt. There’s a difference between the two, and I believe the State Dept. is on the right track with this. There are any number of examples of Japanese CITIZENS and war victims who spend decades petitioning the Japanese government for redress, with some belated successful (the Minamata mercury poisoning cases) and others not ( the Korean sex slaves and hibakusha).
What i see happening is people getting frustrated (rightly so) with Japan dragging its feet on this and then turning around and blaming the wrong governments (the US and others) for “not doing enough to settle the issue.” This is misplaced anger and diverts the attention away from the real culprit, which by the way, pleases the Japanese government no end. I talked about this failed “strategy” in one of my posts, Number 6, to be precise:
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2011/10/13/eight-left-behind-parent-“strategies”-that-are-doomed-to-failure/
I agree there is no incentive for the Japanese to cooperate, and I was impressed by your blog post, which I read the other day. I didn’t know you had the second site.
So you feel it is the Japanese political Right that is one of the stumbling blocks to the government otherwise just saying, “look it’s a small number, and we’re not down by law on keeping many of those children in the country”?
Yes, I know that for some Japanese, they have to wait decades for redress. You can include the Kokutetsu (National Railroad) workers in there. They were fired in the 1980’s for either striking or joining a union, and had to wait until either 2009 or 2010 for some sort of compensation from JR, which is the privatized rail company as you know.
The waiting is often attributed to this ideal of consensus. But often—and it’s just my impression–making people wait is just a Japanese way of saying, “f*ck you”, like how it is sometimes in Western culture.
Now yer talkin’!
It’s partly the Right, and partly an overall Japanese sense of apathy and reluctance to change ANYTHING. They feel this attitude has served them well in the past, and they just don’t see the need to alter that perception now.
And it does help to actually live in Japan to appreciate why our problem hasn’t yet been resolved. This is not a country born of revolution, civil war (not of the land grab type, I mean), or seesawing between political parties as has been found in the States. How many Americans would wait on a line at Disneyland for two or three hours to go on a two-minute ride? They do here, and just accept it as “Shoganai, ne.” I’m not apologizing for the Japanese pace of change on social issues. I’m just recognizing the reality that slaps me in the face on a regular basis.
See, we agree. Although, we interpret the resulting solution differently.
The Japanese have never really “changed” anything. One might go so far as to say that they don’t know how to change. All changes have come via gaiatsu. That is why, the US must be strong on this issue. That is why I feel that so long as DoS just “asks nicely”, Japan will continue to “do nothing” and wait for it to go away.
They will never change without being pushed…
They will let their population decline and their economy collapse, before they will change on their own.
I believe, that if the USG created a coalition of the other countries fed up with Japan doing this (Canada, NZ, Oz, France, etc) and they all told Japan, “enough is enough”. Japan would change immediately… and then that would become the new norm, and Japan would then just keep ticking on in happy acceptance of the new “Japanese way”.
It feels like the Department of State either runs its own agenda, or has to take marching orders from other departments—particularly the Department of Defense. When it comes to trans-Pacific relations, I am not sure which of the two is more in the 20th century, Cold War past.
What some of those involved in the left-behind parent movement never seem to take into account is the fact that the relationship between Japan and the USA is a complex and far-reaching one, going back over 150 years now, and that ours is not the only issue the US government has to deal with. That’s what I mean when I say that screaming at Uncle Sam and stamping one’s feet (I’m not kidding here, I witnessed LBPs verbally abusing very high-ranking government officials — Asst. Sec. Kurt Campbell, to be precise), as some left-behind parent groups are wont to do, is infantile and pointless in the extreme. There are trade issues, defense issues, humanitarian issues, and on and on. Given the relatively small number of confirmed left-behind parent cases, I feel we have received a great deal of attention from our government. Sitting “across the river” from North Korea and China I’m grateful, though, that the US government also devotes its energies to defense. Folks living in America have the luxury of discounting the importance of this strategic relationship. I cannot afford to do so. This is a dangerous part of the globe to live in.
And I’m more inclined to believe in reality theories than I am to believe in conspiracy theories such as the idea that the DoS “takes its marching orders” from the DoD, with all due respect, Rick. The DoD must consider the needs of all 300,000,000 million Americans, and I accept that reality.
I have seen little to no gratitude being expressed by certain parent groups for the work our State Dept, HAS done. Instead, these good people are regularly blasted by the mob at BACHome and CRN Japan and others and are unfairly accused of all sorts of omissions and outright transgressions. Nevertheless, they continue to ramp up the pressure on Japan to resolve our cases, with the President now even publicly addressing the issue. This is how things work in the real world — a steady escalation up the ladder until meaningful change is attained.
I once read that the most important quality of being a parent is exercising patience when it comes to one’s children. I wish others would heed that advice.
Could it possibly be that DoS has been “stepping it up”, *because* these parents have been putting on pressure and calling them out?
I think the initial press lit a fire under a few asses. The debate since then has been whether constant militancy is doing more harm than good. A number of commenters in the Japan-side expat community feel that it’s yes, more harm than good.
On the other hand…. I know several Japanese parents that are asking for *more aggressive* action from the US-side of things. They feel that without gaiatsu from the US, to force the Japanese Gov. to reform the system, the change will never come – and Japanese parents will continue to be denied access to their children.
So, most likely, only history will say which patch was right…
I imagine that the sessions with federal government officials get a little heated. Very emotional, and, well, heated. As I was saying to you the other day, my own feeling is that the large multinational interests “inform” the Defense Department what might be good North Pacific defense policy, and the Defense Department “informs” State just how far, and on what, the State Department can do on binational issues.
I also feel that the State Department has its own, age old agendas, that the old-timers just keep plucking away at. I see this with a lot of the Kennedy-era “cultural exchange”/junior teacher stuff.
The Northwest Pacific Ocean is not a safe place, indeed, but I kind of resent my tax money having to go to subsidize the security of a region where the people don’t seem to be too appreciative of where the effort is coming from; and so willing to make these “issues” like the child abductions into something. I am also buying this argument, that I saw in the New York Times a month or two ago, that America’s Pacific defense really just keeps the shipping lines calm for China to bring its goods into our market. I wonder about that.
At least back in the 1970’s and ’80’s, they would find these Japanese soldiers who hid out on Pacific islands since the end of World War II, still fighting the war. I’m sure that was actually happening, and not made up. I am certain that there are some right-wing recidivists “fighting” the U.S. on the child abduction issues, as well as things like equal protection of the law for foreigners in Japan. I don’t know why the State Department wouldn’t make hay over that, and probably the Defense department doesn’t want there to be. They used to hang out with Tamogami Toshio, if you know that name.
Rick…The reality is that DoS is under no obligation to sit down and have listen to have a group of
childish andungrateful children literally scream and yell at them in Town Hall meetings and who trash them continually on their websites. BACHome will no doubt try to claim credit, as they always do, for whatever progress that is being made on our issue by virtue of their petulant and immature outbursts and libelous remarks against our allies in the US government, whereas an alternative explanation is that DoS is acting because it is the right thing to do, and because they are sincere and concerned human beings who are trying to help the American citizens they represent. People are free to interpret the current level of activity in DoS as they see fit. But they are not free to dismiss the statements and actions that are indeed taking place, which is all I ever hear from the Commander in the dress whites and those under his command.Rick,
One other point… it’s pretty frustrating when you have both the USG and every Japanese lawyer that you speak with, tell you that realistically you will never see your children again.
It doesn’t leave one feeling like there are many options…
My government NEVER told me that I would never see my child again, and my lawyer worked earnestly to preserve my relationship with my child, even though we all came to realize eventually that losing custody was a foregone conclusion.
McPike sez:
“I believe, that if the USG created a coalition of the other countries fed up with Japan doing this (Canada, NZ, Oz, France, etc) and they all told Japan, “enough is enough”. Japan would change immediately… and then that would become the new norm, and Japan would then just keep ticking on in happy acceptance of the new “Japanese way”.”
I don’t know, Rick. Is this fellow paying attention? This is exactly what I’m talking about. I’m counting seven separate instances from May 2009 through November 2011 where the USG created such coalitions with other governments to express their dissatisfaction with the situation left-behind parents face. And Japan has yet to “change immediately.”
http://japan2.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20090521-79.html
http://japan2.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20091016-78.html
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20100130-74.html
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20100318-75.html
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20101022-71.html
http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20110209-73.html
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111110b2.html
It’s this kind of dismissive attitude about the State Department’s efforts and BACHome’s simplistic “magic bullet” theory that I’m fed up with. Honestly, Rick, can you blame me for losing it sometimes? These demarches are the diplomatic equivalent of A-bombs, and are much more than Ambassador Roos “signing his name on a piece of paper” as I’ve heard some ingrates at BACHome claim. I was actually present at the meeting with Amb. Roos back in January 2010 at which he expressed his personal commitment to applying as much diplomatic pressure as possible to resolve our crisis, and a sincere and honest effort to follow through on this promise is all I’ve seen from the good Ambassador since.
I completely disagree that these statements can be considered taking a strong stance and saying “Enough is Enough”.
These are merely requests… like when we politely asked Iran to return our drone. Neither of which anyone expects to be complied with.
If there is either, no incentive, nor some threat of repercussion, they won’t get much done. You seem to think that diplomacy is asking politely, over and over.
Diplomacy is trade, alliance, incentive, and even threat. Currently, the US is taking a position of weakness with regard to Japan.
Again… don’t take my word for it, watch A/S Campbell’s congressional testimony. He lays it out a clearly as can be done by a diplomat being video-taped under oath.
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1335
I agree, that -I think- that -DoS thinks- that they are doing everything that they can. But I think that they are operating under faulty assumptions.
—
Tony: “…and are much more than Ambassador Roos “signing his name on a piece of paper””
How much more? What are they beyond a polite requests? What is Japan’s incentive to respond?
—
Everyone seems to forget:
(1) In the past Japan committed to sign the hague – and didn’t.
http://www.internationalfamilylawfirm.com/2008/05/japan-to-sign-parental-abduction-treaty.html
In May 2008, Japan said that it would sign the Hague, and likely have it concluded as early as 2010 (within 2 years).
They waited for people’s attention to drift and then just kept on with business as usual.
(2) In May 2011 (about a week after a parent won a $6m lawsuit against the Japanese abductor in a US court – coincidence?), Japan said that they would sign the hague, and likely have it concluded within *3* years.
(3) Japan is also considering a moratorium of 3 additional years to ratify the hague.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20111229f1.html
(4) Japan is *already* party to several international human-rights treaties (including one which *already* states that International child abduction is wrong) which they have been ignoring for well over a decade.
What McPike is obviously unaware of is these were not just “statements.” These were joint press statements released AFTER the Ambassador and his counterparts from other countries visited with the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice en masse. As I said before, this is pretty heavy stuff, but McPike seeks to downplay the significance of same because, well, he was just short short on facts now, wasn’t he? These actions are not “polite requests” as he claims, but serious and concerted diplomatic efforts on behalf of a host of nations to try to compel Japan to 1) accede to the Hague Convention, 2) reform its domestic laws, and 3) deal with existing cases of parental child abduction. I really don’t know what he expects our government to do to get Japan to change — perhaps declare war on Japan and drop nuclear bombs again? [Over the top here, eh?]
He then talks about there being “no repercussions” as a result of these actions.
Earth to McPike:The State Department does not have the authority or the power to punish or apply sanctions on another sovereign nation. That is the job of the Congress. Without laws empowering them to punish Japan with respect to this issue, there are limits to what the State Department can LEGALLY accomplish.It really doesn’t matter if McPike “completely disagree[s] that these statements can be considered taking a strong stance and saying “Enough is Enough”. I can disagree that the Earth orbits the Sun but that doesn’t make it so.
Regarding the rest of his reply, (Points 1 through 4) these are all irrelevant to the instant “debate” so I won’t bother dealing with them here.
Except for Number 2, however, where he cites Savoie’s $6.1 million dollar lawsuit against his ex-wife as being the reason Japan agreed to sign the Hague Convention. Talk about fallacious reasoning! Yeah, I farted just now and an earthquake immediately ensued. That must have been the cause!
LOL I thought this guy was the champion of logical discourse.His connecting Savoie’s lawsuit with Japan coincidentally agreeing to sign the Hague Convention is beyond ludicrous. Mr. Spock would be aghast at the complete and shameless absence of logic being displayed here.I just want to make a point on why all the parent vs. parent attacks are silly. AND that they seem to have very little to with reality; at least any relevant reality….
I found this article which as both Savoie and Braden in it: http://rafu.com/news/2009/10/a-father%E2%80%99s-agony/
========
========
>> GF Claim: Chris S. was allegedly having an affair and is therefore, they say, a bad person, and seemingly by their logic should be punished in some way regarding his children.
***note: I don’t care if it is true or not, but that is apparently their claim and justification. Frankly, having lived in Japan (unlike Braden) I get what Japan is like; also (based on my subjective experience and conversations with friends and coworkers in Japan) a Japanese wife in Japan, acts differently than a Japanese wife in America. Even so…
(a) If their claim is true, I say, “who really cares?” Adultery is practically the national pastime in Japan — A Look at the Social-Martial Issues in Japan | http://bit.ly/tqqPo9
(b) If not true, well…. then it shows the use of false claims to attempt to dishonestly discredit an “opponent”.
>> However, Braden openly acknowledged in the article that his child was conceived and born
out of wedlock.***note: I still don’t care; it makes to difference to me, I’m only demonstrating a logical argument; not making moral judgements.
Question: Which is morally more “wrong”, adultery OR out of wedlock children???
Answer: WHO CARES! It is completely a personal and subjective thing. If someone commits adultery, are they necessarily less of a father? If someone has an out of wedlock child, are they necessarily less of a father?
Should any of us be throwing stones? How does attacking another parent solve anything?
Who gets to decide that one parent’s admitted actions, and better or worse than another parent’s alleged (and to preempt any whining – I used alleged, because that is what it is at this point) actions? And again, what does any of it matter? To me, it is bad logic and intellectual dishonestly at it’s worst.
Adultery (if it even occurred in this case) does not a bad father make.
Out of wedlock childbirth does not a bad father make.
While there might be some statistical relationship, they are not direct corollaries.
GF seems to be comparing non-equivalent things and using that as justification for something that really isn’t even anyone’s business anyhow; just to attempt to discredit a parent that they had decided they don’t like.
========
========
>> GF tactic: They seemingly toss a lot of opposing divorce testimony around, (or police reports, which are really just unsubstantiated, often one-sided, hearsay) and try to present it as fact. — (intellectually dishonest to the core, in my personal opinion)
>> However, Braden was apparently never married to mother of his child (again, no moral judgment here, just presenting a relavent fact for argument purposes), so he doesn’t necessarily have personal experience with either how antagonistic it can be (unless he has a divorce elsewhere in his life), nor was his relationship with his child’s mother necessarily at the same level of commitment (for lack of a better word, not as a slight) that can lead to the type of insanity in divorces. As anyone who has been through a divorce knows, it is a *whole* different experience from ending a non-marital relationship.
========
========
>> GF Claim: (as far as I can make out anyway) That other movements are asking too much of DoS; expecting too much of DoS; not asking DoS politely enough… whatever.
***note: I’m honestly not very clear on this claim as it always seems to just be vague accusations against efforts by anyone *not* of the GF group – and I haven’t found a GF mission statement, a documented strategy, or anything else. I see a series of personal attacks against other parents, and that’s about it. When I ask for a list of their views, goals and stratagems, I’m repeatedly asked to submit to some form of compliance test to prove myself worthy of their “insights”… or something.
>> However, Braden seemed to have been asking for more as well. He has pushed congress to pass resolutions, he has called for DoS to instigate visa restrictions and penalties against Japan, etc. etc.
Question: What makes what Global Future does, more valid than any other group? Why do they get to treat their view as the only valid view? Let alone use it as justification to launch endless personal attacks against other parents who don’t follow their idea of which path is the “yellow brick road”?
Answer: No one knows. But they sure seem to feel justified in doing it. To me, these attitudes are *much* more militant, and hurtful to the cause. They also suggests to me an extremist mentality that is merely trying to silence any opposition voices and prevent any honest debate.
========
========
Anyhow, the examples can go on… but I hope the point is made.
Contrary to what is claimed, this doesn’t seem to be a ‘disagreement’ over tactics. It seems to be based on personal vendettas and personality differences.
The personal attacks against other parents are merely mean-spirited, largely (if not entirely) intellectually dishonest, generally seem hypocritical, and COMPLETELY counter-productive to say the least.
** To Hoofin: I think you are now seeing why I don’t go tossing the details of my personal case around, and why my blog posts minimize my personal details. And, as you have surmised, there are many of us newer cases that (a) try to keep a low profile, to avoid also suffering baseless attacks (b) don’t want to get held back by the squabbles of the previous generation of LBPs.
In my personal experience, the GF leadership mindset seems to be, if you aren’t WITH THEM –> They are AGAINST YOU.
First of all, Rick, would you please ask this McPike fellow to confine his comments to 10,000 words or less, and to make one clear point at a time. I mean, I’m a fairly fast reader, and I think moderately intelligent, but Madonne! (This is not a “personal attack,” by the way, just a request.)
Second, I’d just like to make a few observations.
1) McPike claims that he finds personal attacks against other parents repugnant (my rendering), and yet he makes clearly malicious attacks against other parents, i.e., Patrick Braden’s child being “born out of wedlock” (Who the hell uses that antiquated expression anymore in the 21st Century, anyway?) He then tries to wash it up by saying “not that it matters”. BULLSHIT.
2) McPike likes to talk about “intellectual dishonesty, and yet when I confront him with facts, he demurs. For example, he was dead wrong on how if the USG formed coalitions with other countries Japan would “change immediately. I noted seven separate instances where the USG — through joint demarches with a host of other nations — did exactly that over a two-year period, but he did not acknowledge his error. That is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme — ignoring bona fide proof and not conceding that one was wrong. Sweep it under the rug.
3) McPike claims that he hadn’t put out any personal details of his case because he “doesn’t want to be attacked by others.” Convenient, especially since he sees fit to air Braden’s past in public, which NOBODY CARES ABOUT, by the way. McPike has insulated himself from any criticism of his past history or actions since, as I have noted, he has none to speak of. I’m not implying that the guy is dirty, or that he has something to hide, or that he is guilty of cyber-cowardice, just that he sees fit to dredge up insignificant and irrelevant facts about others while shielding himself from criticism by virtue of his near complete anonymity.
And here I thought he want to “discuss the issues.”
Yes, I get you on this, Tony. I read a lot about how the ad hominems should not be part of true debate. Then, along comes a “fact”, based off someone else (or the same person) saying something personal—not about an issue or a position. If I start going in and cutting, however, people get upset that I’m not letting the “full debate” go. So I have recently taken to striking through
like thisthe objectionable text, as well as excising anything over the top.I think people watch too many political ad campaigns. Most of campaigning these days seem to be along that line: So-and-so is a great guy except for the personal problems and foibles and unfortunate incidents in his past! Well, what do you think, the viewer or voter is stupid enough not to see through this. People then transfer this over to internet commentary, and they think it’s OK.
There is a lot of “negative advertising” going on in the Left Behind Parent community, especially. I have been told that both Global Future people and the BACHomers have been doing it. Someone might say, “hey, isn’t that an ad hominem?” and I don’t know how to respond. It is pretty clear if everyone doesn’t try to raise the level of the dialogue, they are going each other out with the rest of the players who are involved in the child abduction issue.
I get it, Rick, I really do, re: the ad hominem. The problem here is that the Japanese government is simply not playing fair with respect to the left-behind parent cause, and they and the Japanese press latch on to any questionable action on the part of left-behind parents to deflect attention from the real issue, and obfuscate, stall, and justify their inaction on a seemingly clear-cut human rights issue.
And that is why Global Future holds the position that BACHome and others should not put forth such questionable cases with checkered pasts as representative of the LBP community as a whole. This is just common sense. That’s why I believe Christopher Smith dropped Savoie’s case like a hot potato and instead chose the war hero Michael Elias as the “poster boy,” for lack of a better word, for the cause. Don’t get me wrong: I fully endorse the idea that, regardless of a parent’s background and past activities, he or she is entitled to a relationship with his or her child, absent proven cases of child abuse. I don’t deny Savoie’s right to be involved in his children’s lives. Far from it. I just don’t believe that focusing attention on his rather complicated history does the cause any favors. Likewise, Toland’s clear attempts at forum shopping hurts us all. So do cases where domestic violence have been proven in a court of law. (I’ll leave the names out here — you know who you are.)
So I think we need to be clear on the fact that admitting amongst ourselves that certain cases should not be put forth to advance our cause is not as simple as mere ad hominem. Sorry to have to say this, but the left-behind parent cause is largely a public relations game, and handing the Japanese government ammunition to use against us is just not logical. What we need to do is win one or two cases that are not subject to easy criticism, and as the saying goes, find that “A rising tide floats all boats.”
Del Vecchio
—
McPike: How is stating what Braden open states in a newspaper, esp. as support for the larger argument, a “malicious attack”?
Is, or isn’t members of Global Future attacking other groups/parents for actions/activities that are related to actions/activities involving the same GF members deriding others?
*** Hoofin, again, your [you] are/were an attorney, I expect you see to the difference. And to see the larger argument I was making and the relevance of those my statements to the argument.
===========
===========
Del Vecchio
—
McPike: Maybe you haven’t read it yet, *but I did respond*; AND rebutted. You demostrated a “co[a]lition” of sort, which I was already aware of… but as I stated in my rebuttal to you in the other post:
“I completely disagree that these statements can be considered taking a *strong stance* and saying “Enough is Enough”.
These are merely requests… like when we politely asked Iran to return our drone. Neither of which anyone expects to be complied with.
If there is either, no incentive, nor some threat of repercussion, they won’t get much done. You seem to think that diplomacy is asking politely, over and over…..
… ( see other post for the rest)”
>> Basically, it is very different from what I was suggesting.
===========
===========
Del Vecchio
—
McPike:
(a) I didn’t go digging through court records and presenting opposing testomy as fact.
(b) I referenced just enough of the information that BRADEN TOLD TO A REPORTER FOR WIDE DISTRIBUTION, as required to try to make the argument.
(c) I specifically stated that it had no bearing on him, or his case. It was only relevent in demonstrating that GF seems to justified in being the ones who get to decided whose case is “worthy”, when in fact GF future leadership has done some of the same and/or socially related activites that they decry “opposition” parents for.
(d) If I had merely said, you guys are challenging the worthiness of other peoples cases, based on unrelated similarties to some of your own… you would have demanded support.
*** Hoofin, again, your are/were an attorney, I expect you see to the difference. And to see the larger argument I was making and the relev[a]nce of those my statements to the argument.
Let’s go through this point by point shall we, as McPike likes to claim that I don’t wish to “debate” him on the merits, or lack thereof, of his arguments.
McPike: How is stating what Braden open[ly] states in a newspaper, esp. as support for the larger argument, a “malicious attack”?
— Del Vecchio: Because the circumstances leading up to the birth of Braden’s daughter have nothing to do with the fact of her existence, or Braden’s right to be a part of her life. It is a cheap shot, pure and simple. like when a lawyer slips in a comment in court before a jury who is then told by a judge to “disregard that last comment.” People don’t forget what they hear. Savoie’s (alleged) infidelity has everything to do with Noriko’s actions subsequent to the divorce, and is a morsel the Japanese press and innumerable bloggers have latched onto to discredit the cause as a whole. McPike is merely trying to dig up some sort of “dirt” on Braden and then saying “but I agree it doesn’t matter.” MORE BULLSHIT.
McPike: These [joint demarches] are merely requests… like when we politely asked Iran to return our drone. Neither of which anyone expects to be complied with.
— Del Vecchio: Despite his protestations to the contrary, this simply demonstrates that McPike is clearly ignorant of the significance of these actions, and tries to downplay them in order to bolster the tired old BACHome mantra that “our government isn’t doing enough for us” and so on. Again, I don’t know exactly what he expects our State Department to do beyond concerted pressure at the highest levels — Ambassadors, Asst. Secretary of State, Secretary of State, and President. I’ve never heard one cogent strategy emerge from their quarters as to EXACTLY how they would go about bringing change in Japan, save for the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) idea, which AGAIN presupposes Japan’s cooperation in this regard. If they don’t sign on to that idea — which they never will, let’s be real here — it is dead in the water. Ambassador Roos told us that he thought concerted pressure from a united front — i.e., along with ambassadors from other countries — was the way to go, and I agree with him on that. And Ambassador Roos fully hopes expects that the Japanese will heed these efforts. I think this a much more likely explanation of Japan’s belated agreement to sign the Hague then Savoie’s $6.1 million meaningless judgement against his ex-wife, as McPike previously claimed.
McPike: I specifically stated that it had no bearing on him, or his case. It was only relevent in demonstrating that GF seems to justified in being the ones who get to decided whose case is “worthy”, when in fact GF future leadership has done some of the same and/or socially related activites that they decry “opposition” parents for.
— Del Vecchio: Intellectual dishonesty yet again. Braden having a child “out of wedlock” (I’m still cringing at this obsolete expression) is NOT THE SAME THING AS MARITAL INFIDELITY. Nobody cares about this aspect of Braden’s life, and I’ve never read one newspaper article or blog posting that made an issue out of this absurd point, whereas Savoie’s (alleged) infidelity while married to his former wife has been widely discussed in the press and on blogs to the detriment of all left-behind parents with the implied and sometimes stated argument being that Noriko was justified in doing what she did. And McPike knows this full well, or should have were he better informed.
McPike: If I had merely said, you guys are challenging the worthiness of other peoples cases, based on unrelated similarties to some of your own… you would have demanded support.
— Del Vecchio: An act of love which results in the birth of a child is in no way similar to an (alleged) act of betrayal of a person one is married to. The former is worthy of praise, the latter, condemnation. More intellectual dishonesty and bald-faced sophistry. And before what I just said is characterized by McPike as an “attack” let me remind readers that I am attacking McPike argument here, but not him as a person.
Hey Hoofin did you see this? Question by McPike; “Who gets to decide that one parent’s admitted actions, and better or worse than another parent’s alleged …” and the answer is………………….Judges, juries, and law enforcement. ……………………………….Having a child out of wedlock is irrelevant. Committing adultery is a crime in many places. Soory, you just cant conflate the two….but I am flattered that you spend all this time and verbose rhetoric trying.
Right. I remember someone saying about “law enforcement” as one of the groups making decisions about what should be law (rather than enforce what already is law), but that was several dozen posts ago, and I can’t remember which poster had said it.
Frankly, it is like trying to remember the makes and models of cars that pass by on the Turnpike. After 160 or so, they all start to seem very similar.
Patrick B.
Adultery might be a crime in some places. So is spitting on the sidewalk or insulting the monarch. Whether it’s a crime or not is irrelevant to the matter of custody of children. It is certainly grounds for divorce and if it is damaging to the child might well be grounds for either supervised visitation or some other custody adjustments but really, in this day and age you’re arguing about the moral right or wrong of what someone chooses to do
with their genitalia? People cheat. In the case we’re discussing there are questions of whether they were still a “couple”. It might be that Noriko came to the USA to divorce Chris not realizing he had begun a relationship with someone else during their separation and is now the “woman scorned”. It might be she had hopes of a reconciliation. It doesn’t matter. And it’s happened to others as well (Debito is a great example of this –his ex was willing to stay with him despite his having a girlfriend but became the woman scorned when he left her– and yes I have 1st hand knowledge from one of the 3 parties involved).But ultimately it doesn’t matter. And what the women in those cases are doing (using the children as a weapon to hurt their ex-husbands) is every bit as manipulative, vindictive, and wrong. And until Japan fixes it
‘s ability to enforce custody decisions and the koseki system to allow children to be part of both parents lives after a divorce the children will continue to be pawns in a lets see who can outhurt the other game.El Guapo said –“2 sides have gone so far as to try to settle things “mano a mano” ….Well actually, there are only a few incidents where that kind of “demand for satisfaction” has arisen out of a “debate”. The most recent was by bacho[m]e member Gherbetti against Tony DelVecchio. But before that, there were somewhere around16 or 20 similar threats from Savoie, and then there was a few from Lake. So that “mano a mano” tactic seems to only be employed by the Bacho[m]e[r]s. So just be clear, it’s not “2-sides” …it[‘]s a tactic employed by the bacho[m]e side only..
El Guapo said—“Adultery might be a crime in some places. So is spitting on the sidewalk or insulting the monarch. Whether it’s a crime or not is irrelevant to the matter of custody of children.”
Saying adultery is not a crime relevant to custody of the children is a bit inaccurate. (note for Hoofin…Savoie has admitted his adultery with Amy Vican numerous times) It certainly is a violation of the commitment and bond between the mother and the father of the children. It’s not too much of a stretch to agree with moms side and say it’s an attack on the family.
But lets discuss what else it really is.
First click on Google search; Adultery has at least two major impacts on the lives of the children of the adulterous parent.
———————————————————————————————–
1) Cheats the children of their sense of security.
2)Complicates the child’s future & creates life long scars.
———————————————————————————————–
Most clinicians will tell the impact of adultery on the children has been all but overlooked. But, interest is gradually growing (Annette Lawson Institute for Research on Women and Gender at Stanford University).
————————————————————————————————
Research indicates children grow apprehensive and insecure as a result of behaviors demonstrated by adulterous parents.
There is a sudden inattentiveness as the adulterous parent focuses attention on someone outside the nucleus of the family.
uncertainty and anxiety develops as a result of parents pulling away to answer phone calls behind closed doors.
Absences from the family for purposes of a vague nature.
The child may exhibit any of the following characteristics of heightened anxiety.:
1)clinging
2)bedwetting
3)thumb sucking
4)temper tantrums
5)fire setting
6)night terrors
———————————————————————————————–
It is interesting to note that the characteristics demonstrated by the child of an adulterous parent are extremely similar to those of a sexually abused child.
Children who grow up with a parent who had an adulterous relationship are less likely to be able to maintain adult monogamous relationships. They are also more likely to have higher divorce rates than the rest of the population. These children are more likely to become teen parents. These children are more likely to have difficulty at school. These children are more likely to have behavioral and psychological problems.
I like the “strike through” idea, by the way. It preserves your impartiality while at the same time allowing us to make our case, or make fools of ourselves, as the case may be.
Everyone, please read this if you get the chance.
https://hoofin.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/my-comment-policy/
Hoofin to you Hoofin for taking such a neutral stance and keeping things relatively civil.
The problem, as I see it, is the lack of enforcement for civil court decisions in Japan. I’m guessing you are also old enough to remember a time in the USA where custody disputes and child support could get UGLY. Not just a little UGLY but really really UGLY. Only after strengthening the custody laws back in the 1970’s and a big push for enforcing custody and support laws in the 1980’s and 90’s did the situation improve in the USA.
What seems almost criminal, to me, is that Dr. Garcia had court orders in Japan granting him custody (admittedly, I do not know the intricacies of the appeals process in Japanese courts – my assumption might be completely in error as to how the appeals process would work) and could not get physical custody of his child. In fact, even if the most recent decision had been upheld on appeal I see little chance that Dr. Garcia would have gotten his daughter back. The enforcement of court decisions seems to be seriously broken in Japan. The antiquated koseki system that requires that a child be listed on 1 person’s family registry asside (lets fix enforcement before we worry about social changes).
As to the cat fight between the 2 abducted children groups. From what I’ve read there seems to be 2 camps.
On 1 side you have some fathers (I’m sure there are mothers out there as well but the majority of the combatants in this internet cock fight seem to be male) who seem to have something “dirty” going on in their dealings with their former partners. You have Pat M.
who seems to have been accused of assaulting his ex (and we all know OJ didn’t do it, after all a court said so), Tolandwho seems to have decided paying support/lawyers bills/etc to his ex wife and her estate (since she is now deceased) is voluntary, or Savoiewho I’ll just quietly ignore since his situation has been ripped up and pulled apart on the internet worse than the Dallas Cowboys in the 4th quarter, or heck how about Captn. Lake (who hasn’t joined us here that I can see)who also faced abuse charges and thinks paying support is voluntary.Butevildeeds aside do they deserve to be shut out of their children’s lives? I don’t think even theirbitterinternet enemies would say so (although I think they would agree that before they get any access they should get current on their financial obligations if they are not already).On the other side you have a group who’s worse crime seems to be that one of them had children
out of wedlock(and if you married your wife before you had sex with her I’ve got a great car I want to sell youbut you can’t take it for a test ride, but I’m sure you’ll understand). What they do seem to object to is the tacticsand (I would opine) anticsof the other group.It’s a shame group A and group B can’t work together but it does seem to mirror the Debito/Tepido slap fest. That A group feels that the actions
and anticsof the other group reflects negatively on them or is making real attempts at resolving the problem harder and the B group seems to think that if you don’t agree with them you are part of the problemand need to be shouted down.I’ll leave it up to you and the readers to decide which group I think is which in the various e-fights.I am so happy that someone finally got to this point….El Guapo says–” But evil deeds aside do they deserve to be shut out of their children’s lives?” Absolutely on point here Guapo. The answer is…the question needs to be framed slightly different. Try this version on for size, and see if you like this better. Do those children, regardless of anything their parents did, still deserve better? That answer is YES. Even THEIR children don’t deserve what they are getting, in spite of the bad actions of their parent. We at Global Future fight for the entire tide to be raised, and all children’s rights to access to BOTH of their parents to be protected and enforced. We believe that by forcefully jockeying the bad cases to the front in the media, and so on, only lengthens the time between now and when a resolution is found…..and it continues to spoon feed the Japanese a colorable defense for not returning ANY kids. They use these cases especially the Savoie case, to paint ALL cases and LBP’s
El Guapo,
You have several inaccuracies and misconceptions.
1) I suggest that you go back and read through it again. I have no accusations of abuse in my background. The only one who as *ever* accused me (via innuendo) of such is Braden, on this page. His “proof” is supposedly some police report from a time that I wasn’t even married. I’m not even sure that he was actually accusing me, as the folks kept also kept accusing me of actually being some other parent and merely operating under the name McPike.
They had no proof mind, but slung accusations around anyhow.
2) I have previously been minding my own business and trying to stay out of the existing parent feuds. As I have stated on other posts, I saw what was happening, felt like one side was just attacking other parents, and didn’t want to get involved. Two different members of Global Future tried to engage with me via email, and I declined. I had never posted about them, nor their organization, I just went my own way. See for yourself: http://letterstomysons.com/
However, they still felt the need to attack me. An internet journalist who had written a small piece ( http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/09/21/intl-child-abduction-may-be-worse-than-official-numbers-let-on/ ) that mentioned my name, and an blog posting that I had written, received the same sort of unfounded allegations about me that the members of Global Future posted on this page, and while previously the evidence that GF was behind it was largely circumstantial, Tony Del Vecchio presenting detailed knowledge of the details of that interaction on his postings here,
I think would sufficiently convenience any court of law.==========
From the Journalist to me:
“I got an e-mail yesterday
saying that your story was fake and Patrick McPike wasn’t your real
name. I asked the proof they had, and they suggested asking if your
real name was Eric Kalmus. I’m sorry to ask you for this, because I
don’t think the burden of proof should lay on the accused, but can you
give me some proof that you are who you say you are and that your
story is true? Even though I thought the information in your article
was good, I took down the link as a precaution.”
*note my story was verified and the link is back up.
“When I asked what proof they had that you were Eric Kalmus, they just
said it was a hunch.”
* No proof, just a hunch. But based on that hunch, they went out of their way to accuse me of being a fraud. THIS is what they do. I was just minding my own business, but because I didn’t want to join their cult, they just started making baseless allegations out on the internet to try and discredit me.
“Can you think of any motive someone would have
to discredit you? Have you met either of those men? Do they have
something personal against you?”
—-
“Hey Patrick,
I called [your attorney] today. She seemed pretty certain you are real.
I will re-post your link the next time I log onto the Foreign Policy
Association, hopefully tomorrow …. With that, I will be able to confidently tell your
accusers that you did everything possible to prove yourself to me and
to back off you.”
* yet despite all this, GF members made the same baseless allegations on this post – and Braden talked out of both sides of his mouth — He insinuated that I was really Eric Kalmus through innuendo, by hinting that I had some unsubstantiated abuse scandal in my past that he has apparently alleged Kalmus of having. While at the same time, “officially” proclaiming that as CEO of GF, that “no-one on behalf of our organization is questioning if you are who you portray yourself as.”
==========
They aren’t interested in hearing the truth. They are only interested in being the sole voice of the moment,
and silencing anyone who doesn’t join their cult.Anyhow, *THAT* is the problem with those guys, they just sling unfounded allegations around, and the people that don’t know any better, or don’t have the full story, (like yourself unfortunately) start to believe that there is some basis to their allegations.
3) Merely because I didn’t want to involve myself in Global Future’s, “let’s attack other parents game”, choose not to interact with them, and claimed that the Department of State was misrepresenting the number of child abductions – they PROACTIVELY started going after me. They didn’t attack my reasons or analysis for my claim against the the Department of State’s actions. They started making baseless personal attacks and claiming I was a fraud.
4) What Global Future seems to *really* be about, is that they feel that they are entitled to be the sole arbiters of which parents’ case is “worthy” and their decisions are, contrary to what they profess, based purely on who lets them lead. Anyone who disagrees with letting them lead, they attack. You will note, that Braden either (a) doesn’t really believe his bogus allegations against me *and/or* (b) doesn’t *actually* care if they are true… as he repeatedly said that he will happily work with me, *
AS LONG AS* I agree to let him be the “Dear Leader”. Ultimately GF is really a “cult of personality”.
People need to stop confusing allegations, especially unsubstantiated ones, with reality. And need to see what is really happening, and which group is actually the aggressor and the militant.
Fortunately for you outsiders, you aren’t subjected to these insane tactics.
GF basically is just launching negative attack campaigns against anyone that manages to get out a voice, which isn’t theirs.Unfortunately, there isn’t an independent “Fact Checker” in the LBP world. So they get to just keep making allegations. It doesn’t matter if the allegations are refuted.. they will just make up new ones, or go someplace else that allege the already refuted ones again.**** Hoofin – If you really want to help the LBP community, you might be willing to take on the role of “Fact Checker”. I think that is unfortunately what is needed to put a stop to this insanity. I’m sure that the non-GF parents would be happy to participate, and have the false allegations by GF finally put to rest.
—-
Anyhow, I’ve grown tired of the insanity. My whole point for posting here in the first place, was to point out the fact about the Japanese constitution, and that Japan is acting in violation of their *existing* international treaty commitments.
I expected that this wold be a useful topic of discourse, as the whole point *should be* find a solution to get the children returned. And this seemed like a worthy wedge with which to break through Japan’s legal facade.
However, since my observation, refuted a claim of Braden’s, I again came under personal attack. My statements about the Japanese Constitution were never refuted mind you, Braden repeatedly ran away from a debate on that. Instead, the unsubstantiated, and arguably already refuted, claims that I was a fraud and a fake where leveled again.
Also, seeing that GF members where, yet again, just tossing about about allegations and personal attacks at other parents “not of their group” and presenting those allegations as fact, I made the mistake of entering the fray and trying to point out that what they were doing…. unfortunately, allowing myself to get sucked into their insanity for a while.
I agree that it is a shame that the *many factions* (there isn’t just an A & B), struggle. But as someone personally involved in the movement, the problem again seems to lie in one group wanting to be the sole voice, and being willing to attack and level allegations at any parents who don’t agree with them – all the other groups seem to get on fairly well and often do joint efforts.
These relentless attacks, of course, hurt the cause, and prevents new parents from uniting and making the movement stronger – for fear of also becoming targets of GF’s baseless attacks. But again, in the GF world, their *view*, and trying to discredit – through any means possible – anyone else, seems to be more important to them than a unified movement that might actually get the problem solved.
Anyhow, I’m done… their is no discussing with people that don’t really want to discuss, or solve problems — and merely want to launch accusations and silence others.
“Methinks the lady doth protest too much.”
Every fight that has to do with Japan reminds me of what one of those mutants said in “Beneath the Planet of the Apes”: “Mr. Taylor, Mr. Brent, we are a peaceful people. We don’t kill our enemies. We get our enemies to kill each other.”
1) What I do know for certain is that this guy operates under at least two names — Patrick McPike and Patrick Smith — a curious fact that I raised before but which McPike/Smith never addressed. I don’t know if he’s Eric Kalmus or not, and to be prefectly frank, I couldn’t care less. But the fact remains that this fellow has no shared history; no photos of himself or, save one, of his two sons; no participation in protest activities or other real-life interactions that I have seen to date; and no substantiation of who he says he is other than a journalist calling his attorney who says she “seemed pretty certain [he is] real.” Again, as i said before, this all is pretty thin gruel, and I’m now swallowing it.
2) In his blog which he entitles “Letters to Kai and Koh”
http://letterstomysons.com/
There are less than a half a dozen such letters to his sons posted over a seven-month period. (Compare to my blog to my daughter, which I have spent innumerable hours working on as a means to reconnect with her; http://tony-and-liliana-delvecchio.com/). Instead, his blog seems to have been established primarily to attack the US government. Witness the wording of his over-the-top petition (see http://letterstomysons.com/2011/09/22/we-petition-the-obama-administration-to/) he tried to get left-behind parents to sign on to (but which mercifully died an ignominious death due to the fact that he couldn’t muster more than one-quarter of the signatures necessary to be presented to the White House):
———————————————————————————-
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
PUBLICLY press Japan for the return of Abducted US Children and provide transparent dialogs with Japan on this issue
Hundreds, if not thousands (Child Abduction in Japan… The REAL Numbers –http://bit.ly/pteCAe ), of US Citizen Children have been abducted to, or retained in, the country of Japan.
Japan has never returned a single child, has no legal concept of “joint-custody”, no enforcement of visitation, no requirement for rules of evidence on claims of DV.
The US Congress, in HR1326, has publicly condemned Japan and demanded the immediate return of this children.
However, the Executive Branch has only held back-room discussions. Additionally, there are persuasive claims the DoS is significantly downplaying the number of actual cases.
There needs to be complete transparency into this process, and public condemnation of Japan. These are our country’s children. We the people deserve to know if they are being traded for bases or other government goals.
Will you sign it? http://wh.gov/gKV And then Share it?
———————————————————————————-
He claims that the Executive Branch had “only held back room discussions” whereas the truth is the matter had, at the time of his petition, been discussed publicly in numerous press conferences by very high-ranking officials of our government, including US Ambassador to Japan John V. Roos, Asst. Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, and Ambassador Susan Jacobs.
He goes on to say, again without any basis in fact, that the DoS (Department of State) “is significantly downplaying the number of actual cases [of international parental abductions]” and provides as “proof” speculative numbers that are statistically flawed and can in no way be thought to represent the number of actual cases of abductions. Even if one were to agree that the numbers of parents cut off from their children is higher than the number of cases REPORTED TO the USG (and I do agree that the numbers are higher, but cannot say with any certainty what they are), there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the government is “downplaying” the number of actual cases,
and any reasoned observer would be compelled to agree that if such accusations were leveled against a private individual they would constitute libel and defamation of character.Finally, he suggests a conspiracy theory that [the abducted children] “are being traded for bases or other government goals.” Scurrilous accusations such as this can in no way be considered worthy of serious consideration, and only serve to alienate our hard-working and sincere allies in the government. [Hoofin’s Note: Agreed that anyone taking the annual divorce numbers and comparing them to anything other than the total pool of marriages is using flawed statistics. I disagree, though, whether the military bases have no impact on how hard the State Department pushes Japan.]
3) McPike/Smith claims that “[Global Future] didn’t attack my reasons or analysis for my claim against the the Department of State’s actions.” This is an outright lie. There are several instances on this blog where I personally attacked his fallacious reasoning with respect to the activities of the State Department on the issues, but which McPike/Smith conveniently ignored. McPike/Smith complained that we wouldn’t “discuss the issues” with him, but when given ample opportunity to do so, he demurred on any number of occasions.
4) He complains throughout this blog post that Patrick Braden, myself, and others are guilty of “character assassination” and then proceeds to, well, assassinate characters, by for example here, comparing Braden to the former North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il when he calls Braden the “Dear Leader” and stating that “ultimately GF is really a ‘cult of personality’.” Seems what is good for the goose is no way good for the gander.
5) McPike/Smith goes on to state that “his whole point for posting here in the first place, was to point out the fact about the Japanese constitution, and that Japan is acting in violation of their *existing* international treaty commitments and that he “expected that this wold be a useful topic of discourse, as the whole point *should be* find a solution to get the children returned. And this seemed like a worthy wedge with which to break through Japan’s legal facade.”
Do we really need to belabor the obvious here. This point has been made ad nauseum by every left-behind parent group I know of — foreign and Japanese. Everybody knows that the Japanese government does not follow its own Constitution with respect to human rights. Furthermore, I and many others have made the point in the past that Japan fails to live up to its treaty obligations. How McPike/Smith believes this would be a “useful topic for discourse” is beyond me. This is akin to saying “the idea that the sun rises in the Eats and sets in the West” would be something worthy of protracted discussion.
My impression so far of McPike/Smith is that he is a person prone to making vague generalities while at the same time avoiding genuine debate when the opportunity presents itself if he finds himself unable to defend his position either through a lack of knowledge or a dearth of inaccurate information. By his own admission, he has only been involved in the cause since early this year, whereas I have been fighting on my daughter’s behalf since 2003 and Patrick Braden since 2006. And yet McPike/Smith feels he somehow more informed and more qualified to lead this movement than others who have been fighting the good fight for many years.
I disagree. With all due respect, Mr. McPike.Smith.
Sorry, I meant a “surfeit of inaccurate information” just above.
RE: [Hoofin’s Note: Agreed that anyone taking the annual divorce numbers and comparing them to anything other than the total pool of marriages is using flawed statistics. I disagree, though, whether the military bases have no impact on how hard the State Department pushes Japan.]
I never said our defense policy did not influence our relations with Japan, and that these considerations were A PART of our overall approach to how we deal with Japan. What I took exception to was the specific suggestion by McPike/Smith that the children were “being traded for bases or other government goals.” This sort of paranoia and unfounded speculation on the part of McPike/Smith and others from the BACHome camp is unworthy of serious consideration.
One more point you hit on El Guapo,
before I run to work and leave the gavel to be abused by McPike all day.El Guapo said—“I don’t think even their bitter internet enemies would say so ” no-one in our group is bitter, we are committed parents, protecting our kids from this or any risk…the same as we did from the beginning. Unlike our opposition.Peter B,
I am in no way suggesting you are bitter
as in marked by resentment or cynicism or resulting from or expressive of severe grief, anguish, or disappointment such as bitter tears or a bitter outcome but rather proceeding from or exhibiting strong animosity such as a bitter hatred.And I mean it looks like some parties from the 2 sides have gone so far as to try to settle things “mano a mano” which, legalities aside (and I would be VERY careful on this,
some places have “voluntary mutual combat” laws, Kentucky used to have dueling laws – might still), for an internet argument is just retarded.You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, El-Guano. Gherbetti insisted on talking to me “man to man” and to make sure that happened called me a “bitch” on my own blog. (He said that at the meeting that he did so to try to get me to meet with him.) Then he showed up with two other LBPs. So much for man to man. What I said ahead of the meeting was to keep it peaceful, that he’d find me more difficult to push around than a woman. There was never any intent on my part to get into a fistfight, so why don’t you mind your own business, Senor Ignoramus? Stop talking about things you know nothing about, and calling people “retarded” (a very offensive term, by the way, not to me, but to people that are actually mentally disabled. What century are you living in?)
And don’t bother trying to comment on my blog again. Your ignorant remarks are not welcome.
Looks like “El-Guapo” vanished without a trace, by the way. (No such user under the avatar.) Another phantom.
He was Sawney Bean the last time he posted on my site, September 23 2011. The IP is Toppan Photomasks in Round Rock, Texas.
It really doesn’t matter now, does it, Rick?
He’s just an ignorant pundit with a keyboard who thinks he is equipped to tell other people what they should and should not do.Like many other outside observers — yourself excluded — he hasn’t bothered to take the time to do any real research on the subject and yet feels he is in his place to advise others on the right course of action. Tiresome, as many of these commenters are.If you will indulge me, Rick:
http://the-left-behind-agitator.com/2012/01/04/on-cyber-bullies/
[This is in the Pingback, the same one, right, Tony?]
Rick,
I was friends with McPike/Smith for a short time on Facebook. I sent him a private email and told him I was not a fan of Eric Kalmus. The next day I get an email from Kal[m]us that was exactly like the one I sent to McPike/Smith. So I defriend McPike/Smith. I don’t need any friends that share private email and cause rifts with other groups. Now I am much more careful about who I friend on facebook thanks to McPike.
McPike seems to be pretty good at debating. He makes some good points. But in the end they are just ideas. We need doers. As Tony pointed out, McPike has never been to a demo, never been to a meeting at the embassy in Tokyo or in DC. He has never handed out flyers with Oyako-net Kansai, never rode his bike to raise awareness, nor to my knowledge done anything except write. I read his friend brief letter that he posted to Rep. Laura Richardson under Patrick Smith but signed as Patrick McPike. I hope he wrote a previous letter explaining in more detail about his situation. My representative got lengthy detailed letters from many of my relatives. My advice to McPike/Smith is to stop debating and start doing. It seems clear neither the Japanese government nor the American government are in any hurry to help us. It is apparent to me that we the parents must help ourselves. This ain’t gonna happen unless you step out from behind the computer Mr. McPike.
One more thing Mr. McPike, you have somewhat aligned yourself with BAC Home, which is fine. They have some quality members with excellent cases. But you claim to be diplomatic and democratic. You have said Global Future is
a cultbut yet you have not spoken to any Global Future members personally to my knowledge. Don’t you think it is a good idea to hear both sides and then make an informed decision based on what you hear. That would only be logical and fair. Or am I missing something?You’re not missing a thing, Kevin. I think you covered Mr. McPike/Smith quite nicely there.
Hey guys what’s going on in this thread?
You used to post as “Simon” from the same IP. Do you want to go with “Simon” or with “Beaky”. Up to you.
Hey Rick…Maybe you could suggest to Simon/Beaky that he read all 174 pages of the thread (by my PDF file, anyway) to discover what’s been going on. Seems pretty clearly spelled out to me what the issue and who the personalities are. I don’t think any of us can be bothered at this point to provide summaries to people just coming in at this late stage. With all due respect, of course.
It reads like a massive flame war with about half a dozen good points made along the way. But, usually something I would scroll through if I got caught on it in another site.
I would like to comment on this divison as i have seen it and lived it first hand. I am a parent that has been to japan 3 times in the last year to see my child after an almost 3 year absence. You see there are only 2 kinds of parents,those who want to be right and those who want to be with their kids. I dare say both mr savoie and mr toland appear to be the examples for the former and by twisting facts and misrepresenting clearly documented facts attempt to garner sympathy which is false because they seem to have had a significant responsibilty in the sitution they now find themselves in but are unwilling or incapable of any reposibility. These actors are the face of the left behind parent in japan. Thou doth protest to much,if you really sought what you claim all over the media there would be progress for all parents. You had the chance to set an example and well you set one too bad for everyone it was the wrong one.