Wisconsin father whose girl was returned from Japan leaves a message on Hoofin.

It’s on the long thread of discussion from last Friday, here.

My remarks in a bit.

[Update: Here is an ABC news blog link of the original reporing on Dr. Garcia’s story, “Christmas Miracle for Dad Locked in Custody Battle”.

[Update #2: Dr. Moises Garcia’s text and my comments:

As the father of the only abducted [A]merican 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.

I agree that the one group, BACHome, has radicalized. They obviously have the goal of bringing kids, well, “back home”, but it seems to be getting lost in the antics that the major players in the group seem to enjoy, actually. A lot of which boils down to internet bickering, ehem . . .

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?

I have to read up on the Goldman case, because people keep mentioning it and just know the general points. Many people feel that the reason Dr. Moises was successful was because of Inoue’s arrest in Hawaii. But here, it’s obvious that some more things were influential.

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

For commentary for my BACHome readers to consider.

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.

These are very important details. Wisconsin had jurisdiction over the divorce, and Ms. Inoue participated in the divorce proceeding in Wisconsin. Wisconsin granted custody.

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.

This is noteworthy: The Wisconsin judgment, which preceded the decision in Japan, was recognized by the Japanese courts. So there must some form of res judicata in Japan’s civil law system. Res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, is what prevented Paul Toland from getting jurisdiction in America, and why the best advice, as I see it, is you look for American jurisdiction before you rely on Japanese jurisdiction. That is, in cases where you can credibly assert American jurisdiction. I appreciate that, in many cases, the person cannot.

What is also noteworthy is “lack of enforcement” by Japanese authorities. This is classic “Japan oops” or Japanese shade of gray. You are in the right, but you have no way to get your remedy. I see this as Japanese screwing around, if only for the simple fact that, in other instances, Japan is VERY good about enforcing things.

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.

I am assuming that the reason the Japanese court declared for Dr. Moises was because the Wisconsin court had already so ruled. What Dr. Moises says here leads me to think that, in the opinion, there is some hedging, though. (I also assume that there is a written opinion, since there is the discussion about parental alienation, child abuse, and the needs of so-called bicultural children.) I still feel that the victory was due to the fact that there was already a decision in Wisconsin . . . plus, frankly, that the wife was sitting in the pokey. Judges read the headlines.

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.

I agree with you, Dr. Moises, that you got a significant victory in the Japanese court system. I am still just unclear whether it had to do with res judicata, or whether somehow, independently, the judges in Japan have this new awareness about international marriage and child custody. With your information, I can see the argument for both. It’s also, though, that judges read the headlines.

I will say this, though: I don’t think you won in Japan because you showed deference to the Japanese court system. You already had a win stateside.

TBS (Tokyo broadcasting System) did an internal survey about the news, and Japanese opinion was [on] 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.

I am convinced that, if the issue were put to the everyday Japanese people, they would agree that joint custody is the best, and the needs of the child should govern the overall situation. I have my own strong opinions why the Japanese government / the runners of Japan keep screwing around. I think each child’s case has become a proxy for “Japan’s sovereignty”, and this, in turn, is a way for a bunch of old men—many of whom have not accepted Japan’s humiliating defeat in World War II—to have a petty fight with Uncle Sam. No one in Japan is going to say that, but it fits the circumstances.

Good for you not to let the story be made into something other than what you wanted.

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[t] 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. [T]he 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.

Right? And we all know how this goes: that friendly support is genuine help, but help to some other end of the helper. I think it’s great of Chris Smith to “raise awareness”, but he was definitely also signaling that his help was merely to “raise awareness” in the context of how Chris Smith always focuses on family issues. If the awareness raising grew to something more than that, he’d get a visit from Hogan Hartwell Hogan Lovells, or which law firm does the Japan lobbying nowadays, telling him to “knock it off!”

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?

Well, it’s clear that BACHome has one agenda, Congressman Smith participates in a limited way—which is still good—but, really, Wisconsin law enforcement did all the leg work, with an assist from someone in Hawaii who caught the tagged file.

It’s like the Little Red Hen. The hen went around, asking who would help to make the bread. (“Who will help me harvest the wheat?”) None of the other farm animals would help. Finally, the Little Red Hen baked some bread, and all the farm animals were there for a slice.

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?

Yup. It further shows that Congressman Smith is only so much interested, and the State Department is allowed to do only so much.

[W]hat 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.

I get the feeling that BACHome and Smith coordinate what they are going to do. If your situation doesn’t fit the agenda of the moment, or if you don’t go along with the agenda of the moment, well, that is your problem. That is the impression I am getting. It’s not atypical in anything involving foreigners joining together on a Japan issue. More than in most situations, it is, “What can YOU do for ME as WE work together . . . ?” Surprising that not everyone takes up an offer like that, (ehem.)

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 agree, and more people should listen to your experience and expertise.

I hope this explanation could [satisfy] some of the question[s] 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.

Congratulations again, Dr. Moises, and I hope there are more reunions in the future.

Advertisements

16 comments

  1. d40mgar · December 31, 2011

    As it seems quite important to clarify this point further.
    I will type part of the Japanese Court Opinion:
    Osaka High Court, 9th Civil Division
    Court Judge Chief Mitsuru Sakai
    Judge Yoshinori Tanaka
    Judge Saeko Koike

    Overall opinions are:
    1)- The Father’s and the Mother’s conditions of raising the minor are both good and neither has any problem. However, under the mother’s care, we cannot deny the possibility that the minor will not have any chance to keep her relationship with the father and that her plan of raising the minor may be partial. It will be the father who can adopt the course of raising the minor that matches her welfare more.
    2)- When we see the father’s qualification as the minor’s custodian or caregiver, we cannot find any obvious circumstances that he is unqualified. We cannot find any risk by handing the minor to the father that the minor will receive any violence or threat from the father or that the father attempts to create a psychological distance between the minor and the mother by unfairly criticizing the mother or harming the minor’s mental stability.
    3)- The father can come to Japan to pick up the minor and can get the support of the related authorities for the travel to the US.
    4)- The father can receive support from organization who possess professional knowledge about Parental Alienation.
    5)- Considering all the various factors together from the above, it is reasonable to think that the minor’s psychological burden which accompanies the handover of the minor to the father does not exceed the child’s interest that can be realized from the father’s care giving. We cannot say that handing her over to the father is against the minor’s welfare.

    In terms of res-judicata, I was able to obtain it for the divorce and custody determination (Article 118 of code of civil procedure). However, as in the US, the Japanese parts has only to raise some claims (DV, human right violations, child abuse,etc) to create a full investigation for the courts (as they don’t have a direct and quick mechanism like in Mr. Goldman and the Hague Convention). It is my opinion, that the pieces are there. Japan must sign the Hague and we must all try to challenge the system, exactly as I did.

  2. Paul Toland · January 3, 2012

    Wow. These few individuals who choose to attack others are not only attacking other parents who have been hurt by the Japan Abduction issue, but are now also attacking Congressman Chris Smith, our biggest advocate in Congress, and David Goldman, who has steadfastly helped other parents through his “Bring Sean Home Foundation” even after getting his own son Sean back. These misdirected attacks are certainly not helpful to anyone. It’s painful to even read them.

    • hoofin · January 3, 2012

      You missed quite a weekend, Paul. I feel like I have been using it on both the strike and approve keys.

  3. d40mgar · January 3, 2012

    Dear Paul:

    Here we go again, with the difference that this forum is not BSH.

    Please notice the link of the email sent by BSH forum:
    http://www.rachijapan.com/rachi-japan-banned-from-child-abduction-advocate-site/

    We are not attacking anybody, we are just exerting our opinion in the case. The role of congress, especially [Congressman] Smith, was very minimal in the return of Karina to the US. My question is then, who gave permission to Mr. Smith, and yourself, as well to post news regarding the return of my daughter to the US like if I belong to your organization? You clearly know that I do not endorse the ways that BAChome is approaching the issue of child abduction.

    The only group hurting the Child Abduction issue is BACHOME organization. Let me put you some example:

    – During the Japanese court review in my case, I have to do significant “damage control” to two fact that Japanese are using very well:

    1)- Re-abduction issue
    2)- Forum Shopping

    Obviously, I had to deal with the other typical problem during a Japanese divorce. My point is that by pushing cases that carried the above mentioned item first, it is really hurting other parents. If not please ask the father in Seattle, who is being threatened to stop visitation for risk of re-abduction, or the fact that Japanese court do not want to recognize US jurisdiction due to some famous cases of forum shopping. Even, Mr. Smith knows that, therefore he is pushing more the Elias case. However, somehow your organization has learned how to control the media, and the internet and clearly try to bring down any other groups that is trying to do things in a different ways.

    You clearly criticize that my case is not representative of the realty, and you might be right, but if my case is not representative, then neither Goldman’s case. We both somehow got a break with the difference than in my case, I did not have a Mr. Smith or media support. But I had the law enforcement support in my side. We are not few individuals, I heard the pleas during my 9 trips to Japan and among Japanese people, except like Hoofin mentioned, very few cases are present in Internet and very few people want to voice their concerns.

  4. hoofin · January 3, 2012

    Everyone, please read this if you get the chance.

    https://hoofin.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/my-comment-policy/

  5. Patrick M. · January 4, 2012

    I honestly don’t know…

    ….But, rather than align Rep. Smith with some misdeed. Has it been considered that Rep. Smith (NJ) was able to champion the Goldman and Elias cases, because they are both residents of NJ, the state for which he is a legal congressional representative? Whereas that Garcia case was in WI?

    As I recall there are strong congressional traditionals (and possibly laws) about both state, and somewhat even district, boundaries of representation.

    • hoofin · January 4, 2012

      I don’t think that Elias and Goldman are in Chris Smith’s district, though, which has been south of Trenton since he won in 1980.

  6. Patrick M. · January 5, 2012

    Right, but is it the same state.

    I don’t think that one can remotely compare the jurisdictional division of States to the division of electoral districts within the same sate. They are completely different types and levels of separation. Rep. Smith is elected to office in NJ. It is one thing to butt your nose into a different district, it is another thing entirely to butt your nose into another State.

    But as a personal example: My Rep is basically worthless. But a staffer for a Rep in a nearby district explained to me that they *could* help me anyhow, that their was strong tradition against this, but it happened some times. They could justify it as I could be considered an influencer of their constituency — I met the staffer while joining another LBP family member who was meeting at their Rep. office; and my Rep. is notoriously bad – so the staff took pity on me. And their offer was only to assist me with the issue of making sure that DoS was responding properly, processing the paperwork in a timely manner, etc – not jumping in front of a camera on my behalf.

    I seriously doubt that if I if I was from a different state, they would (or possibly even could) have made that offer.

    But anyhow…. basically, I’m making that point that people seem to be quick malign Rep. Smith to a possible misdeed, esp. without even considering, or looking into, the possible jurisdictional issues of cross-state congressional representation.

  7. d40mgar · January 5, 2012

    I think Hoofin is correct in this one. Neither parents are in Mr. Smith’s district. In the past, he has also supported cases from other district.
    http://chrissmith.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242880
    It was during this hearing (May 24th, 2011) that my ex was already incarcerated in Milwaukee. What impact could have been if we could have presented her case to the world? Instead, he continued his “awareness” campaign and consolidating other groups and people.
    The solution is not only HR 1940, but also “law enforcement involvement”. He could have invited the attorney general to testify and inquire about the case and how my case could be a model for other case…But nothing happened.
    I agreed with Hoofin, that there are stronger interests group behind scene and my case and my daughter’s return will never duplicate in the years to come…

    • Patrick M. · January 5, 2012

      I already pointed out in a response waiting in moderation, that STATE boundaries are night and different jurisdictionally from intrastate districts.

      In addition, just pointing out, that a congressional hearing that in front of a committee that Rep. Smith is the Chairman of, is very different from getting personally involved in an individual case.

      One other point that just struck me… nationality.
      From all accounts that I have read the WI case involved a Nicaraguan Father (didn’t see anything to indicate naturalization, Nicaraguan-American, etc.) and a Japanese mother. While our legal system provides the same standard of justice, our constitution does not provide for non-citizens to have the same level of political representation as citizens.

      —-
      None of these, or all of these, may have been factors in Rep. Smith decision on whether or not to get directly involved. But they all seem legitimate reasons – which some folks didn’t bother to consider before attributing dark motives to Rep. Smith’s decision.

      Has anyone asked his office regarding the reasons for his decision before accusing him?

  8. d40mgar · January 5, 2012

    Thanks for bringing back the “racial and nationality card” again Mr. Patrick M.
    Let me explain to you as your comment is quite offensive to me and my daughter as I have to deal with this kind of racism from time to time in every country (US and Japan). This kind of comments explain a lot about your persona.

    This child abduction issue involved two points here:
    1)- Jurisdiction : US law was broken, no Nicaragua or Japanese law.
    2)- Nationality of the victim: in this case my daughter was born and raised in Wisconsin. It is up to my knowledge that Wisconsin is one of the 50 states in US or do you want me to issue a birth certificate like they asked for President Obama.
    It is the responsibility of this country, and their elected officials (including Mr. Smith as he is not only NJ congressman, he is also chairman and an important member of the foreign affair committee in Congress) to first enforce and make prevail US law, and second to protect one of their citizens. Please understand that there are protecting my daughter and no myself.
    For your knowledge, in immigration, as this seems very limited in your understanding, legal residents in US have the same level of protection and rights like any other American (born or naturalized), except to be president and vote.

    In the specific case of Mr. Smith, we did not only ask his office for support, we had a long meeting with his Chief staff trying to explain the relevance of this case for other LBP and the way they could assist us. I attended together with my attorney as we expect him as Champion on child abduction issues and human right violation to act. However, her response was always the same… We can not involve in this level as our main objective is to raise awareness to the Japan Child Abduction Case. Unfortunately, any attempts to directly talk to him were blocked by staffers that clearly have been alienated by the BACHOME group.
    I tried 3 times to approach his office, and I even signed a “release of information for my case” so they could help me, but unfortunately nothing happened.
    My point here was….if he involved with the Goldman case….why he could not do the same in my case….because I am hispanic, immigrant as you suggested in your comment. Then, if his office decided no to support me, they were in their entire right to do it….But then why called me when my daughter is back? and why he takes stand and give an opinion in my case to the media once my daughter is returned?
    For me, this is very opportunistic ! and I can’t tolerate the name of my daughter or myself to be used in this way!.

    • Patrick M. · January 5, 2012

      Whoa, there buddy. You are waaaaaay off base on the “racism” nonsense.

      I’m not taking about race, I’m talking about NATIONALITY. And sorry, but [n]ationality is reality with regard to political representation in every country in the world that I have ever been to; or heard of.

      It has nothing to do with the color of your skin, or your ethic background – it has to do with NATIONALITY. If you were a naturalized US citizen, or a native-born American (of whatever ethnic background – it doesn’t matter) then the realities of political representations would be different.

      If I go to Nicaragua, can I vote? Of course not. Does that mean that Nicaragua is a racist country? Of course not. The two things have nothing to do with each other. Political Officials have a specific role and there are things that they are legally able to do, and things that they are not legally able to do.

      The fact that you *leap* to wild accusations of “racism” for pointing out the universal reality of the relationship between NATIONALITY and *Political Representation*, suggests to me that you might be overly sensitive… you might might want to chill out, and rethink your allegations.

      I get that your daughter is a native-born American Citizen; as are my two children, however that hasn’t seemed to matter to either government so far. As the children all have dual nationality (or in the case of your daughter, probably tri-nationality) the governments seem to except only the rights due to the children, based on the country that they are in. I don’t agree with it as:

      (a) I’m, admittedly, biased since Japan is completely out of touch with Human Rights.

      (b) Feel that the USG has a responsibility to our children to ensure that their US Constitutional rights are defended. (but see A. above).

      But is the reality – until we force them to change it.

      ——

      To address your other, more reasonable, comments:

      (1) I agree with you that US law was broken, and this is a major issue of sovereignty. We disagree on the solution, but we at least agree on the problem – which is a starting point.

      (2) As above, I get that you daughter is a US citizen – but so is *every* other child either born in the US, or born to a US citizen. As I already mentioned above, neither the USG, nor the GoJ give a damn. Wrong – but the reality. If you don’t like it — go after the USG/DoS, as they are taking the resigned attitude that Japanese sovereignty is more important than US sovereignty.
      *right now you are using the US sovereignty argument, but previously you supported the DoS view, that because Japan is a sovereign country, DoS must acquiesce to them and ignore the attacks on US sovereignty.

      —-

      Your next point:

      Again, I didn’t say that Rep. Smith was right or wrong. What I pointed out, was that you were accusing him of malfeasance, for not doing what you wanted him to do – when there were several *potentially* legitimate reasons why he might not have been able to do what you wanted.

      Next, you confuse his role as Chairman of the committee, and as NJ Congressman. And attack him without considering the limitations of either role.

      Then you accuse me of the following ignorance, “For your knowledge, in immigration, as this seems very limited in your understanding, legal residents in US have the same level of protection and rights like any other American (born or naturalized), except to be president and vote.”
      — Which is just wrong, and shows *your* ignorance, but again most Americans get this stuff wrong, so don’t stress. As I already mentioned in the previous post – You have the same right to justice (which you called “protection”), but not all of the same rights – In addition to your example of president, you cannot hold any any federal political office ( ex. constitutional article on eligibility to congress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Qualifications_of_Members ) ; and, as you cannot vote, you are not guaranteed (or technically even entitled to) political representation — the two are directly linked in our representative form of Government. I won’t debate this with you as that will take forever – I will just point you to the US Constitution.

      Further, you misunderstand the role of Congress and the congressional members, you state, “to first enforce and make prevail US law, and second to protect one of their citizens.” Congress *cannot* enforce laws. That is the role of the Executive branch (which would include DoS – see, *DoS* is supposed to be protecting our rights in issues of foreign relations, but are instead bowing to Japanese sovereignty – they are defying their governmental role) Congress is the “Legislative” Branch. They create laws – they don’t enforce them. Random site from quick google search: http://www.evgschool.org/three_branches_of_government.htm

      AND – you also missed my point… I *AM* a US citizen, but even so, I *cannot* go to a congressman in a different state and expect them to represent me – I cannot even expect him to bother to meet with me; he *was not* elected to represent me – he is a representative of *his State*. Our Government not only doesn’t work that way, but their are many laws in place to dictate what can, and what cannot, be done between states. To super-simplify it – the USA is more like 50 different countries, that have certain treaties with each other for dealing with certain things as one big-country. [Hoofin’s Note: I am not sure where to cut in here, but your analysis is really skewed. You seem to pass over the fact that once the U.S. Supreme rules on an issue with respect to law—either federal or state, it is the law. The Yick Wo v. Hopkins case, from the late 19th century, is the first one to make it clear the 14th amendment applies to citizens and resident aliens. This is not some arbitrary decision among the people. It’s what has already been laid out, 120 years ago.

      The other difficulty I see is that you are not acknowledging that a federal office is wholly different than a state office. Congressmen like to take care of their constituencies, but they also have duties to the nation. It’s in the oath. So if they see a problem that could be cognizable as “federaL” (like relations of the people with the various foreign states), any of them are more than justified to “step in”.

      “Are you in his/her district?” is the excuse that the telephone clerk has on the note card to field the dozens of phone calls that the “consituent services” office gets in a typical day. But it is not some rule that a Congressman must strictly adhere to. I will have more to say about this point sometime later this week.]

      —-

      Next – you are finally giving some reasons for why you felt justified in your feeling that Rep. Smith was not justified in his actions.

      My comments:

      If you really think that BacHome is *so* powerful…. I would suggest:
      1) That you are giving BacHome waaaaay too much credit regarding their ability to control the sun and the moon. [Hoofin’s Note: I didn’t get the sense from Moises comment that he felt that BACHome was “so powerful”. Please be careful about “sticking words”. There are many comments already on the board. The ones that Moises has made have only suggested that BACHome is noisy and ineffectual, with the emphasis on counterproductive moves. Not that they are “so powerful”. I, for one, do not think they are so powerful, since obviously the problem is very much still with you.]

      2) You have a “BacHome Phobia” that is possibly irrational [Hoofin’s Note: There is no such thing as BacHome Phobia. You might as well call it Industrial Disease and cue the band Dire Straits.]

      3) That maybe you should consider that if they have as much influence as you think that they have, [Hoofin’s Note: . . . which was not the original posters point, but, rather, they basically stink at what they purport to be advancing] that the mere fact of that would indicate that maybe the influential people, like congressman Smith, who are trying to fix this problem, agree with the positions of BacHome. [Hoofin’s Note: but what we learned is that Congressman Smith is only pushing the envelope just so far, but is willing to get his face in the camera for any successes along the way . . . ]

      *** Again, thinking logically, [Hoofin’s Note: which you do not really do if you happen to go back and reread these tomes, right?] if BacHome has the power you claim, and can “control” the decisions of congressmen – either:

      (A) The must have massive money and influence — which we know that they don’t, but let’s assume for the sake of argument.

      (B) Their views are more inline with the views of people like Congressman Smith – and the media that you also claim that they control. Therefore, they can’t be the out-of-touch wackos that you seem to think that they are.

      —–

      The reason that they might have been able to get involved with Goldman’s case and not yours could be:

      (1) You are NOT in NJ. That fact that you don’t seem to understand the basis of the individual sovereignty of each State in the US – demonstrates that you aren’t that familiar with our form of Government – but don’t worry, most Americans only vaguely understand our government. [Hoofin’s Note: And, clearly, you do not, because you keep confusing the federal office for an office that arises from state government. I will have more to say about federal offices and the Constituion’s grant of power to the federal government to regulate matters between countries and citizens of countries, sometime later.] AGAIN — I AM A US CITIZEN, BUT I AM NOT IN NJ, AND THEREFORE COULD NEVER EXPECT REP.SMITH TO GET INVOLVED IN MY PERSONAL CASE LIKE HE DID FOR GOLDMAN. I would have to find a “congressional champion” in my our State. [Hoofin’s Note: oh, no no no.]

      (2) You are not a US citizen (your ethnic background is not relevant – Goldman would be considered a Jewish name.), and the USG, in its attempt to take the easy way, doesn’t give a damn about the citizenship of any of our children, nor their US constitutional rights. [Hoofin’s Note: not sure where this one was supposed to go, but I guess you wanted a list, and needed number two?]

      (3) some other reason… [and number three?]

      —–

      Again, I’m not saying what Smith did was right or wrong. I’m just sick of people assuming the worse motive of people that don’t do what they want – or that they don’t agree with.

      I’m merely pointing out that there are potentially several legitimate and, even, legal reasons that could have influences Smith’s decision, or limited what he was legally able to do.

      —–

      MG: “But then why called me when my daughter is back?”
      – I’m sure that he was sincerely happy for you. [ . . . and sincerely wants in on the story.]

      MG: “and why he takes stand and give an opinion in my case to the media once my daughter is returned?”

      – Because he wants our issue solved, and there was not legal/political conflict that would prevent him from being able to speak out in that context. [. . . and notice how Congressional boundary lines were irrelevant when it came to getting the story—which, again, I will focus on at a later date.]

      • Patrick M. · January 5, 2012

        [Hoofin’s Note: I am not sure where to cut in here, but your analysis is really skewed. …

        McPike: Not skewed, I specifically said “Super-simplified”. He seemed to not understand that while we have a federal government, it has specific powers and also specific limitations. And that each state also has it’s own level of sovereignty. I presented a stated “Super-simplified” analogy to try to express the point of state sovereignty. You may not my like my analogy, or may feel that I simplified it too much…

        —–

        [Hoofin’s Note: And, clearly, you do not, because you keep confusing the federal office for an office that arises from state government.

        McPike: No, I completely disagree that I am saying anything of the sort….
        – Yes, Congressional positions are Federal offices. They don’t “arise from state government”, nor did I ever claim or suggest any such thing – they are defined in Article 1 of the constitution.
        – They are however, “representative” federal offices. Their role, in theory, is to “represent” the interests of their respective States and *it’s* citizens.
        – The number of these “representative” federal offices in the House, was based on the population of the states, determined by a constitutionally mandated census every 10 years *** Eventually, the number of House seats was capped by the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
        – The idea being that every voter in the country would have federal representation in the legislative process.
        – etc, etc.

        > When I pointed out different States (WI vs. NJ), your response was one of different districts (Hoofin: I don’t think that Elias and Goldman are in Chris Smith’s district, though…). Do you disagree that there is a *major* jurisdictional distinction between interstate borders and intrastate districts?

        Time spent championing a case in WI, could be construed by his constituency as taking away from time that he should be working on the issues that they feel they elected him to do. Championing cases within his state, even if in different districts, allows him to push the overall issue, while still representing his f

        * we also have no knowledge regarding the interaction between Smith and the various other House Representatives within NJ, nor those in WI.

        [Hoofin’s Note: any of them are more than justified to “step in”

        McPike: Possibly. Like I said, some things may be more tradition than anything else. That said, being justified, is not the same thing as being obligated – nor does it mean that it isn’t still stepping on the toes of the actual representatives of that other state; which could lead to grudges or political rivalries that can have future political ramifications for the state that you *have* been elected to represent. Crappy? Yes. Political reality? Also, yes.

        And, again, I’m not saying whether Rep. Smith was right or wrong… I just hate that certain folks tend to automatically attack people and accuse them of some negative motive, where are several potentially legitimate reasons for their actions.

        —-

        [Hoofin’s Note: but what we learned is that Congressman Smith is only pushing the envelope just so far, but is willing to get his face in the camera for any successes along the way . . . ]
        [ . . . and sincerely wants in on the story.]

        McPike: A politician acting like a politician… big surprise. Also, I would suggest that *getting personally involved in case (esp. one occurring in a state other than one that a politician is in office to represent the interest of) and *publicly congratulating the success of a case in a different state, after it’s completion, are two very different things.

        —-

        [Hoofin’s Note: The ones that Moises has made have only suggested that BACHome is noisy and ineffectual, with the emphasis on counterproductive moves. Not that they are “so powerful”.

        McPike: Actually, he specifically stated that they can “control the media, and the internet” AND indicated that they have been able to “alienate” congressional staffers to the extent that he felt it was a factor in why he couldn’t get the support he felt entitled to — I would suggest that these are all claims of significant power, do you disagree?

        —-

        Anyhow, as usual, on the path to miss a point… folks got sidetracked from my original posting… which was merely that there could have been half a dozen, or more, non-malicious reasons why Rep. Smith choose the limited level of involvement that he did.

        Given the amount of effort that he has put into the issue, his willingness to call Japan out, pull DoS into hearings, etc. I merely suggested that it was wrong to malign him without at least considering some alternate, legitimate reasons for his actions.

        • hoofin · January 5, 2012

          Patrick,

          You are posting from Garden Grove, California, and your attorney, whose name you gave me, is also a California attorney, but she has not gotten back to me yet. Neither of her fax numbers work. Her website, that is linked to the State Bar official site, is gone.

          What I am concerned about is that, yes, there may be this attorney. BUT the problem is, most attorneys in practice, who set up on the internet, try to keep their information current. And your attorney, so far, seems to have it in such a way that it is very difficult to contact that person. (And here, I mean 1970’s technology contact—like a verifiable phone number or something.)

          If you want to post on my site–especially when the thrust of your postings is to really go at some other, verifiable person–you really have to be legitimate yourself. You seem to have a lot of time to write these long posts, but when it comes to “hard” responses about verifying, I am not seeing the same effort being put into that.

          Would you please contact the attorney whose name you gave me and ask her to get back to me at my e-mail, which she can obviously verify with either the Pennsylvania or New Jersey state bars? Or send me a letter via my registration in those states?

          • hoofin · January 6, 2012

            Yes, I did hear from your attorney, through her e-mail that is also the same e-mail as the California Bar Association one. (The e-mail obviously gets there sooner than regular mail.) So I will have to say to those who doubt that you aren’t you, that there would be two people out there keeping the hoax going. However, I really feel the main problem has been one of touching all the “spots” that a sock puppet would in a similar situation, and I am not sure why there is any appeal to that in your circumstance. Unless you didn’t realize.

  9. Patrick Braden · January 19, 2012

    Sorry about my absence for the last couple of weeks Hoofin….we at Global Future actually do a lot of REAL work on re-uniting abducted children and their families. That always takes a higher priority and takes away from the lower priorities like having time to join the ranks posting on blogs. Just take a look at Dr Garcia’s daughter, and the two children in New Jersey we brought home in 2010. The proof is in the evidence….that’s 3 children legally returned thru our own process…(although there are several others who were returned or re-united and their families and ourselves count them on our scoreboard too…but they were resolved before the process escalated to those higher levels)
    When they try to smother you in some verbose, suave, or plausibly deniable BS. Dont confuse the multi-layered BS with real work, and real results…Just keep this phrase in mind, and say to yourself or the internet puppets “show me your results!”
    They have absolutely nothing but an inter-linked web of BS to show for themselves….and a bunch of excuses, and self-professed internet credentials. Unfortunately, that’s not good enough…we live in a real world. That old internet game of 2nd Life is passe’ now.

    The sad news is that there are not any really effective ways of verifying what you “read” on the internet. People who have a fraud to perpetuate, and people who want to hide from the light of the truth, have an easy opportunity to do so on the internet. You know…they can re-invent themselves with any set of facts or spun story that they want in a “second life” ….but its only on the internet. Their real life and actions that have been documented by courts, and depositions, and decisions they clearly made previously….unfortunately cant be changed….so they have to “spin” the story about them. Then when the sterilizing light of the truth creeps in…they have to work feverishly harder and avoid discussing those pesky facts. If they can only smother the facts with enough layers of BS …all inter-linked together, it makes it hard for people who only “read” on the internet, to know the truth.
    Obviously you seem to be coming to a conclusion that things don’t add up right on McPike. Let me see if I can help. He is a real guy, he is a valued and well respected member of Bachole, he is a trained attack dog no doubt, he is an apologist obviously, and he is a crafty sneaky guy who lives for plausible deniability. That doesnt mean that he doesnt love his kids though. And one more thing….we have no real idea what may have happened in his child-separation case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s