To
Svea Hovrätt
Department. 1
Case: Ö-3007-97 Belia Jimemenz-Lorente./. Axel Ture Rogert Johansson
In relation to Belia Jimenez motion that the Court orders from U.S.A should gain legal force in Sweden, I would ask the Swedish justice system to assist me with the following,
This divorce process began in February 1995 when it was clear that my international contract in USA would end on January 31, 1996. (Appendix 2). I had then requested to get the contract prolonged until 1999 when my ex-wife had planned to finish her studies. She then requested that I should look for a local employment in the U.S. I explained that I didn't want to endanger our children's future in a country where the social security consists of charity organizations. At this point they where even debating in their congress, a proposal to deny legal aliens like us, the minimal benefits that does exist.
The 12 July, 1995 my wife wrote a separation proposal (Appendix 3). I assumed the responsibility for our children but refused to pay a cash settlement for this commitment. Instead I canceled our joint checking account and explained that she from then would have to explain her expenses and I would reimburse her. I didn't object that she stayed in the house with us until we moved back to Sweden. She now alleges that I have tampered with this proposal.
In October 1995, my wife became desperate when she realized that her new relationship was a homosexual. (Appendix 4). She then became desperate and started to threaten me with her friends within the police and feminine organizations. I then contacted my first lawyer, Mr. Dispersion, who's only advice was that I started divorce proceedings in the USA. He also requested a retainer of $2,000 in advance to help me. I said that I would first try to talk to my ex-wife and find an agreement.
On November 22, 1995 I was served by a police officer at work, and informed that I could not return to my home. My ex-wife had been granted a temporary order for protection with the right to the homestead and everything in it. Her request that I should not be allowed to see my children had however been refused. She then kept the kids home from school and instructed their private daycare lady, to not let me see them. (Appendix 5). Since it was the day before Thanksgivings, there was no possibility to appeal, since most of the ordinary judges would already be on vacation.
The 1 of December I got a court order allowing me, escorted by 4 police officers, to pick up my clothes. After talking to my ex-wife, who was at the neighbors, they left me alone since they didn't find me to be a violent person. In fact they asked me if I was afraid of my ex-wife. She then called 911and got 2 new police officers to show up, thinking that I was violating the order for protection. This was not a nice experience. When the officers understood that I had a court order that gave me the right to be there, they apologized. That all neighbors were watching the spectacle on my driveway was probably just another strategy from my ex-wife to ruin my social life.
On December 3 I changed lawyer to Mr. Ousky since I was in despair of not having anywhere to turn for help. Mr. Jesperson, my first lawyer, was of the opinion that we should let Ms. Wold, petitioners lawyer, makes a fool of herself. (Appendix 6) He himself was never available since he had to stay home and take care of a sick child. I had to give Mr. Ousky a new retainer for $3,000 in advance.
On December 5, 1995 Judge Catherine Andersen forced my ex-wife to agree on an arraignment where we would share the homestead and the children 50%. (Appendix 7) I had then not seen my children for 13 days. Their questions almost made me collapse. I was now the big subject on the school bus in the morning. What they had before only seen on television, was now taking place in their own home. Lucky for me, my wife did not want to spend Christmas and New Year at home in this agreement. Probably she had already made up her plans for the holidays.
On January 18, 1996 we had the trial about wife and child abuse. After my ex-wife's testimony it was determined that there was now evidence for her accusations against me, and I could return home under "normal" conditions. (Appendix 8). The same evening we had 2 police officers visiting. One of my ex-wife's accomplices, her police friend, had called the police and asked them to pay a visit to ensure the safety of petitioner. That our children were woken by two uniformed police officers was nothing to be concerned about. After confirming that my ex-wife was asleep, they apologized and left us. Perhaps I should mention that this female police friend doesn't work for the police anymore since her motion for sexual abuse was denied. Her husband is still a police officer though.
On January 23, 1996 we should meet with the Family Services for the first time. I had then been able to change my original schedule from February 6 since there was no longer any order for protection. I thought that if she could live in the same house, she could also face the social services together. But she refused and insisted on individual meetings, instructed so by her lawyer. (Appendix 9). "Rene" is the first name of the person in charge of the department we where assigned. My ex-wife specially asked for her so I suspect that Ms. Wold knows her personally.
On February 28, 1996 we had our first divorce hearing. Even if the social authorities had not finished their custody evaluation, the new Judge, Patrick Meade thought that my ex-wife needed "room to breathe" so I was "kicked out" again. This time with an alimony and child support of $3,363/month. (65% of my salary).I was also ordered to pay her lawyer fees of $2,000. I also had to exchange cars with her. When I tried to explain that I had to move back to Sweden, he just said that it was future speculations that could not influence his judgement. (Appendix 10)
On April 15, 1996 the custody evaluation was concluded and they recommended that I should have custody of our children and that they should be allowed to move back to Sweden with me. (Appendix 11) During this time my ex-wife continued obstructing my visitation with my children. The last time I saw them was on April 27, 1996. I had then arranged for a "goodbye meeting" with them together with the psychologist my ex-wife took them to. I asked him if he couldn't arrange that she was present, but she refused. Instead I had to sneak out the backdoor since she hadn't reacted positively to his suggestion.
On May 8, 1996 there was a new hearing where my ex-wife did not accept the social services custody evaluation and requested a new independent evaluation. This time she recommended the psychologist where she was already taking the children. (Appendix 12). He returned his report on May 28 without making recommendation about custody. Instead he concluded that the children wanted to have a good relation with both their parents.
The 4 of June 1996, Judge Meade decided to not follow the recommendation from the social services. Instead he decided that the children should stay in Minnesota, waiting for the final solution. They should however spend 6 weeks during the summer in Sweden together with me. That I could not obtain Swedish passports without legal custody was a Swedish problem that he could not find a remedy for. When I contacted the Swedish Embassy in New York, Mrs. Sundberg their legal adviser, she just told me there was nothing she could do. From my lawyer I was told that it might now take between 1-3 years and $20,000 - $60,000 in lawyer fees before a final trial would be held. My chances he estimated to 25% since I would not have the money necessary to challenge an independent custody evaluation with my own psychologist .
On June 21, 1996 I got a request from her lawyer to arrange with removal of my personal belongings, or it would be sold or given to charity. (Appendix 13) My employer then arranged the move from US to Sweden according to the rules that apply to international employees. I will now have to pay myself for any future moving costs. On August 15, 1996 I received a container that included a complete garage and basement clearing of our house. My dearest personal belongings were not included. The only intact piece of furniture was the bedroom with the stains from my ex-wife. You can not find a new mattress with U.S. measurement in Sweden. The moving company could not understand how somebody could spend $15,000 to send this garbage over the Atlantic.
On September 26 1996, there was a telephone conference before Judge Rosenbaum where petitioners motion for a new independent custody evaluation was granted. The cost should be shared between the parties with a max. cost for me of $1,000. I can not understand why I should have to pay for a new custody evaluation when I am satisfied with the two that have already been done. In this hearing my request for reduced child support was reserved for the next trial. (Appendix 14)
On December 3, 1996 my ex-wife had found Judge Meade again. She was probably hoping that he would be more accommodating then Judge Rosenbaum. She then, among other things, requested that the physiologist she had selected should release the notes he had made about me in our meetings. But Judge Meade could not hear her motion since the case was now assigned to Judge Duffy. (Appendix 15)
On January 15, 1997 we had the hearing where I was sentenced to 10 days in jail for not showing respect to the court after being provoked by Judge Duffy. I was also sentenced to another 90 days in jail for not updating information about bank accounts that does not exist. I can not understand how the court can permit petitioners lawyer to request the same information over and over again. Even if I answer as truthful as I can she continues to ask for the same non-existing information over and over again. I suppose this is the way they use to drag out the proceedings and impoverish the opponent. I myself have not requested any information about my ex-wife's accounts in Spain. If I did, I suppose that the economical arguments would never end. Her mother died in 1991 but I have not seen a single Peseta from her inheritance. As I understand, my ex-wife invested in her sisters driving school in Seville.
I had ordered an economy ticket for $800 to attend at the trial on February 20,1997. Due to the fear what they would do to me my sister insisted that she should go in my place. She is divorced herself since 10 years and has 2 children and works as a kindergarten teacher since 20 years. She thought she could talk to my ex-wife and arrange some kind of agreement for the children's sake. I then changed the name on the ticket to Aina Johansson and forgot that she had kept her taken surname. I had to buy a new ticket for $1.800 since KLM refused to change the original ticket even if the police at the airport certified that her maiden name was Johansson. Only through my contact through my employer did I manage to recover the first $800.
My ex-wife told my sister that only her lawyer would attend the trial and that she couldn't attend. After the trial she told my sister that she had attended because her lawyer had called her that same morning. (My sister tried to reach her at work). Personally I don't think that my ex-wife wanted my sister to argue her testimony about me and our family in Sweden. When my sister tried to engage in dialogues about agreements, she only insisted that I should first comply with the court orders. According to my sister, it seems that she is trapped by agreements with her lawyer. Thinking about the time that Ms. Wold has spent on this divorce, she probably owes her more than $30,000. At the Sunday service at church, the lawyer had submitted a request that the congregation prays for Belia and her children that had been abandoned by their husband and father.
She accuses me for kidnapping the children to Spain in 1989 when the truth is that she and her family tried to prevent us from returning to Sweden. (Appendix 16) She is using her sister testimony (done in Spain) to persuade Judge Duffy, even if Judge Anderson has already ruled in this matter. To present testimony from her sister that I kidnapped the children from Sweden to Spain, Judge Anderson found to be hearsay from my ex-wife's opinion. If I want, I can get a testimony from our friends in Spain that we vacationed with. Maybe even the embassy in Madrid has some old notes about my request for help. They couldn't help me either except recommend a female lawyer from Barcelona. According to this lawyer there was no chance that the Spanish government would let me return to Sweden with the children even if we had lived there for two years.
I do not know what to do to make my ex-wife understand that our children have the right to both their mother and father. After what I've been through, I do not believe that I will get any help from the U.S. justice system. Even if I think that I have proven that my ex-wife and her lawyer are using the children to extort money, she has not got any warning in this matter, except from Judge Anderson. Instead I am supposed her lawyer fees so they can proceed with their crusade.
I do not have the strength to continue this battle without help. However, I don't know if it's a lawyer or therapist that I need. To not bee part of my children's life has destroyed my conception of justice in society. If you can't help me be by legal means then I don't know where to turn. I hope that the appendixes that I supply, shall spell out some of the despair that I felt the last 2,5 years. That we would divorce have been known to me since we got our first child. Unfortunately I have not been able to create the stability in life that my children deserve, even if it has been my goal with this marriage. Maybe it's due to my employment, maybe it's due to my ex-wife's expectations. I got tape recordings from my ex-wife's daydreams where she, among others, express her desire that I should die so she can cash in on my life insurance. I would prefer to destroy these recordings since I in principle agree that it's illegal to tape another persons conversations. But when I did this I was the target of accusations where it was not possible to defend myself with normal evidence. Her way of treating our children without respect has been a continuos problem in our marriage. To my disappointment I now realize that presenting these tapes as evidence can result in 5 years imprisonment. Now I see them as an insurance for my children's understanding the day they are old enough to make up their own opinion. This is however a very egoistic opinion that I don't think benefits my children, even as adults.
With hope for a future after this,
Eslöv the 3 of October, 1997
Axel Johansson