COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Belia Jimenez Lorente, Petitioner File No. DC 218153

and RESPONDENTS

STATEMENT

Axel, Ture, Rogert Johansson, Respondent
 
 

Axel Johansson for his answer to the hearing held in Judge David Duffys chambers on January 15. 1997 would like to make the following statement:

I will not be able to attend any trial on February 20 1997. I fear for my safety under the jurisdiction of a court system that according to my opinion only serve the purpose of supporting petitioners devotion to ruin the relation between a father and his children.

When the order for protection was dismissed I believed that your judicial system would support me in my efforts to mediate a solution for my children. Instead I find that your system protects petitioners rights to a "free" life supported by the husband. That I would be without a job and income to support either her or my children in a near future was 16 speculations" that could not be used as base for decisions.

When your Family Court Services recomended that I should be granted custody of my children, again I believed that there was light at the end of the tunnel. Instead this court finds that petitioners 1 week employment is enough reason that she will be able to support our children. Of course I was granted liberal visitation. That I can not get Swedish passports without my children's and petitioners presence (not signature) is a Swedish problem that's outside this courts jurisdiction.

When I tried to get this courts attention that petitioner was withholding my personal property, I was informed that I had the burden of proof to show premarital status. That the proof was inside the homestead under petitioners occupancy is not this courts problem. It is obvious to me that the party that is removed from the home also loose all rights to the marital property. The 1 of December 1995 , 6 police officers from the Plymouth police assisted petitioner in deciding what toothbrush I should have. That I had a court order granting me permission did not prevent them from emptying my car on my driveway in front of all neighbors on petitioners request.

During 7 months I paid 12,000 dollars in lawyers fees to show my innocence in wife and child abuse accusations. I fulfilled all support payments and tried to settle court ordered attomey's fees with my mortgage payments. I declared all my accounts and produced all documents to support my non-marital claims.

During this time Petitioner and her lawyer continued there accusations of child and wife abuse. To other accusations they now added that I caused rash and irritation in my 4 year old daughters private areas. They brought my children to conferences for abused women, prepared them for evaluation interviews and prevented me from seeing them. When the Family Court Services recommendations was against their will, they took my children to a psychologist of their choice.

With lawyers fees averaging $1,700/month and support obligation of $785 I do not understand how this court can find that I can afford to continue this process with legal assistance. I have chosen to not spend my earnings in your business area because I do not believe that it is in the interest of my children. I still maintain that I do NOT have any Swiss bank accounts with any secret code. My pension plan is a non-marital asset administrated by my employer where I provided copies of the value as of 951231. To request copies month after month is for me petitioners way of prolonging this temporary process to gain time with the children. That this case has international complications does not seem to be any concern for this court.

So with the last order from this court, the prayers of petitioner has come through. With 10 days in jail and 90 days in a workhouse I would probably loose my job and have big problems finding a new. Who would then support my children if petitioner decides she wants her "freedom" again. I think I have showed proof of her doing this twice in our 10 year marriage.

That this court does not find it necessary to support a fathers parental or civil rights is for me the a discriminatory action based on sex. During my last days in Minnesota I listened to testirnonies of men on TV that was crushed by your inability to see what some women are prepared to do in the name of the children. To refuse mediation is for me a crime against my children that can only be justified by abusive behavior. When this court dismissed the order for protection, petitioner did not see any fear in living under the same roof. The only fear she has ever felt is probably facing the truth.

I understand that you should not act "Pro Se" in these emotional matters, specially not in front of judges that seem to care less about emotional feelings. I am willing to cooperate with anyone that also helps me to maintain my relation with my children. I think that is my right as a father and provider. I do not voluntary accept a judgement where my parental rights is reduced to sending in a check every month. If this is contempt of your judicial system, I apologize but it is the only "comfort" I have left.

To see my hard earned money fall into the purse of divorce lawyers is not my interpretation of child support. I have already lost my children and my property. My "Pro Se" petitions are not written in a form acceptable to this court. However my verbal statements, provoked by an uninformed court, are easily misinterpreted to prepare the way for a default hearing. I do not really understand its implication, but graphically I've been told that it like "putting the nails in the lid of the coffin".

Petitioner requested $35,000 when she proposed a separation in July 1995. I did then not think it was morally right to "buy" my children. Specially not after the behavior she showed incident to the breakdown of our marriage. I do believe in a "divorce without cause" policy but it must be based on mutual agreement of what is best for our children. I thought we had such an agreement until I was served by your officers at work.. I should have understood that her 2 years of studying social science with specially in women's issues also gives the knowledge of how to manipulate a system bound to follow public opinion. After all, she did graduate with honors, Your Honor.
 
 

February 14, 1997

Axel Johansson

Rudolf Jonassons väg 17

SE-241 36 Esl6v, Sweden