swh, well-reasoned reply, though still not connecting all the dots. I agree, it is very NOT clear-cut.
I shall address some of your points:
Firstly based upon the normal Canadian child support scale, number of children, and his rank the support award should be in the region of $30,000 p.a.. The judgment for US$755,313.73 means they did not apply the scale or the needs or the children, they applied a percentage of his gross income. He would need to need to pay for the support from his nett income.
The court in Canada determined a monthly support amount many years ago. Any disagreement with that amount has to be addressed in the Canadian court system but, as the prisoner had fled Canada and been found in contempt there, he has not been able to return to Canadian court. He must first purge his contempt and THEN he can be heard in court. It WOULD be possible to retroactively reduce the support amount BUT he would have to provide TRUE and ACCURATE income information for all the years since the divorce. I suspect he hasn't done (nor will he do) that because his true income far exceeds that which the Canadian court imputed to him. Although he has paid SOME support over the years, the difference between what he owed (what he had been ordered to pay monthly by the Canadian court) and what he had paid was determined to be US$755,313.73
From the records I read, the Canadian court hearing was held ex-parte. There was no evidence presented to show he was served with either a summons for appearance or with the final support order.
I find it difficult to believe a judge in Canada would hold him in contempt and issue an arrest warrant if proper legal procedure had not been followed.
The issue of long arm personal jurisdiction of the Canadian courts and the personal jurisdiction of the US courts is very very grey here. To have personal jurisdiction in a US state requires a person to be in residence by a set period of time normally 6-12 months. If you move before that time is up, personal jurisdiction is not established the clock is restarted. Due to the nature of his work, he can easily show he was out of the state and never a resident for 12 months continuously.
At the time the proceedings began in Arizona, he had a US Green Card. Having one requires residency in a US state. Can't have it both ways.
In the US when applying for the registration of a Uniform Support Petition where a US state is the respondent, an order made ex-parte in the initiating state does not establish exclusive original jurisdiction. It is also an act of forswearing for the mother to have concurrent proceedings in California, Arizona, and Hong Kong. The father can easily have the Arizona judgement thrown out because the mother already had filed in Hong Kong on a prior date. This is known as "forum shopping" to find who will make the higher judgement, courts hate it.
As far as I know, Canada retains jurisdiction and Arizona (and, at one time, Hong Kong) were just used to COLLECT the support, not change the nature of it nor its amount.
I disagree with your belief that forum shopping took place. The intent does not appear to be an attempt at getting a higher judgment. It appears to be an attempt to collect what is owed on the original, Canadian judgment. The prisoner fleeing Canada to live incognito in California, then move to Arizona, and then tell the US court he's a HK resident and the HK court he's a US resident forced the mother of his children to file actions in each of those places.
He did try and address this in Canada in 2013 and that matter was thrown out on the basis of the action before the courts in Arizona. However we now know that the action before the courts in Arizona was improper as the mother had already filed in Hong Kong. In the summons and compliant filed in Arizona the mother will have as the petitioner sworn that there are no other actions before any other court in any jurisdiction regarding the matter.
See above. The Canadian courts won't hear anything from him until he purges his contempt there. Nothing to do with action in Arizona. Arizona was not improper because as soon as she filed in Hong Kong he told the Hong Kong court he was employed in the US and lived in Arizona. That's why she filed there. And, I believe the Hong Kong court has stated that action to enforce an existing child support order is not another action in another court. However, the Hong Kong court did state that the fraudulent transfer action filed in Arizona court IS another action.
The wife filed a fraudulent worldwide Mareva injunction in Hong Kong, so that was an abuse of process. The grounds for discharge were be summarized as:
(1) Failure to disclose the 2009 Rejection;
(2) Intentional misrepresentation in relation to the 2013 application for registration;
(3) Lies to the court;
(4) Breach of undertaking; and
(5) Miscellaneous grounds.
I believe there was LOTS of miscommunication and misunderstandings which resulted in these statements in the court documents. Just think of how convoluted CX's basings and compliance with labour laws is around the world and you'll understand how difficult it would be to enforce a child support order when the father plays one court (or all three) off another (or each other.)
The Hong Kong courts said "Ms XXXXXXX was guilty of material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and telling lies when seeking the Mareva injunction. She also breached the undertaking not to institute proceedings without leave of the Hong Kong court by pursuing contempt proceedings in Arizona. I discharge the Mareva injunction and decline to regrant it. I dismiss the originating summons. For the avoidance of doubt, the Hartmann order, my order dated 27 August 2014 and any orders freezing the assets of Mr ZZZZZZ are also discharged."
"On a nisi basis, Ms XXXXXXX should pay costs of the originating summons and the summons for discharge to Mr ZZZZZZZ. I will decide whether to order taxation or summary assessment in consultation with the parties."
That is a very damming statement to have placed in any Judgement, you can tell the court are not happy at all with the mothers actions.
Yes, the court was not happy with either party and the contempt proceedings in Arizona for fraudulent transfer are, as I said above, most likely new proceedings rather than an attempt to collect child support and therefore should have been filed only with the Hong Kong court's permission.
The excerpt from the wife attorney in the HKG order basically said they were trying to get it registered in Hong Kong to get access to his provident fund. You cannot file for registration based upon where you believe assets are, it must be based upon where the person resides.
Where the prisoner resides is very clear, now. However, over these past years, it was a bit nebulous.
It is very possible for a CX pilot to change basing, that is not a crime.
Not quite sure the relevance of this statement.