CX loses another trainer
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is only the start of his problem...wait until the IRD starts comparing notes with the IRS! I think what he has done is called tax evasion and usually has a jail sentence attached to it!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Profit I agree with you.
It's so unfortunate that these forums are filled with people full of hate that are constantly trolling for a target and it does say more about them than their targets!
I guess in the old days they would just string up the man based on "their" judgement of the case.
It's so unfortunate that these forums are filled with people full of hate that are constantly trolling for a target and it does say more about them than their targets!
I guess in the old days they would just string up the man based on "their" judgement of the case.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We not talking one judge in one court, but four judges in four different courts in three countries and two different states in the USA. At what point do you say...maybe I'm wrong here!
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not suggesting he isn't 'guilty' of the charges, only that there is a whole other side to the story. What I am saddened by is the nasty, vindictive and almost cruel desire for some of you to anonymously kick a man when he is well and truly down. As I said earlier, this says more about you lot than him.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't have to like the man, but it is unseemly and cruel to heap even more misery on another human being who has obviously fallen. The viciousness and malice I see written on this thread is truly chilling. One day it may be you needing a bit of mercy and compassion. And as for the 'courts' and 'justice', I suggest you recall the multiple rulings against the pilots over the years to put that in perspective.
I believe every parent has the duty to support their children, mother and father. However if the ex has already got the house, the cost of supporting the children is not that high. The ex should be required to pay 50% of the cost of raising the children. As an Air Canada captain herself she is not short of coin.
Everyone knows you cannot stop paying a child support order if you disagree with it. The father is clearly at fault here. But looking at the sums of money involved for "child support" it is obvious that numerous families could be supported with the sums involved.
Everyone also knows you cannot make false claims to a court, it is clear the mother is also at fault here. It looks like she was trying any means to destroy him.
I think the courts in Hkg have it wrong saying he was a resident based upon the mailing address for the Hkg Ird being the work address. You don't reside at the employers address.
I think it's fraud to demand more money than the cost of the children's needs and reasonable upkeep of the house.
In order for the court not to impose and unjust and inappropriate level of support, the order should have been based upon the reasonable costs of raing the children and upkeep of the home rather than guessing the fathers income.
I don't know the guy, but in my book an order to pay over $100,000 a year in child support which is tax free for the payee is excessive and unreasonable. Considering the average wage in Canada which residents are required to pay tax on is $49,000.
I feel sorry for the guy, and anyone else that has a child support order awarded that is far in excess of reasonable costs. The system is broken.
Everyone knows you cannot stop paying a child support order if you disagree with it. The father is clearly at fault here. But looking at the sums of money involved for "child support" it is obvious that numerous families could be supported with the sums involved.
Everyone also knows you cannot make false claims to a court, it is clear the mother is also at fault here. It looks like she was trying any means to destroy him.
I think the courts in Hkg have it wrong saying he was a resident based upon the mailing address for the Hkg Ird being the work address. You don't reside at the employers address.
I think it's fraud to demand more money than the cost of the children's needs and reasonable upkeep of the house.
In order for the court not to impose and unjust and inappropriate level of support, the order should have been based upon the reasonable costs of raing the children and upkeep of the home rather than guessing the fathers income.
I don't know the guy, but in my book an order to pay over $100,000 a year in child support which is tax free for the payee is excessive and unreasonable. Considering the average wage in Canada which residents are required to pay tax on is $49,000.
I feel sorry for the guy, and anyone else that has a child support order awarded that is far in excess of reasonable costs. The system is broken.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Retired-ville
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were this to have been a case where an individual made a snap decision to do something daft - like steal an EFTPOS/ATM machine from McDonalds, or wake up MIA in FUK and claim you were mugged because you couldn't remember how you missed your call time, or whatever the circumstances were, then it's not like those were well considered and intended acts. More like a dumb spur of the moment brain fart.
Conversely, it would appear from the many pages of courts documents that others have read, that this individuals actions were deliberate, considered and intentional, and more than one independant judicial system had told him what he should have done. He willfully chose not to, therefore it's hard to sympathise with someone who takes that stance of defying the legal system, knowing the potential consequences, however unlikely, could be severe.
Conversely, it would appear from the many pages of courts documents that others have read, that this individuals actions were deliberate, considered and intentional, and more than one independant judicial system had told him what he should have done. He willfully chose not to, therefore it's hard to sympathise with someone who takes that stance of defying the legal system, knowing the potential consequences, however unlikely, could be severe.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh, the cost of supporting the children is calculated by the Canadian government, not the parents. If the parents disagree with the amount, the parents need to make their case in a court. THIS parent chose to flee the country rather than make his case in court for a lower payment.
What false claims were made to the court?
The courts in HK based their residency determination on him having a Tung Chung address, not the work address. He claimed that the Tung Chung address was a clearical error by CX. He also claimed to the court in the US that he was a HK resident (supposedly to avoid liability in the US) and this claim was mentioned when he tried to convince the HK court that he wasn't a HK resident.
The government of Canada is demanding the money be paid, so IT must be fraudulent, in your eyes.
The court would not have had to guess the father's income if the father had voluntarily provided it to the court rather than fleeing the country and an arrest warrant.
The system may be broken, but ignoring it and the courts isn't the way to fix it.
What false claims were made to the court?
The courts in HK based their residency determination on him having a Tung Chung address, not the work address. He claimed that the Tung Chung address was a clearical error by CX. He also claimed to the court in the US that he was a HK resident (supposedly to avoid liability in the US) and this claim was mentioned when he tried to convince the HK court that he wasn't a HK resident.
The government of Canada is demanding the money be paid, so IT must be fraudulent, in your eyes.
The court would not have had to guess the father's income if the father had voluntarily provided it to the court rather than fleeing the country and an arrest warrant.
The system may be broken, but ignoring it and the courts isn't the way to fix it.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So... Are you compassionate individuals making the case that USAOA should NOT be taking voluntary donations to use non-Union money to make his prison sentence less arduous. Are you saying he should not receive visitors bringing him reading material and letting him know he has not been forgotten? Should he not be afforded a relatively inexpensive meal upgrade that is more culturally appropriate for a North American? Would you not wish for the same if it was you in there?
Keep in mind that he has been convicted of NONE of the above. He was convicted of contempt of court for transferring money from one HK bank account to another HK bank account against HK court orders. This hardly makes him "scum" or deserving of harsh penalty. If he IS guilty of the above, I'm sure HK, US, and/or Canadian courts will catch up with him eventually. Then the poison dwarf can have his command position in SFO.
Keep in mind that he has been convicted of NONE of the above. He was convicted of contempt of court for transferring money from one HK bank account to another HK bank account against HK court orders. This hardly makes him "scum" or deserving of harsh penalty. If he IS guilty of the above, I'm sure HK, US, and/or Canadian courts will catch up with him eventually. Then the poison dwarf can have his command position in SFO.
Oval3Holer,
It is not as clear cut as you think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you that a parent needs to pay child support, I stated that above, and I agree that you must pay the order and then address the courts later. He did pay the amount of CAD$2,400 per month which is above the scale amount required in 2003 when he was divorced.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is very possible for a CX pilot to change basing, that is not a crime. It has been 13 years since they divorced a lot can happen over that period. I dont know the guy, I am just looking at the facts.
It is not as clear cut as you think.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you that a parent needs to pay child support, I stated that above, and I agree that you must pay the order and then address the courts later. He did pay the amount of CAD$2,400 per month which is above the scale amount required in 2003 when he was divorced.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is very possible for a CX pilot to change basing, that is not a crime. It has been 13 years since they divorced a lot can happen over that period. I dont know the guy, I am just looking at the facts.
Last edited by swh; 9th May 2016 at 16:04.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALPA pilots always help ALPA pilots out. If he is a member of the USAOA, then the USAOA should do their best to help him out by providing him western meals where possible, and visiting him as much as feasible. If he isn't.... then who should give a flying fark.
"He must first purge his contempt and THEN he can be heard in court."
"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."
There was no evidence provided in Hong Kong to suggest he was served, in fact there is an appearance that improper service was made in order for additional court hearings to be made in Canada.
"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."
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.
To enforce a Canadian order in the US, the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) in Canada must file a uniform support petition under the Arizona Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). The process involves the FRO sending the documents to the central authority in Arizona who in turn sends it to the Interstate Child Support Attorney in the county where the respondent lives. It is then up to the county Interstate Child Support Attorney to determine if the State has personal jurisdiction over the respondent.
It would appear the order made in Arizona was not a UIFSA action, it was a separate pleading based upon the Mareva injunction granted in Hong Kong.
That injunction has been rescinded in Hong Kong, in part because the wife had multiple actions for the same matter before two different courts "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". The basis for the Arizona action " the Mareva injunction" is now null and void. The Hong Kong Court said he may transfer assets.
"It appears to be an attempt to collect what is owed on the original, Canadian judgment.."
- the father had paid child support directly to the mother;
- the mother did not report the payments to the FRO or the courts;
- all the matrimonial assets were transferred into the mothers name by court order;
- the mother had sold their matrimonial assets without paying the father the equalization payment;
- the mother misrepresented the fathers income to the Ontario courts;
- the mother, who herself was earning significant income as an Air Canada captain refused to provide her income details to the Ontario courts;
- the mothers expenses exceeded her income, this suggests undeclared income.
"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."
"I believe there was LOTS of miscommunication and misunderstandings which resulted in these statements in the court documents. "
"However, the Hong Kong court did state that the fraudulent transfer action filed in Arizona court IS another action."
"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"
"Where the father resides is very clear, now. However, over these past years, it was a bit nebulous."
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK all you naysayers, so quick to attack a fellow pilot fighting the legal system. Well I have been in exactly his shoes. Paid my support direct to ex. She did not report these payments. Oz court would not accept my side - including bank receipts. Was in Oz on a holiday, contacted by Govt ordered to pay a huge amount (again) or have passport revoked tomorrow. Had to pay twice and nothing I can do. So I feel for this chap and wish him all the best. Hope his wife gets what she deserves.