CX loses another trainer
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: london
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ovalholer. You really are a nasty ba*tard aren't you (and oh so brave being anonymous, i'm sure you told him this to his face)? I've met too many like you in my years here. And not too hard to guess your nationality either. Not sure why you seem to take it on yourself to try and crucify the man. You don't have to like him, but your comments show something deeply unpleasant at the heart of your soul. Sad.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh
child support in Canada is calculated from gross income not net income. You can checkout how much child support one has to pay right here.
Child Support Table Look-up
As a training captain having his USD salary converted to CAD he would have to pay around CAD65-70000 p.a. in child support for 2 kids.
child support in Canada is calculated from gross income not net income. You can checkout how much child support one has to pay right here.
Child Support Table Look-up
As a training captain having his USD salary converted to CAD he would have to pay around CAD65-70000 p.a. in child support for 2 kids.
swh
child support in Canada is calculated from gross income not net income. You can checkout how much child support one has to pay right here.
Child Support Table Look-up
As a training captain having his USD salary converted to CAD he would have to pay around CAD65-70000 p.a. in child support for 2 kids.
child support in Canada is calculated from gross income not net income. You can checkout how much child support one has to pay right here.
Child Support Table Look-up
As a training captain having his USD salary converted to CAD he would have to pay around CAD65-70000 p.a. in child support for 2 kids.
There is also the issue of private arrangements which are permitted to offset payments. For example with shared custody where there is a requirement for the payment of a percentage of uninsured or out of pocket medical costs these can be offset against payments.
The same principle applies to the unpaid equalisation payment the mother should have discharged after the sale of the marital assets.
The mothers failure to declare the sale of the assets, payments received, and her own income to the court is significant basis for an allegation of fraud and deception.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Child support in Canada is re-assessed every year. If the income goes up, child support goes up. if income goes down, child support goes down. The child support tables are guidelines only and in many cases judges award more in child support then the tables state. How do I know ?? Guess what.
All of your above points do not matter. A judge has the final authority. If you don't like the judgement - appeal. If you exhaust all legal avenues you pay. If you don't pay or obey the judgement you are in contempt of court. Simple as that.
Laws are there for a reason. You might not like them or how the judge interprets them. If no-one would obey the court we would have anarchy.
All of your above points do not matter. A judge has the final authority. If you don't like the judgement - appeal. If you exhaust all legal avenues you pay. If you don't pay or obey the judgement you are in contempt of court. Simple as that.
Laws are there for a reason. You might not like them or how the judge interprets them. If no-one would obey the court we would have anarchy.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Rascasse
You're being equally anonymous (as are we all) so that comment was crap unless you personally never have a go at anyone, but oh dear:-
Which particular nationality are you assuming and thereby insulting the lot of them/us??
....not too hard to guess your nationality either. Not sure why you seem to take it on yourself to try and crucify the man
I will try and be as clear as possible.
The Hong Kong Judegement states "The Mareva injunction was procured by material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant. (See Sections H and J of the judgment dated 14 April 2016 in HCMP 1780/2013). I have set aside the Mareva injunction and declined to regrant it. I also observed that the respondent has never had the opportunity for reviewing his income which formed the basis of the Ontairo maintenance orders. However, those are not mitigating factors. At the time when he committed the acts in contempt, the Mareva injunction was valid. The respondent has had the opportunity to challenge the ex parte order but failed."
He was jailed for contempt of an order that was not properly obtained. If the just punishment for contempt of an order that was not properly obtained is 3 months jail, what does the system say the just punishment for "material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant" of said order, a reward of $200,000.
The contempt was for an order that was "procured by material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant". The Arizona order was based upon the Hong Kong order, therefore also based upon "material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant", it was also done without leave of the Hong Kong courts.
He tried to go to the courts in Canada he was denied being heard because of the matter before court in Arizona.
In simple terms the guy has been screwed over by the ex using the legal system to destroy him, and the system has rewarded her for doing so.
The Hong Kong Judegement states "The Mareva injunction was procured by material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant. (See Sections H and J of the judgment dated 14 April 2016 in HCMP 1780/2013). I have set aside the Mareva injunction and declined to regrant it. I also observed that the respondent has never had the opportunity for reviewing his income which formed the basis of the Ontairo maintenance orders. However, those are not mitigating factors. At the time when he committed the acts in contempt, the Mareva injunction was valid. The respondent has had the opportunity to challenge the ex parte order but failed."
He was jailed for contempt of an order that was not properly obtained. If the just punishment for contempt of an order that was not properly obtained is 3 months jail, what does the system say the just punishment for "material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant" of said order, a reward of $200,000.
The contempt was for an order that was "procured by material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant". The Arizona order was based upon the Hong Kong order, therefore also based upon "material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant", it was also done without leave of the Hong Kong courts.
He tried to go to the courts in Canada he was denied being heard because of the matter before court in Arizona.
In simple terms the guy has been screwed over by the ex using the legal system to destroy him, and the system has rewarded her for doing so.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh, I disagree with your statement, "The Arizona order was based upon the Hong Kong order."
See here: Pima County Superior Court - Agave Online (Public Record Search)
The first documents filed in Arizona are "LETTER REQUESTING REGISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT OF CASE" and "REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER"
Those appear to be a request for Arizona to enforce the Canadian support order. Not related to Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong court had no problem with the attempt in Arizona to enforce the Canadian child support order. The Hong Kong court DID have a problem with the NEW Arizona case of fraudulent transfer, relating to the transfer of about US$200,000 out of Hong Kong into the prisoner's wife's account as well as the transfer of the Arizona home from being solely owned by the prisoner to being jointly owned by him and his wife so as to make it more difficult to be seized for non-payment of child support.
As the judgment says (paraphrasing), one must obey court orders when they are in effect, even if they are later found to be invalid. That's the system and the law.
The Canadian courts will not entertain ANY filings by him until he purges his contempt there. It's not because of the matter before the court in Arizona.
In simple terms the guy screwed over himself by ignoring valid court orders, paying what support HE thought he should pay, paying WHEN he thought he should pay, and changing the amount of support he paid based on criteria HE thought were valid.
If you read through all the court documents in Hong Kong, there are a lot of statements about who said and did what and when. The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) in Canada was supposed to send documents to Hong Kong but didn't, but said it did. The lawyers on both sides have conflicting information and base their cases on some information later found to be incorrect. Read it all and try to make sense from it. It's very difficult. It was a mess. A lot of discussion about whether the Canadian order was a "final" order.
If the lawyers made mistakes, it's certainly understandable that the ex-wife made mistakes in her statements to the Hong Kong court, through her Hong Kong lawyer, whose command of the English language was very marginal. I don't think there was "material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies." I think there was a ball of confusion resulting in mistakes which the judge later decided were intentional rather than accidental. Just my opinion after having read all the court documents.
See here: Pima County Superior Court - Agave Online (Public Record Search)
The first documents filed in Arizona are "LETTER REQUESTING REGISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT OF CASE" and "REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER"
Those appear to be a request for Arizona to enforce the Canadian support order. Not related to Hong Kong.
The Hong Kong court had no problem with the attempt in Arizona to enforce the Canadian child support order. The Hong Kong court DID have a problem with the NEW Arizona case of fraudulent transfer, relating to the transfer of about US$200,000 out of Hong Kong into the prisoner's wife's account as well as the transfer of the Arizona home from being solely owned by the prisoner to being jointly owned by him and his wife so as to make it more difficult to be seized for non-payment of child support.
As the judgment says (paraphrasing), one must obey court orders when they are in effect, even if they are later found to be invalid. That's the system and the law.
The Canadian courts will not entertain ANY filings by him until he purges his contempt there. It's not because of the matter before the court in Arizona.
In simple terms the guy screwed over himself by ignoring valid court orders, paying what support HE thought he should pay, paying WHEN he thought he should pay, and changing the amount of support he paid based on criteria HE thought were valid.
If you read through all the court documents in Hong Kong, there are a lot of statements about who said and did what and when. The Family Responsibility Office (FRO) in Canada was supposed to send documents to Hong Kong but didn't, but said it did. The lawyers on both sides have conflicting information and base their cases on some information later found to be incorrect. Read it all and try to make sense from it. It's very difficult. It was a mess. A lot of discussion about whether the Canadian order was a "final" order.
If the lawyers made mistakes, it's certainly understandable that the ex-wife made mistakes in her statements to the Hong Kong court, through her Hong Kong lawyer, whose command of the English language was very marginal. I don't think there was "material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies." I think there was a ball of confusion resulting in mistakes which the judge later decided were intentional rather than accidental. Just my opinion after having read all the court documents.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: U/S
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB?
ASL?
DE Capt?
25 yr housing?
Price fixing fines?
...
...
...
...
...
Who really deserves to be behind bars here?
AND
Who are you guys to criticize ASL, NTSB etc when you were too chicken s#%t to stand up for yourselves and let this company walk all over you?
ASL?
DE Capt?
25 yr housing?
Price fixing fines?
...
...
...
...
...
Who really deserves to be behind bars here?
AND
Who are you guys to criticize ASL, NTSB etc when you were too chicken s#%t to stand up for yourselves and let this company walk all over you?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: hong kong
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its time to get this thread over and done with
I just want to know , did any trainers resign and show they have some sort of dignity when the letter they signed got thrown back at them , twice ?
I just want to know , did any trainers resign and show they have some sort of dignity when the letter they signed got thrown back at them , twice ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed Trafalgar.....good grief Goathead, wind your neck in.
The 100 trainers that wrote and signed that letter (remember, 50 did not) stuck their necks out, not you....those trainers, their letter, and the training ban were the catalyst that brought the Company to the table....not you.
You should be thanking them instead of insulting them.
You are the one behaving in an undignified manner.
The 100 trainers that wrote and signed that letter (remember, 50 did not) stuck their necks out, not you....those trainers, their letter, and the training ban were the catalyst that brought the Company to the table....not you.
You should be thanking them instead of insulting them.
You are the one behaving in an undignified manner.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raven,
Good points. However, those same trainers continue to sign off well below average JFOs to the line. They have not stepped down in meaningful numbers. I think a strong case can be made that they should be resigning after the Company basically ignored a very strongly worded letter of warning. Either the letter was baseless and wrong or those who signed it do not have the courage of their convictions. Which is it?
Good points. However, those same trainers continue to sign off well below average JFOs to the line. They have not stepped down in meaningful numbers. I think a strong case can be made that they should be resigning after the Company basically ignored a very strongly worded letter of warning. Either the letter was baseless and wrong or those who signed it do not have the courage of their convictions. Which is it?
Originally Posted by Oval3Holer
The first documents filed in Arizona are "LETTER REQUESTING REGISTRATION & ENFORCEMENT OF CASE" and "REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER"
According to the Hong Kong judgment the wife then procured the Mareva injunction "by material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and lies of the applicant". This included not disclosing to the court that the Canadian order had not been registered in Hong Kong, nor details of the case in Arizona in which she was the respondent.
The father in his case in Arizona had provided evidence to the court he had been paying child support since 1999, he had supplied all of his tax returns from Hong Kong, USA, Canada, he had supplied he salary statement.
The mother then filed the later motion for "FRAUDUELENT TRANSFER OF PROPERTY" based upon the Hong Kong Mareva injunction. That motion was dismissed by the Arizona court in April 2016.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh, I don't know where you are getting your information, but court records clearly state that mother filed, in Arizona on October 30, 2012, a request for registration of foreign judgment for enforcement of support order. Father filed, in Arizona on December 5, 2012, a motion to dismiss request for registration of foreign judgment for enforcement of support order.
Very close to having a settlement? Close means different things to different people. As no settlement was reached, close wasn't close enough.
The Hong Kong proceedings were a mess, full of misunderstandings, half-truths and lies, some intentional and some not. The lawyers were just as confused as the judges, though neither admitted it very often. The lawyers also made lots of mistakes. Even the Family Responsibility Office in Canada provided incorrect information to Hong Kong. Who knew what, when, is also not clear. Overall, the case in Hong Kong was a goat f$%k or a dog's breakfast, or something similar.
Sure, the prisoner had been paying some child support, an amount he determined he should pay, but this was in violation of the Canadian court order. One must pay what is ordered by the court or go to court to get it changed. Once he fell behind in his payments, the court would not hear his filings. One who is in contempt by not paying cannot be heard in court until the contempt is purged. It's just like being put in jail for violating a Mareva that a judge later dismissed. It was valid at the time of the violation and that's when the contempt took place. It's all there in the Hong Kong judgment. "At the time when he committed the acts in contempt, the Mareva injunction was valid."
He dug his own hole by not paying what was ordered. That's the bottom line. Had he paid what was ordered and while doing so, fought this in Canadian court, the lawyers would be much poorer today.
There are facts, opinions and lies. Anyone who cares to know the facts can read them in the court documents, not here in this forum.
The case goes on in Arizona. It's presently in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, for Pima County https://www.appeals2.az.gov/ODSPlus/caseInfo.cfm
Very close to having a settlement? Close means different things to different people. As no settlement was reached, close wasn't close enough.
The Hong Kong proceedings were a mess, full of misunderstandings, half-truths and lies, some intentional and some not. The lawyers were just as confused as the judges, though neither admitted it very often. The lawyers also made lots of mistakes. Even the Family Responsibility Office in Canada provided incorrect information to Hong Kong. Who knew what, when, is also not clear. Overall, the case in Hong Kong was a goat f$%k or a dog's breakfast, or something similar.
Sure, the prisoner had been paying some child support, an amount he determined he should pay, but this was in violation of the Canadian court order. One must pay what is ordered by the court or go to court to get it changed. Once he fell behind in his payments, the court would not hear his filings. One who is in contempt by not paying cannot be heard in court until the contempt is purged. It's just like being put in jail for violating a Mareva that a judge later dismissed. It was valid at the time of the violation and that's when the contempt took place. It's all there in the Hong Kong judgment. "At the time when he committed the acts in contempt, the Mareva injunction was valid."
He dug his own hole by not paying what was ordered. That's the bottom line. Had he paid what was ordered and while doing so, fought this in Canadian court, the lawyers would be much poorer today.
There are facts, opinions and lies. Anyone who cares to know the facts can read them in the court documents, not here in this forum.
The case goes on in Arizona. It's presently in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, for Pima County https://www.appeals2.az.gov/ODSPlus/caseInfo.cfm
The mother was the plaintiff in the second case that was dismissed in April.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mother requested registration of foreign judgment for enforcement of support order on October 30, 2012. At that time, this was not a court case, therefore there was no petitioner nor respondent.
Father filed a court case, as petitioner, PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.
Look it up, right here: default
Father filed a court case, as petitioner, PETITIONER'S MOTION TO DISMISS REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.
Look it up, right here: default
