What can I say?

Some people are happy to associate with others who go to Wan Chai to cheat on their wives, thinking it's fine and they're "good guys" all around.

I think these people are despicable.

Although you may think the prisoner is a victim of the system, he's made his own bed over these many years in many different and despicable ways. He deserves to be where he is now and where he will be in the near future.

I am sympathetic to those who have been screwed by the system through no fault of their own. This is all of his own doing.

Oval, you know the expression more full of .... than a cray's head? The court order was for direct payments to her, naturally.

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.

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.

The presumptive abount is set at the time of divorce 13 years ago, not today. The monthly amount he was paying would have been more than the required 2003 amount.

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.

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.

@ 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??

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.

Swh.....
You mean the "war on women" is a myth?

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.

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?

This thread has only provided the opportunity for certain individuals to prove that they are cruel, soulless and malicious individuals. Karma WILL be a b*tch one day.

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 ?

Oh good grief. This just gets more and more pathetic as it goes along. Trainers....?? Really ? Can't believe I work alongside some of you people. :yuk:

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.

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?

The thread drift on this is incredible. Management are loving it. Eventually we'll be talking about pretty daffodils on an Alpine meadow....:ugh:

The petitioner in the earlier case was the father, he filed a motion to have the support orders registered, it was not the mother. They were close to having a settlement, this is evidenced in the Hong Kong judgement "The defendant also complains that the plaintiff failed to disclose to the Court that shortly before she took out the application for the ex parte order the parties had been in negotiation for a settlement of their dispute. According to the defendant, in the Arizona proceedings the parties’ respective lawyers were negotiating for a settlement and they were very close to reaching agreement. This has not been denied by the plaintiff."

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.