Extract of the chapter about Kirsten's tragic case fromin the book by her lawyer, Jytteetty Thorbek: "Strejftog på Juraens Slagmark" (. In English: "Incursions into the Battlefield of Law"), published by Aschehoug, Copenhagen, April, 2002. Made available by Aschehoug's kind permission. - Protected by Copyright.

Extract of Jytte Thorbek's book: "Strejftog på Juraens Slagmark". In English: "Incursions into the Battlefield of Law" published by Aschehoug, Copenhagen, April, 2002. Jytte Thorbek is Doctor of Laws and practising lawyer. Available on the Internet with permission from the Publisher - Copyright.

Holiday in Denmark turned into a Nightmare.Holiday in Denmark – a nightmarish holiday resortturned into a Nightmare.

The following story raises serious doubts bringsundermines about the credibility of the Department of Private Law and the Danish court system in an extremely incriminating situation. Danish authorities have ruined the life of a Danish woman, Kirsten, who merely went on holiday to her home native country with her eight-year-old son. In spite of clearabundant evidence of wrongful handling of the case from beginning to end, the authorities persistently refuse to acknowledge their errors and to reconsider the case. In a negative way, Iit exceeds anything that I have, so far, experienced, so far, as a lawyer. have experienced as attorneylawyer at law.

Kirsten got married to Bill in 1986. The couple lived in the State of Mississippi, USA, and had a son in 1990, but they ceased living together during the summer of 1997. A temporary restraining order had been issued by the local court to the effect, stating that neither parent was to take the child outside the State of Mississippi until the custody issue had been settled. Two weeks later, Kirsten and Bill agreed to having joint custody of the child, and they also agreed onto all remaining issues. This agreement, called a consent judgement, was signed by both parties and also by the district judge, who had issued the temporary restraining order. By this joint action, the restraining order was no longer needed and became invalid.

Thus in good faith, Kirsten and her son John went on their usual holiday trip to Denmark in June of 1998 to visit her family. However,, but only a month later, a Bailiff's Court in Jutland issued a dramatic order: Kirsten was to be arrested and John was to be returned immediately to herthe ex-husband. Bill had interfered and claimed, without any legal basis that that Kirsten had abducted the child to Denmark with the intention to go underground.

This order of the court constitutes a historical injustice against an innocent person. Kirsten was given no opportunity to contradiction, nor to prove that the accusation was false. The decision has had catastrophic consequences for Kirsten, who has subsequently has lost not only her son but also all her assets in the USA. At present, August 2002, she has not seen John for three and a half years. He lives with his father, who strongly opposes communication between mother and son[1].

First meeting with Kirsten

When I first met Kirsten for the first time in March 1999, she had been separated from her son for a month. She came from a meeting at Christiansborg (the Danish Parliament), where she had met with bboth the former Minister of Justice, Frank Jensen, and the Parliament's Council of Law to appeal for help in solving her case. But the Danish authorities did not indicate any understanding nor intention to do seem to have the intention of doing anything at all. When I spoke with Kirsten she was in shock from what had happened to her, but she still believed that the injustice against her would be corrected in the end.

At Christiansborg, members of the Council of Law had advised Kirsten to seek legal assistance from a lawyer. I also understood that my name had been mentioned. I was not short of assignments, but after having heard a little about the case I promised to assist to the best of my abilities. The case is complicated and extensive, among other things because it involves both American and Danish law as well as the interpretation and construction by these countries' of interpretation the International Convention on Child Abduction, in shorten:ed the Hague Convention.

A PproblematicA marriage with problems

In 1986 Kirsten married the American citizen Bill, who lived in the State of Mississippi. They had met in Denmark. When Kirsten moved to the USA to live with Bill in the USA, she took brought with her the revenue from the sale of her condominium in Denmark, and it was much needed. Bill had been unemployed for a year when they married and Kirsten now financed his new education, a registered nursing degree. Bill's condominium was close to foreclosure, somethinga thing that came to Kirsten’s knowledge only after she had moved in with him. But thanks to the cash money she brought into the marriage, and the fact that she quickly got a well paid job, Bill and she overcame the financial crisis.

But soon other problems arose. Bill was drinking and was unfaithful to Kirsten. This had already caused Kirsten to consider divorce at an early point in time, but when she became pregnant in 1989, she decided to stay in the marriage for the sake of the child. She took leave from work when John was born in February 1990, but in 1994 she left the workforce definitely to attend university to get a degree in social work. John was put in the university's kindergarten. Lectures were held three days a week only, so Kirsten was free to spend the rest of her time with John.

Bill did not see much of his son. He worked 12-hour night shifts three nights a week, and his excessive alcohol consumption, his visits to nightclubs and his infidelity continued to fill much in his life. On a whole, Kirsten took sole care of John. At one point in time, the couple consulted a marriage counsellor, but that did not solve Bill's alcohol problem.

Bill had a car accident, got into a fight and received a conviction for assault – all because of his abuse of alcohol, which was his approach to solving problems. When he also started drinking at home Kirsten had had enough. As she described it to me:

When Bill was not out drinking, he was drinking at home, while surfing the Internet all night. I objected to his drinking at home, as John in my opinion had now reached an age where a father sets the standards for his son. It more and more frequently happened that John and I got up in the morning to find beer cans and drink glasses strewn throughout the house.

Considering the negative influence this altogether had on John, Kirsten no longer found it advisable to stay in the marriage.

The mMatrimonial proceedings

In the spring of 1997, when Kirsten was only a year from completing her bachelor of art in social work, she finally decided to end her marriage to Bill. She wanted full custody of their seven-year-old John. In June 1997, her attorneylawyer filed her petition for divorce with the court, along with a draft to a court decision, which is normal procedure in the USA.

On the same day the judge added a hand-written note toon the draft to the court decision , that that neither party was allowed to take John out of the State of Mississippi until the custody issue had been settled. The exact wording was: "Child not to be removed from the state of XX until resolution of custody issue". At the same time he set a court date when, among other things, the custody issue was to be heard.

On July 1^st 1997 the custody issue was, however, settled by a consent agreement, which was entered into the court records as a consent judgement. The parties agreed to joint custody. John was to live with Kirsten in the family home and Bill was to have rights of accessvisitation rights every other weekend. The summer holidays were to be divided, allowing by four weeks to Bill and six weeks to Kirsten, and from the joint assets the amount of $3,000 was set aside for Kirsten's 1998 summer holiday in Denmark. All other issues regarding division of property, continuous visitation rights, child support and alimony were agreed upon as well.

The main point to be noted here is that the judge's prohibition to travel outside the State of Mississippi became invalid the very moment the custody issue was settled. After July 1, 1997, it was thus not illegal for Kirsten to take John with her out of the country. And as long as the trip did not interfere with Bill's visitation rights of access, she did not need Bill's consent either.

Kirsten's planning of the holiday trip to Denmark

Already at this point in time it was evident that Bill was very annoyed, because Kirsten had broken the relationship . And perhaps he also thought that he had been too generous in terms of economy, anyway, and that he had decided to make life difficult for her. Despite the fact that he had entered an agreement, which was finalised and ordered by the judge, he made numerous harassing telephone calls to her and filed lawsuits about problems which would never have come before a judge in Denmark. In This way, one party in a case can financially exhaust the other party because and,, as well known, it is very expensive to be a party to in a lawsuit in the USA.

One also got the impression that Bill was firmly determined on destroying Kirsten's holiday plan to travel to Denmark with John during the summer of 1998 – plans that she had already familiarised him with during the separation negotiations.

Thus Bill filed a petition with the local court on November 18^th 1997. His primary purpose was to have a restraining order placed on Kirsten so that she would not be able to travel anywhere with John without Bill's written consent. Bill would of course not have expressed submitted such a demand, if the travel restraint from June 18^th until July 1^st 1997 had still been in force. According to American practice a draft to a court order was appended to the petition, but for natural reasons it was not signed by a judge, since the case was not yet tried by the court. The draft order ended by setting the date for the trial.

A fFew days later, Kirsten's attorneylawyer filed an answer to the court, in which she refused the demands in Bill's petition. The court then set a new date, January 9^th 1998, for the hearing. However, on January 8^th 1998 - and on Bill's request - the case was deferred without a new trial date having beenbeing set. No court has since tried the petition of November 18^th 1997, which naturally means, that that the draft court order has no validity at all.

At this point in time Kirsten needed to have her right to go on holiday with John to Denmark confirmed. She, therefore, contacted her attorneylawyer to obtain complete clarity on the actual situation, and to her great joy, the attorneylawyer had no doubts what so ever. Kirsten could safely travel to Denmark with John, as long as her trip did not interfere with Bill's visitation rights. Kirsten's attorneylawyer had even written to Bill's attorneylawyer already on December 9^th 1997 saying:

"Furthermore, as joint custodian, Mr. XX is entitled to a hearing should Mrs. YY wish to leave the United States on a permanent basis. As a matter of law, however, no court will prevent her from visiting her parents in Europe and taking her son with her.

"

Now the problem was, that that Bill consistently refused to inform her about which holiday weeks he wanted with John. This made it difficult for Kirsten to plan her own holiday. At last she, therefore, chose to place it during the first four weeks of the school holidays since this was when travel was cheapest. Bill had, as mentioned earlier, right to four weeks summer holiday with John and since school children in the USA have ten weeks’ summer holidays, plenty of time was left for Bill to have his holiday with John after the trip to Denmark was over.

Kirsten informed Bill about her plans on several occasions and he never objectedprotested. Therefore, she did not feel that her own trip was in any conflict with the agreement she had made with Bill;, nor did and the trip did not interfere with his visitation rights visitation right possibilities with of access to John during the summer vacation either. Since the attorneylawyer had assured her, that that no court order restraining her from travelling was in existence, she bought two return tickets to Denmark.

Bill was far from letting Kirsten travel, and he continued threatening her. As late as May 25^th 1998, a week before Kirsten's trip was to begin, he phoned her and said, that that once he got the court to agree not to let her travel outside the State of Mississippi with John without his written consent, he would never let her bring John to Denmark more than eight days at athe time.

The interesting thing about this declamation is, that that it discloses that Bill very well knew, that that no restraining order against Kirsten travelling outside the country with John was in existence.

In spite of Bill's scare campaign, Kirsten continued to prepare her travel to Denmark. She took leave from her job with the Heart Association for the intended period, and now she just looked forward to seeing her family again and to relax with John. The departure from USA took place on June 2^nd 1998, and mother and son arrived in Denmark during the afternoon of June 3^rd 1998. In her luggage Kirsten brought only the necessities for a holiday trip.

Bill's secret counter activities

When Kirsten planned her holiday, she had obviously no idea, that that the trip would have catastrophic consequences for her's and John's lives. Later it turned out, that that Bill at a very early stage planned to take advantage of Kirsten's travel plans to prize John from her. Two years of detailed investigation into Bill's activities, before and after, Kirsten's departure to Denmark, gives a very scary picture of how carefully he had planned the events.

As early as the day before Kirsten and John flew to Denmark on June 2^nd 1998, Bill's attorneylawyer had telephone conversations with the clerk of court and employees at the courthouse in Mississippi and also with the sheriff's office (the police authority). From June 3^rd 1998, the attorneylawyer had telephone conversations with, among others, the courthouse in Mississippi, Kirsten's employer, Scandinavian Airlines, and the Department of Foreign Affairs in Washington.

Of particular interest in this context is the attorneylawyer's two telephone conversations with the husband ofto a Danish woman, who had left the USA with her two children, without having her papers in order. In Denmark she was ordered to return her children to the USA. More than likely, this irrelevant case has been decisive for the Danish authorities' apprehension of and handling of Kirsten's tragic case.

Believe it or not, on June 16^th and 17^th 1998, Bill's attorneylawyer even had telephone conversations with Kirsten's pension fund carrier. The purpose apparently was to lay hands on her pension funds, which indeed, at a later date was a complete success.

During the period after June 22^nd 1998, Bill and his attorneylawyer's correspondence with the Danish authorities intensified. Thus, the preparations proved to be very thorough and effective.

Kirsten becomes aware of upcoming problems

All the wWhile Bill's plans were being prepared in the USA, Kirsten and John were sitting, without suspecting anything, on the aeroplane to Denmark, uwithout nsuspectingly and were anything, and were looking forward to a relaxing holiday. But already the day after the arrival in Denmark, Kirsten got a feeling that something troubling was under way. In the middle of the night her twin sister received a phone call from Bill, who threatened with criminal charges being brought against Kirsten, because she had left Mississippi with John. The next day Kirsten phoned Bill, who told her that she was in great trouble because she had kidnapped John.

Kirsten protested and made it clear to Bill, that that she was simply on a fully legal holiday in agreement with their consent judgement. At the same time she warned Bill against carrying out his threat of prosecuting her in the USA for kidnapping. If he did so, he would force her to remain in Denmark, because she did not dare to expose herself to criminal charges in the USA. Finally, she asked Bill to leave her in peace while she was on holiday in Denmark.

She got no peace at all. During the following days and nights numerous phone calls came from Bill to Kirsten's family. This frightened Kirsten. The many threats gave her a feeling, that that her ex-husband really was preparing a serious case against her.

Her feeling soon proved correct. Bill and his attorneylawyer were in the process of taking steps to initiate a Hague Convention proceeding, which was to should lead to fatal consequences to Kirsten and her son John.

Bill initiates a Hague abduction case against Kirsten

On June 8^th 1998, six days after Kirsten and John had arrived in Denmark, Bill's attorneylawyer wrote to the American Central Authority in Washington and requested initiation of a child abduction case under the Hague Convention. He enclosed an official application and the following three documents with his letter:

· Kirsten's petition for divorce of June 18^th 1997. On the last page of this document, the judge had added a hand-written the note saying: "Child not to be removed from the state of XX until resolution of custody issue".

· Consent Judgement of July 1^st 1997, in which the custody issue is definitely resolved.

· Bill's draft to court order of November 18^th 1997, in which he asks for a temporary restraining order preventing Kirsten from taking John outside of Mississippi without his written consent.

As mentioned earlier, the petition and the draft to an order were never tried in a Court of Law and the order was not signed by a judge. On the line where the judge's signature should have been, was written, the were, in handwriting, written ”s/NN”, that is, the judge's name, but not his signature.

S/NN means ”signed for”. In such a case, the signer's own name should be present for the document to be considered signed, but no other name is found on the document. Thus, Tthe validity of the ”order” as a court document could obviously consequently hardlynot be questionedconsidered to be valid as a court document. Still, this judicially untrustworthy document was to played a fatal role in the developmentforward course of the case.

In June 2001, I posed the question about the validity of the order to the American Central Authority which, a few days later, answered:

”You would certainly have grounds to question the validity of the order and ask for an explanation of the signature. However, the court in Denmark clearly chose to accept the order as valid and enforceable. Now the only court in which you can contest the validity of the order is the court in the United States.”

Thus the Danish authorities have committed an unforgivable error by uncritically accepting this mysterious document and founding the following Hague proceedings on a document of this character.

Two additional, peculiar documents came to play a decisive role in the case, even though these also must also be considered to be of no without validity in a legal sense. Bill's attorneylawyer had, to the Danish authorities, forwarded two "”notarised"”” statements affidavits, to the Danish authorities, according to which, Kirsten had not asked for leave from her employer, the American Heart Association.

The first affidavitstatement was signed by the managing director of the American Heart Association, whom Kirsten had nothing whatsoever to do with in her daily work. The other was signed by a postal clerk at the same location. None of them two could possibly have known anything about what they were signing. The affidavitsstatements were undatedwithout dates and they were not given under liability toof punishment. The notary was surprisingly enough Bill's attorneylawyer. Kirsten knew that Bill's girlfriend at the time, for years had worked for the Heart Association as a CPR instructor for years. Was there any connection here ?

The Department of Private Law and the Bailiff's Court should immediately have realised, that that undated "affidavits", given without liability toof punishment, are useless in a Court of Law. As a minimum, the Department of Private Law ought to have sought an explanation from the central authority in the USA.

A last peculiar document came to be a determining factor in the Bailiff's Court's decision. It was an order prepared by Bill's attorneylawyer and signed by the above mentioned district judge on June 16^th 1998. Its content was in crucial contradiction with crucial and actual facts.

Bill’s attorneylawyer immediately forwarded this “new” decision to the Danish authorities. On June 23^rd 1998, the Bailiff’s Court received the decision, attached to which was the hand-written note of June 18^th, 1997, i.e. the restraint on taking John out of Mississippi. The decision came to play a central role in the Bailiff’s Court case against Kirsten, so I will go through it thoroughly:

· The first point states, that John has domicile in Mississippi. That is correct.

· The second point states, that that Bill and Kirsten are joint custodial parents. That is correct.

· The third point states that, since June 18^th 1997 a restraining order existed against taking John out of the State of Mississippi. That is not correct. The restraint became invalid on July 1^st 1997, when the parties entered a consent agreement settling the custody issue.

· The fourth point states, that that Bill has not given Kirsten his consent to takebring John out of the State of Mississippi. That is correct, but irrelevant[2]. Bill attempted with the draft to an order of November 18, 1997, to establish that Kirsten had to obtain his consent to takebring John out of Mississippi. But, as I mentioned earlier, the ”order” was , as mentioned earlier, never signed by any judge, as mentioned earlier.

· Finally Kirsten is ordered to immediately bring John back to Mississippi. The judge had no basis for issuing such an order.

The order of June 16^th 1998 contains such gross errors that I cannot comprehend, nor understand, how a judge could sign it. The American Central Authority and the Department of Private Law, however, did not notice observe the above- mentioned errors. They merely forwarded the order to the Bailiff's Court.

So from the beginning the whole case against Kirsten was based on false information and untrustworthy legal documents. The Department of Private Law in Copenhagen and the Bailiff's Court, which got the case in the end, ought to have discovered that the documents received from Bill and his attorneylawyer were judicially problematic. None the less, they allowed these documents to be decisive for their actions and decisions.

The fact that they founded their case on useless documents and erroneous conclusions is apparent already in the initial correspondence between the two authorities. In the cover letter from the Department of Private Law to the Bailiff's Court there are no less than three pieces of incorrect information:

· The Department of Private Law informs the Bailiff's Court that this concerned a divorce case in the USA. This wording leads up to the impression that the issues of the case were not settled. But that is not correct. The parties had entered a consent agreement, and all relevant questions in this connection with that werehad been settled and entered into the court records in Mississippi.

· The unsigned and thus invalid document, which restrains Kirsten from taking John out of the State of Mississippi is presented as a valid document. The Department of Private Law writes as follows: ”Furthermore, there is a court order of November 18^th 1997 by which John is not to be removed from the State of Mississippi without written consent from both parents”. This quote clearly shows, that that the Department of Private Law has not noticed anything suspicious in the above mentioned document.

· The Department of Private Law writes, that that Kirsten should have refused to inform Bill of her address and phone number in Denmark. This does not correlate with the fact, that that she and her family were harassed by phone calls from day one of her holiday.

The court tries to take John into custodyClaim for extradion of The Bailiff's court tries to take John into custody

On the 22^nd of June 1998, Bill's attorneylawyer sent a fax message to the American Central Authority, in which he said that Kirsten's sister , on Saturday the 20^th of June 1998 had told Bill , on Saturday the 20^th of June 1998 , that that she planned to invite Kirsten and John to join her on a trip to France in the coming week. The attorneylawyer strongly encouraged the Bailiff's Court in Denmark to take John into custody at once to prevent the trip.

That this fax, which the Bailiff's Court received on the 23^rd of June 1998, was the triggering factor in the court's decision to try to apprehend Kirsten and John on the 24^th of June 1998 without prior notice, appears from can be found in the following report from the deputy judge[3] to the Department of Private Law, dated 25^th of June 1998:

The Department of Private Law received a phone call from the deputy judge, who informed us, that that she, in view of the fax from the American Central Authority of 23^rd of June 1998, that that John might be brought to France, she had decided to visit Kirsten's family with the purpose of locating John [...]

Furthermore, the deputy judge mentioned, that that Kirsten's sister had contacted the Bailiff's Court on the 24^th of June 1998, and said that Kirsten was merely on holiday. The sister added that it was she, who had invited Kirsten and her son on holiday to France.

Finally, the deputy judge stated that she was of the opinion that Kirsten only was on holiday in Denmark. Therefore, the Court would wait and see what happened during the coming week, before she would take further actions in the case.

It is not correct, ifwhen the Department of Private Law claims that Kirsten's sister had said, on the 24^th of June 1998, had said that she had invited Kirsten and herthe son to France.

The deputy judge has made a court transcript on the 25^th of June 1998 regarding her telephone conversation with Kirsten's sister, and there is no mention of any invitation to France. Kirsten's sister has confirmed to me, that that she never said anything like that. There were never any plans, that that Kirsten was going on holiday in France. I can further add, that that in my opinion, she would have had been free to do so, if she had she wanted to go to France.

Never the less, the Bailiff's Court's deputy judge instituted went on enforcement proceedings without prior notice to try to locate Kirsten and John on the 24^th of June 1988 along with a Danish attorneylawyer appointed to Kirsten without her knowledge, a Danish attorneylawyer appointed to Bill, a trainee, a representative from the social services and some police officers. By chance, Kirsten and John were not together with the family on that day; otherwise the child would undoubtedly have been removed from her by force. The deputy judge and her companions had to be content with talking with members of the family.

In cases of this naturelike this, the normal procedure is to set a date for a meeting in the Bailiff's Court, where the person, against whom the action is directed, is givenawarded the possibility ofto presenting his or her point of view assisted by the appointed attorneylawyer. This specific action, however, was so top secret, that that the court had told Kirsten's appointed attorneylawyer not to talk with her client about the excursion in advance.

The deputy judge did not follow the normal procedure regarding her approach to Kirsten's family on June 24^th 1998. Kirsten's appointed attorneylawyer had to point out to her that the family was under no obligation to answer questions. The judge had apparently forgotten this. She then applied an escape clause in the Administration of Justice Law, and in that way she extracted a statement from Kirsten's mother. Truly shocked, she said that her daughter was on holiday in Denmark and had a return ticket to the USA. The other family members supported this statement and none of them gave contradictory information.

The trial against Kirsten

When Kirsten told me about these events at our first meeting in March 1999, a few days after John had been taken away from her by force, she was still deeply shocked that things of that kind could happen in a country like Denmark. As many times before, she just went unsuspectingly on an her innocent usual holiday with her son to her home native country, but but suddenly she found herself in the centre middle of as the main character in a dramatic trial, which should never have taken place. At this point in time, Kirsten still believed, that that she had been the victim of an unfortunate mistake, that that would soon be solvedcleared up.

Kirsten went on to inform me about the further events after the above- mentioned enforcement proceedings without prior notice. She had been notified given notice, that that a meeting in the Bailiff's Court was scheduled to take place on the 7^th of July 1998. She immediately contacted an attorneylawyer to obtain counsellingcil. The first thing this attorneylawyer did was to ask for disclosure of all documents and a request for safe conduct, so that Kirsten could safely appear in court without without any risk of being arrested.

On the following day, the Bailiff's Court first granted safe conduct, but after some hours the deputy judge changed her mind and refused to grant safe conduct for Kirsten. As for the right of access to documents, Kirsten's attorneylawyer at that time received these as late as 29^th of June 1998 - and only some of the relevant documents. This was very late, considering that the trial was set for the 7^th of July at the Bailiff's Court. In this way, Kirsten's attorneylawyer only had a few days to get informed by Kirsten and prepare the pleading for the case.

The attorneylawyer only had enough time to file her pleading, that that is her interpretation of the case, to the Bailiff's Court on the 3^rd of July 1998. This was a Friday, so because of the weekend, the Bailiff's Court did not receive the pleading until the 6^th of July 1998 - the day before the trial. How much What time did that leave for the deputy judge to consider all aspects of the case before the meeting on the next day ? Far too short a time for a trial of this importance.

The forced consideration of the case also set its marks on the trial as such itself. The trial lasted from 12:30 until 14:40. Bill and his appointed attorneylawyer were present, but Kirsten's attorneylawyer had to do without Kirsten. She herself did not dare to appearing, since the court had refused to grant her safe conduct. She had, however, told her attorneylawyer that she could at any time during the proceedings be reached at any time during the proceedings by mobile phone to and appear in the court.

Many fataleful errors were committed by the Bailiff's Court during the trial. Kirsten's attorneylawyer pointed out, that that the ”order" of November 18^th 1997 was a falsehood, whyerefore she asked the Bailiff's Court to obtain a valid document but she was rejected. Everything she brought forward in defence of Kirsten was rejected as undocumented, because her client was not present.

In his closing argument Bill's appointed attorneylawyer also pleaded that Kirsten's lack of attendance should be held against her. By this pleading he, among other things, was pointing to the circumstance that Kirsten's detailed written account of events, which had been filed as an exhibitnclosure to her attorneylawyer's pleading, had not been given under the liability of punishment. This was not the case with also applied to the ”affidavits” from Kirsten's place of employment either, but that was not mentioned at all.

Kirsten's attorneylawyer informed the court that Kirsten would be happy to attend and give testimony about the course of events, if the court would guarantee that she would not be arrested. But the deputy judge once more denied safe conduct. This decision is explained in the judgement explained in the following surprising way: "The plaintiff does not wish to give guarantee that he won't demand arrest". This shows how the deputy judge is trying to escape her responsibility because it is, of course, not the plaintiff but the deputy judge who decides the question of safe conduct.

The daily journal from the police shows that the police wereas indeed present in the court building during the court meeting, ready to arrest Kirsten at the very moment she made herself present. Kirsten and her attorneylawyer knew nothing about this. F but, fortunately, they had anticipated that it might be dangerous for Kirsten to attend.

Another circumstance to be criticised was the lack of an authorised interpreter during the court proceedings. American legal documents are written in a very difficult language demanding expert knowledge for a correct interpretation. The deputy judge acted herself as interpreter, but from a letter to be quoted later, it is evident that her knowledge of English was incomplete. Furthermore, this was the first time she was dealing with the Hague Convention.

The Bailiff's court's order

After the court meeting itselfas such, which only lasted for a little more thanover two hours, the court meeting was adjournedsuspended for 35 minutes. During these 35 minutes, the deputy judge managed to go through Bill's testimony and the closing arguments of the attorneylawyers and to write the judgement. I suppose tThis could only be accomplished, if the order had been more or less written in advance, more or less.

In full length, including testimony and closing arguments, the Bailiff's Court's order is seven pages long. It is based on the following four documents from the USA:

· Kirsten's petition for divorce of June 18^th 1997 with the judge's hand-written note, that that the child is maynot to not be removed from Mississippi until the custody issue is resolved.

· Consent Judgement of July^1st 1997, in which the custody issue is definitely resolved.

· The mysterious ”Order” of November 18^th 1997 which, in reality, is merely Bill's draft to order. It had never been heard in a court of law, which can be seen by the missing valid signature.

· The Judicial Order of June 16^th 1998, which is based on decidedly erroneous information.. Without any explanation, Tthe judge's above mentioned hand-written note of June 18^th 1997 referred to above, stating the travel restrictions wereas also attached to this order. Why ?

Based on this peculiarstrange collection of documents, the court rendered the following order: ”Kirsten is to be arrested with the purpose of surrendering the child John”.

Thus, Bill's false testimony in the court, along with some obviously doubtful documents from the USA, wasere made the foundation for the judgement. It is very difficult to understand how the Bailiff's Court could render its decision on the basis of ed on Bill's numerous undocumented claims. Bill formally testified under liability toof punishment, but in reality, the Bailiff's Court had no way of prosecuting a person in from the USA.

This gave Bill a free hands to play. In the court records ,records, he is quoted for the following grotesque point of view:

He wants a mental health examination of defendant [Kirsten], since he finds, that that her bringing John to Denmark is irrational and, therefore, he has become doubtful, whether she can function as a normalnormally as a parent.

Furthermore, in the judgement, the deputy judge directed yet another unjustified attack towardson Kirsten: ”Defendant should have clarified the circumstances before departure from the USA.” The fact that Kirsten had been extremely thorough in her clarification of her situation, was flatly rejectedswept off the table by the court out of hand by the court..

During the trial, Kirsten's former attorneylawyer invoked the statuary provision reading:

Return of the child can be denied, if there is a serious risk, that that the return is of harm to the child's mental or physical health or in other respects puts it in circumstances, which it should not tolerate.

She requested the trial to be postponed until an examination of John could take place, because he was very close to his mother. But without ever having seen or spoken to the eight and a half year old boy or initiated an independent examination of John, which was her duty, the deputy judge merely wrote in the order, that that it had not been established that the return would be of harm to John's mental or physical health.

Kirsten appeals to the High Court and the Supreme Court

After the almost Kafkaesque trial, Kirsten and her attorneylawyer tried to do several things to rectify the unfortunate case. The attorneylawyer immediately appealed the case to the High Court, Western Division, and requested an oral statement handling of the case.

In oral statement handling, the parties and their attorneylawyers appear in court. Here the attorneylawyers go through and present the documentation in the case, question the parties and end with closing arguments. At the same time the judges, at all times, have the opportunity, at all times, to ask questions. This procedure would have offered Kirsten the opportunity to explain in person and give testimony under liability to punishmentof prosecution.

By handling cases on written grounds only, the judges alone will go through the documents of in a case. Such handling of a cases will never be as satisfactory as oral pleadings and it was is in particularly irresponsible in this instance, where the written material was insufficient to shed enough light on the case.

But the High Court denied the request for oral statement handling of the case and rendered its decision as early as July 15^th 1998. The decision was, that that the return of the child, based on the Bailiff' Court's argument, was to be upheld, but the arrest order was abolished.

Again, one has the impression, that that the decision was made in advance. The High Court has only had a very short time to examine the difficult American documents, and the Bailiff's Court moreCourt more than likely did not forward all the case documents to the High Court. Here I am especially referring to the Bailiff's Court's secret correspondence with Bill and his American attorneylawyer, which I shall will discuss later.

Furthermore, through thein access to the documents, I have received copies of the Bailiff's Court's cover letters to the High Court. The judgement was rendered at 15:15 on July 7^th 1998. As early as the same day, it was sent to the High Court via fax marked URGENT. The next day the Bailiff's Court mailed the case together with the exhibitisexhibitsenclosures to the High Court. There is nothing especially abnormal in that, but it is abnormal that the Bailiff's Court added the following paragraph to the cover letter:

Furthermore, the Bailiff's Court shall loyally forward attorneycounsel XX's objection to, that the case being is drawn out drawn out, becbecause of the opponent's wish to present further pleadings. AttorneyCounsel XX referred to, that the fact that the trial date at the Bailiff's Court had beenwas set more than a week in advance of trial, sotherefore, attorneylcounselcounsel YY had had plenty of time to prepare her case. [XX representedwas attorney for Bill and YY representedfor Kirsten].

It was amazing, that that the Bailiff's Court acted as ”loyal” mouth piece for Bill's attorneylawyer by pressuring the High Court to render a quick decision. The Department of Private Law was in close contact with the High Court as well.

Kirsten’s lawyer at that time also attempted to obtain leave to bring the case before the High Court. But in spite of the fact that all established principles of law had evidently been disregarded, the Board of Appeal - which decides whether or not a case may be appealed to the High Court - did in this case not acknowledge any violations of the principles of law and denied Kirsten access to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

An avalanche of lawsuits in the USA

In good faith, Kirsten had gone on holiday to Denmark with her son, and a little more than a month later she had been in danger of being arrested, and furthermore, been ordered to return her child to the USA without knowing for certain, if she would ever see him again.

After the High Court's decision on July 15^th 1998, Kirsten had two options. She could surrender her son or go into hiding. She chose the latter in hopes of getting the case re-opened. This was not exactly an optimal solution, but Kirsten did not know what else to do.

The Danish decisions caused an avalanche of lawsuits in the USA. In the middle of her Danish nightmare Kirsten was, thus, exposed to yet further unjustifiable court proceedings. As early as June of 1998, Bill had filed lawsuit in the USA to haveget the sole custody of John awarded to him. At the end of August 1998, Kirsten was told by her American attorneylawyer, that that a trial regarding custody, among other things, was set for September 10^th 1998.

The attorneylawyer also informed her, that that on report from Bill, the FBI had charged her with kidnapping, which in practice meant that she was cut off from returning to the USA. Therefore, the attorneylawyer had to appear alone in the court in Mississippi, but was not given opportunity to speak. The judge told the attorneylawyer that since Kirsten was not in attendance, he had no interest in hearing what the attorneylawyer had to put forward. This was the same judge, who had signed the Order of June 16^th 1998.

The result of the American trial was, that that Bill was awarded sole custody of John. The court confiscated all Kirsten's assets, and she was given a 6 months’ prison sentence, because the court claimed, that that there were some court requests that she had failed to answer. (Kirsten denies that).

After this, Kirsten was without financial means, both in Denmark and in the USA, and was unable to appeal. In the USA, an appeal must go through an attorneylawyer, and the attorneylawyer demanded a retainer of $ 6,000 to handle the appeal. ByIn the same judgement, it was also decided that Kirsten could only be granted visitation rights of access, if she deposited $ 50,000 and that she submitted to a mental health examination. On top of all this, she would be immediately arrested, if she set her feet on American soil.

On February 20^th 1998, the next catastrophe happened in Kirsten's life. Two unknown males, whom Bill had hired for the purpose, grabbed the nine- year- old John ion the street in Denmark, when he, along with his cousin, was on the way to the grocery store together with his cousin. He was takenbrought to the USA via Prague, where his father was waiting. Since Kirsten no longer hads custody rights, and now also had a prison sentence in the USA, her possibilities of seeing John after this are close to zero.

Six months later, the American Court handed down yet another judgement in the case between Bill and Kirsten. The six months prison sentence was now founded on the claim that Kirsten had acted against the law by bringing the son with her to Denmark. In the same judgement Bill was awarded the family home in the USA and other assets to cover his costs for private detectives and attorneylawyers in the USA.

The American Court's generosity towards Bill, at Kirsten's cost, continued. In May of 2000, a new judgement awarded Bill compensation for mental stress and loss of income at approximately $ 90,000. Thereby Kirsten's retirement funds were gone.

Kirsten has now lost everything except life itself, and the son John has lost his mother, to whom he was very close. Bill has done everything he could to prevent any and all contact between Kirsten and John. The same goes for visitation, letters, telephone and e-mails. Since February of 1999, where when John was forced to the USA, Kirsten has only had sporadic contact with her son. In most cases when he has been visiting Bill's mother.

The fight for justice continues

It was after John had been abducted to the USA, that that Kirsten showed up in my office to ask for help. I was shocked about the course of the case. Kirsten ended her tale with the words: ”It is like watching a movie. This cannot be true. This cannot happen in Denmark.”

After having familiarised myself with the case, I could only agree with her.

After I took on the case, Kirsten and I first and foremost attempted to have the case re-opened at the Bailiff's Court, because Kirsten had, during the 6 months that had passed obtained new case documentsacts during the 6 months that had passed. I filed a motion for to a have the case reopening of the case-opened at the end of April 1999. At that point in time we were still confident, that that the Danish court system would admit to its own errors and grant a new trial. But my motion was denied a month later.

An appeal to the High Court, Western Division, gave no result either. The High Court dismissed the case with the laconic remark, that that there wasere no actual new information. A request for oral statement handling of the case was also dismissed. Kirsten and I, were now aware, that that it would be very difficult to get the authorities to admit to their mistakes.

Further work with the case has, furthermore, been complicated by both the Department of Private Law and the Bailiff's Court have shown and still shows extreme reluctance to surrender copies of case documents.

As early as June of 1998, Kirsten's attorneylawyer at the time, requested access to documents in the case. The request for access to documents,documents naturally included the subsequent period when the case was being handled by the Bailiff's CourtBailiff’s Court was handling the case as well. Thisat is , after all, a matter of course normal practise within the judicial system, after all. But the Bailiff's Court did not play by the rules, however, and it only surrendered copies of parts of the material.

Kirsten could see substantiate thisat for herselfwith her own eyes, when she in March of 1999, by appointment, she went to the deputy judge's office to obtain copies of a series of documents. At that time, the deputy judge was in possession of a very large case- file, and it took her more than one hour to copy the missing documents. Kirsten was, in the meantime, sent out on the street.

The administrative authorities in Denmark are under obligation to write minutes of telephone conversations. Thisat also includes the Department of Private Law. Kirsten and I have requested a copy of the minutes of their telephone conversations, but we have only received extracts from the original minutes of their telephone conversations. We are denied copies of the originals. What are they hiding ?

Kirsten and I have also requested access to documents from the court in Mississippi. Our request brought a very interesting document into the dayllight, namely a . That is a list of work performance from Bill's attorneylawyer adressedaddressed to the court in Mississippi. Herein, the attorneylawyer has, from June 1^st till July 3^rd 1998, day by day, noted all of his activities day by day, from June 1^st till July 3^rd 1998:, meetings, telephone conversations, correspondence, preparation of documents etc. This also includes communication with the Department of Private Law and the Bailiff's Court.

With this document in hand, we have been able to request copies of case filesacts from the Danish authorities, which we now know exist. The authorities didthen surrendered a little more case material. But we have still not reached the end of the road. We know that the Bailiff's Court has received two particular letters from Bill's attorneylawyer, but the court refused, with varyingious excuses, to surrender the copies.

Kirsten, finally, went to the Bailiff's Court herself, to seek a conclusion to a very prolonged drawn out correspondence regarding these copies. Big was her surprise, when she was shown the case file. Now it only contained the officially presented documents, and it was in Kirsten's words ”stripped” for additional content. The previous cardboard case cover was replaced by a random plastic cover with a real estate agent's logo on it.

I asked for an explanation from the Bailiff's Court, and received the answer that they hadmight have shredded case acts in accordance with ”Guidelines to preservation regulations for archive material at the city courts”.

After fruitless discussions with the Bailiff's Court, I wrote a detailed account to the President of the Court of the sequence of eventsour ordeal to the President of the Court, and I drew her attention to the fact, that that the Bailiff's Court had acted very incorrectly by shredding documents, which Kirsten explicitly had asked for copies of. I asked the President of the Court to investigate, if, nevertheless, there could be any in the system should exist copies of the missingsought after letters and possible replies to the letters in the system.after all. As an alternative I asked her to procure copies of the missingsought after letters from the American attorneylawyer.

The President's reply was short and clear. She rendered a judgement and decided that the Bailiff's Court had acted in accordance with the Administration provisions of the Administration of Justice Law's stipulation. She hereby ignored the crux of the mattercentre of the problem, which was, that namely that the Bailiff's Court had failedneglected to surrender copies to Kirsten of the secret correspondence with the USA.

I immediately appealed this judgement to the High Court and submitted the claim, that that the Bailiff's Bailiff's Ccourt had acted in conflict with the fair trial principle ofin European Convention onf Human Rights. This principle is the so-called ”"equal arms"” principle, which means that both parties shall have equal access to allthe documentation and information.

The High Court, would, however, would, not hear of any violations of the European Convention of Human Rights and ruled in favour of the Bailiff's Court. Hereby it sanctioned secret administration of justice. Nor this time, did the Process Grant Board find the decision of general public importance and denied Kirsten access to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

Nor this time, did the Process Grant Board acknowledge any violations of the administration of justice and denied Kirsten access to bring the case to the Supreme Court.

The blind eye of the Minister of Justice tried to "comfort" Kirstenwashed his hands

Since the Department of Private Law has had such a great impact on the case, Kirsten believed that the Minister of Justice, after having been introduced to the case, would be interested in bringing it back on track. She had had a formal meeting with the then Minister of Justice, Frank Jensen, on the 17^th of March 1999. Shortly after John had been forced back to the USA.

But Frank Jensen did nothing to correct the appalling handling of the case. He washed his hands and explained that it was a court decision. The strategy of the Minister of Justice has been obvious from the very beginning. Kirsten's complaints about the many gross errors were to be be suffocatedstrangulated in good will.

During a subsequentthe meeting at the Department of Justice, the civil servants kept talking about ”this tragic case””, hereby implying. With this they implied, that that they did not believe, either, that Kirsten had acted against the law either. Still they did nothing to rectify the disaster. With permission, the meeting was tape recorded on tape, and the following excerpt speaks for itself:

Jytte Thorbek: Is anyone present here today, who is willing to accept co-responsibility in the Department of Private Law for pressuring an deputy judge to proceed with a case, even though, she herself states that it is not correctcorrect.

Kirsten: It must be for Dorrit Sylvest to, who should answer. It is her department.

Dorrit Sylvest: If you mean by that mean, that that we should asresume responsibility for your lost education and otherwise indemnify your hold you free of losses in other respects, then we bearhave no responsibility.

Kirsten: WSo what you are saying then, is that your department can simply destroy my life and that you do not have to assume responsibility are not responsible for thisat. Is this what you are saying?

Dorrit Sylvest: What I am telling you is, that that Hague Convention cases are, as mentioned, very difficult cases, and that some people will have their lives ruined in one way or another.

The Minister and the civil servants would only discuss Kirsten's possibilities for rights of access to visitation with John and and not the basic facts of the case as a whole.

But also their handling of the case concerning visitation rights of access case was to be evoked criticicizsedable.sm.

Unfortunately, the USA has shown no intention of living up to the Hague Convention's provisions for visitation rights of access, and the Department of Private Law has no intention of doing anything to persuade the USA to respect the provisions. The American authorities have closed the visitation rightsaccess rights case with the reference, that that in their opinion, visitation rights of access are not included in the provisions of the Hague Convention, but areis solely a matter to be decided by an American Court of Law. The Hague Convention's Article 21 is about visitation rrights of access.

During the above- mentioned meeting, Frank Jensen promised to set up a meeting with the American Aambassador regarding Kirsten's possibilities for seeing visitation with her son. Later it turned out, that that the meeting was not between the minister and the Aambassador, but solely between a number of civil servants, who in reality did absolutely nothing. I wrote to the Aambassador about the case and got the reply, that that USA only assists American citizens.

Kirsten also tried to get the attention of the authorities in untraditional ways. She made an informative cardboard, containing the most revealing documents between the Department of Private Law and the Bailiff's Court and their letters. Positioned herself on the town square in the city where she lived. She told the passers by, what had happened, and within a month, 4,000 people had expressed their protest in writing against the Department of Justice's handling of the case. Kirsten delivered the signatures to Frank Jensen at a later meeting, but he barely glanced at them.

Kirsten also began singing the childrens’ songslullabies, that that she had once sung with her son to Frank Jensen. Every night she sang in front of the Minister of Justice's home to drawpoint his attention to the gross errors that had been committed in his Department. He responded to the songs by calling the police to have Kirsten removed from his driveway. After that she moved to the sidewalk in front of the house.

Conspiracy and Mmiscarriage of justiceDanish authorities involved in conspiracy against Kirsten

Kirsten's case must be one of the most tragic casesones in recent Danish judicial history. And nevertheless, so far, nothing has been done so far to correct the many obvious errors, which have been committed against her in this awful dreadful case. There may be several reasons for that. I believe that the authorities are fully aware that their handling and consideration of the case was unacceptable, but, for many reasons, they are for many reasons very reluctant to admit to that. The show on stage was bad enough, but they are well aware that the secret play back stage, was even worse.

According to my understanding and based on detailed analysis,It does seem as if the Danish authorities, and the Department of Private Law especially, had decided that Kirsten was guilty of child abduction no doubt from the beginning and even before the the trial against her began. decided that Kirsten was guilty of child abduction. The mail they received from the USA paved the way, and with closed eyes they followed the path directed by Bill and his attorney. Danish authorities have been unbelievably active in the case, and they have been in close but secret contact with Bill and his attorneylawyer all along the way. Their handling of the case has come extremely close to miscarriage of justice.

As early as in the first cover letter to the Bailiff's Court ofn June 17^th 1998, evidence of its extremely strong engagement in the case is apparent:

The Department of Private Law must request to be kept informed in the case, including whether the child can be located. Due to special circumstances we, furthermore, request that the Bailiff's court contact the Department of Private Law via telephone immediately after receipt of this case, and before any further action is initiated. [my italics, JT]

In spite of several requests, the Department of Private Law has not informed me, what these special circumstances were. . They only refer to concerns expressed by Bill's attorney.

After the Bailiff's Court's uninvited "home visits” on June 24^th 1998, the Danish authorities' interference became more and more against regulations. On June 25^th 1998 Bill's attorneylawyer sent a fax directly to the Bailiff's Court. In the fax, which began ”Dear Civil Court”, he gave notice of where he could be reached the following weekend.

On June 26^th 1998, the Department of Private Law contacted the Bailiff's Court's deputy judge, since the Central Authority in the USA requested information about Kirsten's attorneylawyer's name. I quote from the department's telephone minutes between the two authorities:

The deputy judge informs us, that that Kirsten's attorneylawyer had contacted the Bailiff's Court and had requested that the court agrees not to arrest Kirsten. The Bailiff's court had refused this. Furthermore, the deputy judge informed us, that that the court would contact Kirsten's attorneylawyer and inform her that - if Kirsten did not appear at the Bailiff's Court - an order of extradition of John would be decreed on the existing grounds Thereafter, the police should locate Kirsten and arrest her.

Thus the deputy judge had made her decision already on June 26^th 1998. In closing, the minutes from June 26^th 1998 states: ”The Bailiff's Court, for the sake of ”good order”, would like a phone number, where Bill can possibly be contacted over the weekend.” Now the deputy judge, completely against all regulations, was out to communicate directly with Bill.

Gradually the case looked like an organised conspiracy,, in which the conspirators were in close contact with each other sharing one and had a common interest: that of in hunting Kirsten. From another letter of June 26^th 1998 emerges, that that an employee at the Department of Private Law, gladly will be at disposal any time. The case workercaseworker gave both her private number at the department and in her own home, so that she could be reached any time. This is highly unusual.

On June 29^th 1998 the Bailiff's Court received another fax from Bill's attorneylawyer, who pointed out that the case was urgent, since almost a month had passed since the kidnapping.

The deputy judge reacted immediately. Via fax she sent a letter in a somewhat clumsy English. I quote the letter in the deputy judge's own wording:

Concerning the abduction of John (...).

As a response to your fax, received on Monday 29. of June, the Civil Court can inform you, there will be a meeting on Monday the 7. of Juli 1998. I may not be able to contact you at the given time. I will instead discuss the case with Mr. Bill [...]'s attorney attorney in Denmark appointed by me, Mr. XX.

At this point, I will only say,, that that I believe you should advise Mr. Bill [...] to come to the meeting here on Monday the 7. of Juli 1998 time 12.30. I cannot know for sure, if Mrs. Kirsten [...] will come but if she does , it may come to the point where John is to be taken away from her by use of force. The only one to do that is Mr. Bill [...].

With kind regards [...]

In short, the content was as follows: A court meeting will be held on July 7^th 1998. The case will be discussed with Bill's Danish attorneylawyer. Bill is encouraged to attend, because Kirsten might attend with their son John, who could possibly will be taken from her with the use of force. Again a prejudiced attitude was present to the outcome of the trial.

On June 30^th 1998, Bill's attorneylawyer sent yet another fax. Again he puts on pressure to get a trial date and informs the court, that that Kirsten has threatened with hiding John if Bill Bill should initiate prosecution. He urged the Bailiff's Court to take John into custody, and he claimed that Kirsten had planned the abduction for a long time.

Again, Bill had caught a remark ”in the air” and twisted it for his own purpose. Kirsten had, after all, not threatened to hide John if a lawsuit was on its way. She had merely said that, if Bill initiated court proceedings against her in the USA for kidnapping, she would not dare return to the USA. That is something completely different.

On July 1^st 1998 the deputy judge again reported back to the Department of Private Law in a long telephone conversation. The conversation primarily turned onconsisted of the hope to grab John in the upcoming trial at the Bailiff's Court. I quote from The Department of Private Law's telephone log:

The Department of Private Law received a telephone call from the deputy judge , who informed us that a trial date was agreed upon with Kirsten's appointed attorneyattorneylawyer for July 7^th 1998, and that it was the attorneyattorneylawyer, who had decided on the date. The Bailiff's Court had asked Kirsten's attorneyattorneylawyer to confirm that John would be present at the meeting, since the deputy judge - if this was confirmed - would arrange for presence of people from social services and the police.

Kirsten's attorneyattorneylawyer had, according to the deputy judge, said that she did not know where Kirsten and John were, but that Kirsten in any case would attend the trial on July 7^th 1998. The deputy judge informed us that she during the meeting would ask Kirsten about John's location, and that Kirsten would be arrested, if she would not give information to that effect. If the location was disclosed, they would pick John up and, therefore, they wished that Bill, if possible, could be present at the Bailiff's Court. The Bailiff's Court would, however, discuss this with Bill's American attorneyattorneylawyer.

On the same day the Department of Private Law forwarded this evidence of secret administration of justice to the American Central Authority and added:

The Court has informed us that the police and personnel from the Social Authorities will also be present but this is of course being kept secret to Kirsten and to her attorneyattorney.

(…)

From the very moment we forwarded the case to the Bailiff's Court, we have been in close contact with the court via telephone and fax, and we have urged the court to locate John without revealing that Hague proceedings have been initiated. We have also emphasised to the court, that, that it is extremely important to us to avoid a similar situation to the case with - XX - and XX's children.

According to This statement provides , clear evidence that the Department of Private Law briefed informed the Americans, that that the Department had independently a separate had an interest of their own in the final outcome of the case. The Department did not want this case to end the same way as two prior cases, in which two Danish women had gone to Denmark Denmark with children without having their papers in order. In stead of being neutral, Tthe Department hereby reveals that it , in advance, had convicted Kirsten of child abduction, in advance of the court proceedings..

There is plenty of evidence of this kind of prejudice in the case.

During one of the first days of July 1998, the deputy judge had a telephone conversation with Kirsten's former attorneylawyer. The deputy judge is to have expressed, that that she was ready to render judgement, that that is to decide in the case. This was a surprise to Kirsten's attorneylawyer, who had not yet filed her pleading with with the Bailiff's Court. Thus, the deputy judge was able to render a decision before making herself familiar with Kirsten's side of the story.

At the same time, there was a lively communication going on between the Danish authorities, Bill, and his attorneylawyer up to the trial on the 7^th of July 1998. This communication once more revealed that Kirsten had been convicted, already before the case was tried. Without any second thoughts or other reservations, everyone worked full force to convict Kirsten of illegal child abduction and to return John to the USA.

One must again and again wonder, why the Danish authorities, the i.e. the Department of Private Law and the Bailiff's Court, did nothing to investigate the documentation they received. To this day, I do not understand how Kirsten's ex-husband and his attorneylawyer in the USA managed to persuade the Danish authorities to spontaneously respond to their every whim. I cannot find any objective motivationmotive for their obedient servility.

It is no wonder that Bill's attorneylawyer was satisfied with the Danish authorities. When the Danish Aambassador in Washington received a letter of 8^th of February 1999 from Bill's attorneylawyer, the letter not only contained a complaint about John not yet being returned to the USA. At the end of the letter, the attorneylawyer added:

Mr. NN wishes to point out that certain efforts on the part of Denmark to comply with the Hague Convention have been positive. For example, Magistrate XX of the Civil Court of Y-town, has been quite fair and responsive (...)

In my heading, I posed the question, Readers might ask: hHas a miscarriage of justice been committed ? In my opinion, the answer is yes, but the big question is, what is the motive ? I have not been able to find any the answer.

The case must be re-opened

The order of the 7^th of July 1997 is a disgrace to the Danish administration of justice and the conduct of Danish Authorities. The trial was a showcase of the kind we otherwise only know from less democratic countries. It was staged and progressively instructed by the Department of Private Law under under the pretextnce that the judgement was an independent court decision.

The Department has committed two fatal errors:

· The department has not lived up to its duty to scrutinise the forwarded documents forwarded from the USA. The forwarded papers forwarded can in no way substantiate an child abductionextradition case. They ought to have realised that right away and pointed it out to the American Central Authority.

· The department has by far exceeded its authority by urgently and biasedly putting pressure on the Bailiff's Court. If they had lived up to their responsibility and obligations as Central Authority in connection with the Hague Convention, this case would have been nipped in the bud died in birth. died in birth.

The court's conduct is equally to be criticised. Any jurist should quickly have been able to see that one of the two American documents lacked a valid signature, and the other was not in concurrence with the former documents in the case. Therefore, there were was no basis for rendering a judgement of child abduction.

Kirsten and I have done everything possible to alert the authorities, including the courts, that that a miscarriage of justice is likely to have occurred to on an innocent woman, who was merely on holiday in her home native country, likely has occurred. The authorities have only attempted to close the case. On several occasions, Kirsten has expressed that she wishes an independent investigation of the case, to get established, if it has been correctly handled pursuant to and in accordance with the law and court practice. No one has reacted.

I hope that my narrative will create enough attention, so that the authorities are more or less ”forced” to let the case be investigated thoroughly by unbiased experts. The goal is to to haveget the case re-opened, so that Kirsten's situation, hopefully, , may be changed to what it was before her departure form the USA in June of 1998.

It was members of the Parliament's Council of Law, who sent Kirsten to my office. Now the same members ought to call the Minister of Justice in consultation as the first step towards a reopening of o get the case. examined and re-opened.

---

[1] Kirsten is her real name. All other names and locations have been changed to protect anonymity.

[2] Subsequently, I tried to make myself familiar with the American legislation on the right of divorced parents to travel with their children. In June 2001, I approached the Central Authority in the USA, and in a letter of June 26^th.2001, I got the following answer from the Authority's responsible lawyer:

"I believe that father would need to give his consent to travel only if the particular travel would impinge on his custodial periods. This would, however, depend on the nature of the agreement between mother and father, and/or on the specifics of court orders".

The agreement between father and mother was exactly specified in the "Consent Judgement" of July 1^st. 1997 and signed by a judge. Nothing in this order indicated that father would need to give his consent to travels, and Kirsten's travel to Denmark did not impinge on father's custodial periods.

[3]In addition to approximately 200 appointed judges, there are approximately 300 deputy judges who are all aspirants to become appointed judges. The deputy judges mostly work within the legal areas of probate court procedure, enforcement procedure and land registration, but they also hear some civil and criminal cases. The deputy judges are normally between 25 and 40 years old.