They are very sincerely wishing they had never put me under questioning right now.
I know every aspect of this case, the applicable international and domestic laws and the way Mexican courts evaluate these things in practice in minute detail.
After three years of obsessive study on the social, psychological, legal, political and practical aspects of international child abduction and how they play into my particular case they really could not have picked a worse person to put on the stand where I am free to speak at length in response to any of their questions. Every answer I gave was detrimental to their case. While they clumsily tried to trick me on several occasions with questions whose intent was immediately transparent to me, it always back-fired against them very badly.
It is second nature to me now to understand how every statement I make plays into my case and every answer I gave was devastating to them.
In some four hours of questioning not one of their questions, or my answers to them, will be of any value to them. On the contrary, by giving me a platform to say anything I want and have it entered into the court record, I was able to add numerous details of our family history never made available to the court before and make clear why each and every one of them was of great importance to this case.
In forming her own questions for me the Prosecutor in the case showed what has long been clear to me and my attorneys, that she is really representing my wife and not Sage or the public interest. When she basically accused me of lying in her questioning, I pointed out in great detail how the lies I was telling were supported by basically every piece of real evidence and how her biased unwillingness to accept that, along with every other action she's taken, proved that she was dishonestly claiming to represent my son while actively making the same unfounded arguments that my wife was making and which had been thoroughly dis-proven. I also pointed out how, in three years of litigation in which she was supposedly representing my son, she had never once bothered to have a conversation with me to hear out my side of the history or the case and reminded her and the court how she had presented herself at the court at the start of the proceedings in 2008 and declared that Sage should stay in Mexico before any evidence had been submitted and years before she ever set eyes on me. Furthermore, I very correctly insisted, her blatant unwillingness to acknowledge incontrovertible facts in order to act as an echo chamber for my wife's arguments constituted a criminal act of procedural fraud.
My lawyer, who was not allowed to attend my questioning, agreed with my assessment of the Prosecutors behavior and subsequently submitted a motion for her to confess to the court that she believed in good faith the things that she accused me of (when accusations are made in these hearings the accusing party is implicitly and legally claiming the accusation is true.)
The prosecutor's performance during my testimony combined with everything else she's done in this case, is more than enough evidence to move forward against her with a criminal complaint and I intend to do so and may do the same against all the other witnesses my wife has brought forth to give, thankfully inept, fraudulent testimony.
Also after three years of participating in these proceedings I've gotten pretty familiar with Mexican law and legal language. When she skipped out on my two hour visit with Sage on Wed. after I drove an hour and half to be there, I took pictures and gathered various pieces of evidence that proved I was there at the time and place agreed to in court and wrote a petition to the court that my testimony relating to her skipping the visit, as well as my evidence of it, be submitted into the court file and accepted as "new evidence" that didn't exist at the time the evidentiary proceedings ended.
The court accepted my motion and evidence and ordered that my wife be personally notified that she had no discretion to deny visitation and continuing to do so could result in an order that custody be changed before the proceedings finish.
No comments:
Post a Comment