Comments on: Sean Goldman To Speak Out

The 9-Year-Old Boy And His Brazilian Family Members Will Talk Tuesday About Their Ongoing Custody Battle

[flavia_rj]

That´s great to hear the brazilian family.
Americans just know David side.
To judge somebody, you have to hear both side.
This will be a great opportunity to everybody know the other side.

And why not hear Sean? He is the one to ask to be heard. Let´s hear him. He already apoke, it´s already done, let´s hear the boy.

David is not what he look, he´s not that good.

Why didn´t he visited Sean last friday, when he was in Brazil and told Sean he´ll visit?

Let´s give the kid a chance. He lost his mother and choose Joao Paulo to be his dad. He loves him. Sean choose him!!

Boy, we keep running into each other online, don't we?

And it all keeps coming back to a basic fact: the mother had the choice to file for divorce/custody in NJ or flee as a kidnapper with Sean to Brazil. She chose to kidnap the child. End of story.

Sean couldn't choose his favorite color M&M at the moment without approval from the LeS/Ribeiro people. Who sop you think you are kidding?

As to "why didn't David visit last Friday?": maybe you are just willfully ignorant of the violation of the terms of the court-ordered visits by the the LeS/R families; the deliberate poisoning of the father/son relationship as described in Judge Pinto's decisions; the violation of the court order to keep Sean from the media issued June 16... or the many other lies, deceptions and downright illegal actions of the kidnappers (and their subsequent attempts to explain them being exposed for the fraud they are)... or maybe you are and just don't give a damn. Either way, you are a waste of bandwidth, carrying on with your ridiculous claims. Find a better cause or a better class of friends.

Oh... and Americans have indeed heard the "other side". Each and every time they have opened their mouths, new revelations of lies are exposed - both in America and in Brazil. So... come on... let's hear it. What is their justification for trying to retain a child who was illegally abducted from his father? Please do explain how that works.

[soonerisbetter]

Flavia, please deal with FACTS. If you bothered to do even a little research you would see that Sean initially told 3 court psychologists that it didn't matter where he lived. The court also determined that Sean is the victim of parental alienation. Further, if Sean chose to eat chocolate all day, would you say it was okay because that was his choice?

[SeanSupporter]

Paula_RJ Contrary to all other comments you fail to supply us with facts. How much were you paid for your unsubstantiated comment? Or are you maybe one of the Brazilian family members? Because, last time I checked with Brazil Magazine their poll indicates that your claim that "all the persons around him in RJ" support JP is incorrect.
Why would a lawyer with his reputation accept this exposure? Because JP did not expect the repercussions his actions would have. I will not go into detail, because I am sure you as well as all other commentators here know these details. But let me tell you this: The truth is self-evident.

[babler35]

No one is deleting your posts that side with the hypocritical child abduction specialist rich lawyer family.

[NaynayBr]

Paula,por que cargas d'agua vc acha que ninguem vai retrucar seu ponto de vista em defender sequestradores?Provavelmente por morar no RJ, ja deve achar que sequestro nao eh tao errado assim, desde que o sequestrado seja tratado bem.
Voce pode expressar sua opiniao,e nos podemos tambem rebater seu ponto de vista criminoso.Ta se sentindo coitadinha?Va fazer terapia,so nao contrate a psicologa que entrevistou Sean, ela eh tendenciosa e sugestiva e pode embaralhar mais ainda seu cerebro de minhoca de terceiro mundo.
Se vc tiver filhos, pergunto-te: ja se imaginou sem eles?Ja se pos no lugar de David?
Nao venha aqui reclamar que estamos rebatendo sua opiniao, NOS SEMPRE iremos rebater mentes criminosas e apoiar os Left Behind Parents.
Se eduque um pouco mais e veja que o que vc defende faz parte da mente de um criminoso.Quem defende o modo de agir de criminoso,criminoso eh.
BRING SEAN HOME NOW! David and Sean belong together.

I might add that JPLS, Nanna and Tostes have certainly seized on every opportunity to make their "side" known. That each and every utterance from their mouths have been proven to be lies and the works of kidnappers by the courts is really just too bad for them, ain't it?

How I hope that the interview tomorrow morning is something more than a free soundbite segment for them. They have had unfettered access, sympathy and support from the Brazilian press (if not the Brazilian people), so I'm sorry your pleading fall on deaf ears here. If CBS does their job and asks them questions based on the facts, this will completely blow up in their faces... like everything else has.

Right - addressed to CBS in a public forum. Don't want feedback? Consider email or a phone call.

Seems to me that you have been completely able to express your opinions. Meanwhile, we will continue to point out the lies contained therein. Tough cookies.

[Julisan]

So if you were kidnapped and ended up thinking of your abductor as 'husband', and even if you were located, your kidnapper would have the right to keep you. Right. I get it.

[Julisan]

Shame on CBS for airing an unauthorized interview with a minor without his father's authorization. Clearly the grandparents and mother did not think of Sean's welfare when they took him to Brazil intending to keep him there permanently without his father's consent 5 years ago!That was the first instance of the grandparents and mother acting in concert in an unlawful manner. Did they think then that it was in Sean's best interest to be wrenched away from a father who adored him? It's a complete waste of thought to now think of his 'best interest'. Sean is damaged emotionally and only his father can help him heal. Moreover, which child would choose to say "I live with my stepfather" when he can say "I live with my Dad"? If this interview is aired, I personally will never watch CBS again. Ever.

[Paula_RJ]

To CBS,

By the comments relationed to my posts, you can see how the people that support Mr. David not allow us to express our opinions. It's not a democratic way to act. But it will not change my opinion.

And, once more, I say: My comment was directed to CBS. Not to David's supporters.

Right - addressed to CBS in a public forum. Don't want feedback? Consider email or a phone call.

Seems to me that you have been completely able to express your opinions. Meanwhile, we will continue to point out the lies contained therein. Tough cookies.

[NaynayBr]

Paula,por que cargas d'agua vc acha que ninguem vai retrucar seu ponto de vista em defender sequestradores?Provavelmente por morar no RJ, ja deve achar que sequestro nao eh tao errado assim, desde que o sequestrado seja tratado bem.
Voce pode expressar sua opiniao,e nos podemos tambem rebater seu ponto de vista criminoso.Ta se sentindo coitadinha?Va fazer terapia,so nao contrate a psicologa que entrevistou Sean, ela eh tendenciosa e sugestiva e pode embaralhar mais ainda seu cerebro de minhoca de terceiro mundo.
Se vc tiver filhos, pergunto-te: ja se imaginou sem eles?Ja se pos no lugar de David?
Nao venha aqui reclamar que estamos rebatendo sua opiniao, NOS SEMPRE iremos rebater mentes criminosas e apoiar os Left Behind Parents.
Se eduque um pouco mais e veja que o que vc defende faz parte da mente de um criminoso.Quem defende o modo de agir de criminoso,criminoso eh.
BRING SEAN HOME NOW! David and Sean belong together.

[babler35]

No one is deleting your posts that side with the hypocritical child abduction specialist rich lawyer family.

[SeanSupporter]

Well, for starters, you seem to not understand the purpose of this site. CBS has its reasons for supplying a "reply to this comment" option. Should you wish to communicate with CBS exclusively, then may I suggest you send them an e-mail. Their contact information can be located under the "Contact" tab.
Furthermore, we do allow you to express your opinions. That's why your comments have not been removed. However, you still have not supplied us with any FACTS to support your opinions or claims. We are still anxiously awaiting those! The suspense is building!!!

[SeanSupporter]

Oh, and one more thing. Do you own a dictionary? Why don't you look up the definition of "democracy". Because debating is a VERY democratic right! JP seems to have a problem with the transition from dictatorship to democracy as well.

[soonerisbetter]

Paula, no one said that you cannot express your opinion, but you must state that it is exactly that - an opinion. The democratic process then allows each side to provide FACTS to support each opinion. So far, you have only shared your sentimental impressions but have not read any of the documented FACTS that the BRAZILIAN COURT ascertained from both Mr. Goldman and Mr. Lins e Silva.

[lero101]

CBS, please check your facts before airing a story. Go to www.BringSeanHome.org. This child was kidnapped by his mother and then kidnapped AGAIN by his mothers second husband. Please, please, please do not air the interview with Sean Goldman. He is being brainwashed by his step-father. If you have any dignity, and also respect for the Goldman family, you won't show Sean's interview.
I would love to see the interview with JPLS and his family though. If the right questions are asked (CBS, do your research) we can catch them in more lies! Don't you want to see Sean come home where he belongs?

[Dan_Plainview]

CBS,

A lot of information here to decipher. Let me see if I can make it more easy.

This is not a custody case, per se, it is simply a case to determine what is the proper jurisdiction where custody should be argued. If NJ, USA is the proper jurisdiction, then the child should be returned to the proper jurisdiction so that a custody determination can be made ... there.

There are really only two questions:

Was Sean living in Tinton Falls, NJ at the time of the illegal retention in Brazil?

Was Mr. Goldman exercising his custoial rights at the time of the illegal retention in Brazil?

If both questions are answered in the affirmative, then Sean should be returned to NJ, USA for any custody arguments.

Mrs. Bianchi Ribeiro and Mr. Lins e Silva are free to fight for custody before the appropriate jurisdiction.

All they are trying to determine now is that appropriate jurisdiction. It should have been decided 5 years ago. The Mother's death has little to do with the legal argument, though it makes the continual crawling of this case in the Brazilian Courts all the more perplexing ...

[fernanda-felicia]

And whether the Convention is applicable or not will be decided on a case-by case basis by the Judiciary. If Sean is to be repatriated or not, the Judiciary will decide.

Mr. Joao Paulo knows very well nobody is out to get him. He knows well that today, the AGU sponsors more than 40 cases which seek the repatriation of minors, protected under the Hague Convention, to many countries. And he knows this well because he is working on at least one of these cases.

Until very recently, Mr. Joao Paulo was working on the repatriation of a minor proposed by the AGU, in custody of a Brazilian mother and resident of Rio de Janeiro. He was representing the foreign father. He earnestly argued the accuracy and ease of the Executive branch?s involvement in the case, as well as the enforcement of the Hague Convention.

There?s no pursuit of Joao Paulo Lins e Silva. The Executive is acting in compliance with an international duty freely and independently recognized by the Federative Republic of Brazil, and under the protection of the principle of impersonality.

It?s the right of the Executive to request repatriation when it comes to the child of Mr. Joao Paulo?s foreign client, and it?s also the right of the Executive to request the repatriation of the son of Mr. Joao Paulo?s wife. And Mr. Joao Paulo has the right to defend himself. And it?s up to the judiciary to say who?s right.

Let?s not lose focus. The ones who intend to keep Sean in Brazil are trying to divert attention, taking the spotlight off what really matters, what?s really relevant. To solve this question, one must only investigate whether the removal of this child to Brazil was lawful or illegal, from the point of view of New Jersey legislation, where the child resided.

If the child was taken illegally from the United States, then all allegations formulated by the Brazilian family will be investigated in the United States, the only country according to the Hague Convention, that has jurisdiction in the case.

Now that the facts have been restored, and focusing on the real issue, I request this council, always respectfully, to adopt the measures deemed appropriate to the case.

Cordially,

Ricardo Zamariola Junior

[fernanda-felicia]

Trusting the word of the expert that, at least in theory, should be impartial, we can deduce that, at most, Sean has been living with his stepfather since January 2006. Bruna passed away in August 2008.

The discussion here, then, is about excluding a father from Sean?s life, the father who raised and educated him until he had the child taken from him against his will, a father who has been fighting for Sean desperately and tirelessly for almost 5 years, so we can leave the child in the care of the stepfather with whom Sean, at the time of the mother?s death, lived with for two and a half years?

Is this what it?s all about? As incredible and absurd as it seems, it is. This is what it?s all about. Joao Paulo and the maternal family would have us believe this is a battle between the US and Brazil.

But that?s not true, it?s much simpler.

It?s a matter of a child who was taken from his father against his will. It?s about a father who did all he could, who faced countless difficulties, like distance, language and culture, to have his son back with him. And then, after Bruna?s death, he must have Sean back with him, regardless of everything he?s been through.

Joao Paulo says the government is out to get him. He says the AGU, funded by taxpayers, is out to get him. A certain Senator demanded, in a Senate tribunal, that the Executive branch must stay away from the case. The Secretariat of Human Rights will be called to provide explanations, all due to the lack of information.

There is an international convention about this issue. The Brazilian government independently assumed, by the President and approved by the House of Representatives, the international responsibility to promote the repatriation of children in these conditions. It?s up to the government to comply with their obligations. It?s up to the government to request the repatriation of the minor, and the legitimacy to do so has been confirmed not only by the Federal Court of Rio, but also the Superior Court of Justice in Brasilia.

[fernanda-felicia]

The child has, indeed, the fundamental right of full protection. But doesn?t the same constitution that grants the full protection prohibit self-protection? Doesn?t it institute the state monopoly of force, preventing one from taking the matters into his own hands? But until now, the Brazilian judiciary has protected the person who used self-protection to protect her own rights, the one who went ahead and took the child herself, against the applicable law and the institutional forms of settlement disputes.

The one who sought refuge in the public power, the one who sought refuge in the institutions, the one who had so much respect for his own child to try to resolve the problem through the use of institutional means for the settlement of disputes, well, he doesn?t matter much. He?s a gringo, a bum, a crook and a profiteer.

They say the interest of the child indicates that things should stay as they are. In Brazil, the interest of the child seems to indicate the best thing for the child, already orphaned by his mother, is to make him orphaned by his father.

It also says that the child?s best interest is also for him to be heard. How convenient. Sean has been under the care of a family for nearly five years. In the eyes of that family, his father is a violent gringo, a greedy bum, profiteer and a crook. I wonder if in these conditions an 8-year old child can freely express his opinions. I wonder, can we really let an 8-year old child choose his own future?

This whole discussion is indescribable.

This child will never be able to see his mother again. But he has a father. And he has his entire lifetime to rebuild a paternal relationship that was taken from him against his wishes. His mother?s company, tragically, has been lost forever. But his father?s has not. There?s a lot of time. There?s an entire lifetime.

This letter is already too long; it could end here. But Mr. David Goldman needs to clarify a few other things.

Mr. Joao Paulo, as soon as Bruna passed, initiated legal proceedings to be recognized as Sean?s new father. Mr. Joao Paulo intends to remove Mr. Goldman?s name from Seam?s birth certificate, replacing it with his own. Sean Richard Goldman would become Sean Bianchi Carneiro Ribeiro Lins e Silva. His paternal grandparents would no longer be Mr. Barry Goldman and wife. They would be Paulo Lins e Silva and wife.

One does not need to be versed in civil law to realize this plea is rigorously and strictly impossible from a judicial point of view. There are ex-wives, there are ex-husbands, but ex-parents do not and cannot exist. Nevertheless, the request was received and processed by Rio de Janeiro State Court.

But the question now is: how long has Mr. Joao Paulo Lins e Silva lived under the same roof as the minor Sean?

In the aforementioned plea, filed on August 28, 2008, Joao Paulo stated he had been living with the child for over four and a half years. However, four and a half years before August 2008, Sean was still living in the USA.

In a hearing at the Superior Court of Justice, on February 6, 2008, Joao Paulo and his attorneys stated that the minor had been living with the stepfather for five years. A few hours later, at the end of the hearing, these five years had turned into three. The hearing was recorded and the information can be verified by whoever wishes to verify it.

But, in the records of the previous cases between Bruna and David, there are reports made by the Rio de Janeiro State Court stating that in December 2005, Sean lived exclusively with his mother in his grandparents? house.

Someone, therefore, is not telling the truth.

The expert from Rio?s state court stated that in December 2005, Sean lived with the mother and grandparents in the grandparents? home. Joao Paulo, in the letter sent to this Council states, ??in less than 6 months after we were reunited we were living together??, which means, still in 2004.

I repeat: someone is not telling the truth.

[fernanda-felicia]

The letter sent from Mr. Joao Paulo to this Council mentions Sean?s abduction to Brazil as a mere detail, as if the international removal of a child were just a simple act, without importance.

It?s not. It?s very serious.

So serious, it became the basis of an international convention. This international convention is amongst the most popular on the planet, which today includes more than 70 signatory countries.

Strictly speaking, it is difficult to understand the discussion taking place today.

Sean lived with his mother and father. The mother, against the father?s wishes, took him away. This father has done everything he could to take his child home. The mother dies. And the child does not return to the father.

It?s said that the best interest of the child, after so much time passed, is to remain in Brazil with the stepfather.

The ?child?s interests?: this phrase is being used, in this case, to justify all sorts of arbitrariness about the father?s rights, which are as constitutional as the full protection of the child?s rights.

In the beginning, it was not acceptable to return Sean to the US because it was a preliminary decision, and the child?s interests required caution. Then, it wasn?t acceptable because, even if it was the final sentence, too much time had passed, and the child?s interests indicated the need to maintain things as they were. Later, the child?s interests did not allow for the rupture of the bond created with the maternal family, even though bonds of the same nature, with the paternal family, had been broken unjustifiably by Sean?s mother, without reprimand.

Now, finally, it?s claimed the minor has a half-sister, and the child?s interests indicate the two children shouldn?t be separated. In fact, they claim that the sister represents the mother the minor recently lost, and the child?s interests do not allow the mother?s image to be taken away.

It?s odd that the child?s interests in growing up and living with his father were never considered.

To be honest, the child?s best interest, the only indisputable interest of the child, was to not be removed against his own will, against his father?s will and against the law, from the home he always had lived in since his birth.

The child has the fundamental right of full protection. What about the father? Doesn?t he have the fundamental right to effective jurisdictional custody? What effective custody is one denied not because of the invoked right but due to the slowness of a decision?

Doesn?t the father have the right to rapid due process? What rapid case lasts 5 years?

[fernanda-felicia]

Mr. Goldman had tried to make deals with his ex-wife?s family. Since the beginning, there were several approaches made for visitation. But the Brazilian family has never permitted them. First, they stopped answering the daily phone calls the father would make to his son. Sean?s maternal grandfather, testifying before the New Jersey courts, stated with frightening indifference, that his attorney had alerted him to the fact he was not obliged to speak to someone who was suing him. The grandfather then said that since he became aware of that fact, every time he heard Mr. Goldman?s voice on the phone, he?d immediately hang up.

Once more, it?s not about speculations or empty allegations. These are all facts supported by the transcript of the grandfather?s testimony. The documents are part of the court records.

On January 18, 2005, Mr. Goldman?s American attorney sent a letter to the maternal family?s attorneys, stating the child?s father couldn?t manage to speak to his son: one more fact with documentation to prove it.

The family started to reject gifts the father sent to Sean. Packages were returned to the US, and they can be shown to whoever wants to see them. The photos of these items are in the court records in Brazil and the US. More proven facts.

There were proposals for visitation in a third country, in a neutral environment. Every agreement made with the condition that Mr. Goldman give up the fight for his son. This was back when the family didn?t simply reject the father?s initiative, without any answer, polite or impolite, consistent or inconsistent.

As soon as he learned about Bruna?s death, Sean?s father got in touch with the maternal family, once again trying to reach an agreement. He opened the doors of his home, for Sean to return accompanied by his grandparents and even his stepfather. He offered a transition period, during which the contact between father and son would take place in Brazil, with a later trip to return to the US.

Everything was refused by the maternal family, who would prevent even the slightest contact between father and son. Indeed, the maternal family failed to inform Mr. Goldman about the passing of his child?s mother. Mr. Goldman learned about the tragedy from Brazilian newspapers. The family failed to mention the death of Sean?s mother even in court, presenting a petition before the Federal Supreme Court a few days layer, without even mentioning the fact, as if it had never happened.

International child abduction cases are difficult. People who work on these cases ? like Mr. Joao Paulo, for example ? know it?s not unusual that the left-behind parent spends years without contact with the child. It?s a painful experience, and if you did not live through it, you will never fully understand it.

But to be left behind, to have a child ripped from your arms, to fight the courts for years, and even to be called a bum, profiteer and a crook, is beyond one?s imagination.

Mr. Joao Paulo proudly states ? in an untruthful manner, by the way ? that Sean only vaguely remembers his father, when he stated that Sean did not speak English and when he stated that Sean has no memory of his life in the US. It?s very sad that it?s this way.

Sean should be encouraged to speak English and remember the place where he was born. He should be encouraged to reestablish a relationship with his father and practice his American citizenship. Nationality, culture, language and family relations are the inalienable rights of every child as stated in the Convention of Children?s Rights, of which Brazil is also a signatory. It?s unfortunate that the Brazilian family celebrates the fact that Sean is being deprived of these fundamental rights, of these rights that truly help to construct a person, in the full meaning of the word.

[fernanda-felicia]

Joao Paulo was convicted by the Federal Court of litigation with malicious intent and an act offensive to the dignity of justice, all in a deliberate attempt to alter the veracity of the facts. Copies were expedited to the Federal Public Ministry, so they can investigate whether the crime of disobeying a court order was really committed.

After all this, I ask: can you trust the statement that Sean was always at his father?s disposal? Is this behavior consistent with someone who would have never created obstacles to the contact between father and son?

No, it isn?t. And the Brazilian relatives are still imposing restrictions to the father-son relationship, even after a visitation agreement was reached and celebrated during a tense 6-hour hearing at the Superior Court of Justice.

Although the agreement awards David the right to be with his son between 8am and 8pm, every day, every time he?s in Brazil, Mr. Joao Paulo has recently pleaded at the Federal Court that the father could only see his son on March 12 and 13, 2009, when he was in Brazil, after 6 pm due to the boy?s school commitments. The Federal Court of Rio, obviously, dismissed Mr. Joao Paulo?s request, based on the argument that missing 2 days of school would not cause any harm to the boy, if one considered the benefit of his reestablishing a relationship with his father.

Although Joao Paulo?s request was rejected, he did not stop his attempts to interfere in the visitation and contact between father and son. The agreement has no restrictions, and it does not forbid David to go out with his son, but Mr. Joao Paulo and the Brazilian family do not allow the child to leave the grounds of their luxury condominium. The agreement does not require supervision, but Mr. Joao Paulo and the Brazilian family impose the presence of a third person. Mr. Joao Paulo and the family even had this third person carry an audio recorder and remain only two feet away from father and son, not giving them any privacy for a second, and shamefully intimidating the child. Mr. David Goldman has recorded a brief video, in which you can see the ?supervisor? and the recorder being used, one more fact that we can support with proof.
I ask again: is this the behavior of someone who never tried to tamper with the father-son relationship?

[fernanda-felicia]

The allegations that Mr. Goldman is living ?for free? in a residence purchased by Bruna also does not correspond to the verified facts in the court records. Bruna herself, in her signed declaration presented to the Superior Court of New Jersey, states that the couple?s home was purchased in part by an amount given to the couple by her parents as a wedding gift, and in part with the amount that belonged to David after he sold the house he previously resided in on his own. Once more, this document is in the US and Brazilian court records.

There?s also the pathetic inheritance accusation..

Mr. Joao Paulo says that after Bruna came to Brazil, she became a successful businesswoman, and that Mr. David was only interested in controlling the inheritance to be given to his son Sean.

Well, first of all, given the fact that David has been insistently pursuing the return of his child is more than enough to prove this allegation is not valid. If David was already fighting for Sean when Bruna was alive, how can someone state that the father only wants Sean?s company to control the inheritance the minor will receive? It doesn?t make any sense.

But if Sean?s inheritance is such a strong issue for Joao Paulo and his family, they can relax. Mr. David Goldman is not interested in any assets his ex-wife owned in Brazil. Please find the legal way that best suits you, write a document if you wish, and Mr. Goldman will sign it, allowing any assets Bruna accumulated in Brazil to be controlled, and/or transferred to someone of your trust.

It?s not about money. Finances are not important.

Mr. David Goldman, since the beginning of his crusade, has spent more than US$360,000 trying to bring his son home. He has been to Brazil many times, alone and accompanied by his father, mother and friends. All you have to do is check the stamps in his passport.

He was never allowed to see his son. He was never authorized to do such thing. And when he finally was authorized, he wasn?t able to see his son.

Mr. Joao Paulo fails to mention in his correspondence to the Council that, last October, the Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro granted visitation rights in favor of the minor?s father. Since then, the decision allowed Mr. David to be with his son anytime he was in Brazil, from Friday at 8pm until Sunday at 8pm.

On October 16, 2008, a Thursday, Mr. Joao Paulo appealed this decision. His request was only partially accepted by the TRF-2. They maintained the visitation rights, but determined that the visit would not start at 8 pm on Friday, but instead at 8am on Saturday. The TRF also determined that the child could not be publicly exposed during visits, or the right of visitation would be revoked. On Saturday, at 8am on October 18, 2008, Mr. David Goldman presented himself at the location determined by the judicial decision, Mr. Joao Paulo?s residence, accompanied by 2 court officers, 2 federal agents and a bodyguard.

Sean wasn?t there. Although the court ordered that the minor would be at his father?s disposal on that day, at that time and at that place, Mr. Joao Paulo, according to information [given by the family], had taken the child away from Rio de Janeiro

In the days that immediately followed, Mr. Joao Paulo petitioned the Federal Court, justifying his absence. He stated he did not know the visitation would occur on Saturday, October 18. However, according to court records, Joao Paulo had been served and even had time to appeal the decision.

Joao Paulo added, indeed, that it was very lucky Sean wasn?t there. His father, a profiteer, had shown up with more than 10 journalists, reporters and TV cameras. Joao Paulo claimed pedestrians thought they were shooting a soap opera since there were so many cameras and crew members. With this excuse, Joao Paulo, based on the TRF-2 decision that forbids public exposition of Sean, pleaded the visitation rights should be revoked.

When called by the Federal Court to explain who was present on the day of visitation, the court officers testified there was not a single camera, not a single reporter, not a single journalist with Sean?s father on that day.

[fernanda-felicia]

But it?s possible to go a bit further. If the complaints against Sean?s maternal grandparents were so unfounded, as they say, why was the agreement made? Why didn?t they wait for the American judiciary to throw out a lawsuit that was so absurd?

Indeed, it was not necessary to wait much longer, since the agreement was made on the day the trial would take place. If the complaints were so unfounded, why did they pay US$150,000 to put an end to it, considering that such complaints, if in fact absurd, would have been rejected by the court and the trial would never have taken place?

I?ll let the reader conclude which side immorality is on.

In the same lawsuit filed in New Jersey, David asked the court to freeze his ex-wife?s and her parents? assets in the US. It was done for the purpose of guaranteeing, in the future, the approval of a possible court order that would require the family to reimburse his legal costs and fees.

On August 26, 2004, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted David?s request. They froze all of the family?s assets in the US, including a house worth US$500,000 and Bruna?s checking account. The balance, at the time, was US$3,900.

If David had any intention of cleaning out his ex-wife?s checking account, would he have asked the courts to freeze it? What sense does that make, if the intention was to withdraw from it? It would have been much simpler not to do anything, not mention the accounts and leave them free to be used.

But there?s more.

The American court fined Bruna for failing to comply with the order to return Sean to the US. Until August 2005, the fines were US$1,000 per month. After August 2005, the fines were US$1,000 per week.

Bruna was also ordered in August 2005, i.e., after only one year after the case, to reimburse Mr. David Goldman roughly US$68,000, to cover legal costs and fees. Let?s do the math: that would be U$12,000 in fines between August 2004 and August 2005. Between August 2005 and August 2008 (the month Bruna passed away) it would have been more than US$156,000 in legal costs and fees whose restitution was ordered in August 2005. So we are up to US$236,000, not to mention all of the costs and fees incurred after August 2005, and not mentioning any costs related to Brazilian courts and international travel.

If this father had any intention of obtaining financial gain, wouldn?t it have been much more lucrative simply not to make an agreement and, instead, ask the American court to sell Sean?s grandparents? house that was frozen by the courts and worth roughly US$500,000?

All the amounts above referenced, as well as the freezing of the assets, are supported by documentation in the court records. Once more, there?s no room to speculate. We?re stating facts, verified facts.

With respect to the allegations that Mr. Goldman is selling mugs, pins, aprons and similar items, well, anyone can access the website created by David?s friends on the internet and verify there is no such thing.

[fernanda-felicia]

Let?s look at the facts to verify if they support Mr. Joao Paulo?s story.

In the US, David also filed charges against Bruna?s parents (and he?s the one accused of forfeit?). David stated that Sean?s grandparents were giving Bruna financial and emotional support after Sean?s removal. After all, Bruna was living in her parents? home in Brazil. How could they allege they weren?t involved? If, from a humane point of view, it was perfectly understandable that the parents were harboring their daughter, that doesn?t mean that from a judicial point of view there wouldn?t be consequences.

In December 2006, two and a half years after Sean?s removal to Brazil, on the date the case against the grandparents would go to trial, the lawyers representing Bruna?s parents offered to make an agreement with Mr. Goldman. They offered a payment of $150,000, in exchange for the removal of their names from the lawsuit.

David accepted, against his will. At that moment, there had been two and a half years of judicial battles. They were very expensive judicial battles on two continents, including international trips. The agreement was signed and, of course, David noted in the court records that the lawsuit pertained to Bruna, while the case dealing with Sean?s custody and return to the US would continue separately as planned.

If David had not made that deal, he most likely would have given up fighting for his son. If he had not made that deal, he would not have had the financial resources to keep battling for Sean?s return. He would have lost to the superior financial power of his ex-wife?s family.

This is the truth about that agreement: it was an act by which the financially superior party used its economic power to exclude itself from a lawsuit, considering that the financially weaker party needed resources to keep fighting for a greater cause.