Win-Win Situation?

This entry was originally posted on my anonymous blog in June of 2016 (here).

SO GET THIS!
I filed a civil suit against my ex-wife for VIOLATION of my parental, legal and custodial rights, having gone to the Civil Court Courthouse with the help of an interpreter in May of 2016, waiting so long to finally get it submitted because I’d been so swamped with finance-related cases, custody, etc., For the last 1.5 years since the 189-day abduction of my kids ended, I desired to follow-up, and I finally did a month-plus ago.
According to Taiwan Civil Code Articles 1084, 1086, 1089, 1090, and 1055-1, she has CLEARLY violated my rights.  And she violated the kids’ rights (__________’s Protection of Children and Youth’s Welfare and Rights Act Articles 3 and 49)… as well as articles of the UN Convention of Rights of a Child, to boot.
Yet for the FIRST hearing, TODAY (on June 20th, 2016), I showed up at the Civil Courthouse here, and the volunteer elderly gal said, “Oh, you have to drive down the road to another location.
Internally, I thought, “Every case I’ve filed at this Courthouse has held hearings in this building.”
Naturally, I was shocked–and equally befuddled. Ever skeptical of the system here, for good freaking reason, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
My interpreter, who’d just shown up, with ten minutes to spare, queried why. The volunteer staff pointed to my document, and explained, “This isn’t litigation. This is just a negotiation.
“Come again, Rosco?” I hoped I could ask her.
Why on earth would there be a negotiations?  My ex-wife abducted the kids for 189 days in 2014.  What is there to negotiate now?
Because I had not been able to read the subpoena details, which I’d received nearly four weeks prior, I simply assumed the location to be the same, and one of my translators to whom I’d sent it to only translated the bottom section about what was expected, without any notation of what type of hearing or its location.
Thankfully, I’d arrived earlier, so even though the hearing was set at 1030am, we still had time to scooter, literally and figuratively, to a multi-story building 3-4 blocks south–and we made it with time to spare.
I sat down in the hallway outside a hearing room, with my interpreter, my thoughts filled with incredulity that the Courts want to NEGOTIATE something about a case that is clearly an open-and-shut one!
Mr Creepy, my ex’s lawyer–the same asslick I’ve had the not-so-pleasurable pleasure of dealing with for over two years now, showed up, sans his client.
Upon starting the hearing, the elderly Taiwanese dude present went on for ten minutes about how he feels “we want a win-win situation for everyone”, “mediation is different because we don’t want an attack-defend situation”, “you used to be a couple and have two children and we want to see you both have a better relationship,” and “we think negotiations is the best way.”
Without any doubt in my mind, it was a waste of time–and there was already a slant to it.  For a literature teacher who teaches children the power of reading between the lines, I was doing just that before he had finished his first sentence.
“By the way, if we can solve things here, we can reduce your filing fee by 2/3rds”.
WTF?
My filing fee–because I am NOT suing my ex for compensation, was $250 in local cash ($8US)! It was so small because I had only included $10,000______ (about $300US) as compensation asked for, on the doc, because clerks at the Court said I had to list something.  I had actually wanted to put $1 of local currency, a pittance, but I didn’t think they’d take me seriously if I’d been so tongue-in-cheek about the filing.
He continued, “We don’t call you plaintiff and defendant. We like to call you applicant and respondent because we want all respect here. A peaceful solution. We think it is better to work it out here.”
“A win-win situation for everyone.”
When he then asked me to start explaining to my ex’s lawyer what I felt (she has NOT shown up to any court-related hearing, etc., in 1.25 years), I instead stated firmly:
“There are no negotiations needed. My ex did not let me see my children for 189 days in 2014. This is for something that my ex-wife did two years ago not for something now to “work out”. There is no negotiating that. She broke the law two years ago. That cannot be changed. She violated my rights. I want to move to litigation as soon as possible.”
He interrupted me, not even listening to what I said (much of which I said in his native tongue), and he looked only at my interpreter on the other side of me, stating, “The law states that we must go this way.”
I replied, “I know from my lawyers that I can reject the negotiations and move straight to litigation. Thank you. There is no reason to be here.”
“Oh, but we want to work things out this way. A win-win situation for everyone. We want peaceful solutions,” he continued.
He then POINTED to the $10,000nt compensation fee I’d put on the petition paperwork (since I’d been asked to write something in the blank space). And he proceeded to state “you see… this may all be negotiable here.”
I detected the scent of horseshit in the air.
Focusing on the $300 I’d listed, he proceeded to explain, “We might be able to work things out. And whatever we decide in here will be the same results as is valid in court.” 
 
Immediately, I was looking at him tapping the paper where it said $10,000nt, knowing ALL TOO WELL that negotiations are not recorded (at least no transcriptionist is present) and there is NO record that would later go to the Court itself of what was said!  I’ve been there done that.
(My ex has recently falsely claimed that, “He said in the negotiations in early 2014 that the kids are so small, they don’t need money.” No statements about negotiations are supposed to be allowed in Court, since there is no record, but she keeps plastering her documents with the same BS.
Of course I never said such a thing back then, but it makes me tentative about negotiators and the whole process nowadays, not to mention that a lawyer once told me that these negotiators can be hired even though they have no law background–“and they can be taxi or bus drivers or bank clerks”.
 
I was NOT going to work out a money deal.  She broke the law.  I didn’t bite.  Homey don’ t play that game.
For whatever reason, even though I adamantly reminded this man that there would be no negotiations, he turned to her lawyer sitting across from me, asking what he thought.
Uggh.  Please stop the noise.  Really.  Two year’s of this guys dramatic exaggerations will indelibly stay glued to my psyche if he continues doing this for the next… who knows how long.
Her lawyer then started throwing out the same BS for the last two years, claiming other cases would be closing soon (but they could be in my favor–even though my hopes are slim!), getting dramatic enough that the pushing-70-year-old negotiator was nodding his head.  He spewed forth all sorts of nonsense that I’d had woman at my house that made my kids uncomfortable (never), that I called the Guardian ad Litem a fraud and a liar (I did, for valid reason, and the secret MP3 I’d made proves it), that I’d, that I’d, that I’d, etc.  At two points during his three minute tirade, I laughed. Heartily.
When I stopped abruptly because the negotiator exclaimed, “Okay, so there is no negotiations, right?”, I immediately commented in local dialogue, “He is lying”.
I then flipped open my new binder (just collated this morning before court) of 20-plus docs I submitted last Friday night and Saturday, pointing emphatically, “This is evidence against her. There is no negotiations. She took my children and that is a violation of my rights.”
And that was it, of course with my ex’s lawyer always trying to get in last licks.
On the street, my interpreter, whom I’ve had two years, incredulously queried, “Don’t you think you can work this out with her, Michael?”

WTF?  Really?  Work it out?  Abduction is abduction. Justice has failed to recognize that, proving that this system is a sham.
I deserve to have that one fact validated by the legal system here.
Will I have a chance in litigation? Based on ALL evidence I have, I VERY WELL SHOULD!  Based on all I’ve failed to succeed at getting recognized here, hitherto… the Courts won’t listen.
Travesty.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s