Justice Thorpe Denied this permission to APPEAL

JUSTICE THORPE: IN THE MATTER OF 1980 HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL ABDUCTION:
Brief:

JUSTICE THORPE: The child was abducted on December 3, 2007 from Mexico City, were he habitually and continuously lived for OVER 6 months of his 8 months of life, Mexico is where the father and mother have family, and where the father is from.

JUSTICE THORPE: By mutual agreement; the mother, the father and their attorneys, reached, executed, signed, notarized and filed into Court and into Public Deed records of Mexico the Agreement of the parties; Titled as “Settlement Agreement”

JUSTICE THORPE: The settlement Agreement was executed on December 3, 2007 in Mexico City, Mexico endorsed by the American and British Embassies Consuls and vice consul, as well as the Director of the Central Authorities of Mexico, who were involved since around June 2007, when the father contacted them asking for help.

JUSTICE THORPE: On the Settlement Agreement of the parents, was agreed the child was to remain in Mexico; where he had lived habitually and continuously for over 6 months out of his 8 months of life.

JUSTICE THORPE: It was until this time, that the mother deliver the travel documents of the child and of the father, that she had concealed by theft and fraud to prevent them from returning to the United States.

The mother also agreed in the Settlement agreement, to return the residence of the father she took illegally and by criminal trespass in concert with her family

The mother also agree to submit to the Jurisdiction of Mexico

JUSTICE THORPE: The settlement agreement took as the paramount consideration, the welfare of the child, and to create the least amount of change, with weekly visits to check on his well being and under the joint custody of the parents, it also fully protected his financial future.

The Settlement Agreement granted Due Process

JUSTICE THORPE: Unknown to the father at the time, the mother, planned by fraud and deception to abduct the child that same day, and did abduct the child on December 3, 2007 from Mexico and, apparently drove around 16 hours to Austin Texas, and then abducted the child to England 4 days after, and the mother has conceal the child whereabouts and her whereabouts, up to date.

JUSTICE THORPE: The wrongful removal of the mother, is in breach of the rights of custody of the father, in breach of Mexican Laws, in breach of the Settlement agreement reached by the Parents and their attorneys which remains valid up to date under Texas Laws and Jurisdiction and Mexican Laws and Jurisdiction.

Justice Hedley did not consider Mexican Laws and Constitution, nor Texas Laws at any time

JUSTICE THORPE: By fraud and deception, the mother had filed a duress claim on December 17, 2007 using false evidence and perjuries as was an allege DEAD THREAT to kill the child, that has been proven to the Court, such email, was apparently sent by the Mother´s mother Susan Lowry, who had sent an email from the exact location a day before, and that the location of such Dead Threat was also proven the father was not in Mexico City.

JUSTICE THORPE: It was also proven to the court with the same evidence filed by the mother, and her sworn testimonies in Court, in fact, the mother purposely and maliciously obstructed by all means the return of the father and child, but even, the return of the child to Texas, and the motive was simple, only that way they could obtain all types of illegal gains.

On April 14, 2007 the Court did not grant the mother duress claim.

JUSTICE THORPE: The Father immediately thereafter, lodge his application under the Hague Convention Treaty on May 2008.

Promptly and expeditiously, the Central Authorities forwarded to the contractual administrative authorities of ICACU on May 2008.

JUSTICE THORPE: The judgment of Justice Hedley, came about on June 19, 2007 and been over one year after.

JUSTICE THORPE: These delays, where not caused by the father, who lodge under the Hague Convention Treaty relief to return abducted children to the place where they were abducted from, immediately after the mother duress claim was not granted.

JUSTICE THORPE: Several issues came to hand during Hague Proceedings, including that the application of the father was transferred to Mexico by reason that the child was Immediately wrongfully removed from Mexico, and the Settlement agreement ordered the child to remain in Mexico, therefore, the proceedings were transferred to Mexico, by been, Jurisdiction of Mexico, who , the Central Authorities of Mexico acted promptly and expeditiously and forwarding the application to ICACU, also before the one year term.

JUSTICE THORPE: One thing was made clear, and remains up to date. The procedural irregularities since the beginning of this conflict, and that remains up to date;

JUSTICE THORPE: The concealment of the mother and the child whereabouts up to date, regardless that of the Hague Convention requirements, even after one year from the commencement of the Hague Convention proceedings, even after the father also lodge several applications with the Court to have information in regards to his son (Pages 111 to120) even when the father had proven the grave harm the mother had cause to the child since his birth, the abuse, the abandonment and neglect of the mother. Up to date, the father does not know the whereabouts of his son, and nothing more than a Medical Report given to him dated from June 2008 to June 2009 (that should have covered since the day of the abduction on December 3, 2007)

JUSTICE THORPE: Such Medical summary report shows the continuance of grave harm of the mother caused to the child; and at only one year old, while been under abduction by the mother, the child had a fracture, also was taken to emergencies after the child was vomiting and the doctor found to be Otitis Media, the Father research with pediatricians from Mexico, and other sources of information, and found such Otitis Media is Acute by the vomiting and caused, by the lack and refusal of the Mother to give proper medical attention to the child, including the refusal to give his immunizations, a problem that was since his birth.

JUSTICE THORPE: While the child was under the father care in Mexico, he received proper medical attention and excellent care. The child had his immunizations and perfect medical condition, as was found by the pediatrician who check him on December 3, 2007, his immunizations reinforcement were due on January 2008, and the mother knew, but fail to provide the child with such immunizations that protects the life of the child and his welfare.

JUSTICE THORPE: The medical report, becomes even more alarming when the doctor claims the child has “NEW” birth marks, but refers to them as Vitiligo, but in fact, Vitiligo is a disease and the child, HAD NO BIRTH MARKS at birth.

To understand this case, the violation to the Laws, irregularities of process are crucial to be known, since the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child.

JUSTICE THORPE: The undisputed and proven facts, are hereby explained in attached Exhibit titled “ Factual Background” with reference to the Evidence therein and were nearly all Exhibits used, are the records submitted by the mother.

JUSTICE THORPE: The mother and her family have use perjury, but also use of false documents, altered documents, fabricated evidence, and extensive use of criminal activities to adapt their lies and perjuries to the occasion and was proven extensively during the proceedings and more especially in the final trial.

JUSTICE THORPE: Then can be understood the conning and manipulation of the mother and her family to the father, to the Courts, to the Judges, to the Police and several others in the Justice System

JUSTICE THORPE: Once read in conjunction with the judgment of Justice Hedley and Cafcass report, it will become obvious the wrongful judgment and wrongful Cafcass reports. And will become obvious the mother exploited her own son for her own gains, up to date.
.

JUSTICE THORPE: The motive: The mother won by exploiting her own son and manipulating Judges, Courts, Police all of the following: Pages 332 to 340

35 million dollars, yes, Thirty five million dollars,

Also over 160 acres of prime real estate,

Also 1732 Original Fine Art Paintings each worth at least $4000 dollars a piece, and been property of the Father parents, YES, THE PROPERTY OF THE FATHER ELDERLY PARENTS,

JUSTICE THORPE: Also the residence of the father as well as all his personal documents and property which is exempt by Law and Constitution and the mother was not entitled to it, more when, she did not even lived with the father, and they were not even married.

JUSTICE THORPE: Also the mother took by fraud and deception all of the money from all the bank accounts of the father elderly parents, all without notice, all in secret frivolous proceedings.
Also hundreds of thousands in Attorneys fees, for two and a half proceedings without contest, and without legal notice or service to the father and the father parents.

JUSTICE THORPE: To make this possible, they obstructed the return of the father to make impossible Due Process and impossible for him to be present in any court proceeding, same that continues now in England, but even the Mother family use PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AGAINST THE ELDERLY PARENTS OF THE FATHER IN MEXICO. Page 190 to 192 (both above 65 years old) and to be exact, The father of the father was 79 years old when he was murdered on February 8, 2008 after had filed a suit against the mother of the child and less then two weeks after delivering evidence against her.

JUSTICE THORPE: Immediately thereafter, the father received this DEAD THREAT if he was to go to the United States Page 385, and even attempting to sale the information of who and how much they paid to Kill his father.

Yet, after all of this, the father has offered forgiveness, has offered mediation and has offer a resolution in all issues.

JUSTICE THORPE: Also the father has not issue any criminal charges against the mother, nor her family, as an attempt to resolve the conflict and in the best interest of the child. But also the settlement agreement is the maximum protection to the Mother and her family, for after all, such crimes they committed can be prosecuted in England by English Laws.

JUSTICE THORPE: The purpose of the father is simple, his rights and the ones of the child to be respected.

JUSTICE THORPE: Do not fall prey of her perjuries, conning and pity of the mother and her family, but base your findings in the records of evidence that proves the facts very clearly.

It is also important to say, the mother never establish residency in Texas, and was an ILLEGAL ALIEN in the United States.

The mother and father did not live together

The Father and mother never married

JUSTICE THORPE: Please refer to Exhibit filed by the father titled around June 11, 2007 and been 4 days before Final Trial ““Request to Postpone final trial and motion for contempt of court by defendant” on pages 64 to 76, where the father is asking relief from Justice and the Court, to the procedural irregularities and the use of extensive perjuries, false evidence of the mother and her family and breach of orders of the Court. Including, that as of June 11, 2009, the father had not received the documents that were ordered to be delivered to the father long before, and been only 4 days before final Trial, making impossible for the father to establish a meritorious defense, nor to have a Fair trial.

JUSTICE THORPE: Such request of the father was not granted, and therefore, Due Process was denied resulting in a wrongful Judgment, that was based on the perjuries and use of false evidence by the mother and her family, and as Justice Hedley describes, with nine lever arch files presented to him, to have only four days and a few hours, it was impossible for him, to know the facts, but neither for the father to review the evidence that was received nearly in the same quantity on June 12, 2009 and been 10 Kilograms of Documents. and, the same can be told with Cafcass, who said they could not review the evidence by the size of the same, therefore, they based their findings in Perjuries of the Mother and her family and extensive use of fabricated and forged documents. Nevertheless proven to the Court, but no action was taken for the punishment of these crimes.

JUSTICE THORPE: Although the Father applied under the Hague Convention on May 2008, the mother and her family as soon as they found of such proceedings by the News, immediately started proceedings to Obstruct the Hague Application, and made a series of frivolous orders based on perjuries and use of False Documents, to conceal the whereabouts of the child and the mother, and also all the information required to be given to the father under the Hague Convention Treaty, the mother even attempted to change her name and the one of the child without notice to the father, although their proceedings had to “stay”, that did not happened, as a matter of fact, the hearings for the Hague Convention were not even listed under its cause number.

JUSTICE THORPE: Therefore this appeal is focus on the issues that were wrongfully ruled by Justice Hedley. Based that he did not consider the facts crucial to the case, the cases cited were not represented correctly, and the interpretation of The Hague Convention was misinterpreted.

JUSTICE THORPE: In fact, the Hague Convention Treaty, nor the Laws of the Contractual states were not respected and neither considered.

JUSTICE THORPE: The main purpose of the convention is to return the child to where he was abducted from and should be done so, promptly using the most expeditious procedures available.

Emphasis added, “rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States”

Some of the Articles that were not complied with in Breach of the Convention and in breach of the Treaty with the Contractual Countries of Mexico and United States:

Article 1
The objects of the present Convention are -
a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.
Article 2
Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to secure within their territories the implementation of the objects of the Convention. For this purpose they shall use the most expeditious procedures available.

Article 4

The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights

JUSTICE THORPE: Article 7 of the Convention, gives the guidance to the information the father was entitled, but even if he requested it, even if he filed orders with the Court (pages 111 to120) none of such information was received, even when the father prove the perjuries of the Mother to obtain frivolous restrictions against the father, and in fact, the father using the mother evidence to prove her perjuries and fraud upon the court.
JUSTICE THORPE: The father has also requested under Article 11, for the reason of the Delays on the Hague Convention Proceedings that he commenced since May 2008, but no answer has been given.

Nevertheless, for the purpose of this appeal, the focus will be on the issues at hand and for this purpose, we focus on the objects of the Hague Convention :
Article 1
The objects of the present Convention are -
a)to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.

The Article is Simple and clear,

The Issues at hand and why the Judgment of Justice Hedley was wrongful, including the cases he cited.

1)Was the child Habitual resident of Mexico at the time of the wrongful removal Hereby attached as Exhibit Titled Habitual Residence
2)The Commencement of Proceedings were started before the One Year Term, and if the second section is applicable
3)If there was concealment by the mother, and therefore, tolling applies of the term of one year in Article 12
4)If the Article 12 applies, does the baby could be considered “settled”
5)And the if Article 13B) is applicable.

ARTICLE 12

“commencement of proceedings”

“Settlement”

One year term

Tolling by concealment

Article 12:

“Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.”

EMPHASIS ADDED ON THE WORD : OR

Judicial OR administrative, it does not read Judicial and administrative, nor Judicial only

JUSTICE THORPE: It is clear and not disputed the father lodge the Hague Convention application to the central authorities ON MAY 2008 and been only around a month after the Court did not grant the Duress claim of the Mother, and been Long before the year term.

The Central Authorities promptly and expeditious forwarded to the contractual administrative authorities of ICACU on May 2008, and as described in their site at <http://www.officialsolicitor.gov.uk/os/icacu.htm>

“There is an administrative body known as the Central Authority, which is responsible for administering the operation of the Convention and the Regulation. In England and Wales the Central Authority is the Lord Chancellor who delegates the duties of the Central Authority to the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit ('the ICACU').”

Therefore, Article 12 is very specific:

“..the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.”

The court is the Judicial authorities

JUSTICE THORPE: In England and by their own site, the Administrative Authorities is ICACU and the one who administer the operation of the Convention and, through them, is Commenced the Hague Convention Proceedings,

The Hague Convention purpose must be kept clear at all times
Firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody,
Desiring to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal
Article 1
The objects of the present Convention are -
a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.

JUSTICE THORPE: The interpretation given by Justice Hedley violates the objects of the Hague Convention treaty, and in the case he cited, in of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Court ORDERED THE RETURN OF THE CHILD and took the commencement of proceedings to have file it not with the central authorities of the contractual state, but with the Central Authorities of the requesting state.

JUSTICE THORPE: The Fact is, the father commenced the proceedings under the Hague convention, through the application at the moment the application is received by the contractual authorities where the child is.

JUSTICE THORPE: All the delays after such commencement of proceedings and also the process depends of the actions of ICACU will undertake.
The left behind parents cannot be punished for the acts or failure to act to the obligations of a Treaty.
Wrongfully, they try to apply as if the Article 12 of the Convention will read:

The commencement of the proceedings before the judicial authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention,
And then apply the second part claiming it passed over a year, ignoring the purpose of the convention and all the remaining facts of the case that were omitted in the Judgment.

The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.

EMPHASIS ADDED: even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child,

And further apply wrongfully and claim the child is settle at the age of one year two months old, when in fact, does not even go to school and has absolutely no independence, but ignoring the word NOW which applies to the time of the commencement of the proceedings, which was May 2008, and not a year later that by some procedural irregularities unknown to the father, but not by fault of the father, the wrongful Judgment was given, based on the failure to follow the guideline of the Hague Convention, but also with the failure of its purpose

JUSTICE THORPE: A child at that age, even up to 5 or seven years old does not settle in one specific environment, Cafcass wrongfully use future plans as settlement, but did not use the term NOW in the convention and that was on May 2008

JUSTICE THORPE: The father duty is to apply under the Hague Convention timely and before the year, if it is lucky enough to know of the existence of the Treaty, then the Hague Convention Treaty , is very specific: The duties that should be undertaken by the Contractual Country were the child is…

Article 1
“secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed”

to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States

Article 2
Contracting States shall take all appropriate measures to secure within their territories the implementation of the objects of the Convention. For this purpose they shall use the most expeditious procedures available.

Article 4
The Convention shall apply to any child who was habitually resident in a Contracting State IMMEDIATELY before any breach of custody or access rights
EMPHASIS ADDED TO ARTICLE 7, THAT UP TO DATE, THE FATHER HAS NOT YET RECEIVED ANY OF THAT INFORMATION AND THE WHEREABOUTS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED UP TO DATE, AND OBSTACLES TO THE CONVENTION WERE IMMEDIATELY PLACED ONCE THE MOTHER AND HER SOLICITORS FOUND OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS
ARTICLE 7,

Central Authorities shall co-operate with each other and promote co-operation amongst the competent authorities in their respective State to secure the prompt return of children and to achieve the other objects of this Convention.

a) to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained;
b) to prevent further harm to the child or prejudice to interested parties by taking or causing to be taken provisional measures;
c) to secure the voluntary return of the child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues;
d) to exchange, where desirable, information relating to the social background of the child;
e) to provide information of a general character as to the law of their State in connection with the application of the Convention;
f) to initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access;
g) where the circumstances so require, to provide or facilitate the provision of legal aid and advice, including the participation of legal counsel and advisers;
h) to provide such administrative arrangements as may be necessary and appropriate to secure the safe return of the child;
i) to keep each other informed with respect to the operation of this Convention and, as far as possible, to eliminate any obstacles to its application.

Article 8
Any person, institution or other body claiming that a child has been removed or retained in breach of custody rights may apply either to the Central Authority of the child's habitual residence or to the Central Authority of any other Contracting State for assistance in securing the return of the child.

The dictionary definition of ;

“commencement”: an act, instance, or time of commencing <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commencing>

“Proceedings”: A course of action; a procedure

Article 12

“and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is”

JUSTICE THORPE: The Hague Convention is very clear;
“ commencement of the proceedings” refers to the Hague Convention Proceedings, the application itself is the commencement of proceedings.

But the convention states:
“before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is”

And as seen on the site of the ICACU page 372; There is an administrative body known as the Central Authority, which is responsible for administering the operation of the Convention and the Regulation.

THEREFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS IN ENGLAND AND WALES IS WHEN THE APPLICATION IF PASSED FROM THE CENTRAL AUTHORITIES OF THE CONTRACTUAL STATE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES OF; ICACU IN THIS CASE, THE CENTRAL AUTHORITIES FORWARD THE APPLICATION OF THE FATHER TO ICACU ON MAY 2008 AND BEFORE THE ONE YEAR TERM , LONG BEFORE THE ONE YEAR TERM

THEREFORE: THE CHILD MUST BE RETURNED

JUSTICE THORPE: The father acted promptly and filed under the Hague Application relief for the prompt return of the child TO PREVENT THE CHILD FROM THE HARM OF THE WRONGFUL REMOVAL WHERE his rights as well as the rights of custody of the father, every day, every hour and every minute, is lost time and the harmful effect to the child is permanent and irreplaceable, the child and father relationship is damaged on every moment of time.

The father did file the application long before the year

The application itself, is a civil process

1)The case cited by the mother solicitors RE n (Minors) (Abduction) [1991]1 FLR 415

States

“ the father acted very promptly and an application for the return of children was faxed to the Lord Cancellor´s department…that fax was not received for the simple reason that the machinery in the Lord Chancellors Department was not working correctly. Therefore, the fax was not received in time for the proceedings to be commenced…

Then on [1991] 1 FLR 419
States
“ there is a good explanation as to why proceedings where not commenced earlier. There is no culpable delay on the part of the father. It arose solely because of inaccurate advice and the failure of the fax machine at the Lord Chancellor´s Department.

This England Case takes as commencement of the proceedings as for the Article 12, the application been faxed.

In fact the Plaintiff acted Promptly, and as soon as the Judge in Texas did not grant the duress claim of the Defendant, plaintiff Lodge the Hague application with the Central Authorities of United States, who immediately sent the application to the ICACU time when “the commencement of proceedings” started as of May 2008.

Further continued with “ over 1 kilogram of documents” sent directly to ICACU by the father on July 2008 (Before one year which proves already pending proceedings) page 238 to 240

RE N(MINORS)(ABDUCTION) [1991] 1 FLR 413

States

“The meaning of “now” in art 12 refers to the date of the commencement of proceedings, and not in the sense of “today” in deciding the issue as otherwise any delay in Hearing the case might affect the outcome.”

The Child is not settle under the terms of the Hague Convention, nor at his age of one year 2 months when the commencement of proceedings started
And for the left behind parent, will remain a hot pursuit , the objects of the convention is to return abducted children to the place where they were abducted from, and not because it was not prompt the actions of the contractual country where the child is, means the Hague Convention does not apply, the opposite, once found such unexplained delays have taken in a Treaty with contractual countries, then, it is when, in respect of the Contractual countries signatory to the convention and their laws, the proceedings must be even more expeditious and prompt.

JUSTICE THORPE: In the case of the father, such hot pursuit that has started since December 3, 2007 and has intensified a lot more each day, more when he received the medical report of the child and see the harm he has suffered while been abducted, to know that at only one year old he had already a fracture, Otitis Media acute caused by the lack of proper medical attention of the mother, that places the child in imminent danger, and NEW birth marks, described as vitiligo which is a disease…. This hot pursuit, has help to trace, but not yet found, the whereabouts of the child, in breach of the convention

Article 7a), a) to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained;

JUSTICE THORPE: Yes, up to date the whereabouts of the child remained concealed by fraud and deception and regardless of the orders submitted by the father to the court at pages 111 to 120, the mother engaged in the same deceit not only to the father, but to the Court, to the Judge, and to the Treaty and has concealed by fraud and deception, even when, evidence clearly shows with the medical report, the child is suffering and or has suffered grave harm and therefore breaching the Convention purpose and objects and ignoring not only the crimes the mother and her family has engaged in England to concealed the whereabouts of the child, and even attempted to CHANGE THE NAME OF THE CHILD WITHOUT THE FATHER KNOWLEDGE, against the child rights of identity and against the father rights

Then , the purpose of the convention is also ignored:

the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody,
Desiring to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal

TOLLING AND CONCEALMENT OF THE CHILD

JUSTICE THORPE: In any case comes also the element of tolling the time by reason of concealment:

By preponderance of clear and convincing evidence, It was proven to the Court the basis for concealment of the mother, of the child and her whereabouts and, that remains up to date concealed based on perjuries, false evidence, fraud and deception to the Court to obtain orders to conceal their whereabouts in violation of the Hague Treaty, and such actions made after they knew of the father application which in fact, is a fraud upon the court and justice, a fraud upon the Hague Convention and the treaty of the contractual states

JUSTICE THORPE: Such concealment by the mother is groundless, frivolous, full of deceit against the Hague Convention itself, and when in fact, the father cannot even travel to England, by several factors, one of them, been that the mother remains in ILLEGAL POSSESSION of all personal documents and property of Plaintiff.

Such concealment of the whereabouts of the child is clear by the orders of restrictions against the father itself:

The abductor sets the restrictions against the victim? Against the left behind parents, even when, the father in this case has proven her perjuries, her use of false records and harm to the child, but also, that the child was in perfect condition, medical, and mental under the care of the father.

CONCEALMENT CAN BE EASY TO PROVE PAGE 15:

# 6:
There be permission to the mother´s solicitors to redact such detail in any further documents to be served as may lead to the identification of the WHEREABOUTS of the Defendant and the child”

And
8 (g) Taking any steps to seek to ascertain the whereabouts of the Defendant and or the child and most not instruct, encourage or in any way suggest that any other person should do so,

JUSTICE THORPE: This is clear and convincing evidence of the concealment of the whereabouts of the child up to date

The way the mother took the child from Mexico was planned, colluded and a clear abduction by her own words

JUSTICE THORPE: At no time and there is no evidence other than a written affidavit that nearly in its entirety is full of perjuries and false statements shows the U.S. Consul who, personally agreed and took the duty to enforce the agreement and keep the travel documents to prevent abduction from Mexico of the child, that he even release such documents, or if, since was planned and colluded abduction in conspiracy with her family and attorneys, if she obtained duplicate travel documents.

The father Placed the address and phone number of her family in his Hague Application (page 244) but it has been said, the mother does not live there and remains concealing the whereabouts of the child

England has around 40 counties, and around 1050 towns in England.
.
The mother could be in any of them.

Each town, each city have hundreds of homes and dwellings, she could be in any of them

JUSTICE THORPE: The whereabouts have been concealed, up to date, regardless of the requirements of the Hague Convention, and regardless of the orders filed by the father including : including seek and find orders, protective orders and several others that were not granted, up to date after over a year of the application was lodge, The father does not know the whereabouts of his son

This is not only concealing the whereabouts of the child, is not only by deceit, fraud and deception, but even proven that done so with criminal acts, such as fake documents, fabricated evidence and extensive use of perjuries PROVEN TO THE COURT with the same Mother records.

Therefore, tolling should also apply.

JUSTICE THORPE: It should be made clear that in the application of the Hague convention lodge since May 2008 and also on the one on September was placed the address of the mother Parents residence and business and phone number

The Eleventh Circuit has applied that principle of domestic federal law to Article 12 of the Hague Convention. In Furnes v Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) it held that the one year period may be “equitably tolled” until the date that the left-behind parent discovers the new residence of a child whose whereabouts have been concealed by the other parent

Mendez Lynch v. Mendez Lynch, 220 F. Supp.2d 1347,1362-63 (M.D.Fla. 2002). Equitable tolling applied to ICARA petitions because otherwise “a parent who abducts and conceals children for more than one year will be rewarded for the misconduct by creating eligibility for an affirmative defense not otherwise available.”

Giampolo v. Erneta, 90 F.Supp.2d 1269 (N.D. Ga. 2004). Although the left-behind father knew that the child had been brought to the United States, the abducting Defendant refused to inform him of the child’s precise location and changed residences several times. The court tolled the one-year period.

JUSTICE THORPE: In fact such concealment through frivolous and groundless restrictions against the father, without any evidence, nor strict proof, makes impossible to know not only the whereabouts of the child, but nothing in regards to the child; Not the history since the abduction, nor his medical, not even his physical aspect, the concealment remains up to date. The father does not know where his child is, even when, such information was required to have been given to him since over a year ago when he filed the application to the Contractual State Administrative authority of ICACU. This makes, an unfair Trial, but also in violation of the rights of the father and child, and a clear violation of the Hague Convention, but also against the High Court of Justice and Justice Hedley, this is lying to Justice, and criminal acts against the Law and punishable by law. Acts that violate the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, THESE CRIMINAL ACTS CANNOT BE REWARDED THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED.

13 B) INTOLERABLE SITUATION

JUSTICE THORPE: The findings of Justice Hedley to consider a Civil Process that is the only path to bring this conflict to an end at the best time of the life of the child, when before he is at an age of understanding, this conflict can be resolved, and that the Settlement agreement protects completely the child, but also the mother, where the father has agreed to not file criminal charges against her, and has not done so, precisely, to bring this matter to an end.

Therefore, intolerable is not applicable

Due Process and Civil Process is the only way to resolve the conflict, and could never be considered as Intolerable.

Otherwise, all Abduction case will refuse the return because they will face, court proceedings

JUSTICE THORPE: In fact the return of the Child to Mexico is looking for the paramount consideration of the child, where the mother would not have problems to enter and exit the country as she may have in the United States by the fact to have been an ILLEGAL ALIEN, is where the child was abducted from, and where he was to remain under an undetermined amount of time.

The expenses of the mother will be cheaper in Mexico.

And the return to his culture, his language and habitat, purpose and object of the convention can be finally reached.

JUSTICE THORPE: The Settlement Agreement fully valid under Mexican Laws and Texas Laws and endorsed by Central Authorities of Mexico, and the U.S Embassy British Embassy, respected the Laws of the Contractual country of Mexico, respected the rights of the child and the father, and their family right also respected.

JUSTICE THORPE: The father cannot travel to the UNITED STATES, NOR ENGLAND, HIS RESIDENCE REMAINS IN POSSESSION BY THEFT AND FRAUD OF THE MOTHER, AS WELL AS ALL THE PERSONAL DOCUMENTS OF THE FATHER.

JUSTICE THORPE: THE EFFORTS AND WHAT THE FATHER ACCOMPLISH ON HIS LIFE, AND THAT IS THE FUTURE FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THE CHILD, IS BEEN WASTED IN ATTORNEYS FEES FOR THE PURPOSE TO STEAL EVERYTHING FROM THE FATHER, HARMING THE CHILD PERMANENTLY AND THROUGHOUT HIS WHOLE FUTURE.

INHERENT JURISDICTION

JUSTICE THORPE: If The Paramount consideration is the Welfare of the child, to ignore the medical report, to ignore all the photos of the child with the father that he was perfectly well cared of, with perfect medical condition, with his vaccines, perfectly fed, to see all the criminal acts of the mother and her family, all her conning, and manipulation to the Courts, it is not the paramount consideration the welfare of the child, his welfare is not look at today, but as the consequences of the decisions and rulings and how they will affect his life, and, if this conflict does not get resolved now, through a Settlement Agreement reached that protects the child, but also the mother, is to delay the conflict to a later date, but also that maybe the father could no longer wait, and will have to file the criminal charges, but also, is to Deny Due Process and Justice, and to violate the rights of the child and the father, is to leave him in fact, in a situation where, to start with, the mother can afford living by the theft of the property of the father, but who is irresponsible as proven to the court, and as her own statement in writing, she cannot care of herself, much less of a child.

JUSTICE THORPE: A WISE DECISION IS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE AGE OF THE CHILD AND RESOLVE THIS CONFLICT ONCE AND FOR ALL. THE FATHER OFFERED MEDIATION OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO END THE CONFLICT ONCE AND FOR ALL, BUT THE MOTHER REFUSES.

IN FACT, ONLY THE RETURN OF THE CHILD ABIDES BY THE LAW AND JUSTICE. AND BY THE TREATY

It is known that the Hague Application will refuse the return of the child only under exceptional circumstances, none of this are exceptional, but in fact wrongful interpretation of facts and the WRONGFUL INTERPRETATION OF THE OBJECT AND MEANING OF THE ARTICLES OF THE Hague Convention treaty itself.
NOTICE
Upon request of the Court, the father can provide all the records needed by the Court to prove the perjuries, as well as the report of Cafcass, the existing orders are based on false grounds and without foundation, but obtained by deceit and perjuries and mostly using the same records of the mother.

Furthermore, I hereby request strict proof that if I have lie in anything, that if I have submitted any record that is not real, or fabricated, to be presented to me, since as far as I remember, at no time the mother made any claims any document any email was forged or fake, or altered, that is an statement of Justice Hedley he is mistaken and that to the best of my knowledge, the mother never made any of such claims.

August 8, 2009