New Rally Date: Saturday March 14 @2:00pm

The date of Brazilian President Lula’s meeting with President Obama has been changed to Saturday March 14th. The protest rally will be from 2:00 to 5:00 to correspond with the 4pm meeting between Presidents Obama & Lula. The bus will leave NJ at 9:30am and we expect to be back to the parking lot at approximately 9-10pm, depending on departure time and traffic.

We have one week to produce as large a turnout as possible. We need all of you to reach out to people you know in the DC area, old college friends, relatives, work colleagues, etc and encourage them to join us. Let’s get to work on this and make this rally a huge success.

We will be lining up speakers for the rally next week and hope to announce the speaker list toward the end of the week. The media will be there in numbers so a good crowd is important. Again, our sincere apologies for the late date change, which was beyond our control.

Please make sure you RSVP to the rally by emailing bringseanhome@live.com and indicate how many seats you need on the bus from New Jersey if you plan to ride with us.

And lastly, there will be no charge for the rally for anyone, thanks to some generous donations we’ve received to help defer the costs of the event.

THIS RALLY HAS TO BE PRIORITY #1 FOR ALL OF US NEXT WEEK. Let’s set aside all other projects and work together as a team to make this rally a success.

Questions and Answers at: http://bringseanhome.org/forum/showthread.php?t=155

Share
 

16 Responses to “New Rally Date: Saturday March 14 @2:00pm”

  1. luis capella says:

    Hi – I just want to say you all that this case will have a new scene as from this weekend. This little boy should be protected from all these things. Please think about this child….He is the more important figure in this history. Hope that God could bless all of you.

  2. ana says:

    Did anyone see the news of “Fantastico” last night. I am really happy that this if FINALLY in the Brasilian news.
    http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/Mundo/0,,MUL1034124-5602,00-PAI+E+AVO+FALAM+SOBRE+POLEMICA+QUE+ENVOLVE+GUARDA+DO+GAROTO+SEAN.html

  3. I just watched the Fantastico piece. I thought it was a little skewed to the side of the family of the mother. However, in the interview they did with Bruna’s mother, the woman’s body language was all over the place. She knows full well what her daughter did.

    Another thing. I get packages sent here to Brazil from the US all the time. I have never, ever, had one returned to the US by the post office. If for some reason the Brazilian post office did return one, it is because someone did not care enough to go down to the station and pick it up.

    Also, she takes care to mention the fact that David was offered many chances to see his son. She does not mention the reams of paperwork that David would have been forced to sign. She was clearly put up to this interview by her new son-in-law. What better way to evoke sympathy than with a doting grandmother.

    She also claims that Sean calls her new stepson “Dad” and calls David “David”. Isn’t there a phone conversation taped somewhere that contradicts that? Also, how can this family be trusted to present a true image of the father to his son? I have no doubt that this boy is being brainwashed, and needs to be gotten out of that horrible situation at once.

  4. leslie says:

    I just received an alert from the Care2 Action Petition site that states the rally has changed to the 14th but it says it will take place from 11 until 2. I don’t know how to get in touch with Natasha G from the Care2 Action Team to ask her who is sending out the correct information. Please, everyone has to have the same information or our efforts will not be as effective. THank you.

  5. RayAdkins says:

    This is from a Sao Paulo Family Therapist, Roberta Palerm, she has a website in English and Portuguese:

    http://www.robertapalermo.com.br/

    Can someone please translate what she wrote into English:

    Sean, um menino muito amado

    Li a matéria da revista Época (07/03/09) sobre o menino Sean Goldman. Achei que a matéria não foi imparcial. Mostrou que a participação da mãe na vida de uma criança é a única que importa. Então, o pai que tem seu filho afastado de seu convívio, tem que simplesmente pensar na criança? Tem que deixar a mãe decidir se o filho terá pai ou não, como se o filho fosse propriedade dela? E se fosse o contrário? Se o pai fosse embora e levasse a criança para o país de origem, será que ficaria por isso mesmo? Pensariam nos anos de convívio e laços afetivos formados, ou todos lutariam para devolver a criança para a mãe tão sofrida? Uma pena que ainda pensem que um filho precisa apenas da mãe e o pai pode ser apenas um fornecedor de espermatozóides. A matéria deixou claro que, uma vez que a mãe foi embora do país com a criança, o pai poderia compreender, pelo bem do filho, que seria melhor ele pegar um avião e vir gentilmente ao Brasil para ver o filho. Quem sabe a cada quinze dias. Se o pai viesse ao Brasil para conviver com o filho, estaria de acordo com a mudança feita pela mãe e perderia então, a chance de conviver com seu filho, pois vamos lembrar que ele mora em outro país. O pai veio rapidamente ao Brasil depois que a mãe morreu, pois tinha certeza de que nada o impediria de levar o filho dessa vez. Parecia óbvio, a mãe morreu, resta o pai. Ele encontrou caminhos para ter dinheiro para custear advogados e viagens e isso foi muito criticado também. A mãe não faria o mesmo no lugar dele? Por que se uma mãe movesse montanhas para arrecadar dinheiro estaria lutando por um filho e o pai é só interesseiro? Ele é o pai da criança e independente da mãe ter ido embora do país de má fé, ou não, não faz alguma diferença. O pai teve algum direito de opinar a respeito dessa decisão? O pai pode ter sido um péssimo marido, mas não deixa de ser o pai que esse menino tem. Qual é o problema da mulher trabalhar e o pai ficar em casa cuidando da criança? Então a criança gosta menos de um pai ou de uma mãe que trabalha fora? Ele era um pai presente, tanto é que ficava com o filho enquanto a mãe saia para trabalhar. Ele era o cuidador na maior parte do tempo e foi afastado sem ninguém pensar em vínculo sócio-afetivo naquela ocasião. Nada consta sobre o pai ser agressivo ou perigoso. Depois que temos filhos, nem sempre temos a mesma liberdade de ir e vir de antes. Ao menos não deveríamos ter. A mãe estava infeliz, quis ir embora, mas pensou apenas nela e não se importou que o filho não teria mais um pai presente. Tenho certeza de que o padrasto e os familiares maternos são excelentes pessoas, bons cuidadores, pessoas que o Sean ama e com quem vive bem. A avó perdeu a filha, ajuda a criar a neta que não tem mãe. Tudo isso é muito triste. Se ficar longe do neto será uma tristeza maior ainda. Mas por que não é uma tristeza para o pai estar afastado do filho? Sou madrasta e sei que é perfeitamente possível passar a amar uma criança aos 4 anos, mas por que o amor do padrasto é tão fiel e o amor do pai e tão desvalidado? Para manter, mesmo à distância, um vínculo da criança com o pai, não seria importante manter a língua inglesa? Mas fazem questão de dizer que o menino pouco se lembra da língua paterna, para ser mais um fator que poderia dificultar a mudança da guarda. Agora alegam que muito tempo se passou e o contato sócio-afetivo está todo no Brasil. Isso é golpe baixo. Pois é óbvio que toda a vida do menino está estruturada no Brasil e levá-lo embora imediatamente não é o mais adequado. Porém, Ele tem 8 anos e será capaz de se adaptar muito bem à mudanças desde que não seja pressionado por quem não quer que ele vá embora. Se o pai receber o direito de levá-lo embora, eu serei totalmente a favor de que eles tenham a oportunidade de viverem juntos nos Estados Unidos para resgatar a relacão e formar um vínculo afetivo. O menino viria ao Brasil passar as férias escolares com os familiares maternos. Depois de um tempo, se o filho quiser voltar a morar no Brasil, tudo bem se o pai concordar e então passariam a conviver nas férias escolares. Ao menos teriam a oportunidade de conviver, apesar da brusca separação anterior. O menino está muito bem no Brasil. Tem uma família amorosa, um padrasto atencioso, excelente escola, mas tudo isso não pode ser mais importante do que ter um pai presente. O pai preferiu seguir o caminho da lei para ter o filho de volta ao país de origem, mas os anos se passaram e agora o menino tem seus laços afetivos no Brasil. Nesse caso o pai passa a ser o vilão, o culpado por querer mudar a vida do menino. Os familiares brasileiros estão desvalidando o pai. E isso é bom para a criança? Dizer que o pai não trabalha, que era péssimo parceiro sexual, que só está interessado no dinheiro do filho. Isso é para o bem da criança? Li no Estado de São Paulo (08/03/09) que o pai vai abrir mão da herança que o filho tem direito. Até isso ele precisa fazer. Por que as pessoas não podem acreditar que um pai pode querer ser pai? Por que só mãe é vista como quem realmente luta por um filho e não tem outros interesses? Depois de tantos anos, a volta desse menino para o país de origem precisa ter uma passagem gradual. Caso o pai tenha o direito de levá-lo, o ideal seria que ele ficasse no Brasil alguns meses, convivendo diariamente com o filho para formar um vínculo, desde que ao mesmo tempo o menino não estivesse sofrendo pressão das pessoas que querem que ele fique. Certamente os famliares maternos não fariam isso. Pensariam apenas no bem estar da criança, já que seguiriam a decisão da justiça que decidiu que o menino voltaria aos Estados Unidos com o pai. Eles querem que o pai entenda que agora o filho já está no Brasil, já está acostumado. Simples assim. Vamos ver se entenderão se a justiça permitir que o pai o leve de volta.

    Roberta Palermo
    Terapeuta Familiar
    http://www.robertapalermo.com.br

  6. Has anybody here seen the letter supposedly sent by Lins e Silva explaining his position? It is an amazing piece of double-speak aimed at pulling the emotional strings of Brazilians and pitting himself as a Brazilian David fighting against the American Goliath. It is quite long, and can be seen at this site: http://missaoreporter.blogspot.com/2009/03/entenda-como-o-pequeno-sean-goldman-foi.html

    If it has not been seen before let me know I will try to work on a translation of at least parts of it.

  7. Ok, after I posted I saw Lins e Silva’s letter, and Goldman’s legal response, on the homepage. I will do my small part to make sure Brazilians see the response.

  8. @RayAdkins,

    Below is my translation of the article you posted. I was going to just summarize it, but I ended up translating the whole thing. It is outstanding! The author is just dripping with sarcasm towards the “stepfather”. I put one paragraph in brackets because I am not sure I got the exact gist of what she is saying. She was obviously very steamed when she wrote this, because it reads like machine-gun fire. Here it is:

    Sean, a boy who is very loved

    I read the article in Epoca magazine (07/03/09) about the boy Sean Goldman. I found the article to be not very impartial. It showed that the participation of the mother in the life of a child is the only participation that matters. So, the father who has the son removed from his life has to simply “think about the child”? He has to let the mother decide if the son will have a father or not, as if the son were her property?

    And what if the situation were reversed? What if the father were to go away and take the child to his country of origin, would the reaction be the same? Would people think about the years of cohabitation and the emotional ties that were formed, or would everybody fight to return the child to the suffering mother?

    It is a shame that people still think that a child needs only his mother, while the father can be just the one who supplied the sperm.

    The article made it clear that, once the mother left the country with the child, the father should be able to understand, for the good of the son, that it would be better for him to catch a plane and come meekly to Brazil to see him. Say, every two weeks or so.

    [If the father were to come to Brazil to have contact with the child, he would be agreeing with the change made by the mother and would lose, therefore, the chance to live with him, because, let’s remember, he lives in another country.]

    The father came quickly to Brazil after the mother died, because he was certain that nothing would impede him to take his son home this time. It seemed obvious: the mother had died, the father was left.

    He found ways to finance trips and lawyers, and this was also criticized. Would not the mother do this in a similar situation? Why is it that if a mother moved mountains to raise money she would be fighting for her son, but the father is just “in it for the money”? He is the father of the child, and whether or not the mother left the country in bad faith, it makes no difference. Did the father have any right to express his opinion in this matter? He may have been a terrible husband, but this does not make him any less the father of this child.

    What is the problem with a woman working and the father staying at home to take care of the child? Does a child like the parent that works outside the home less? He was an involved father, so much so that he stayed with the boy when the mother went to work. He was the caregiver during the greater part of the time, and was separated without anybody thinking about the “socio-emotional bond” on that occasion.

    There is no evidence that the father was aggressive or dangerous. After we have children, we do not always have the same liberty to come and go as before. At least we shouldn’t have. The mother was unhappy, wanted to leave, but she thought only of herself and did not care that the son would have an absent father.

    I am sure that the stepfather and the maternal family are excelent people, good caregivers, people whom Sean loves and with whome he lives well. The grandmother lost her daughter, and helps to take care of the granddaughter who has no mother. If she were separated from the granddaughter it would mean still greater sadness for her.

    But why is it not sadness for the father to be separated from his son? I am a stepmother and I know that it is quite possible to come to love a child of four years, but how is the love of the stepfather so true, and the love of the father so invalidated?

    To maintain, even at a distance, a link between the child and his father, would it not be important to maintain the English language? But they make a point of saying that the child hardly remember his native tongue, in order to present one more factor that could make a change in custody more difficult.

    Now the allege that much time has passed and the socio-emotional contact is all in Brazil. This is a low blow. It is obvious that all the child’s life is in Brazil and taking him away immediately is no longer adequate. However, he is 8 years old and will be very capable of adapting very well to the changes as long as he is not pressured byt someone who does not want him ot leave. If the father receives the right to take him away, I will be totally in favor of them having the opportunity to live together in the United States to rescue the relationship and form an emotional bond. The child would come to Brazil to spend school breaks with his maternal family. After a while, if the child whishes to return and live in Brazil, fine, if the father agrees. Then they could still spend school breaks together. At least they would have the oportunity to live together, in spite of the former abrupt separation.

    The child is very well in Brazil. He has a loving family, an attentive step-father, an excellent school, but none of this can be more important than a present father.

    The father preferred to follow the law in order to get the son returned to his country of origin, but the years passed and now the boy has is emotional bonds in Brazil. In this case the father becomes the villain, guilty of wanting to change the life of his son. The Brazilian family members are invalidating the father. Is this good for the child? Saying that the son doesn’t work, that he was a terrible sexual partner, that he is only interested in the son’s money—is this for the good of the child?

    I read in the Estado de São Paulo (03/08/09) that the father is giving up his right to the son’s inheritance. It was even necessary for him to do this. Why can’t people believe that a father might just want to be a father? Why is it that just the mother is seen as someone who fights for the child with no second intentions?

    After so many years, the return of this child to his original country needs to be gradual. Should the father win the right to take him, the ideal would be for him to stay in Brazil a few months, having regular contact with the son in order to form a bond, as long as at the same time the child is not suffering pressure from the people that want him to stay. Certainly the maternal family would not do this. They would only think of the wellbeing of the child, since they would already be following the judicial decision that the child return to the United States with his father.

    They want the father to understand that the son is already in Brazil, and is used to it. It’s so simple. Let’s see if they will understand if the court permits the father to take him back.

    Roberta Palermo
    Family Therapist.

  9. anna42 says:

    Excellent article…a journalist with common sense!!!

  10. rochele says:

    I’m Brazilian and I wanna say that we’re completely aware of the Lins e Silva’s letter..
    it’s disgusting! That man is a liar! All of us here in Porto Alegre ( south of Brazil) are on David’s side..my family, friends, English classmates and so on…Sean is coming home soon..
    My best wishes for all Americans..
    ( sorry for my basic English)

  11. Re: RALLY

    WARNING!

    I have been involved in abduction for almost 20 years. Not much goes on that does not get to my attention. YOur rally is great…HOWEVER…I have information that indicates you may have MERCENARIES at your Rally. Their goal is to “recruit” clients. They will promise to recover your child. They will rape you financially. If you are approached, Get their name-and contact the Department of State/OCI or P.A.R.E.N.T.

    If you want to speak to parents that have been victimized by mercenaries…let me know or leave a message on the blog at P.A.R.E.N.T.
    http://www.parentinternational.org

    GOOD LUCK WITH THE RALLY!

    Maureen Dabbagh
    author, “Recovery of Internationallyl Abducted Children”
    Certified Cross-Border Mediator
    Mother of Nadia Dabagh, abducted in 1993.

  12. RayAdkins says:

    Dear Mr. Comings,

    Thank you so much for you great work translating that long letter.

    Ray

  13. marcusroberto says:

    Hello, David.

    I’m from Brazil and just saw the news at “Fantástico”, a very known TV show in Brazil. Watching your interview and the grandmother’s, I’m feeling inclined to your side. I hope you can get your son back and live a very happy life with him. Lets hope that the justice do the right thing this time.

    Good luck.
    Marcus Roberto.

  14. lmhall2000 says:

    deb….I have understanding for your passion as I do for the folks working so hard on this side of the issue. The bottom line is both sides want what is best for Sean. I have tried to put myself in both positions….we (you and I) are neither the Goldman’s or Bruna’s family…you have presented your side…so see if you can view it from Goldman’s perspective as what has been stated by him and various journalists.

    Let’s see if you can think a little bit.

    1. Bruna took her son to Brazil with the intention of a 2 week vacation with grandparents..NEVER did she ever let on that she was never returning with their child.

    2. Bruna abducted THEIR son. The definition of abduction fits here..you can not call it by any other name. think a bit.

    3. David traveled to Brazil numerous times before Bruna’s death, but due to ‘legalities’ he was advised not to see his son or the claim of abduction would be void and the Hague convention statutes would not apply, which was his BEST shot at claiming his role as father of his son. He wasn’t about to give up that right.

    4. He sent numerous gifts/cards to Sean that were RETURNED…by whom were they returned by? The family you so clearly see as loving and devoted to Sean? Or the family that is committed to cutting out any exposure to his FATHER? Call it brainwashing, manipulation, exclusion, I call it WRONG!

    5. Do you really think Sean’s grandparents would accept a call, collect or not, from David, if they’re the ones who returned all the gifts/cards David has sent?

    6. The “official” documents are a series of misleadings, now that our government and your government have cut out all the middle men with invested interests..we’re getting to the truth….justice will be served and Sean will be with his only remaining parent.

    And, how dare you say he was not a father, he was not a sperm donor, he WAS the parent who stayed home with their son..my husband was a stay at home Dad while I worked because I had the better career with increased benefits…how many fathers would devote those years to their child rather than a career? He has a job and he will be a devoted provider for Sean…get your facts and let your opinions be formed around them.

  15. iprueher says:

    Best of luck to all of those you can make the rally tomorrow. Wish I was able to make it.

  16. MichelleGodde says:

    Hi All:

    I’m on the west coast and hoping to hear about the rally today. Please drop a line as to the events of today when you get a chance.

    Thanks!




Looking for something?

Looking for Help

Please contact us immediately!

QR Scan

Scan the Code to access BSHF on your Smartphone.
Need a Code Reader?