Page 2 of 5   Previous |  1 |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5 |  Next >>

As if this weren’t enough injustice, there is one more circumstance that needs to be noted, related to the processing time of the repatriation demand.

According to what has been previously noted, the court order was filed on November 16, 2004. But on May 24, 2005, the processing of the order was paralyzed by the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region, at Bruna’s request, in a motion she filed to contest the competence of the Federal Court.

The paralysis of the process – I repeat, which occurred due to Bruna’s request – lasted until September 21, 2005, when the appeal was rejected by the TRF-2, confirming the competence of the Federal Justice. Only then, only after September 21, 2005, was the case resumed. A few days later, on October 13, 2005, a sentence was given that recognized the existence of the illicit act under Article 3, but rejected Sean’s return since too much time had passed.

Let’s recap: The father needed to go to the courts. He had no choice. He asked the Federal Court to return his son to the US on November 16, 2004. The process was halted, with no progress whatsoever for four months due to Bruna’s request. Afterwards, when the case was resumed and the sentence was made, it recognized the father’s right and said he's correct. However, it said too much time had passed and the child’s return was not possible. Tell me, what kind of justice is this? What court allows time to diminish the right of the person who is correct, for a cause that involves priceless interests, like the future of a child?

However, this father did not give up. He made use of each and every appeal foreseen in the Brazilian legislation. He appealed. He requested court orders. He witnessed the TRF-2 declare, expressly, that he, David Goldman, did not present inadequate conditions to raise and educate a child, but that, even with all these reasons, it would not be possible. He asked for the help of Superior Court of Justice. Once more, he did not succeed, not because he wasn’t right, but because too much time had passed. He knocked on the doors of the Federal Supreme Court.

This father, accused of forfeiting and being absent by Mr. Joao Paulo, did everything he could. He fought desperately against the greatest evil of the Brazilian judiciary: its slowness. He made it to the highest court of justice in a country that is not his own, of a country, I repeat, whose language he does not speak and whose institutions he does not understand.

While he awaited his final chance, Bruna tragically passed away.

Mr. David Goldman could never comprehend why the Brazilian judiciary never decided – as it has still failed to do even now – to send his child home.

The law was clear. He, David Goldman, was never accused by Bruna or her family of anything. As a matter of fact, since we’re discussing the topic of accusations, it’s time to say “Enough is enough!”

Because everything Mr. Joao Paulo mentioned in his correspondence to this Council, and everything that Sean’s Brazilian family members have been telling the Rio elite and the media, is new information.

There were never accusations against Sean’s father while the child’s mother was alive. On the contrary.

Now they’re stating that Sean, before turning four years old, while he was still in the US, told his grandmother that his father told him that Bruna didn’t love him [Sean]. Later, when Bruna was in Brazil, learned of this “…barbarity…” committed by the father of her child, and decided to remain here. Now, Sean’s maternal grandparents are speaking to the press, stating that David was violent, that he would punch and break furniture and the walls.

But it’s rather curious that the accusation Sean allegedly mentioned to his grandmother, that his father was poisoning Bruna’s image in the eyes of the little boy, only came to light before Joao Paulo’s letter was written, almost five years after the marriage between David and Bruna ended. There were certainly plenty of opportunities before then

The court records of this case contain more than two thousand pages, without a single accusation – see, it’s not about the absence of proof, it’s about the absence of accusations – that would have indicated that David is an unfit parent.

Sean’s maternal grandparents presented sworn statements to the Superior Court of New Jersey, giving their version of the events. They declared they had no knowledge of marital problems in their daughter’s marriage, and stated they fully trusted Mr. David Goldman. These statements are part of the court records in Brazil and the USA.

Sean’s maternal grandparents traveled to the United States about one year after Sean’s abduction to testify for the records due to the pending court order. In their testimony, they did not state anything that calls into question Mr. Goldman’s conduct as a husband and a father. Once more, they stated they trusted David Goldman. The transcript of this statement is also in the court records.

But the most reliable witness Mr. Goldman had in the Brazilian and US courts was Bruna, his son’s mother.

Mr. David Goldman has recordings of telephone conversations with Bruna which took place after Sean’s illegal removal, i.e., after litigation had begun. These recordings are also in the court records, and from them I’ll quote a part as an example of the dialogue between the recently separated couple.

“David: This is the point, Bruna. Marriages have their ups and downs… when we started dating, your father and mother, you mother was going to leave him. Marriages have highs and lows, times of crisis, times without crisis, and you said your love turned into friendship…hey, if you’re someone’s friend, there’s still love, Bruna. People are…

Bruna: No, this is not… this is not a man’s love, this is not love like a man. My sexual feelings…didn’t develop and now they’re crushed. That’s enough for me. It’s enough. It’s hard, very hard…

David: That’s right, Bru.

Bruna: I really think you’re a great guy. You’re a wonderful father and... I could never have anyone better. And I’m very happy we had a child together, I’m very happy you were his father…”

In another part of this conversation, Bruna complains that her husband didn’t pay enough attention to her. And why is that? Bruna accused David of only having eyes for Sean, completely forgetting the little boy also had a mother. How ironic, considering that now this father is accused of not loving his son…

Please note we’re not making unsupported statements. We’re not narrating our own version, as Mr. Joao Paulo does in his letter. These conversations took place, have been recorded and are part of the court records. Everything is proven. These are not speculations.

On another occasion, Bruna, already in Brazil, sent an email to one of her friends, stating once again:“David is a great guy and I do not regret a single minute, but our love story had ended… I feel really bad for David because of Sean...” The message is also in the court records.

Although Bruna never traveled to the US to testify, she presented a signed declaration to the Superior Court of New Jersey. In this declaration, once more, she makes no accusations about her child’s father. On the contrary.

Ironically, yet again, one of Bruna’s complaints to the New Jersey court was that David and Sean were building a “best buddies relationship” while she, Bruna, didn’t think it was the ideal relationship between father and son. This is another proven fact. This declaration, written and signed by Bruna, is also in the court records.

Indeed, one must note Bruna really complained about having to work two shifts to help pay the bills. Even though working to help support the household is a reality for 50 million Brazilian women, Bruna was not comfortable with that.

Yet Bruna, in the same declaration, complains about another issue: she complains that one of the reasons that contributed to her wish to separate was the fact that her husband, on the weekends, would go to work on his boat at 4am, only returning at night.

The ironies continue….

Bruna left David, accusing him of only caring about their child, of only being Sean’s “best buddy” and forgetting about her as the mother. Now, in the search for his son, David is accused of not loving him.

Bruna left David accusing him of working too much instead of giving her the kind attention she expected. Now, in the quest for his son, David is accused of being a “...lazy husband...” and a “...jobless American...”

This is not all. A report from the Rio de Janeiro State Court, written in December 2005, states the following about Sean and his father:

“…One perceives that Sean shows interest in being with David, referring to same with very positive attitude...”. This document is also in the court records.

David is even accused of extortion. He’s accused of demanding US$150,000 from Sean’s maternal grandparents, in exchange for the removal of “…unfounded accusations of kidnapping…”. He is also accused of larceny and check fraud. He’s accused of forging checks and cleaning out Bruna’s checking account after she came to Brazil.

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.

Page 2 of 5   Previous |  1 |  2 |  3 |  4 |  5 |  Next >>

Top of page