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

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.

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.

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?

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

Top of page