The abduction took place within days of a court-ordered psychiatric report found Melinda to be emotionally unstable.

Andrew & his mother are both Australian Citizens who have no other form of citizenship.

Although they flew to Europe (Germany) they immediately disappeared without trace. I’ve since learned Andrew’s mother was advised to leave Germany because it is a signatory to the Hague Convention – albeit not a very compliant signatory – & go to Japan.

I have no idea whether or not she followed this advice.

Although Interpol notices have been issued for Melinda, and an arrest warrant has been issued for her, the Japanese authorities have so far refused to provide any information to the Australian authorities about whether or not Melinda has entered Japan. This is despite the fact that the request has been made on the grounds of the possibility of Australia seeking her extradition & was not made under the provisions of the Hague Convention.

So far, the Australian authorities have not placed any pressure on the Japanese authorities to provide this information. Japan is one of Australia’s main trading partners & the level of Japanese investment in Australia is very high.

It seems the Japanese have no interest in International Human Rights; the emotional or physical well-being of children (or adults); international agreements of any kind (other than trade agreements), or the legal systems of other countries no matter whether these laws relate to the abduction of children across international borders or to criminal acts in general.

It also seems our own governments are more concerned about their trade agreements with Japan than they are about the human rights of their own citizens.

This must change!

I have recently formed a group called Coalition of Parents of Abducted Children (COPAC). Its purpose is to raise awareness about IPCA; provide support & information to left behind parents, and lobby governments on a range of IPCA issues. It has only been established on Facebook at this stage but I am planning to develop it further.

If anyone would like to contact me, my email address is kenthompson@fastmail.fm

Ken Thompson
Sydney, Australia
http://www.findandrew.com

Thanks for the education. And thank you for your tireless efforts on behalf of our children. While my child was not abducted from the United States to Japan, she is an American citizen who has been deprived of access to her father in Japan. My case is what is commonly termed a “denial of access case,” both with respect to me and my daughter, Lili. The Japanese courts, as is invariably the case here, ruled in favor of my ex-wife and awarded her exclusive custody of Lili folloowiung a protracted divorce proceeding. And with no provision for visitation under Japanese statute, and no enforcement mechanisms in place even if visitation were possible, Lili has effectively been kidnapped like Melissa, albeit “legally.” My separation from my ex took place when Lili was four years old, and I had contact with her for another year and a half during the divorce proceedings, so we had developed a close and loving relationship with each other, making the separation extraordinarily painful. As I’m sure you know, there are plenty of other American parents residing in Japan who have lost all contact with their kids through the callousness of the Japanese family law system. I wish you every success in persuading our legislators to do something about the injustice being wrought upon our children, specifically with respect to passage of H.R. 3240.

Thank you for all your good work.

Tony

Kind Regards,
Rao

–Douglass Berg another suffering father.

This is a “legal” issue which Congress must investigate and review the malfeasance of the Judicial and Executive Branch by their abuse of delegated authority of Congress under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b); the Judicial Conference of the United States Act, 28 U.S.C. § 331; and the Judiciary Act of 1925 at 43 Stat. 936 (providing for “discretionary appellate jurisdiction”). In reconsidering these delegations Congress must recall the sorry acts of German judges, lawyers, and law schools permitting the usurping of Constitutional rights under the Weimar Republic aiding the NAZI to power, because, “[b]y the time the gas vans came and the human slaughter factories were built in Auschwitz and the other death camps, the murder of the six million Jews and other persecuted minorities was done completely within the framework of German law.” Yad Vshem, The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes Remembrance Authority, 2004.

Thus, it is obvious that our Republic cannot survive the unbridled tyranny and cronyism of government attorneys and judges, and then surreally place themselves above and beyond the law by unilaterally declaring themselves absolutely immune from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act and/or civil RICO. See, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. Editor-in-Chief, Legal Times, et al., DC Dist Ct. No 07-cv-0975 (Friedman, J.); DC Ct. Of App. No. 07-5234; cert denied Docket No. 08-411. See also denial of Mandamus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 3771, USSCT Docket No 08-339 (http://home.earthlink.net/~isidoror).

Query, if I with more than 35 years of federal trail/appellate civil litigation experience can be targeted for punishment by the government/courts for petitioning Congress and litigating to exercise my federal statutory rights as a father and federal litigator–what is either layman father or an inexperience attorney to do to protect their rights against acts of malfeasance and cronyism of government attorneys and judges?

Consequently, I respectfully request that in addition to investigating the denial of access to an impartial court that law enforcement in Virginia and the District of Columbia comply with their legal obligation under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 3771, to protect me as a victim an interstate criminal conspiracy (See, Exhibit 1, and http://home.earthlink.net/~malfeasance)(See pending petition for certiorari on the issue of malfeasance by the courts and government attorneys, Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq. v. U.S. Ct. of App. for the D. C. Circuit, Docket No. 09-237.