Apprehension is the word I'd select for the feeling I had on the day of the final divorce hearing. Not to end a marriage that I'd learned was rife with deceit, but to be forced to appear in a court room with DF, who I'd not seen since he vanished the year prior, and KMC, someone who'd derived intense pleasure inflicting as much emotional distress upon me. Notwithstanding, this last event was the last hurdle to overcome and then it would be clear road ahead for me.
After pulling into the court parking lot, I pysched myself up like a pro football player about to run onto the pitch, and whistled through the security checkpoint and up to the third floor court room, hoping not to catch a glimpse of either of them before meeting my attorney.
Ours was the second of two cases scheduled for the morning, and 10 minutes prior to being called the judge's assistant approached my attorney asking us to step outside the court room for a conference. We were escorted into a small room on the left and asked to take a seat. "The judge has asked me to inform you that the Court will not hear an annulment case. You'll have to settle for a simpledivorce in this matter" she declared. My attorney proceeded to ask a range of questions, to which answers would only serve to increase my state of despair.
The Judge entered our side-bar quarters about half an hour later and began to share information that was most upsetting. Essentially, in a nutshell, the Judge had read our counter-complaint for annulment, recognised that we wished to declare the marriage void ab initio due to information that had come to light in recent months of a conversation between DF and a guest at our wedding, but since this was an immigration-related matter the Judge declared that he was neither comfortable nor inclined to render a decision in that realm. I felt stripped of the legal right to do what I felt was not only necessary, but also correct under these special circumstances, but the Judge was resolute.
We continued to deliberate with the Judge in these small chambers, presenting our case, point by point, and attempting to provide him with necessary familiarity of the issues and a thumbnail recital of the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act. At one point, seeing how increasingly more distressed I was becoming, the Judge ordered that we adjourn for an hour, in order for me to be able to relax and get some fresh air.
Late that afternoon we assembled, once more, in the light oak-trimmed court room, this time empty save for DF and his counsel and me and mine. The words echoed as DF was called to the stand to swear under both oath and penalty of perjury that he had no additional assets, nothing being held by another party and that he'd declared everything in his possession, including that which was in Swiss bank accounts.
After pulling into the court parking lot, I pysched myself up like a pro football player about to run onto the pitch, and whistled through the security checkpoint and up to the third floor court room, hoping not to catch a glimpse of either of them before meeting my attorney.
Ours was the second of two cases scheduled for the morning, and 10 minutes prior to being called the judge's assistant approached my attorney asking us to step outside the court room for a conference. We were escorted into a small room on the left and asked to take a seat. "The judge has asked me to inform you that the Court will not hear an annulment case. You'll have to settle for a simpledivorce in this matter" she declared. My attorney proceeded to ask a range of questions, to which answers would only serve to increase my state of despair.
The Judge entered our side-bar quarters about half an hour later and began to share information that was most upsetting. Essentially, in a nutshell, the Judge had read our counter-complaint for annulment, recognised that we wished to declare the marriage void ab initio due to information that had come to light in recent months of a conversation between DF and a guest at our wedding, but since this was an immigration-related matter the Judge declared that he was neither comfortable nor inclined to render a decision in that realm. I felt stripped of the legal right to do what I felt was not only necessary, but also correct under these special circumstances, but the Judge was resolute.
We continued to deliberate with the Judge in these small chambers, presenting our case, point by point, and attempting to provide him with necessary familiarity of the issues and a thumbnail recital of the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act. At one point, seeing how increasingly more distressed I was becoming, the Judge ordered that we adjourn for an hour, in order for me to be able to relax and get some fresh air.
Late that afternoon we assembled, once more, in the light oak-trimmed court room, this time empty save for DF and his counsel and me and mine. The words echoed as DF was called to the stand to swear under both oath and penalty of perjury that he had no additional assets, nothing being held by another party and that he'd declared everything in his possession, including that which was in Swiss bank accounts.
The Judge required this pursuant to Sands v Sands,a case that established precedent to award to the injured party in a divorce, in whole, any undisclosed assets held by their spouse, under the doctrine of "unclean hands" and "estoppel".
DF looked out over the court room from the witness stand; our eyes met for the first time in more than a year as he declared that he had nothing in any bank accounts that he hadn't declared to the Court. Tears rolled down my face as I saw him stumble over the oath. It was clear DF didn't know what he was doing, was completely unaware of the potential penalty and was beyond the reach of his attorney, who was visibly floored to hear the Judge's caution and realised that they'd been taken by surprise. There's no way all of the money DF had placed his hands on was gone. A vehicle of mine he'd sold, equity money from my home, the contents of my bank accounts, his income, his retirement fund in Switzerland.
In the final judgment, offered some 6 hours after our arrival, the Court deemed the marriage terminated, specifically preserved right for me to pursue fraud and conspiracy as a separate cause of action, even though the claim arose out of a marriage, and instructed opposing counsel to draft the Consent Judgment of Divorce for my signature within 14 days.
The gavel dropped and in one resounding clang the matter was over. As we began to filter out of the court room the Judge made his way towards me, extended his hand to shake mine, and wished me well.
I can sum up the experience in one word ~ "pathos".
Not for DF, per se, but for the entire situation. I thought of the children and how I'd chosen not to pursue the fraud matter with USCIS, despite much urging from many, out of consideration for them and what impact a potential removal could have on their image of their father, and yet, in the end he might have committed perjury and had complicated his immigration process, anyway; a ten-year friendship that had evaporated into thin air, just as DF had that early morning in July 2003; a Judge, unwilling to entertain an annulment, which would have been a logical way to wrap up this matter, yet willing to ambush an unsophisticated party in the end; DF's look, like a deer frozen in the headlights, as he tripped over words in his oath and blundered with a statement that he had nothing in any bank account, yet was going to "write a check that afternoon to deposit money" in order to pay his bills. Deposit? Deposit what and from which account? He had declared all accounts had zero balances.
Finally, there was the judicial system in a small town, unfamiliar with immigration consequences, underpinnings or ramifications, and clearly impotent as a consequence. Devoid of due process in this instance, most probably due to the Court's trepidation to tread "unfamiliar ground" or it's interest to clear the docket and prohibit lengthy litigation, yet, so as to proffer a fair judgment, almost guaranteeing the requirement for further legal process by placing a complainant in a position where justice could not be served without another cause of action.
Yes, it was "pathos" alright!
DF looked out over the court room from the witness stand; our eyes met for the first time in more than a year as he declared that he had nothing in any bank accounts that he hadn't declared to the Court. Tears rolled down my face as I saw him stumble over the oath. It was clear DF didn't know what he was doing, was completely unaware of the potential penalty and was beyond the reach of his attorney, who was visibly floored to hear the Judge's caution and realised that they'd been taken by surprise. There's no way all of the money DF had placed his hands on was gone. A vehicle of mine he'd sold, equity money from my home, the contents of my bank accounts, his income, his retirement fund in Switzerland.
In the final judgment, offered some 6 hours after our arrival, the Court deemed the marriage terminated, specifically preserved right for me to pursue fraud and conspiracy as a separate cause of action, even though the claim arose out of a marriage, and instructed opposing counsel to draft the Consent Judgment of Divorce for my signature within 14 days.
The gavel dropped and in one resounding clang the matter was over. As we began to filter out of the court room the Judge made his way towards me, extended his hand to shake mine, and wished me well.
I can sum up the experience in one word ~ "pathos".
Not for DF, per se, but for the entire situation. I thought of the children and how I'd chosen not to pursue the fraud matter with USCIS, despite much urging from many, out of consideration for them and what impact a potential removal could have on their image of their father, and yet, in the end he might have committed perjury and had complicated his immigration process, anyway; a ten-year friendship that had evaporated into thin air, just as DF had that early morning in July 2003; a Judge, unwilling to entertain an annulment, which would have been a logical way to wrap up this matter, yet willing to ambush an unsophisticated party in the end; DF's look, like a deer frozen in the headlights, as he tripped over words in his oath and blundered with a statement that he had nothing in any bank account, yet was going to "write a check that afternoon to deposit money" in order to pay his bills. Deposit? Deposit what and from which account? He had declared all accounts had zero balances.
Finally, there was the judicial system in a small town, unfamiliar with immigration consequences, underpinnings or ramifications, and clearly impotent as a consequence. Devoid of due process in this instance, most probably due to the Court's trepidation to tread "unfamiliar ground" or it's interest to clear the docket and prohibit lengthy litigation, yet, so as to proffer a fair judgment, almost guaranteeing the requirement for further legal process by placing a complainant in a position where justice could not be served without another cause of action.
Yes, it was "pathos" alright!
No comments:
Post a Comment