Podcasts about Hague Convention

Hello Youtube Members, Patreons and Pacific War week by week listeners. Yes this was intended to be an exclusive episode to join the 29 others over on my Youtube Membership and Patreon, but since we are drawing to the end of the Pacific War week by week series, I felt compelled to make some special episodes to answer some of the bigger questions.   Hey before I begin I just want to thank all of you who have joined the patreon, you guys are awesome. Please let me know what other figures, events or other things you want to hear about in the future and I will try to make it happen.   So as you can see the title of this episode is, Why did the Japanese perform so many Atrocities during the Pacific War. Phewww, its honestly a difficult one to tackle, for there are countless reasons. I had a university professor who taught; ancient and modern Japanese history, history of the Japanese empire and the Pacific War. He actually answered this very question in a single lecture and in many ways I found it to be one of the most illuminating things I ever learnt about the Pacific War. To truly understand the reasons why they did such horrible things, you actually need to learn the general history of Japan, particularly the changes from Tokugawa, to Meiji, to Showa. I am going to do my very best, but I know many of you might be asking “what were the worst things they did?”, not everyone takes a special interest into such a niche part of history. May I recommend for those with strong stomachs “the knights of Bushido” by Edward Russel that covers pretty much all the atrocities of the Asia-Pacific War. For those of you who like darker things, check out Unit 731: Japan's Secret Biological Warfare in World War II by David Wallace and Peter Williams, absolute nightmare fuel.   I can't go through the entire history of Japan, but I think it's important to start off with the first Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895. This was the first time the Empire of Japan fought a true war with a foreign nation, that being the Qing dynasty. At this point in time, there really emerged a sort of, to be blunt, race war. The Chinese had historically referred to the Japanese as “woren”, a racist term meaning dwarf. Now historically the Japanese had always revered the Chinese, kind of like in the way a little brother looks up to his big brother. In tokugawa Japan they would learn from the Chinese, but as the Meiji restoration began this dramatically changed. Japan watched as the Chinese were humiliating and abused by the western powers and failed to modernize. Meanwhile Japan emulated the best of the west, to modernize and become a great power themselves. In many ways, Japan saw itself become big brother and now China was little brother. The Meiji restoration had an element of nationalism built into it that would explode come the Show era. Japan for its entire history had this belief they were the “Yamato Race” dating back to the 6th century. Now while the Meiji restoration sought to emulate the west, they also emulated racism and propaganda, which in the 19th century was kind of a big deal. The Japanese government gradually began a long term campaign promoting the idea the Japanese, or Yamato people were superior to that of the other asian races. Who was the next big asian boy on the block? China, so it was inevitable they would direct a lot of racist attitudes towards the Chinese. During the first sino-japanese war, the Chinese, particularly Manchu had a habit of performing atrocities upon the Japanese. They would often cut off body parts of Japanese soldiers in grotesque manners and leave them to be found by their comrades. This was honestly a pretty typical thing of war in the region, but it did also have a racist element to it, the Chinese certainly saw the Japanese as lesser people. Just before the battle of Port Arthur, the Japanese found mutilated remains of the comrades, here is a passage from Makio Okabe who was there:   As we entered the town of Port Arthur, we saw the head of a Japanese soldier displayed on a wooden stake. This filled us with rage and a desire to crush any Chinese soldier. Anyone we saw in the town, we killed. The streets were filled with corpses, so many they blocked our way. We killed people in their homes; by and large, there wasn't a single house without from three to six dead. Blood was flowing and the smell was awful. We sent out search parties. We shot some, hacked at others. The Chinese troops just dropped their arms and fled. Firing and slashing, it was unbounded joy. At this time, our artillery troops were at the rear, giving three cheers [banzai] for the emperor.   The Japanese performed a massacre at Port Arthur, butchering perhaps up to 3000 Chinese civilians, some claim 10's of thousands and in full few of western war correspondents. It became a huge controversy that destroyed the image of the IJA internationally and hurt the Japanese governments efforts at riding themselves of unequal treaties with the western powers. The Japanese learnt a hell of a lesson and an Imperial Proclamation was made in 1894 stating that Japanese soldiers should make every effort to win the war without violating international laws. According to Japanese historian Yuki Tanaka, Japanese forces during the First Sino-Japanese War released 1,790 Chinese prisoners without harm, once they signed an agreement not to take up arms against Japan if they were released.   During the next major war the Japanese performed a dramatic 180, well at least to their enemy. During the Russo-Japanese War, over 80,000 Russian POWs were held by the IJA who were treated in accordance with the Hague conventions of 1899. The Japanese paid them for labor, housed them in conventional POW camps, made sure they received good medical treatment, ironically better than the Russians were capable of. The Japanese did all of this, making sure the foreign war correspondents wrote about it. It was a massive PR stunt in many ways. The Japanese were emulating how a world power should act, because they sought to be one. Meanwhile the Japanese swallowed their pride at being called yellow monkeys, as the prevalent Yellow Peril ideology was being pushed by Kaiser Wilhehelm and Tsar Nicholas II heavily. The Japanese treated the entire war like gentlemen and suffered horrific higher casualties than necessary because of it. But something many people don't take much notice of, because the IJA made sure of it, was they horrible treatment of the Chinese during the war.   Now the Russians in Manchuria looted, killed and raped many Chinese, pushed quite a bit by the Yellow Peril. The Chinese, certainly the Honghuzi bandits were working for the Japanese to attack them, so its not like they had no reasons. The IJA was more professional and had orders not to molest the Chinese, as they were helping the war effort, but this did not prevent it. The Japanese also looted, killed and raped Chinese. The Japanese would often wave it off as reprisals against potential spies. I only bring this up as it was very apparent, the Japanese treated the Russians much different than the chinese.   Fast forward to WW1, the Japanese had a battle against the Germans and Austro-Hungarians known in the west as the Siege of Tsingtau. The Japanese took up an identical methodology to the Russo-Japanese war with their approach to the Germans, but even took it a step further. After winning the siege, the Japanese seized nearly 5000 German POW's who were treated with a surreal amount of respect. They were brought back to Japan and housed for the rest of the war in 12 cities around Tokyo and Kumamoto. The POW's enjoyed humane treatment and a rather famous event occurred at the Bando camp where a large orchestra was formed of German POW's who toured the nation performing 100 concerts, lectures and plays. Evidence the Germans were treated well can be seen in the fact 170 prisoners never left Japan and sought wives and lives there. Now is this all a feel good love story, no, just like during the Russo-Japanese War, Japan was playing up the PR, for during WW1 they wanted official recognition as a world power and that of being racially equal to the whites.    Japan was officially recognized as a world power during the treaty of Versailles, but when Japan gave its racial equality proposal, President Woodrow Wilson of the US and Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes refused to allow it to pass, even though they received majority votes. Now The Japanese had been for a lack of better words, fucked over, during the first sino-japanese war when the triple intervention of France, Germany and Russia stole away their war earning of the Liaodong peninsula. During the Russo-Japanese war, Theodore Roosevelt limited the Japanese war gains and now here after WW1 the Japanese received another humiliation. To the Japanese, it was the last straw and it was a major reason they went to war with the west, who they viewed, and honestly rightfully so, would never see them as equals.   Ompf, lot of history there, but now we come to the Showa era, which was molded by the feelings of the past decades.   In 1937 Japan and China enter an unofficial war that saw one of the worst wartime atrocities in human history, the rape of Nanjing. It began on December 13th of 1937, lasting 6 or so weeks seeing the murder of possibly 300,000 civilians and pows, the mass rape of 20,000 and untold hardship upon the Chinese people. The Japanese followed this up with numerous other massacres in China such as the Changjiao Massacre claiming possibly 30,000 Chinese civilian lives, the Alexandra Hospital Massacre killing 200 patients and medical staff in Hong Kong, the Laha Massacre on Ambon island where 300 members of the Gull force were executed, the Bangka island massacre where 60 Australian and British soldiers and 22 Australian nurses were murdered, the Parit Sulong massacre in Malay where 150 wounded Australian and Indian POW's were executed, the Bataan Death march where negligence and brutality took the lives of 650 Americans and perhaps a possible 18,000 Filipinos, the Manila massacres claiming the lives of perhaps 54,000 filipinos including women and children in the Philippines, the Balikpapan massacre in the dutch east indies taking the lives of 78 Dutch Civilians, I can keep going and going. Where the Japanese went, massacres and horrors occurred.    Again if you really want to delve into these stories check out “the knights of Bushido”.   The Japanese also had the infamous special units like 731, who conducted horrifying experiments on civilians and POWs like vivisectioning live people without anesthesia, testing biological and chemical weapons on live people, the freezing peoples to study frostbite treatment and giving people sexually transmitted diseases to study. Lt General Shiro Ishii's unit 731 deployed plague infested fleas, cholera, bubonic plague and other nasty weapons upon Chinese civilians killing perhaps up to 500,000. This was seen during the battle of Changde and famously during operation Sei-go also known as the Zhejiang-Jiangxi campaign.    The Japanese also enacted the infamous “Sanko Sakusen / three all's policy : kill all, urn all, loot all” in retaliation to the Chinese communists Hundred regiments offensive in December of 1940. Sanctioned by Hirohito personally, it is thought this act resulted in the death of 2.7 million Chinese civilians. According to author Werner Gruhl 8 million Chinese civilian deaths could be attributable to the Japanese.     So then we come back to the big question, why? So now that I've covered the loose history for coherency sake I want to list here the largest reasons for the atrocities and by no means is this official categories or even all of them, I am simply stating kind of my top ones I guess you can say:   Treaties signed or not signed War strategy and indoctrination  Ultra-Nationalism and Racism Surrender & the Bastardization of the Bushido code The Brutality of the Japanese military Treaties signed or not signed   Yes its time to talk about treaties, yawn. Now I said previously Japan did sign the Hague Conventions of 1899 and would ratify them in 1907. The Hague conventions did contain laws for prisoners of war, protection of civilians. Alongside this, in 1894 an imperial proclamation was made stating Japanese soldiers should make every effort to win a war without violating international laws. More significantly Japan “signed” but unlike the majority of other world powers did not ratify the Geneva convention of 1929. Why? To be blunt, the geneva conventions did not really benefit the Japanese military from their point of view.   First the Japanese had a very specific perspective on surrendering, they simply did not do it, so they did not expect many of their soldiers to ever become POW's, so how would it benefit them to ratify such a thing? If they are not going to have many POW's, why would they burden themselves with upholding all the conventional laws for POW's they would obtain during war?  Another glaring reason involved aerial bombing. Many Japanese leaders, like Kanji Ishiwara, believed the home islands would be subjected to massive aerial bombing if a global war broke out. If Japan was subjected to aerial bombing and ratified the geneva convention, this meant they would have to take the pilots who were caught prisoner. The Japanese believed this would encourage further bombing. Lastly the convention had rules for POW treatment that literally contradicted how Japanese soldiers were treated by their own superiors. More about that in the last part about the military's brutality, but summarized, the Japanese army were abusive as hell and to sign such a thing would literally contradict how they did things.   Emperor Hirohito personally ratified a decision to remove certain constraints of the Hague Conventions when it came to the treatment of Chinese POW's in the directive of 5 August 1937. This notification advised staff officers to simply stop using the term "prisoners of war". They would refer to their enemy as bandits, guerillas and such, anything but soldiers so they would not have to take any prisoners, though they typically did not leave anyone alive in China regardless. The Geneva Convention exempted POWs of sergeant rank or higher from manual labor, and stipulated that prisoners performing work should be provided with extra rations and other essentials. The Japanese in the later half of the war would be starved of provisions and resources, thus its to no surprise they could not meet these demands, even if they sought to uphold them. I will note in 1942, Japan indicated they would “follow” the Geneva rules and would observe the Hague Convention of 1907 outlining the laws and customs of war. Yet this is like a verbal confirmation, it had no legal basis, something the Japanese particularly loved to do during the war.   According to Dr. William Skelton III, who produced a document entitled American Ex Prisoners of War for the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs, more POWs died at the hands of the Japanese in the Pacific theater and specifically in the Philippines than in any other conflict to date. For example in Germany, POWs died at a rate 1.2%. In the Pacific theater the rate was 37%. In the Philippines, POWs died at a rate of 40%.    Now these pieces of paper that were signed or not signed, what does this really matter when it comes to war, its obvious they were not upholding certain rules, but how did this quote en quote make them more brutal and perform more atrocities? Well here is the sticky thing, if you are part of the Japanese military and you know your nation did not ratify certain rules of war, this meant your enemy had no supposed legal basis to follow said rules against you either.    So I want you to think of two aspects of this. If your nation did not sign or ratify certain treaties, then you could not expect the enemy to respect such rules when it comes to you. But more importantly, what if the leader of your nation…just told you to believe that?    In early 1942, Great Britain, the United States of America and other great powers did officially let the Japanese know that they would, on their  part, observe all the provisions of the Convention and requested reciprocity. Japanese foreign minister at the time, Hideki Tojo gave a formal assurance that although Japan was not bound by the Geneva convention, the Japanese would apply it “mutatis mutandis” towards the Americans, British, Canadians, Australians and New Zealander POW's, note he most definitely did not extend this to the asiatic groups, nor the Dutch whom I guess he just forgot about. But this did morally bind Japan to comply with the convention. However the top brass of the Japanese military, notably Hideki Tojo in these cases, went out of his way to instill beliefs within the military as to what they should expect from the enemy. As you will see in the next points, this was basically a type of indoctrination.   War strategy and indoctrination    The leaders of Japan knew full well how unmatched they were in terms of resources and productivity before they began the war with the west. How could they possibly win the war? The IJN was dead set on a decisive naval battle, but for the IJA to compensate for their lack of resources, they believed their “spirit” would overcome the enemy. In many ways this spirit meant going above and beyond normal human endurance, to literally outperform the allies and notably to conduct the war with absolutely zero mercy. Once Japan lost the initiative in the war, after Guadalcanal, the IJA were forced to fight a war of attrition. Now they would prolong and exact maximum casualties upon the allies hoping to force them to the peace table. The idea was quite simple, the IJA would do everything possible to make the allies believe they would never give up and it would far too costly to defeat them. How does one go about achieving these aims? Well the IJA officers would tell you “by steeling your hearts”. To achieve all of this required extreme indoctrination.    Japanese children grew up in regimentation, they were desensitized to violence through tales of martial glory, and were taught that their purpose in life was to serve the emperor. Upon entering  military service, they were trained out of any individualistic spirit, and taught that compassion was a weakness and had no place in the field of war. The soldier's motto was faith equaled strength.  Faith being devotion to duty and service to the Divine Emperor. Apart from ideology and spiritual toughening, training in the Japanese Imperial Army was also extremely harsh and violent. This was not even particularly a special aspect of Showa Japan, it went all the way back to the Meiji era. From a young age children's education directed them, like a pipeline for military duty.   Now at the offset of the war, Hideki Tojo released the “Senjinkun” “instructions for the battlefield”. This was basically a manual for soldiers on how to conduct war. The document was used to establish standards of behavior for Japanese troops and improve discipline and morale within the Army, it also included things like a prohibition against being taken prisoner. It stated if you were captured by the enemy, because Japan did not sign or ratify certain treaties, you would be killed or tortured by the allies, and if you survived you and your family would face shame back home, and punishment resulting typically in 6 months of prison.   Here is a small excerpt from the document Those who know shame are weak. Always think of [preserving] the honor of your community and be a credit to yourself and your family. Redouble your efforts and respond to their expectations. Never live to experience shame as a prisoner. By dying you will avoid leaving a stain on your honor.   The purpose was basically psychological warfare, against their own army. Those like Hideki Tojo believed Japan could only defeat the resource rich Americans with spirit. Thus the manuals like Senjinkun demanded the forces not ever surrender, because the allies would do horrible things, it was shameful to do so and there were disciplinary actions for any who did. In 1942 the Army amended its criminal code to specify that officers who surrendered soldiers under their command faced at least six months imprisonment, regardless of the circumstances in which the surrender took place. This change attracted little attention, however, as the Senjinkun imposed more severe consequences and had greater moral force.   In a report dated June 1945, the U.S. Office of War Information noted that 84 percent of one group of interrogated Japanese prisoners, many of whom had been injured or unconscious when captured stated that they had expected to be killed or tortured by the Allies if taken prisoner. The OWI analysts described this as being typical, and concluded that fear of the consequences of surrender, “rather than Bushido,” was the motivation for many Japanese battle deaths in hopeless circumstances–as much as, and probably more than, the other two major considerations: fear of disgrace at home, and “the positive desire to die for one's nation, ancestors, and god-emperor.”   Something barely talked about in the west, was during the Pacific War, the Americans had a habit of taking human trophies. Human trophies were Japanese skulls, gold teeth, finger bones and such. The famous novel “With the Old Breed” by Eugene Sledge spoke of his personal accounts of these actions, its a rather gruesome and dark part of the war. Now some of these actions were publicized, despite the US military's efforts to quell and hush it down. Time magazine famously had an iconic photo of a woman whose enlisted boyfriend sent her home a Japanese skull. FDR also famously was given a letter opener carved out of Japanese bones. These stories were seized up greedily by the Japanese government who used them as propaganda to prove to their soldiers what would happen if they were captured. It had a profound effect as you can imagine. And this was not limited to Japanese soldiers. The propaganda machine would contribute at the end of the war to mass civilian suicides on Okinawa and Saipan.   Back to the POW subject. When it came to the treatment of POW's, Hideki Tojo began submitting in May of 1942 a series of memorandum, basic orders as to how POW's should be treated. “Prisoners of war can be used for the enlargement of our production and as military labor, white prisoners of war will be confined successively in Korea, Formosa and Manchuria. Superior technicians and high ranking officers -- Colonels and above -- will be included among the prisoners of war confined in Formosa. Those who are not suitable for use in enlargement of our production will be confined in prisoner of war camps which will be built immediately on the spot.Although the working of prisoner of war officers and warrant officers is forbidden by the Regulations of 1903, the policy of the control authorities is that under the situation of our country where not one person now eats without working they want them to set to work. It is desired that you give proper orders on this.The present situation of affairs in this country does not permit anyone to lie idle doing nothing but eating freely. With that in view, in dealing with prisoners of war, I hope you will see that they may be usefully employed. In Japan, we have our own ideology concerning prisoners of war, which should naturally make their treatment more or less different from that in Europe and America. In dealing with them, you should, of course, observe the various Regulations concerned, aim at an adequate application of them . . . At the same time, you must not allow them to lie idle doing nothing but eating freely for even a single day. Their labor and technical skill should be fully utilized for the replenishment of production, and contribution rendered toward the prosecution of the Greater East Asiatic War for which no effort ought to be spared."   Thus in the end as a grunt in the IJA you were led to believe: if I am captured I will be tortured, killed maybe turned into a letter opener, or someone will place my skull on their mantle. If I surrender and survive and make it back home, I will be severely punished and worst of all me and my family will be shamed. I could not expect any humanity from the enemy, because my nation did not sign or ratify treaties like the Geneva convention. More so, because my armies conduct was so unbelievably barbaric, I could only expect the very same from my enemy. It was a vicious cycle. You perform atrocities, expecting the enemy to do the same, and thus it just keeps perpetuating itself. Ultra-Nationalism and Racism   Now we spoke a little bit about the concept of the Yamato race, the Japanese were indoctrinated to believe they were a superior race and that their emperor was something akin to a living god. Until this war, the Japanese empire was on a hell of a winning streak going all the way back to the Meiji Era. For the first half of the Pacific war, the Japanese won nearly every battle. This led to something historians called “victory disease” that made them become somewhat arrogant and cocky, but it also made them feel “superhuman”. The allies' news reporting at the beginning of the war began to frantically refer to the Japanese as “supermen”or  “super jungle fighters”. Particularly because of the Malay campaign, the Japanese soldier just seemed to be tougher, could survive harsher jungle climates, even doing so with less food or war materials. The Japanese read the allied news reports and came to the conclusion that had been driven down their throats by their government, indeed the Japanese spirit was winning the war. The Japanese public ate this up in their propaganda and it perpetuated their ultra-nationalistic beliefs. The Japanese truly came to believe they were destined to rule the asia-pacific. Look at the results in China for example. Within a short amount of time they conquered much of China, though the public really had no idea how bad the China was bottled down by 1940. Then came the greater east asia co-prosperity sphere propaganda, which is an excellent example of their megalomania.    Yet alongside their ultra-nationalism, seen more strongly perpetuated against other Asian groups, the Japanese also indoctrinated their public with racism against them. The Yellow Peril of the 19th century and anti-japanese or anti-asian racism fueled the Japanese soldiers. The Japanese as a people had faced brutal racist hardships historically at the hands of the west, particularly from their point of view from America. There was the slights against them during the first sino-japanese war, the infamous triple intervention of france, germany and Russia stealing away their prize that was the liaodong peninsula. Then during the Boxer rebellion they faced racism, not being allowed to lead mutli national army formations, despite them being the lionshare of said military force. The Russo-Japanese war saw from their point of view, America stealing their war prizes. Last but not least, after WW1 they were told to their faces that they were a world power, but not racially equal. The Japanese faced anti-Japanese and anti-asian immigration laws when it came to America in the form of the gentleman's agreement and Australia's “great white Australia policy”. During the war, the American propaganda machine began pumping out racist caricatures of Japanese as rats, goggle eyed  bucktooth people, literal yellow monkey's.   For the IJA the pacific war in many was a holy war directed at the arrogant whites who had abused them for so long. This will probably sound controversial, but indeed, the pacific war was very much a race war. If you are not convinced of that, I recommend reading “War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War” by John Dower. The human trophy taking, anti-japanese bucktooth, rat people cartoon propaganda, history of racial abuse like the japanese concentration camps, the gentleman's agreement, the stealing of victories during the first sino-japanese war, russo-japanese war and ww1 all plagued the mind of a Japanese soldier. To them in many ways, the “whites had it coming”. Which is rather ironic given how the Japanese would treat the other asian racial groups they came into contact with. But such is the contradictory nature of the Imperial Japanese military.    The Japanese also held racist beliefs about the westerners. The Japanese soldiers were taught the allies were akin to demons or beasts. They were described often as “the hairy ones” or “anglo-American demons”. Taught these men would rape women and girls, stample upon the civilians they captured with the treads of their tanks. The marines were especially dreaded.  According to a story circulated widely among the Japanese on Saipan, all Marine Corps recruits were compelled to murder their own parents before being inducted into service. It was said that Japanese soldiers taken prisoner would suffer hideous tortures—their ears, noses, and limbs would be cut off; they would be blinded and castrated; they could also be cooked and fed to dogs. As silly as this may sound, do remember the Americans were taking human trophies so the Japanese propaganda machine had its evidence. Tons of photos of skulls atop american tanks for example were displayed to the Japanese public. Another famous one was the cartoon appearing in an American servicemen's magazine, which was later reproduced and translated in the Japanese press. It suggested the existence of “Japanese hunting licenses, promising open season on the enemy, complete with free ammunition and equipment—with pay!    In terms of how the Japanese exacted their own racism towards their fellow asians. During the War the Japanese dragged into forced labor, Koreans, Chinese and southeast asians. 670,000 Koreans were brought to Japan to work mines and heavy industry, around 60,000 of them died to harsh conditions. Between April 1943 to May 1945, 41,862 Chinese were sent to Japan to work, 2800 died before even reaching the home islands. 6872 died in the work sites again from brutal conditions. When it comes to southeast asian numbers are hard to pinpoint but its safe to say at least 300,000 Javanese, Malay, Burmese, Tamil and other groups were mobilized to construct the Burma-Siam railroad between October 1942 to november 1943 and 60,000 perished. This all went for the men, for the women, all those racial groups would face the horrors of becoming comfort women, historians estimate there could have been 50-200,000 pressed into it. But for the Japanese, believing their were superior to these other asiatic groups, groups whom they would publicly say were like children, they as the father figure would guide, well they simply abused them.   So in a contradictive fashion, the Japanese believed they were superior and could do horrible things to their Asian neighbors while simultaneously decrying the racism cast towards them by western powers as justification for their brutal actions against them. These types of feelings and perspectives molded the mind of the average Japanese soldier, dehumanizing others has always been a standard military practice afterall.    Surrender & the Bastardization of the Bushido code   I think this is one the vast majority of WW2 history buffs know, the Japanese perspective on surrender and the bushido code. In the book “military trials of war criminals in the Netherlands east indies 1946-1949” Fred Borch had this to say about the variable of bushido for the brutality   As Japan continued its modernization in the early 20th century, her armed forces became convinced that success in battle would be assured if Japanese soldiers, sailors, and airmen had the "spirit" of Bushido. ... The result was that the Bushido code of behavior "was inculcated into the Japanese soldier as part of his basic training." Each soldier was indoctrinated to accept that it was the greatest honor to die for the Emperor and it was cowardly to surrender to the enemy. ... Bushido therefore explains why the Japanese soldiers who were stationed in the NEI so mistreated POWs in their custody. Those who had surrendered to the Japanese—regardless of how courageously or honorably they had fought—merited nothing but contempt; they had forfeited all honor and literally deserved nothing. Consequently, when the Japanese murdered POWs by shooting, beheading, and drowning, these acts were excused since they involved the killing of men who had forfeited all rights to be treated with dignity or respect. While civilian internees were certainly in a different category from POWs, it is reasonable to think that there was a "spill-over" effect from the tenets of Bushido.   It is very true, the Japanese soldiers and sailors were taught Japan was a sacred nation. Traditional samurai values of bushido were merged with modern training and weaponry. The government propagandized the figure of the Emperor as a living god who embodied the Japanese state, the Kokutai. Emperor Hirohito and his family were the spiritual essence of Japan. To even show your back to the enemy let alone surrender was deemed cowardly and brought dishonor upon your family. As written by Inouye Jukichi in 1910, something read by many Japanese “The Japanese warriors looked upon it as shame to themselves not to die when their Lord was hard pressed . . . their own shame was the shame upon their parents, their family, their house and their whole clan, and with this idea deeply impressed upon their minds, the Samurai, no matter of what rank, held their lives light as feathers when compared with the weight they attached to the maintenance of a spotless name”.    Young men of Japan were taught that "The greatest honor is to die for the Emperor" Additionally precept the Japanese were taught that it is an ignominy to surrender to the enemy. The combined effect of these two precepts was to inculcate in the Japanese soldier a spirit of contempt for Allied soldiers who surrendered, which, in defiance of the rules of war, was demonstrated in their ill-treatment of prisoners. They made no distinction between the soldier who fought honorably and courageously up to an inevitable surrender, and the soldier who surrendered without a fight. All enemy soldiers who surrendered under any circumstance were to be regarded as being disgraced and entitled to live only by the tolerance of their captors.   Surrender was unforgivable under their code, drilled into them through the Imperial Japanese education system and military. When the Japanese would come across vast swathes of the enemy surrendering, particularly if the enemy used up all their ammunition killing their comrades and then surrendered, well it added fuel to their brutality. One only needs to look at the deaths due to Banzai charges, take for example the incredibly massive one at the battle of Saipan seeing around 4000 dead Japanese. IJA officers brought ancestral katana's to the war, the Japanese cut off the heads of the enemies as it was seen to be honorable. When faced with death, many chose to commit seppuku, the bushido propaganda was intense.    A brutal practice emerged in the Pacific island hopping campaign, whereupon wounded Japanese would pretend to be dead or surrender only to explode grenades upon allied forces coming closer. This began to be noticed by US marines during the battle of Guadalcanal and Australians in New Guinea. This began a vicious cycle . There were of course Japanese who would surrender. Hell the Koreans forced into service often did try to surrender, but they would all be hampered by something. Because of the actions of those Japanese feinted death and taking down allied soldiers with them, the allied soldiers gradually began a practice of not bothering to accept surrender. It became a self fulfilling prophecy. Many Japanese made the allies believe all they could expect was a grenade death, thus the allies became more brutal to them. This simply led the Japanese to conclude their government was accurate about how the allies would treat them, so more and more did not surrender. An absolutely horrible cycle that went on to the very end of the war, though the allies did figure out means to get Japanese to surrender more in the last year.    The Brutality of the Japanese military   I think this is probably one of the most important factors, and its also one the “normies” would not know as much about. The Imperial Japanese military, more so the Army, had what I can only describe as a built in system of abuse. As described to me by the same university professor I keep bringing up in podcasts, picture a literal pecking order. Going from the highest ranked general to the very bottom grunt. Imagine each one who is higher than the other, routinely physically abuses them. For example, it was very typical for a colonel to slap a major across the face, the major would then strike one of his captains, and the abuse would continue through the ranks to the grunts who would have no one to abuse, thus they turned to POW's or civilian populations. This was not just an accepted part of the Japanese Imperial Army it was indoctrinated.    From day one of basic training, IJA officers taught their men, races like the Chinese were their blood enemies and racially inferior. These were people the Japanese would rule over one day. The trainers would toss the boys into rigorous training activities involving physical violence towards another alongside the notion any orders given by a higher ranking officer was infallible and to be treated as if the divine emperor himself, the living god was giving it.    The Japanese army even taught methods of torture that would be employed in all areas they occupied. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging. The Kempetai, were the ones doing the lionshare of these tortures. Other Army and Navy units, however, used the same methods as the Kempetai. Camp guards performed similar methods, local police forces organized by the Kempetai in the occupied territories also applied the same methods of torture. The Kempetai were administered by the War Ministry, trained at specialized schools who were maintained and operated by the War Ministry in Japan. Thus the conduct of Kempetai and the camp guards directly reflected the policy of the War Ministry.    The Japanese army leadership made sure recruits were physically and mentally abused, they were given strenuously duty tasks and pushed to their absolute limit. During the war given where they were deployed, take guadalcanal for example, the Japanese soldiers would be facing starvation as well. Being half starved, beaten and suffering the effects of war would drive anyone to perform horrifying acts. The life of a Japanese solider was simply at the whims of an extremely toxic management culture. The lowest ranking echelons received the lionshare of abuse and they took out their frustration with whomever they could find deemed lower than them, ie: POW's, civilians, etc.   All of these variables combined contributed to the creation of a military willing to perform just about any atrocity they thought necessary to win the war. It was a war they could not hope to win, but many of them went to their deaths trying to defeat the hands of fate. There are countless other reasons of course for the atrocities committed in cold or hot blood. Countless books have been written on this subject, please do check out the few I mentioned. With that again, a big thanks to you patreons, you guys are awesome. Please let me know what you think in the comments, and what you want to hear more about in the future. This has been the pacific war channel over and out.

This conversation delves into the complexities of conflict of laws, focusing on jurisdiction, choice of law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments across borders. It highlights the importance of understanding these principles for future legal professionals, especially in an increasingly interconnected world. The discussion contrasts the legal frameworks of the US and EU, explores the nuances of jurisdiction, and emphasizes the practical implications of enforcing judgments internationally.Imagine a scenario where a business dispute arises between parties located in different countries. The question of which country's laws apply and which court has the authority to hear the case becomes crucial. This is where the field of Conflict of Laws steps in, providing a framework to address these complex issues.Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case. In cross-border disputes, determining jurisdiction can be challenging. Courts often consider factors such as the location of the parties, the place where the contract was executed, and the nature of the dispute. As legal scholar John Doe notes, "Jurisdiction is the cornerstone of any legal proceeding, especially in international cases."Choice of Law: Once jurisdiction is established, the next step is to determine which country's laws will govern the dispute. This is known as the choice of law. Courts may apply various principles, such as the law of the place where the contract was made or the law of the place where the harm occurred. Jane Smith, a renowned legal expert, emphasizes, "The choice of law can significantly impact the outcome of a case, making it a critical consideration in international disputes."Recognition of Judgments: After a court renders a judgment, the question arises as to whether other jurisdictions will recognize and enforce it. The recognition of judgments is essential for ensuring that legal decisions have practical effects across borders. International treaties and agreements, such as the Hague Convention, play a vital role in facilitating the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.Conclusion: Conflict of Laws is a complex and dynamic field that addresses the challenges of cross-border legal disputes. By understanding the principles of jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of judgments, parties can navigate the intricacies of international litigation more effectively. As global interactions continue to increase, the importance of Conflict of Laws will only grow.Subscribe Now: Stay informed about the latest developments in international law by subscribing. Don't miss out on expert insights and analysis!TakeawaysUnderstanding conflict of laws is fundamental for legal professionals.Jurisdiction is the first question a court must answer.Choice of law determines which country's laws apply to a case.Recognition and enforcement of judgments are crucial for justice.The US and EU have different approaches to jurisdiction.Public policy can limit the application of foreign law.Renvoy is a complex but rare concept in English law.Domicile is key in family law matters.The Brussels and Lugano Conventions streamline jurisdiction in Europe.Practical issues like currency and costs affect enforcement.conflict of laws, jurisdiction, choice of law, recognition of judgments, international law, legal principles, US law, EU law, family law, enforcement

Click here to send us a topic idea or question for Weekend Wisdom.Are you considering adopting internationally? You need to listen to this interview about the laws and processes that you will be required to follow. We'll be talking with Kelly Dempsey, a partner with Fox Rothschild, who specializes in adoption and assisted reproduction. She is a fellow in the Academy of Adoption & Assisted Reproduction Attorneys and an adoptive parent through both international and domestic adoptions.In this episode, we discuss:Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption Purpose Key Elements of the Hague Treaty:Central Authority Determining the child's eligibility for intercountry adoptionAccredited or Approved Adoption AgenciesTransparencyThe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) INA 101(b)(1)(F) I-600 “Orphan Route” Child must qualify as an orphan under US definitionOnly one parent – incapable of providing supportDeadlines: I600A before child's 16th birthday -- only have 180 days to file the I-600, after USCIS approves the I-600 INA 101(b)(1)(G) I-800 “Convention Route”Work with CA Art 12, Art 16Eligibility decided by CA COO, but if consulate does an I-604 investigation that disqualifies child, then case will be deniedDeadlines: Must file I-800A before age 16 and within 180 days of the approval of the I-800A, must file the I-800 (even w/o Art 16)Children adopted from other countries must first obtain a U.S. visa before they can travel or move to the United States. Visas are issued at the U.S. Embassy or Consulate in the foreign country where a child resides. Since a child being adopted abroad by a U.S. citizen parent(s) will usually be brought to live in the United States, that child will need an immigrant visa.International Accreditation ActProcess When Adopting from a Hague Country. Process When Adopting from a Non-Hague countries. Must qualify as orphans as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) before they can be considered for U.S. permanent residence or citizenship.Get more information at the State Department - Adoption Process/Non-Hague Visa Process. More information on the Hague Convention and other applicable Federal regulations US State Department - International AdoptionUS Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)  US Department of State has a section on their website on “Understanding the Hague Convention” US Department of State has a section on their website on “Support the showPlease leave us a rating or review. This podcast is produced by www.CreatingaFamily.org. We are a national non-profit with the mission to strengthen and inspire adoptive, foster & kinship parents and the professionals who support them.Creating a Family brings you the following trauma-informed, expert-based content: Weekly podcasts Weekly articles/blog posts Resource pages on all aspects of family building

https://www.zaslavskylaw.com/ 212-390-0076 Attorney David Zaslavsky recently appeared on The Attorney Post, shedding light on the complicated world of family and matrimonial law in New York. Practicing since 2003, Zaslavsky leads David Zaslavsky PLLC, a firm known for handling high-stakes custody cases, including those involving the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). Zaslavsky is one of just a few private attorneys in New York equipped to manage both matrimonial cases and legal issues involving ACS. This dual expertise is rare and vital, especially when families find themselves under scrutiny by child protection agencies. During the episode, Zaslavsky spoke candidly about how his path to law began in middle school, eventually leading to degrees from NYU and Brooklyn Law School. Early experience in family law solidified his passion for the field, which often requires court appearances multiple times per week. The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for family law. Court closures in 2020 led to significant delays, while the shift to virtual proceedings left room for miscommunication and legal missteps. Zaslavsky described a rise in custody disputes, particularly around unauthorized parental relocations during lockdowns—many of which are still playing out in court today. One segment of the episode focused on international custody disputes. Zaslavsky explained how navigating custody cases across borders can become impossible if the destination country is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, as is the case with China and Russia. In such situations, retrieving children may require embassy involvement and months of litigation. He also raised concerns about the systemic incentives within child protective services. With federal funding tied to foster care placements, Zaslavsky questioned whether financial motivations might influence agency decisions. Low staffing standards and high turnover further complicate the quality of services provided to families. The episode also touched on New York's controversial child support laws. Zaslavsky criticized the way payments are calculated—based on gross income without adjusting for federal withholding—which often creates financial pressure on noncustodial parents. This issue is worsened by the city's high cost of living, leaving many parents struggling to meet court-ordered obligations. Zaslavsky pointed out that many clients unknowingly sabotage their cases through social media. Courts now use online content as evidence, and posts that show lavish spending can contradict claims of financial hardship, undermining credibility. Despite these hurdles, Zaslavsky emphasized that most family law cases should be settled rather than litigated. He recommends settlement in nearly every case, not just for strategic reasons, but also to minimize emotional stress for the families involved. Throughout the podcast, Zaslavsky stressed the importance of proactive legal counsel, especially in custody and ACS-related cases. His insights revealed not only the complexity of family law, but also the urgent need for reforms that better protect parents and children alike. Sponsors: RankWith.NewsThe Attorney PostNational ERCAndropology

In this final installment of Absolute Trust Talk's international estate planning series, host Kirsten Howe concludes her conversation with estate planning specialist Janet Brewer, addressing one of the most common cross-border scenarios: U.S. citizens who own property abroad. Janet, with over 30 years of experience serving Silicon Valley's international clientele, explains why simply leaving foreign property to your US trust won't work, since most countries don't recognize trusts at all.   This episode highlights the crucial distinction between countries that recognize trusts (primarily former British colonies) and those that don't, and examines practical solutions, including the Hague Convention on International Wills and strategic "situs wills," which can prevent costly intestate succession. Janet shares how to navigate the complex process of probating wills in multiple countries and introduces listeners to STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners), an invaluable resource for finding qualified international estate planning professionals worldwide. Whether you've inherited a cottage in England, own investment property in India, or have family assets in China, this episode provides essential guidance for protecting your foreign holdings and ensuring your wishes are honored across borders.   Time-stamped Show Notes: 0:00 Introduction 2:27 Janet explains the fundamental problem: Most countries don't recognize trusts, making standard US estate planning ineffective for foreign property 3:04 Discover which countries DO recognize trusts: primarily former British colonies like England, while Germany, China, and France do not 3:08 Learn about the Hague Convention on International Wills - a treaty that allows properly formatted wills to be honored across participating countries 5:57 The reality check: Most clients have their primary assets in the US but own that "little pocket of assets" overseas 6:07 Janet walks through the practical challenge of having one original will needed in two different countries 7:03 Strategic will drafting: How to structure wills to handle both US trusts and foreign property distributions effectively 10:07 Why you MUST work with an attorney in the foreign jurisdiction - forced heirship laws and other local requirements can override your US planning 11:10 Meet STEP: The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners - your go-to resource for finding qualified international estate planning professionals 12:53 How STEP membership requirements vary by country, with stricter vetting in the UK compared to more relaxed US standards 13:56 Closing thoughts and appreciation for the three-part international estate planning series

What happens when divorce, immigration, and international borders collide, especially when your child is taken to another country?If you're navigating a divorce that crosses national boundaries or involves a non-citizen spouse, you're likely facing a legal maze. In this episode, attorney Maria Aguila joins Heather Quick to unravel the layers of complexity in international adoption, custody, and child support enforcement and how the Hague Convention may or may not protect you.Understand how the Hague Convention can help (or hinder) international custody disputes.Learn what adoptive parents need to know about foreign and U.S. legal systems.Discover the legal risks of international marriages and how to protect your rights.Press play to gain clarity on international divorce challenges and protect your family's future across borders.Join us on our podcast as we navigate the complexities of marriage, divorce, separation, and all related legal and emotional aspects, including adultery, alimony, child support, spousal support, timesharing, custody battles, and the financial impact of dissolution of marriage.Interested in working with us? Fill out this form here to get started. Not quite ready? Interact with us on socials! Linktree: https://linktr.ee/FloridaWomensLawGroup Florida Women's Law Group Website: https://www.floridawomenslawgroup.com/Maria Aguila's Links:Official website: https://immigrationlawfla.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/attorneymariaaguila LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maria-aguila-esq-769632129Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services. The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer. The views and opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers. This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only. Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.Thank you for listening, please leave us a review and share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to marketing@4womenlaw.com.

 "What it has meant to me is that I haven't seen my children for over 10 years." In this episode, Anita Gera explains the work of Hague Explained, a registered non-profit organisation that provides customised workshops to help internationally mobile families understand the legal and emotional risks of relocating children across borders. Anita also shares the deeply personal trauma she experienced—an ordeal that ultimately led her to co-found the organisation. Her story highlights the urgent need for awareness around international child abduction and the 1980 Hague Convention. Website: https://hague-explained.org/ Email: info@hague-explained.org LinkedIn: Hague Explained on LinkedIn Twitter: @HagueExplained 

https://csapat.partizanmedia.hu/forms/nyilatkozzanak-a-miniszterek?source=ytKözös érdekünk, hogy a kormányzati szereplők is vállalják a felelősséget, vállalják a számadást Magyarország legnagyobb közfinanszírozott csatornáján! 2010 előtt, ellenzékben, még nekik is hasonló követeléseik voltak - helyesen. Az ország és a társadalom érdeke az, hogy ennek 15 év után végre ők is eleget tegyenek! Veled együtt a Partizánnak több mint félmillió követője van. Közösen elérhetjük, hogy az hatalmon levők ne bújhassanak ki a nyilvános felelősség alól.Írd alá a petíciót, és követeljük együtt, hogy a miniszterek a Partizánban is válaszoljanak a kérdésekre!https://csapat.partizanmedia.hu/forms/nyilatkozzanak-a-miniszterek?source=yt„What is behind this other than „women cannot be believed?!”A Budapest-based Japanese mother of two (who we call “M”) asked the Hungarian police for help several times because she was in danger. Her abusive ex-husband kept a gun, he sent death threats to her and he used every possible tool to literally keep her in her place with their children, including the Hague Convention's Child Abduction Section. She died a tragic death on the 29th of January when her body was found in a house fire, and her ex-husband is currently under arrest on suspicion of premeditated murder. In this special episode of Zsófilter I talk to Stasya, a close friend of M's and Noá Nógrádi, a women's rights expert to discuss the events and circumstances that led to M's death and the failures of the Hungarian as well as the international authorities to keep her safe.Information in English for victims of domestic & sexual violence in Hungary:https://nane.hu/for-victims/find-help/?lang=enRisk assessment and safety planning information: https://training.improdova.eu/en/training-modules-for-the-police/module-5-risk-assessment-and-safety-planning/Támogasd te is a Partizán munkáját!https://cause.lundadonate.org/partizan/supportPéntek Reggel, a Partizán hírháttérpodcastja:https://pentekreggel.huA Partizán Podcast oldalait itt találod:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@PartizanPodcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/partizanpodcast/A Partizán videóit itt tudod megnézni:https://www.youtube.com/c/@PartizanmediaTovábbi támogatási lehetőségekről bővebben:https://www.partizanmedia.hu/tamogatas

What happens when a mother flees with her child, only to be accused of kidnapping? Is she a criminal—or a desperate parent fighting for freedom? In this gripping episode, New York Times bestselling author James Grippando joins us to discuss his latest legal thriller, Grave Danger. Inspired by real-world custody battles and international law, the novel explores a shocking case where justice, human rights, and family collide. Grippando reveals the real-life case that sparked the story, the research behind high-stakes courtroom battles, and how his protagonist, Jack Swyteck, takes on a system stacked against his client. From the Hague Convention to FBI conflicts, this conversation uncovers the legal and moral dilemmas at the heart of the novel.

We kick off the New Year and the new season of the Activist Lawyer podcast with an interview featuring family law expert Anne Marie Featherstone. Anne Marie, a solicitor at Rafferty and Co Solicitors in Newry, shares insights into her legal career and her journey to specialising in all areas of family law. In this important conversation, Anne Marie and Sarah delve into the legal system's response to domestic violence. This discussion is particularly timely, given the alarming number of women who have lost their lives due to violence in the UK, and specifically in Northern Ireland, over the past year and beyond. Anne Marie Featherstone is an experienced family law practitioner who works in Rafferty and Co Solicitors in Newry, County Down.  Her experience includes working on the law society for Northern Ireland Children Order Panel, working on the Court Children Guardian panel and on The Hague Convention panel for the abduction of children.  Anne Marie has a Masters in Human Rights and Criminal Justice where she focused her dissertation focusing on children's rights in the youth court.  Anne Marie has great familiarity with the courts in Northern Ireland and the needs and assistance required for those who find themselves seeking support and guidance in the family law arena to include the area of domestic violence.  Anne Marie has been involved in a number of reported cases including McG v McG (2002) NIFam10 and in one of the recent post office Horizon cases in the Court of Appeal (2023).  Trigger Warning: This podcast episode discusses sensitive topics, including domestic violence. Listener discretion is advised. If you or someone you know needs help and support in relation to domestic violence, please see the following links: 24 Hour Domestic and Sexual Abuse Helpline (NI) https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/contacts/24-hour-domestic-and-sexual-abuse-helpline Safe Ireland (ROI) https://www.safeireland.ie/get-help/where-to-find-help/ Refuge (UK) https://www.nationaldahelpline.org.uk/ Police UK https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/daa/domestic-abuse/support-organisations/

It is the “most wonderful time of the year,” and Behind the Lines is focusing on giving back. Section 6 of the Preamble to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Conduct reminds us that “the provision of free legal services to those unable to pay reasonable fees is the moral obligation of each lawyer as well as the profession generally.” This episode focuses on some of the ways Houston lawyers have been taking that obligation seriously and giving back to people in the Houston area who need legal help. Segment One - Hon. David Hittner: "I Wouldn't Trade That One Trial"Hon. David Hittner, Senior U.S. District Court Judge, discusses a criminal pro bono case he had as a young lawyer, including how he went about preparing for a criminal case as a civil lawyer. He also addresses how this pro bono case played a role in his confirmation hearing when he was appointed to the federal bench. The file for the case, Texas vs. Lockett, was recently formally dedicated for public exhibition at the Historic Documents Room at the Harris County Courthouse. Segment Two - Maryam Ghaffar: "My Client Felt So Validated"Maryam Ghaffar, an associate at Beck Redden and the HYLA Pro Bono and Service Committee Chair, discusses a recent Hague Convention case in which she represented the mother of a two-year-old child whose father wanted the court to order that the child's habitual residence was in Ecuador, not the United States. Maryam was appointed to this pro bono case by the Court, and it was a very fast-paced case. Segment Three - Holiday Wellness Break: Finding the Joy(BTL Interviewer Rinku Ray)Melanie Bragg of Bragg Law PC, who is also the co-chair of HBA's Wellness Committee, author of "Defining Moments: Insights Into the Lawyer's Soul" and other books, and cheerful volunteer, leads listeners through a wellness exercise designed to help find joy and reduce stress during the holiday season. Segment Four - Amy Farish: "There's Always Support"Amy Farish, a partner at Yetter Coleman who is also the firm's pro bono coordinator, discusses a lengthy immigration case she and her team handled and  encourages lawyers to try out pro bono service even if it's in an area outside of one's usual wheelhouse. Segment Five - Andrew Lehmann (HVL): "The Legal Issue Was Actually Really Simple"(BTL Interviewer Rachael Thompson)Andrew Lehmann, who runs HVL's weekly Veterans clinics at Michael E. DeBakey VA Hospital, discusses the issues they typically see and how to volunteer, and he shares recent success stories from the clinic, including a tenant's rights case and Military Sexual Trauma claim. He notes that lawyers should not feel intimidated to volunteer at the clinic or even take a case because often the legal issues are simple and the Veterans just need someone to advocate for them using legal skills that almost every lawyer has. To volunteer, sign up at https://www.makejusticehappen.org/get-involved/legalline/. Music by LudoSoundX from Pixabay.For full speaker bios, visit The Houston Lawyer (hba.org). To read The Houston Lawyer magazine, visit The Houston Lawyer_home. For more information about the Houston Bar Association, visit Houston Bar Association (hba.org).*The views expressed in this episode do not necessarily reflect the views of The Houston Lawyer Editorial Board or the Houston Bar Association.

The parties were married in June 2015. They lived in Japan until 2016 when they moved to the United Arab Emirates. They separated for a period in 2017, but reconciled in 2018 and then lived together in Oman until March 2020 when they travelled to Ontario for a number of reasons, including to visit Mr. Dunmore's parents. They had planned to return to Oman in early April 2020 however, the pandemic precluded them from doing so and they stayed with Mr. Dunmore's parents in Ontario until January 2021. In the meantime, Ms. Mehralian became pregnant and their son M was born in Ontario in December 2020. The parties and M returned to Oman in January 2021 but came back to Ontario in April 2021. The parties then separated in May 2021. Mr. Dunmore moved to the United Arab Emirates and later Oman, while Ms. Mehralian remained in Ontario with M. Ms. Mehralian commenced proceedings in Ontario in June 2021, seeking a divorce, corollary relief and equalization of property. At the same time, Mr. Dunmore commenced a court proceeding in Oman seeking a divorce and joint custody. Ms. Mehralian contested the jurisdiction of the Omani courts, but in March 2022, the Omani Court of Appeal found that Oman had jurisdiction. In subsequent litigation in which both parties participated, an Omani lower court as well as the Omani Court of Appeal found that the parties had been validly divorced in accordance with Omani law and awarded primary custody of M to Ms. Mehralian. Mr. Dunmore brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court seeking an order recognizing the validity of the Omani divorce in Ontario and an order returning M to Oman. The two issues were heard separately by two different judges. One judge found that the Omani divorce should be recognized in Ontario. The second judge found that M should not be ordered returned to Oman. Ms. Mehralian appealed the first order and Mr. Dunmore appealed the second. Both appeals were dismissed. Argued Date 2024-12-09 Keywords Family law — Custody — Habitual residence — How should Canadian courts determine the habitual residence of children allegedly abducted from or withheld from a non-Hague Convention signatory state — How should courts balance the countervailing policy objectives outlined in s. 19 of Ontario's Children's Law Reform Act — Whether the statutory definition of habitual residence should apply to cases involving non-Hague Convention signatory countries or should the reformulated hybrid test for habitual residence set out in Office of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev apply — If the statutory definition applies, whether shared parental intention should be the focus of the analysis — Whether the lower courts erred in finding that Ontario has jurisdiction — Whether the lower courts erred in law in exercising jurisdiction over the child in the face of the respondent's attornment to the jurisdiction of the Omani courts — Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Click here to send us a topic idea or question for Weekend Wisdom.Question: My husband and I were foster parents in the US, and have since relocated to Denmark for his work. We both still feel called to adopt from foster care, and would like to do that from the US. We know that the US and Denmark are both members of the Hague Convention, and can adopt from each other. You have great resources about international adoption, but usually from the perspective of a person in the US adopting from a foreign country. I'm wondering if you would consider doing a podcast episode on the process of a US citizen habitually resident in a foreign country adopting from US foster care. Resources:Foster Care AdoptionChoosing a Foster Care AgencyThe Creating a Family 3-Step Process for Choosing an International Adoption AgencySupport the showPlease leave us a rating or review. This podcast is produced by www.CreatingaFamily.org. We are a national non-profit with the mission to strengthen and inspire adoptive, foster & kinship parents and the professionals who support them.Creating a Family brings you the following trauma-informed, expert-based content: Weekly podcasts Weekly articles/blog posts Resource pages on all aspects of family building

Crefovi's live webinar took place on Friday 25 October 2024 at 15:00pm London time (UK), and provided an update on the enforcement and recognition of UK judgments in Europe, and vice versa, since England & Wales ratified the 2019 Hague convention. You haven't yet secured your free place for our upcoming webinar on litigation law and enforcement of judgments? Here is your chance to join Annabelle Gauberti on Friday 25 October 2024, 15:00pm London time (UK) as she explores the impact from the ratification by England & Wales of the 2019 Hague convention, on the recognition and enforcement of cross-border judgments, in the UK and Europe. In this webinar, our expert speaker will discuss: 1. 2019 Hague convention: a short history and rationale for its adoption 2. What just happened? The 2019 Hague convention got ratified by the UK, that's what! 3. Geographic scope of the 2019 Hague convention in the UK and beyond 4. Key provisions of the 2019 Hague convention Check the written version of our thought leadership content on https://crefovi.com/articles/2019-hague-convention/ and https://crefovi.fr/articles/convention-de-la-haye-de-2019/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tereshchenko v. Karimi, No. 24-172 (2d Cir. May 16, 2024)Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; wrongful removal; Interpol Yellow Notice; waiving affirmative defense; Ukraine United States v. Verdugo, 682 F. Supp. 3d 869 (S.D. Cal. 2023)generic federal definition of methamphetamine; analogs vs. isomers; Cal. Health and Safety Code §§ 11379(a) and 11378; United States v. Rodriguez Gamboa Sridej v. Blinken, et al., No. 23-16021 (9th Cir. July 23, 2024)extradition; habeas; State Department official; the rule of non-inquiry; CAT; ThailandSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEImmigration Lawyer's Toolboxhttps://immigrationlawyerstoolbox.com/immigration-reviewWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the show

Join us as we sit down with Chloe O, a high conflict divorce strategist from the UK, to unravel the intricate challenges of managing international divorce and co-parenting. Chloe brings her expertise to the table, guiding us through the complexities of divorces that span across different countries. We discuss critical issues such as financial responsibilities when one spouse moves abroad, and the importance of negotiation and cooperation to ease the transition. Chloe also sheds light on the legal hurdles, like immigration concerns, where individuals might face the pressure of leaving a country within 60 days of a breakup if they lack an independent right to stay.Listen in as we navigate the jurisdictional complexities of international divorce cases. Chloe highlights the significance of choosing the right legal framework, tailored to individual circumstances. She compares financial disclosure requirements between the UK and mainland Europe, pointing out the strengths of the English legal system for those worried about hidden assets. The conversation also touches on the varying enforceability of prenuptial agreements and the growing trend of "gray divorce" among older adults. Real-life examples illustrate the emotional and legal struggles faced by those who feel isolated after relocating for a spouse's job.In the final segments, we delve into the nuances of parenting agreements and cultural considerations post-divorce. Chloe discusses travel and expense management, emphasizing the severe consequences of violating custody agreements under the Hague Convention. We also explore the importance of cultural awareness when forming parenting plans to ensure they meet both legal requirements and the children's best interests. Chloe underscores the necessity of detailed planning and the value of mediation to avoid court disputes, sharing valuable resources and expert advice to help make the transition smoother for all involved.

The 1980 Hague Convention was meant to protect against children being abducted by a parent. Today, it is frequently used by abusive parents to force their partners into an unenviable choice: lose their child or live within reach of their abusers. Need more great podcasts? Check out Stuff's full catalogue here. GET IN TOUCH Feedback? We're listening! Email us at thelongread@stuff.co.nz  CREDITS Written and read by Maddy Croad Produced by Jen Black Audio editing by John Ropiha Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

    Slam the Gavel welcomes Helen Pattichides to the podcast. Helen immigrated legally to America in November, 2008 with her spouse and children. Going through the proper channels that took two years to immigrate, Helen and her spouse did this in order to take the reins of their own company in America called, Vision Builders USA. However, her spouse hired an immigration attorney, in Charlotte, NC. This is when the law firm of James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A. became involved. Soon Helen found out why taking the kids was not enough.....      We discussed the concern of the family court and how it applies to the rights of the children. "These law firms are an institution, taxpaying registered business it is not the law and not the judiciary. Yet they control the retainers, then ultimately dictate what the lawyers can do which is nothing, and how it's become a massive tax evasion strategy," Helen explained.     The obliteration of parental rights and the rights of the child, special interest groups, American Bar Association, The Hague Convention, the American Psychological Association and CPS were discussed.     Helen discussed her case 09-CVD-30674 and how it is still going for the last 16 years and is not concluded.To Reach Helen Pattichides: hpattichides@gmail.com******** Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryann*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals.Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Muhammad Faridi, President of the New York City Bar Association, is joined by Boaz Morag, a Counsel at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and one of the lead drafters of a recent City Bar report analyzing for the Office of the Legal Advisor in the U.S. Department of State three private international law treaties: the Hague Convention on Choice of Courts Agreements (COCA), the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Judgments Convention), and the UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Singapore Convention). These treaties deal with the cross-border recognition and enforcement of court judgments and mediated settlement agreements. We investigate the purpose and impact of these treaties on current practice in this country and on U.S. litigants who seek to enforce U.S. courts judgments abroad, the status of the treaties, and the detailed recommendations provided in the City Bar report. The episode provides an in-depth exploration of the potential benefits of these conventions for litigants seeking to have their judgments and settlements enforced internationally as well as the intricacies involved in implementing these treaties in the United States. Access a transcript of this episode here: https://bit.ly/3zWnD7b Read the City Bar Report on Three Private International Law Treaties here: https://bit.ly/4c5NQO2 00:00 Introduction to the Discussion 00:56 Meet Boaz Morag: Background and Career 03:54 The Role of the State Department and the City Bar 06:14 Introduction to the Three Treaties 07:56 Deep Dive into COCA and the Judgments Convention 12:12 Understanding the Judgments Convention 17:53 Criticisms and Concerns about COCA 29:28 The Singapore Convention on Mediation 34:49 Implementation Challenges in the U.S. 48:14 Concluding Thoughts and Reflections

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782,  parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you're a plaintiff.  US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code.The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence.  But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools.  For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine.John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US's broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can't typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can't use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world.Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Send us a Text Message.     Slam the Gavel welcomes David Bond to the podcast.  The Hague convention ignored in David Bond's case involving his son who is now in the hands of UK foster care for the last three years. Follow Our Story: https://linktr.ee/justice4keanuLegal Fund: https://www.gofundme.com/f/justice4keanuFather & Son: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BemSQlP1vyU      David Bond filed a paternity/custody case in June 2020. The day before paternity was finally granted in March 2021, mother fled the United States with his son. David  warned the Court that this would happen early in the case, as the mother had been openly threatening to leave the country for months. Child services had assured David that "the mother promised not to leave the country" and they took her word for it. All EVIDENCE ignored.        An emergency order for Sole Custody and Right of Assistance was promptly granted in August 2021 and has since been re-certified in June 2023.      In September 2021 the U.S. Embassy in London had notified the LAPD that David's child was in interim foster care in the UK. His mother had been starving him, a burn was found on his leg, and his teeth were decayed and broken. David then filed a Hague application under the guidance of the U.S. State Department, for his prompt return.              Instead, High Court Justice Lieven ordered that contact be resumed between his son and his mother in September 2022, resulting in a predictable re-abduction attempt in which she assaulted both the social worker and supervisor in the process. This incident was fully captured on security cameras.      This violent abduction attempt happened after she'd hired someone to kill David in January 2022, was diagnosed with psychosis in March 2022, and had already tried to re-abduct him once in April 2022. The Judge used the child as bait to test the mother's mental capacity, endangering his life. https://youtu.be/erCnrF_ju3Q?feature=shared     Coventry then ruled out a return to either biological parent, instead granting full custody to his maternal Aunt in Florida. *DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)          Grave InjusticeThe makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court and the cases they are hearing are no...Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the Show.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Sanchez-Perez v. Garland, No. 23-3004 (6th Cir. Apr. 30, 2024)misdemeanor domestic assault under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-111; crime of domestic violence; physical force; mental harms; bodily injury; United Staes v. Castleman Saleh v. Garland, No. 22-3036 (6th Cir. May 2, 2024)expert witness; attorney concessions; holistic approach to aggregate CAT analysis; Iraq Loredo Rangel v. Garland, No. 23-60089 (5th Cir. May 1, 2024)past persecution; non-physical harm; extreme harm; Mexican Navy Donis-Hernandez de Cabrera v. Garland, No. 23-1266 (1st Cir. May 2, 2024)Mara 18; extortion; death threats; small business owners; immutability; social distinction; state department reports; Guatemala  Rosas-Martinez v. Garland, No. 22-2474 (8th Cir. May 3, 2024)CAT deferral; Sinaloa Cartel; Mexican government acquiescence; BIA overturning IJ; J‑F-F-; relocation; discrepancy with unpublished BIA decisions  Cuenca Figueredo v. Carmen Rojas, No. 23-12566 (11th Cir. May 1, 2024)Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; child settled in U.S.; immigration status; Venezuela Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Driftwood Capital"A vertically integrated powerhouse in commercial real estate, developing hospitalityprojects for families seeking a secure EB-5 residency path."Filevine"Your Complete Legal Tech Stack, Supercharged by AI"Promo: Immigration.AI/ImmigrationReview Stafi"Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: stafi2024Get Started! Promo Code: FREEWant to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200Support the Show.

This week on Women and Money, our guest is Marilyn Chinitz. Marilyn is a divorce attorney in New York who has been practicing law for 41 years and has extensive experience in matrimonial matters. She joins us today to help us better understand the world of prenuptial and postnuptial agreements and their importance, especially in cases involving significant wealth or complex financial situations.Here's some of what we discuss in this episode:Marilyn's experience in law + The advantages of prenups and periodic reviews of prenups throughout a marriageThe importance of thoroughness and legal expertise in drafting prenuptial agreements Having your own attorney when setting up prenuptial agreements or trusts + protecting individual interests and assetsThe key provisions that should be included in a prenup + avoiding unconscionable terms Prenuptial agreements for average couples looking to protect individual assets + potential state law differencesTiming and cost considerations involved in the processMarilyn ChinitzMarilyn Chinitz is a formidable advocate specializing in matrimonial law, focusing on high-net-worth divorce cases. With over 35 years of experience, she navigates clients through complex transitions, handling diverse matters such as:·        Complex divorce actions involving diverse transactional matters·        High-conflict custody cases·        International custody cases including the return of abducted children in proceedings filed under the Hague Convention·        Premarital agreements and postnuptial agreements·        Same-sex divorce/dissolution matters·        Paternity casesKnown for her straightforward, creative, and responsive client approach, Marilyn is as successful in litigation as in settlement negotiations. She has argued winning appeals in the appellate courts of New York, and in trials before the family court and the supreme courts of New York. When high-profile marital matters or recent changes in the law make headlines, Marilyn is a sought-after commentator. She is often quoted in print, and has appeared on local and national television and radio shows including NBC's The Today Show, ABC News 20/20, Inside Edition, among others.Beyond her legal career, Marilyn is the proud mother of two accomplished adult children. She loves cycling, and participates in fundraising rides, and organizes travel to international destinations.Get in touch with Marilyn:https://www.blankrome.com/people/marilyn-b-chinitzhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/marilyn-chinitz-a262a91b/Join the Purse Strings Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/pursestringsco/ To learn more about money and access additional episodes, visit us online: https://pursestrings.co/

Carolyn “CiCi” Van Tine is a compassionate advisor and tenacious litigator with nearly 30 years of experience.CiCi's practice is dedicated to all aspects of family law matters, including divorce, separation, custody, parenting plans, child support, alimony, asset division, pre- and post-nuptial agreements, parental relocation, paternity, modification, probate litigation, restraining orders and grandparents' rights.She represents individuals, including professional athletes and celebrities, involved in high-stakes, high-profile divorce and custody disputes. CiCi has also tried several Hague Convention cases regarding foreign custody and divorce matters. If you have a matter, disagreement, or dispute you need professional help with then visit iMediate.com - Email mbrickman@ichatmediation or Call (877) 822-1479Matthew Brickman is a Florida Supreme Court certified family and appellate mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. But what makes him qualified to speak on the subject of conflict resolution is his own personal experience with divorce.Download Matthew's book on iTunes for FREE:You're Not the Only One - The Agony of Divorce: The Joy of Peaceful ResolutionSCHEDULE YOUR MEDIATION: https://ichatmediation.com/calendar/OFFICIAL BLOG: https://ichatmediation.com/podcastOFFICIAL YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/ichatmediationOFFICIAL LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ichat-mediation/ABOUT MATTHEW BRICKMAN:Matthew Brickman is a Supreme Court of Florida certified county civil family mediator who has worked in the 15th and 19th Judicial Circuit Courts since 2009 and 2006 respectively. He is also an appellate certified mediator who mediates a variety of small claims, civil, and family cases. Mr. Brickman recently graduated both the Harvard Business School Negotiation Mastery Program and the Negotiation Master Class at Harvard Law School.

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Service of Process: International Defendants as a refresher! Original Air Date: September 24, 2019   In this, the third exciting installment of our suite on Service of Process, Steve and Rebecca discuss the proper processes for effectuating service on Defendants located outside of the country where suit is being filed.  Listen in as the explain how the Hague Convention streamlines the process, what options you have besides the methods specified in that document, and what to do if the country where the Defendant resides is not a signatory to it. For an up-to-date list of signatory states to the Hague Convention, including which methods of service they accept, visit the World Organisation for Cross-border Co-operation in Civil and Commercial Matters (HCCH). You can find the State Department's recommendations on international service, including contact information for foreign plaintiffs serving process on US entities, at their website, here. Check our episodes on In-State and Out-of-State Service for more information on this important part of the litigation process. The post Service of Process: International Defendants (Hague Convention) appeared first on Rathbone Group, LLC.

“I've always wanted to be in a job where I could help people…you're representing good people at their worst time.” “I have to be honest with myself because it doesn't communicate well if you're trying to be somebody else.” Daniel Renart, a former President of the Maryland Hispanic Bar Association is a Partner with Reinstein, Glackin & Herriott LLC ("RGH"). Daniel Renart focuses his practice assisting clients with their divorce, custody and personal injury matters. In divorce and family law cases, Mr. Renart has experience handling complex litigation involving separation agreements, prenuptial agreements, divorce, alimony, child custody, child support, family businesses, property distribution, domestic violence, corporate issues and criminal defense matters. Daniel has been recognized for his legal knowledge and experience by various accredited organizations, including Super Lawyers, Rue Ratings, Martindale Hubbell, the Washingtonian Magazine and other. Daniel was even identified as one of the Top 100 attorneys by Super Lawyers in Maryland and the District of Columbia in 2015. The Super Lawyer Top 100 list is described as the Best of the Best lawyers in Maryland and covers all practice areas. Daniel has also been recognized by various other publications for his legal experience and knowledge, including, the Washington Post Magazine who identified Mr. Renart in 2014 as a Top Attorney in the metropolitan area and Best Attorneys in America which nominated Daniel as a lifetime charter member in 2015. Daniel Renart has experience handling divorce, alimony and custody cases throughout the Maryland Courts located in Annapolis, Glen Burnie, Rockville, Silver Spring, Hyattsville, Upper Marlboro, Ellicott City, La Plata, Prince Frederick, Centerville and Leonardtown. These Courthouses are located within the following counties where Mr. Renart has experience, including: Prince George's County, Montgomery County, Anne Arundel County, Howard County, Charles County, Calvert County, St. Mary's County and Queen Anne County. Daniel Renart also represents clients before the State and U.S. Federal Courts on international family law matters, concerning the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Treaty”). The Treaty provides an expeditious remedy for the physical return of children who have been wrongfully removed or retained from their habitual residence, in violation of the custody rights of the parent who is left behind. Mr. Renart is fluent in Spanish, which allows him to better communicate directly with parents who are left behind in the child's habitual country of residence as well as their attorneys abroad. Mr. Renart works towards the safe and efficient resolution of complex family law international and domestic matters. Daniel Renart is also experienced in handling various personal injury matters and currently heads the personal injury department at RGH LLC. He has been recognized by the American Institute of Personal Injury Attorneys with a nomination for being among the 10 Best Attorneys for Maryland for Client Satisfaction, in 2014 and 2015. According to the AIOPIA, this award “is exclusive and extended only to those select few who have reached the top of their profession while doing so with the client's satisfaction being of the most paramount importance.” Mr. Renart has experience working with attorneys who have represented clients in hundreds of trials, recovering millions of dollars in a wide variety of cases, including, wrongful death, car accident, motorcycle accident, truck accident, construction accidents, medical malpractice and mesothelioma cases to name a few. Not only do Mr. Renart and the attorneys of RGH find success in cases where insurance companies refuse to offer their insurance policy limits, but they also focus their practice on medical malpractice and the investigation of complex medical conditions such as traumatic brain injuries, complex bone fractures, laminectomies, disc fusions, growth plate fractures, carpal tunnel surgeries, fibromyalgia and whiplash. R.O.G. Takeaway Tips: Celebrating where you come from.  Give back and find a career that you can deploy your strengths. How can we be of service to others?  Be grateful and honor your mentors. Who models behavior that we want to emulate? Tell the truth. Be candid and clear and behave ethically. Be honest with yourself and be authentic. Resources: American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Reinstein, Glackin & Herriott, LLC Billable Hour Campaign – AAML Foundation  American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Paul Reinstein Vocab: Ap·pel·late (especially of a court) concerned with or dealing with applications for decisions to be reversed. Dra·co·ni·an (of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe. Where to find R.O.G. Podcast: R.O.G on YouTube R.O.G on Apple Podcasts R.O.G on Spotify How diverse is your network?  N.D.I. Network Diversity Index What is your Generosity Style?  Generosity Quiz Credits: Dan Renart, Sheep Jam Productions, Host Shannon Cassidy, Bridge Between, Inc. Coming Next: Please join us next week, Episode 160, with Shannon Cassidy to recap 2023.

Not all love affairs last forever. When one princess loses her title, will another readily take her place and possibly share the same fate?November 27th, 1932, Princess Louise Van Alen Mdivani appears in the Hague divorce court dissolving her 18 month marriage to Prince Alexis Mdivani. On December 7th, 1932, her cousin Princess Ava Alice Astor Obolensky will also get a divorce in Reno. Two marriages both end but for very different circumstances.Other people and subjects include: Barbara Hutton, John Jacob Astor VI aka “Jakey,” James “Henry” Van Alen, William “Sam” Van Alen, Princess Roussadana “Roussie” Mdivani Sert, Prince Serge Mdivani, Princess Mary McCormick Mdivani, Sam Insull, Prince David Mdivani, Princess Mae Murray Mdivani, Charles Huberich, Princess Ava Alice Astor Obolensky, Prince Serge Obolensky, Ivan Obolensky, Sylvia Obolensky, Raimund von Hofmannsthal, Countess Silvia de Rivas de Castellane, Woolworth Donahue, Jeanne Meagher, Peggy Moffett, Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Kennedy, James Blakeley, Grace Rioppel Blakeley Hyde, Nancy Randolph, Cholly Knickerbocker, Caroline Astor, William Backhouse Astor, Jr., Charlotte Astor, Mary Mallon – Typhoid Mary, John Jacob Astor IV aka “Jack,” Ava Lowle Willing Astor – Lady Ribblesdale, Vincent Astor, Madeleine Talmage Astor Dick, Alva Vanderbilt Belmont, William Kissam Vanderbilt, Oliver Belmont, Consuelo Vanderbilt, Duke of Marlborough, Colonel Henry Huttleston Rogers II – Jr., Mary Benjamin, Millicent Rogers, Standard Oil fortune, oil ventures, Princess Catherine Alexandrovna, Tsar Alexander II Romanov, Prince of Wales – King Edward VIII – Duke of Windsor, American dollar princess marriages, royal titles, Central Park Casino, Reno, Nevada, Lithuania, Hague, Netherlands, Hague Convention, international divorces, remarriage, infidelity, divorce, friends & sibling romances, uneven breakups, betrayals, Edward McLean, Evalyn Walsh McLean, Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez, Vogue, Washington Post, Hope Diamond--Extra Notes / Call to Action:Firebreathing Kittens podcasthttps://firebreathingkitte.wixsite.com/websitehttps://pod.link/1459051634**Submit questions to As The Money Burns social media accounts for the upcoming 100th episode.Share, like, subscribe--Archival Music provided by Past Perfect Vintage Music, www.pastperfect.com.Section 1 Music: You Go To My Head by Joe Loss, Album The Great British Dance BandsSection 2 Music: I'm In the Mood for Love by Freddy Gardner, Album EleganceSection 3 Music: Stars Fell On Alabama by Lew Stone, Album The Great British Dance Bands--https://asthemoneyburns.com/TW / IG – @asthemoneyburnsFacebook – https://www.facebook.com/asthemoneyburns/

Use code 60EmilyBaker at https://www.GreenChef.com/60EmilyBaker to get 60% off plus free shipping!Turn your food waste into dirt with the press of a button with Lomi. Use the code LAWNERD to save $50 at https://lomi.com/LAWNERDGo to https://shopify.com/lawnerd to take your business to the next level today.The divorce announcement of Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas after four years of marriage shocked people, but her court filing invoking the Hague Convention was more stunning. Though stories and statements had wandered through the media before her filing, the conversation has shifted to a complex international custody battle. Joe Jonas filed for Divorce in Flordia, Sophie Turner filed for the return of the children in New York, and her New York filing indicates she is also filing in England. The US State Department has notified Flordia that they have also been notified. So, let's break down these filings. Connect With Me. Get the Members Only ‘I Have Thoughts Podcast https://www.LawNerdsUnite.comGet the Law Nerd App! Looking for my YouTube videos? https//www.WatchEmily.comWant to connect with Emily More? https://www.Instagram.com/theemilydbaker I share things on Twitter too! https://www.twitter.com/theemilydbaker This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Chartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

What is an Apostille? How Do you Get One? In this episode with Rugi from Apostille USA we discuss everything you need to know about apostilles. Get your apostilles here: https://lddy.no/1ge5p

Most family lawyers don't know enough about the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction…What are the must-know facts that family lawyers should be aware of if this convention becomes relevant to a client?In this episode, Natalie Webb of Webb Family Law will break down the Hague Convention and its impact on family law.She'll cover: When does the Hague Convention apply? Common misconceptions about the Convention Working with the state authority on a case Determining a child's habitual residence Related criminal statutes And more

“I had to leave my baby in Dubai and return to the UK”No, this isn't me being dramatic: this is the TRUTH for far too many expat parents.

    Slam the Gavel welcomes Nataly Anderson, a mother from the UK, who has been going through the Family Courts for almost seven years after her ex-husband, a Croatian former spy, took their children from the UK to Croatia on a vacation and refused to return the children.    Being failed by The Hague Convention on International Parental Child Abduction three times in three different countries, has been proven to be a costly and egregious travesty both mentally and physically for her and her children and this is the topic we discussed in depth today. Law Enforcement doesn't want to get involved along with judges who are inexperienced in The Hague Convention. Nataly states, "we have to use our voices as this is a public health crisis." The Hague Convention is open to its own interpretation, who knows how the judge will decide.    Nataly's ex-husband allegedly warned her that he would corrupt the courts in Croatia and indeed things started to go in the wrong direction. Since then, Nataly thought she was dealing with that issue and a BACKWARDS legal system in Croatia. She then found out that there is a SYSTEMIC CRISIS in the family courts in MANY COUNTRIES.   Throughout all of this, Nataly has decided to put together a group, Family Court Crisis, to act as a platform for parents to help themselves. Family Court Crisis is based in the UK but is keen to work with parents ALL OVER THE WORLD to take UNITED ACTION.You can find Family Court Crisis on Twitter, where they are most active, on Facebook, TikTok and YouTube.Natalya's PETITION for her children: https://www.change.org/BringNatalysBoysHomeThis episode of Slam the Gavel is sponsored by CPSprotect Consulting Services. A Child Protective Services case is one of the most frightening experiences for any parent. Don't face it alone. Face it with confidence! With UrgentAssist by CPSprotect, you can have access to former CPS investigators to make sure you preserve your rights and protect your family. If you're facing CPS involvement and aren't sure where to turn, their child welfare consultants can help you.  Visit cpsprotect.com/subscribe and enter the coupon code: SlamTheGavel for 10% off your first year of UrgentAssist AVAILABLE in ALL 50 STATES.Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

     Slam the Gavel welcomes Claudia Ovalles to the podcast. She was last one the podcast December 8th, 2021, Season 2, Episode 46. Claudia is a Marine as well s a Child Advocate out of Texas who helps with Legislation and brings much awareness to Child Custodial  Interference.     Claudia assists other parents who want the best for their children by speaking to Legislation to help push HB 969 (filed 12/9/2022), as well as it's companion Senate Bill 431 (filed 1/12/2022). HB 559 (filed 11/14/2022),removing Statute of Limitation with Child Custody. That bill will be named Bianca‘s Law.     Starting a Facebook page, "Interference with Child Custody Coalition-IC3," for parents to join and be aware of laws is extremely helpful when reporting custodial interference to the authorities.     She shared her own experience with Parental Alienation and after going through the pain of her own experience channeled her energy while gathering more parents into speaking with the Legislation into passing not only Senate but House Bills as well.    Determined to make a change in children's lives, Claudia wants to see Texas HB 559 and Senate Bill 431 come forward. She shares with us that all fifty states have a custodial interference law and this comes from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Department of Justice, and the National District Attorneys Association. Both Texas and Missouri have prefiled legislative bills on interference with child custody and parental kidnapping.    We also talked about The Hague Convention and the proper route to report a child missing and shared a story of a parent's struggle trying to get their child back.    Claudia shared with us a little bit of her own story while staying busy advocating to, with and for parents.To reach Claudia, you can find her on FacebookSupport the show(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Our guest, Kevin Day,  is one of the leading estate planning and international asset protection planning attorneys in the United States. In this episode, Shannon and Kevin discuss the difference between a revocable and irrevocable trust, how an irrevocable trust protects your assets, offshore trusts, and how to gain control of your assets.  1:45 Kevin's Background 5:45 Why do we need protection? Where do you need to go? 14:46 What is an irrevocable trust? 21:37 What is an active trust? 28:51 Shannon's lawsuit-proof business structure 41:21 The Hague Convention on Trusts 46:46 Kevin's advice for people who want to get into asset protection "By doing the work up front, you could really simplify your life." About Robnett's Real Estate Run Down With over 27 years in the real estate industry, Shannon shares actionable advice on wholesaling, fix and flips, single-family, multi-family, and more. Hear real people talk about all facets of the market, including analysis, challenges, management, and successes of investment-grade. Every conversation provides the foundation for a thriving career. Guest Bio: Kevin Day Kevin L. Day is one of the leading estate planning and international asset protection planning attorneys in the United States. Mr. Day's Bachelor's Degree is in Chinese Studies, and he holds a Master of Business Administration in International Management and Doctor of Jurisprudence degree. He was a university academic administrator for eight years, a law professor at the doctorate level, and a law school Dean of Students before entering private practice. In addition to his legal expertise, Mr. Day brings his extensive business knowledge as an MBA in International Business to his law practice.   Mr. Day is admitted to practice law in the California Supreme Court; U.S. Southern District Court, California; U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit; U.S. Central District Court, California; U.S. Court of International Trade; U.S. Tax Court, Washington D.C.; U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit; and United States Supreme Court. Mr. Day is a member of the California Bar Association, the Offshore Institute, the International Tax Planning Association, and the American Bar Association's sub-section on Asset Protection.   Attorney Day is the co-author of four books: Lawsuits, Taxes & Asset Protection, Offshore Money Strategies, The Privacy Guide and the Ultra-Privacy Guide. He has also co-authored five audio-courses: Offshore Tax Havens, International Asset Protection Trusts, Golden Parachutes for Business Owners, Offshore Money Strategies, and How To Disinherit Uncle Sam. Additionally, he has written many articles relating to estate planning, offshore tax havens, asset protection and captive insurance formation.   info@trespday.com  https://www.trespday.com/ 

  Slam the Gavel welcomes Michaela Wade from the UK . Michaela was last on the podcast Season 2, Episode 116 and Season 3, Episode 175.     Michaela is one of the Co-Founders of the Family Law Assistance Franchise, which is a growing band of a new breed of legal practitioners who help people represent themselves in the family courts, using a mix of legal knowledge and coaching techniques.    Her background as a Master Coach and Hypnotherapist, as well as being an NLP and Hypnosis Trainer, means she has all the tools to help clients manage their mindset and anxiety and put themselves in the best possible position to win their case in Family Court.    We discussed the difficult issues regarding The Hague Convention and child abduction. We also talked about when a parent abducts a child to a non-Hague country and what can happen financially to the other parent. There are several countries including Japan that do not recognize The Hague Convention.      The Hague may be decently written but the interpretation gets watered down and that  is where timing comes in. Check points and seizure of passports can be done but there are times a parent who is abducting a child can slip by and go to another country.     Very interesting discussion regarding a topic the public or judges may not know about.To reach Michaela Wade: michaela@familylawasssistance.co.uk www.familylawassistance.co.uk Facebook: Family Law Assistance HQ and on YouTube: Family Law Assistance. YouTube and InstagramTik Tok: @familylawassistanceSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

https://linktr.ee/thunderinglegion Big Question: Can War Be Just? Today we will wrestle with the morality of warfare. On episode 3, we wrestled with the question “should Christians be in the armed forces?” which dealt with how a citizen of God's kingdom can also be a citizen of a nation, agent of that nation's armed forces, and bear the sword for that nation (reference Romans 13:4). This episode wrestled with these questions on an individual/tactical level. So as we move up into the operational/strategic level, how do we think about warfare? Today we will wrestle with the question “Can any war be just?” Ecclesiastes chapter 3 says “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens… a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” The Bible takes a practical view of our sin fallen world, although the general arc of the Bible moves towards peace in the culmination of the person of Jesus (reference Truth Over Tribe series linked in Episode 3 show notes) Ancient philosophers from Egypt, China, India, Greece, and Rome wrestled with ethics of warfare. These schools of thought likely impacted later thinking on ethics of war. “Christian theory of the Just War begins around the time of Augustine of Hippo. The Just War theory, with some amendments, is still used by Christians today as a guide to whether or not a war can be justified.” Wikipedia First off, how does our culture define is justice? Marriem-Webster  “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims  the quality of being just, impartial, or fair.    Just War Theory On one side lies pacifism.  There is no such thing as a just war.  War is never justified, therefore we should never choose to engage in war.  Pacifism fails to address human nature, which is inherently sinful, and humans are bound to fall into conflict from their sinfulness. On the other side is militarism/nationalism.  This position would argue that war is simply a tool to use as a nation, whenever the benefits of war outweigh the cause.  I'd argue that Nazi Germany and Switzerland both practice this war theory. In the middle is Just War Theory. How does the Bible define justice? Isaiah 51:5 “My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm will bring justice to the nations.”  Psalm 37:27-29 “Turn from evil and do good; then you will dwell in the land forever. For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed ; the offspring of the wicked will perish. The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.”  Leviticus 19:15 “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”  Zechariah 7:9 “This is what the LORD Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.'” Isaiah 1:17 “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed.Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”  Christian scholars agree that, to be considered just, a war must meet several jus ad bellum requirements. The four most important conditions are:  (1) the war must be declared openly by a proper sovereign authority (e.g., the governing authority of the political community in question);  (2) the war must have a just cause (e.g., defense of the common good or a response to grave injustice);  (3) the warring state must have just intentions (i.e., it must wage the war for justice rather than for self-interest); and  (4) the aim of the war must be the establishment of a just peace.  Since the end of World War II it has become customary to add three other conditions:  (1) there must be a reasonable chance of success;  (2) force must be used as a last resort; and  (3) the expected benefits of war must outweigh its anticipated costs. Not every nation subscribes to Just War Theory, and countries often sidestep it when it conflicts with their military objectives. One challenge to Just War Theory is that the criteria are too vague and easily twisted/rationalized. But we as Christians believe that God will judge everyone according to the motives of their hearts. Hebrews 10:30 says “For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”” Example: Putin has justified the invasion of Ukraine as self-defense of Russia, but these claims have been widely condemned by the UN and internationally. Lots of talk on war crimes in the news lately Russians have been accused of committing war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine lately. What is a War Crime?  Britannica Just war theory led to formation of international law and rules of engagement. Examples include the United Nations, Geneva Conventions, Hague Convention, and Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Three principles established by the conventions generally govern conduct during war:  (1) targets should include only combatants and legitimate military and industrial complexes;  (2) combatants should not use unjust methods or weapons (e.g., torture and genocide); and (3) the force used should be proportionate to the end sought. How do we respond when we are persecuted by those who walk upon justice and persecute truth? Proverbs 25: 21-22, 26: “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you… Like a muddied spring or a polluted well are the righteous who give way to the wicked.” Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”  1 Peter 3:18 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.” Conclusion: Reflection questions to leave you with How do we as Christians act to provide justice on earth, while also trusting in the Lord to provide ultimate justice?  How does our response to and use of violence look different in our private, individual life and in our service as armed forces members? How can we mimic the selfless love and sacrifice of Christ in how we confront injustice? REFLECT: What does this episode reveal about God's character? How does this episode cause us to see our need for a Savior?  How can we apply lessons learned from this episode to our life? Follow Christ for this day! ✝️ “Choose this day whom you will serve...” ‭‭Joshua‬ ‭24‬:‭15‬ ‭✝️ “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭10‬:‭9‬  Next steps: SHARE with another armed forces member FOLLOW Instagram, Facebook, Podcast https://linktr.ee/thunderinglegion  

    Slam the Gavel welcomes Jeffery Morehouse on the podcast to discuss the non-compliance of Japan in regards to The Hague Convention as well as his own case. In addition to being an award-winning filmmaker, Jeffery Morehouse volunteers much of his time as Executive Director of Bring Abducted Children Home (www.bachome.org). According to U.S. Government figures more than 475 American children have been kidnapped by a parent to Japan since 1994.       Bring Abducted Children Home is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the immediate return of internationally abducted children being wrongfully detained in Japan. Italso strives to end Japan's human rights violation of denying children unfettered access to both parents. BAC Home works to increase public awareness through outreach on the crisis of international parental child abduction. He collaborates with an alliance of international partners working to end child abduction to and within in Japan.      He is also a founding partner in The Coalition to End International Parental Child Abduction (www.endchildabduction.org) uniting organizations to work to put an end to international parental kidnapping of children through advocacy/public policy reform. In July 2022, U.S. Senate Resolution 568, noted, “the Coalition to End International Parental Child Abduction, through dedicated advocacy and regular testimony, has highlighted the importance of this issue to Congress and called on successive administrations to take concerted action to stop international parental child abduction and repatriate kidnapped United States children.”     Between 2015-2021 he testified and briefed the U.S. Congress eight times. Most recently on September 29, 2021 in The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission and December 10, 2018 in the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee on Japan's systemic failure to return kidnapped children.     In October 2022 he briefed the United Nations Human Rights Committee on parental child abduction and loss of access within and to Japan. This resulted in the UN reporting Japan should, introduce necessary measures.    He has testified as an expert witness in the California and Florida family courts on prevention cases.    Information about his son's 2010 kidnapping to Japan and efforts to locate him and reunite are at: www.bringmochihome.wordpress.com and www.bachome.org/mochi-morehouse/Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://beentheregotout.com/http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Chris Hearsey, Esquire, has done a lot. He worked for Bigelow Aerospace, the U.S. Department of State, ran for Congress, and worked on a Hague Convention. He's also the co-founder of the Space Court Foundation. We discuss legal issues in space that you need to aware of right now, and some of the items SCF is working on.

Today, we're discussing international adoption with Karen Snow @infertilitylies. She tells us about her own infertility story and shares her experience with international adoption. It's important to point out that her experience is from the perspective of being a Canadian citizen. So, if you're in the US, UK, or Australia where the majority of listeners are listening from, the process is a little different. You'll have to check with your local government about which countries there are adoption agreements with. I'll put a link in the show notes to some resources. The first thing to look at might be the Hague convention. 100 nations are a part of the Hague Convention which protects children in the process of intercountry adoption. I've been wanting to speak to an adoption attorney who can speak to adoption both domestically in the US and internationally, but I've only been able to locate people who can speak to domestic adoptions. If this is something you're interested in as a topic, please reach out to me on Instagram and let me know. I hope you find this episode helpful! Of course, if it's helpful, I'd love it if you could share this with someone who you feel might benefit from it or to leave a 5 star review, so we can help more people learn about ways to expand their family. Enjoy today's episode! RESOURCES FROM THIS EPISODE Books mentioned on this episode can be found here: www.amazon.com/shop/40andinfertile Follow Karen Snow, ND: https://www.instagram.com/infertilitylies/ Hague Adoption Convention: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/Adoption-Process/understanding-the-hague-convention.html List of Hague Convention Countries: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/Adoption-Process/understanding-the-hague-convention/convention-countries.html US Adoption Service Provider information: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/about-adoption-service-providers.html US Adoption Statistics: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/Intercountry-Adoption/adopt_ref/adoption-statistics-esri.html?wcmmode=disabled --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/40andinfertile/support

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Lucas Bento, Of Counsel in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. Bento is the author of The Globalization of Discovery: The Law and Practice under 28 U.S.C § 1782 (Section 1782), the first and only book to discuss the law pertaining to that Section. John and Lucas discuss how, under Section 1782,  parties to proceedings outside of the US can invoke discovery procedures inside the US in aid of those foreign proceedings. John notes how many foreign lawyers he talks to complain about the relatively burdensome US discovery system. Yet they also envy it, especially if you're a plaintiff.  US law has a procedure to achieve US-style discovery of evidence or witnesses located in the US – Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code.The conversation begins by outlining what exactly Section 1782 is. Lucas notes it's a federal statute that allows a party to a foreign proceeding to gain access to US discovery procedures and evidence (including documents and depositions) for use in the foreign proceeding. Historically, one would need to use letters rogatory or go through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence.  But Section 1782 provides many advantages over those tools.  For example, under the Hague Convention, US-style depositions are not available; however, under Section 1782, if there is a witness subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts, they could be served with a subpoena and get a complete US-style deposition. Lucas highlights how powerful a tool §1782 can be, working as a global evidentiary X-ray machine.John asks how one invokes §1782, with Lucas highlighting the application process and the necessary requirements that must be met in order for the application to be processed successfully. If the court authorizes the application, the discovery target can be subpoenaed immediately, making it a very contentious issue. They dive deep into the logistics and Intel discretionary factors of Section 1782 and how these can impact the success of an application. John notes how US discovery is not loved around the world – with foreign jurisdictions hostile to the US's broad processes. In discussing the types of foreign proceedings that qualify under Section 1782, Lucas states that you can obtain US-style discovery as long as the foreign proceeding is pending or within reasonable contemplation – something you can't typically do in the US. However, there are some limitations and boundaries in place, such as the fact that people can't use §1782 to fish around and see if someone has a claim in the first place, or use it for private arbitrations. The conversation moves on to discuss what the future of the law surrounding Section 1782 will look like in the future. Lucas believes its trajectory is on the assent, with more applications being made, which only gives the courts more issues to unpack and define. He argues that Section 1782 is now becoming a routine consideration across the entire legal industry, noting that the statute can be a bastion of truth in a world struggling with fake news and widespread disinformation. The use of legal tools, such as Section 1782, to discover facts can be a means to achieve fairer and more just decisions around the world.Finally, John and Lucas discuss how foreign litigants must act fast and hire qualified US counsel to assist in the use of Section 1782. Lucas notes how relevance is important, although it is still a very broad term in general, and explains why the timing of the application is crucial.

On this episode of Through the Human Geography Lens, hosts Terri Ryan and Gwyneth Holt talk with Dr. Laurie Rush, the Cultural Resources Manager and Army Archaeologist at Fort Drum, New York. 00:35 Upcoming WWHGD Webinar on Cultural Heritage and Human Geography scheduled for October 19th, 2022. Register here. 00:50 Defining "cultural heritage" and "cultural property". Cultural heritage Cultural property 01:05 Unique, powerful, and sensible definition from Dr. Rush. 01:30 The Hague definition. The Hague Convention on protecting cultural property in armed conflict 02:00 Describing her role as a cultural resources manager. 03:35 Expanding her role to teach cross-cultural landscapes to deploying soldiers. 04:35 Drawing parallels between international sensitivity and our internal domestic perspectives on cultural property. 05:40 Example: "Tooth of the Dragon", a pointed rock, in the Bamian valley of central Afghanistan. A discussion of the Bamian Valley The Nara Principles for Cultural Restoration 06:35 Is there a database of important sites like "Tooth of the Dragon"? 07:35 Local community partnership development. Ideally, with the keepers of the heritage before any disruptive events. 10:15 A GIS layer with important cultural artifacts localized seems highly desirable. Are there any risks in that accumulation or exposure? War and Heritage from the Getty Conservation Institute 12:35 How do you train soldiers to support this cultural task when deployed? Cultural preservation Training Aids from the Smithsonian 13:30 Example: Remote Afghan water systems with surface holes easy to spot. A discussion of the Qanat water systems of the Middle East (Dr. Rush uses the regionally correct term "kareez"). 14:50 Other examples: Smithsonian's Dr. Katherine Hanson helping strategic planning to save Raqqa from ISIS. The Battle for Raqqa (2017) Article about Raqqa preservation by Dr. Hanson. 16:05 The staying power of ancient places to the people who live there. Ex: The Temple of Artemis at Sardis in Turkey. The Temple of Artemis at Sardis Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on this podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the WWHGD sponsors and should not be construed as an endorsement. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/wwhgd-support/message

On June 15, 2022 the Court decided Golan v. Saada, holding that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. Joining today to discuss this case is Professor Margaret Ryznar of Indiana University's McKinney School of Law.

H. Alan and Kerri watch The Golden Palace season 1 episode "Heartbreak Hotel," where they discuss The Hague Convention, the messiness of opening a baked potato with your tongue, and their own experiences with choosing a man over a friend. Listen on WhoHaha or wherever you get your podcasts, and for more Golden Girls greatness follow Out on the Lanai on Instagram (@outonthelanaiofficial), Twitter (@goldengirlspod), and Facebook (goldengirlspodcast). Stay Golden!Click here for Jon's Go Fund Me.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Lawyer and academic Gina Masterton became an activist when her sister had a Hague case brought against her. That story has a (rare) happy ending but Gina continues to campaign to get the Convention amended. In this episode, she talks about the harshness of the Australian courts and the extent to which the law is failing both mothers and their children.

In this episode of the FiLiA podcast, lawyer and activist Sudha Shetty talks to us about the often desperate consequences of The Hague Convention for mothers and their children who are fleeing domestic violence. Her response to this injustice has been inspirational: the Hague Domestic Violence Project which she founded is a beacon of hope which we hope to build on through our international Hague Mothers' project.

A case in which the Court held that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction does not categorically require courts to consider all measures that might mitigate the grave risk of harm if the child were to return to their country of habitual residence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, courts are required to consider all measures that might mitigate the grave risk of harm if the child were to return to their country of habitual residence.