Transcript prepared by Fielding M. McGehee III. If you use this material, please credit The Jonestown Institute. Thank you.
Woman: –seeing the mother got physical custody yesterday in a hearing. The hearing was held I think three different times and was continued, and finally uh, we– I personally accidentally ran into Tim [Stoen], the– the– you know, her husband in the– in the legal (unintelligible word) on the street, and we’ve been trying to get in touch with him, but he’s evaded us and– (unintelligible word) he did show up in court and uh, he got– he and Grace got legal custody yesterday.
Sheehan Brown: Yes, that– that was predictable.
Woman: Uh. Yeah. (Laughs) Uh, he– Well, it was, e– except we thought that he had more loyalty, but I guess uh– I don’t know what his motives are, we– we– he has always said that he would help us and that would never be an issue, but I– (unintelligible under Brown)
Brown: Never– never get between a– a woman and her man.
Woman: So. Why?
Brown: It’s an old– it’s an old adage, that they run to top loyalties, one to another.
Woman: Well, anyhow, Tim did testify on (unintelligible word) behalf in court yesterday, and then promptly yesterday afternoon delivered a letter here saying that he demanded custody of the child. I do have a copy of that, I can– It uh– He said that we were uh, to deliver the child by uh– (reads from letter) was “asking for your cooperation delivering John Victor Stoen to Grace Stoen and me in San Francisco by next Friday noon, November 25, 1977. We will, of course, raise him in an inter-racial and sharing environment consistent with the highest teachings.” And further. Uh– Is he– He leaves instructions as to how to do that, cooperation with his and her attorney, and– I don’t know–
Brown: Okay, now what uh– what jurisdiction did uh– did the court have over the real father at the time?
Woman: We say none.
Brown: (Laughs) Well, that doesn’t do you any good. Well, what’s the court say?
Woman: That I don’t know. And I wonder how I’d find out.
Brown: Well, the uh– (pause)
Woman: If he–
Brown: It depends what type of service was given on him.
Brown: Did he have actual service of the hearing?
Woman: Yes, he did.
Woman: He was notified to be there.
Brown: Okay. And uh, where was that service performed? Down south?
Woman: (Pause) I’m not sure whether or not they got one down there? Uh, we did get one here at the church.
Brown: And he– It was communicated to him.
Woman: (Pause) Uh, I’m unaware of that. I don’t know whether– I– Yes, I think it probably was.
Brown: Okay, so actual–
Woman: But– but official–
Brown: –actual notice he had, the question of legal notice is another question.
Woman: Right. Now whether he had legal notice, I don’t know.
Brown: Okay, but you’re understanding that he had actual notice, so he knows about the– the hearing, and the– the judge entered an order granting uh, legal custody and the right to physical custody to both uh, the natural mother and her husband.
Woman: Umm-hmm [Yes].
Brown: Okay. And did the court– I take it the court entered an order to that effect.
Woman: I presume. I haven’t seen the papers.
Brown: Okay. And then was–
Woman: And I wasn’t– And– and no one that I know was there at the actual hearing, but that was by phone with– with (unintelligible under Brown)
Brown: Oh, okay, well, then, you don’t– you weren’t there to hear what happened.
Woman: No, uh-uh. I could get the court papers, though.
Brown: Yes, that would be wise. That would be wise, and uh– ‘cause the court will be signing an order within a day or so, and uh, what you should do is get a copy of the– the actual papers that were filed and whatever copy of an order that the judge granted.
Woman: (Pause) All right. Now if– You’re saying then, if– This is what I understood you to explain last time, if something like this transpired, and there wasn’t– the court didn’t serve notice there to uh, (unintelligible word) he could get it or whatever, that uh– then the court’s jurisdiction does in fact extend– Is that what you–
Brown: Well, no, no, I said that there was a specific question about that. It was a question of the reciprocity between the uh, shall we refer to the southern state (laughs), and the uh– and the courts here in the United States, that uh, if in fact the courts down there received notice of this and chose to give it full uh, recognition, then the court down there could issue an order uh, giving what they refer to as uh, full faith and recognition to the United States court order. And– but that the– the United States court has no jurisdiction down there–
Woman: Uh, in it– in itself, it has none.
Brown: In itself, it has no jurisdic–
Woman: It has to be honored by the court there, is that right?
Brown: That’s right. They would have to– they would have to apply to the government there and have a court order there uh, which grants full faith and recognition to the United States court order. And then they would issue an order uh, in turn, uh, mandating that a certain thing be done. (Pause)
Woman: And in that case– What my concern is– You see, our relations are– are very good there, and what we have to uh– what we have been able to accomplish there by way of– By now we have 800, over 800 people there. We also have a very uh– a very highly developed cooperative, which is exactly what the country is interested in doing for self-sufficiency, and a number of other reasons, so that’s, I guess, what we’re holding on to at this point, think that it’s pretty good. But I uh, (Pause) uh– (sighs) Of course, there’s still a matter of (unintelligible word) concern. It would– If you have uh– Uh, what my concern would be then is, is there any way in which you– when you previously talked to me, you told me about the uh– the– the kind of uh, warrant that was out for Huey Newton, in a sense a fugitive thing? Uh–
Brown: (unintelligible) Just say that uh, if in fact, the only– the only uh, instance in which that would occur, for example, is that if in fact the United States court here uh, had undertaken some sort of criminal sanctions, that uh, if they undertook some kind of uh, criminal sanctions or ordered that uh– that the real father be present, if he didn’t show up, and they chose to move to have him held in contempt in some way.
Woman: Now, who– who could do that? What court could do that?
Brown: Well, the– the civil court could. Now, by the sounds of it, at least we don’t have any affirmative information that that’s been done. That’s why it’s important to get a look at the– at the papers.
Woman: You think it might’ve been done.
Brown: No, it doesn’t sound like it would’ve been. It seems like something would’ve been said in the letter that you– that you received if it had been.
Woman: Could have issued contempt.
Brown: Well, yeah, just like, you know, for example, in a divorce case, where uh, a decree of divorce has been entered in uh– an enter– an order has been entered by the court mandating that the father pay alimony and child support. Then if he doesn’t pay the child support, the court can enter an order uh, directing him to appear in front of the court. And if he doesn’t appear, it can issue a citation for contempt, and then issue a warrant, ‘cause contempt is criminal. And can issue a– a warrant. Now the– the fact is that it’s a felony. And uh, then it becomes– if a United States court issues a felony warrant, the question becomes totally political for the foreign country as to whether or not they will uh, have an extradition to–
Woman: Now, if– tell me, what would be the jump between the local civil proceeding and the U.S. court issue?
Brown: Well, no, it would be a– it would be a state court, uh– a state civil court can issue uh, an order of contempt, and can in fact issue a, uh, uh, a subpoena, in effect. And if– And instead, it becomes specifically a political question as to whether or not the foreign state will recognize it. In the vast overwhelming majority of the cases, they do not.
Brown: Now if– if in fact it were a– a federal fugitive warrant, which is no way that that would likely get translated into one of those, that’s when you get the sort of Huey Newton situation.
Woman: I see. Now the federal situation would be, I thought, what you said if there was some kid– kidnapping charge.
Brown: Oh, that. That I mean if– if in fact they intended to bring a totally separate action– For example, now, as I understand it, there has been a state court order entered granting legal custody to the mother and to the le–
Woman: (unintelligible word) Superior Court in San Francisco.
Woman: It’s the Superior Court of San Francisco.
Brown: Yeah, that’s right. Okay. So it’s a– it’s a state court.
Woman: All right.
Brown: It’s a California court has entered a– a court order granting custody to the– to the natural mother and her husband. Now that means she has legal custody. And that also means that uh– that the natural father has no legal custody whatsoever, that he is no– that he is no longer recognized as any uh, legal– has no legal authority to have the child. Now there was one other question that arose, as you indicated to me, that there was also a party down there with him who had legal guardianship of the child.
Woman: Well, it was not entered in the court. So it’s simply something that could be revoked.
Brown: Oh well, then there’s– then there’s– there isn’t any.
Brown: Okay. Then. Well, wh– what you have then is you have uh, the mother – natural mother – and the legal father who have custody of the child. Now, no one else has the right to have legal custody of the child, right now.
Woman: According to U.S., uh–
Brown: So– so in fact, if– if they could determine that someone had the child, and a– and a request had been made to that person to return the child, and the child was defying the parents, then they would be in a standing– in standing to go before a United States attorney and file a complaint for kidnapping, that in fact there are people who are in custody of our child who have no right to the child (clears throat) and they uh– they are keeping it over and against our will, and they have actual notice of our demand to have the child back. And that would be, it’s not longer a legal custody fight, because that’s been resolved now. And so they– they’re now very close to getting in a position of having standing to possibly file a complaint for kidnapping. Now if in fact a kidnapping uh, warrant were issued, then that would end up into the– the straight realm of– of a decision as to whether or not the– the southern state would in fact recognize a federal warrant for extradition purposes. That’s a simple– simple enough issue to find out, is whether or not they have a– an extradition reciprocity treaty with the United States. Now if they did, then what would happen is that the warrant would be sent down there to the executive department of the for– of the foreign state, and they would have to make a decision as to whether or not to execute on it.
Woman: Who would it be sent to? (unintelligible under Brown)
Brown: It would be sent to the (unintelligible word under woman) federal law enforcement agencies. (unintelligible under woman)
Woman: Okay. It wouldn’t be necessarily the executive branch, it might be the– for instance, the uh, highest magistrate or something.
Brown: Well, it would be– it would be sent probably to the comparable agency to the U.S. Attorney. So the– their attorney general would get it, and it would be the national police force that would be asked to enforce it.
Woman: (Pause) Uh-huh.
Brown: Now that’s if in fact such a step were taken. If in fact no uh, warrant for kidnapping were issued, then you’d be dealing with a civil action, and as far as I can tell, uh, they– they may not have any jurisdiction over the natural father, that they may not have gotten any type of legal service on him to mandate his appearance, and there– he may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. So to the extent to which they remain on a civil level, uh, my sense is that there would be uh, likely to be very little relief that they could get. But now, if in fact they chose to take the step into the criminal dimension, uh, then it would de– devolve down to the question of whether or not the– the foreign state was going to enforce uh, the warrant.
Woman: I understand that. I understand. Okay, how does–
Brown: Those are the two situations that you’re looking at.
Woman: Yeah, okay. I had another question, and this regards the (clear throat) other thing I mentioned to you. We thought it might be appropriate to find uh, some place for the child, other than where he is.
Brown: Yeah. To the extent to which there has been no service on him, uh, if there is no service on him and he is not under any type of court order relating to the child that– that they have jurisdiction over him on, he has the perfect right to go wherever he wants to go and that– and to the extent to which he’s the natural father, uh, has a right to– to take the child where he chooses to. Now the other issue about uh, there being some person who is a legal guardian or something, that seem to be pretty well mooted now.
Woman: Yes. I think so. They did sign– There’re a number of documents signed, but they– and they were notarized, but they’ve never been filed with the court.
Brown: Okay, well, to the extent to which there’s a superseding court order now, granting custody to the natural mother and her legal husband, I would say that that’s pretty much vitiated.
Woman: I’m sure it is. Umm-hmm. Okay. Well, this is the– the question then. If– if uh, they– we were to go out of the country, uh, say it were not he but another person, and he had no– no knowledge of where uh, the child were going–
Brown: Well, that– that wouldn’t be very credible (laughs) as a matter of fact. I mean, it’s– there– the thing you (unintelligible under woman)–
Woman: But legally.
Brown: –that– that pl– ways that can be thought of creatively to avoid the legal implications of what you’re doing are not very successful, because they’ve been tried before. So if in fact he did have actual knowledge of where the child was going and uh, was the one in charge of the agent that had the child, uh, he would be part of a conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
Woman: I see.
Brown: And they could st– You’d still have the same problem with the federal warrant, in uh, issuing a warrant.
Woman: What if he actually did not know?
Brown: Well, if he did actually not know, then he’d still be uh– it could still arguably– if he were responsible for directing an agent to take the child and go somewhere, when he knew that the– that the– the natural mother and legal father had custody of the child, and he was doing this to keep the child out of their custody, that is what kidnapping is all about.
Woman: Okay. So there’s no way around that.
Brown: So there– it’s very unlikely.
Woman: So uh– All right. Considering that, (laughs) that that would be the case, we’re uh– If he went out– Would– What about uh, if he were to go out of the country through immigratio– (tape silence for several seconds)
Brown: Well, it depends on whether there was a– If in fact there had been no warrant issued, uh, and as I say, if it– clearly to the extent to which the letter is– is the– the avenue along which they’re attempting to pursue custody of this thing, that uh, to the extent to which there’s no federal warrant or anything outstanding against him, uh, and there is no – from what I can understand at least at this point – no jurisdiction that has been un, asserted over him, that he has the right to go wherever he chooses with the child. Now but the– the question is uh, the thing really shakes down to a question of, what country uh, has– would not recognize a federal warrant, and that’s– that’s where the bottom line political question is, is if he– if he is the natural father of the child, and– and has the, you know, the requisite affection and things for the child and is– is dealing in good faith with having the child in his custody, uh, especially if in fact there were papers signed by the natural mother authorizing the child to be with whoever this sub-guardian was, in down there, at least uh, from– from– at least ad initio–
Woman: If the papers’ signed by whom, at this point now?
Brown: If they were signed by the natural mother.
Woman: Okay. There– well, there are such papers. She did sign– She actually gave him the child and walked away in hostility, but, of course that’s (unintelligible under Brown)–
Brown: (unintelligible under woman) so– so the– the thing is, that if in fact from uh, uh, an initial position that the child was down there legally, and with the person legally, uh, the question is now that if that situation is changed, because of these recent court orders, is the burden– the burden is on the people who got the status changed, to communicate that effectively with some sort of jurisdiction.
Woman: All right, well, you see, Tim was there, and John was there at the same time – the child – so he– I don’t know whether or not he in fact took the child there, but he was there for several months while the child was there. And he left, leaving the child there. (unintelligible sentence)
Brown: Uh-huh. I hear you.
Woman: So we wondered if that wouldn’t put a condition on– on uh, any of the uh, kidnapping charges, if that ever came up.
Brown: Well, the– the– the question is then, is– no– the– the understanding would be – at least from my judgment – is that the natural father would be the one who had custody of the child, and even if the child is physically staying with someone else, I– as long as it is by his consent and his arrangement–
Woman: The legal father, now–
Brown: That’s– no, no, I’m talking about–
Woman: You’re talking about the natural father.
Brown: –the natural father.
(End of side B)
Conversation starts 15 minutes in.
Brown: –uh, were in physical custody of the child. If the father – the natural father – left and went somewhere, as long as the– he– he was giving consent that the child remain with his guardian, and that the guardian still had the papers from the natural mother, the– the real– the fact of the matter would be, as far as I can determine, that the natural father would still be exercising custodial responsibility for the child. (Pause) And then the question arises as to what change uh, is mandated by this recent court order in that, and it’s clear that what– what is probably been mandated by the court is that the natural father and this uh, temporary guardian turn over custody to the natural mother and the legal father. Now the question is, uh, what type of service has been executed, and what type of jurisdiction they have to mandate that court order’s enforcement? It becomes almost a straight, almost physical question.
Brown: And then– then the question rises as to uh– as to what type of jurisdiction could be asserted in various countries over the child and the natural father. That’s (unintelligible word under woman) question.
Woman: Umm-hmm. Well, uh, my– Yeah, I see. Well, the thing is that I– that I– if– if the legal father actually took him there, or was there with him and then left him there, does that have any bearing on it at all? Not the natural father, but the legal father.
Brown: Oh. You mean down in the southern country?
Woman: Yes, uh-huh.
Brown: Uh– (Pause)
Woman: The legal father–
Brown: Well, see, the le– the legal father, as I understand it, had no– had no legal status until just recently.
Woman: Hmm. Okay. Well, that answers that. So anything he did, he was not really (unintelligible under Brown) bearing. Um-hmm.
Brown: It doesn’t– It doesn’t really have any impact on it. (Pause) So the– So– Sorta shaking the thing down, what it– what it looks like is that– that uh, if the natural father and the former uh, guardian, at least according to papers, even though it might not have been filed in court, uh, and the legal father now, uh, all consented to the child’s being in this southern country, uh, it– it seems that that is perfectly proper for the child to be there. That– Now, if in fact there are papers that have been just signed yesterday, which establish uh, legal custody in the natural mother and the legal father, and they want to have the child some other place, i.e., up in San Francisco by Friday, that is, for the first time, a change in status, that the status had been fairly well understood, apparently by the mother, by her designating the legal guardian to– to have the cu– child down there, the natural father was there, and the– even the legal father knew the child was there, and who apparently participated in bringing the child there, that all of the status of the child there in the southern country is perfectly appropriate. Up until yesterday. And, as a matter of fact, it will be perfectly appropriate, as far as I can tell, until this next Friday. And the only question then will be, what type of communication was made between uh, San Francisco and the San Francisco court and the legal parents now, uh, to the people down in the southern country to mandate the return of the child. Now that’s a physical question of what type of notice has been served, what type of jurisdiction has been obtained, uh– So uh, first it’s a factual question, very simply, and secondly it’s a– it’s a legal question of what type of force and effect a– a court order from up here really has down there. And unless a court down there has so– somehow taken jurisdiction of the thing and issued a court order from that country, my guess would be that it has very little, if any, effect.
Woman: Little effect unless they pick up on it.
Brown: That’s right. Because the court up here can’t get any real jurisdiction over them down there.
Woman: And issue a warrant.
Brown: And issue a warrant. But it wouldn’t really have any effect until such a– until s– such time as either the executive department down there or the judicial division undertakes to issue some kind of order, predicated upon the United States court order–
Woman: Court action, um-hmm.
Brown: Uh– My sense is that that– is uh, there’s just no force and effect to it–
Woman: I see.
Brown: –would be my guess.
Woman: Yeah, well, I think that’s where we’re feeling. (unintelligible under Brown) Uh-huh.
Brown: Yeah, that would be my guess. That would– But of course, the– then the question would be, what additional steps might be taken here by the natural mother and legal father? As I said, the worst one conceivable would be that one for kidnapping. If in fact they could demonstrate that actual notice had been served on the parties down in the southern country, and that they were defying it. (Pause)
Woman: Okay, well, that would be– that would be (unintelligible under Brown)–
Brown: That would be the worst situation. The second worst situation could be uh, an effort on the part of the natural mother and the legal father to undertake to have some sort of uh, civil court order issued uh, directly to the natural father, uh and the– whoever that former legal guardian was of the child, and have it translated into a civil court order down in the southern country and served upon them, ‘cause then they would start– See, the ones that they have to worry about down there are the– the authorities down there.
Woman: Yeah. Well, that’s– I’m sure that’s– that’s been taken into account. (Laughs)
Brown: That’s right.
Woman: Yeah. One other question, uh, Sheehan, that’s– when I– when uh, we talked once before, you mentioned that the best place, if there were to be some kind of an exit, the best place would be someplace that were a socialist country or something that had less– less– that would be less apt to be uh, within (unintelligible word under lawyer) court’s jurisdiction.
Brown: Yeah, from a– from a simply political perspective. When you get down to sorta that– that hard rock bottom line of what countries are more or less likely to recognize uh, United States extradition treaties. Just as a matter of fact, the countries that have fewer extradition treaties with the United States than any others are those who are the socialist-leaning.
Woman: Yeah, well, of course, now, that’s the situation right now.
Brown: That’s right.
Woman: Uh, but just in case– (Laughs)
Brown: It’s just a– it’s just a–
Woman: Do you have any in– information as to the accessibility of Cuba?
Brown: Uh, actually uh, there’s– there’s been considerable increase in the– in the communications and transportation and travel back and forth among people there. Now one of the– one of the caveats on that is that uh, that Cuba seems to be engaged rather intensely right now with the United States in trying to uh, normalize relations. And so there are those political considerations, is that they– they are attempting to avoid any type of serious uh, exacerbation of the situation–
Woman: I understand.
Brown: –but it’s fairly easy to– to find out what the sort of extradition status is with various countries and the United States, that most uh– most international law firm would know those things fairly easily.
Woman: Yeah. Do you have any you recommend?
Brown: Well, uh, let me think who uh, some of the better international law firms are. Uh– (Pause) Well, I could– I could give you the name of a man who could uh– who could– who would know one for you.
Brown: Okay. Uh, let me give you his number here. (Pause) Okay, why– Call a Mr. Eugene Scheiman – S-c-h-e-i-m-a-n. He’s up the Cahill Gordon firm in New York City on Wall Street.
Brown: Cahill Gordon.
Brown: Right. And that’s not the international law firm, but this man, Gene Sheiman, is quite familiar with various law firms. You can reach him at area code 212-825-0100.
Woman: Zero one zero zero.
Brown: Yeah, that’s right, and ask for–
Woman: Let me read that back to you. 212-825-0100.
Woman: And he would (unintelligible under Brown)
Brown: And what you do is you ask him– Just tell him that– that you have uh, an international uh, legal uh, problem having to do with uh, potential extradition of a person from a– from a southern country, you call tell the name of the country, and tell him that you would like to know uh, if he could recommend to you an international law firm who would be familiar with what these procedures were and uh, what the status uh, was with respect to various countries in their extradition agreements with the United States.
Woman: All right, and I could (unintelligible under Brown)
Brown: (unintelligible word) tell– tell him that I asked you to call him.
Woman: Yeah, fine.
Brown: And uh, he’ll– he’ll know a firm to put you to.
Woman: Okay. I think that about does it. Let me– Let me look here, right. I had a couple– a couple more questions, we– Uh. We do have a written statement from the father – from the legal father – saying that– that uh, that the natural father is in fact the natural father.
Woman: Now I don’t know if that would– even if– even if that’s a written document, signed and all, in his own hand, that’s– that isn’t put any conditions on it at this point with the changed status.
Brown: No. See, the– the– the– that uh– I’ve been going upon the consistent assumption that– that there’s– that there’s not any factual question about the status of the natural father.
Woman: No, no, there is not, (unintelligible under Brown) that’s true.
Brown: That– that there’s an evidentiary question, you know, of the type of evidence do you have and– and that– that’s of assistance to the extent to which it’s evidentiary in support of that thing. But the fact of the matter is, that uh– that the natural status of either mother or father uh, is– is not totally controlling, as you’ve no doubt gathered by this time–
Woman: Yeah. Okay.
Brown: –in that the status of the courts orders are what really– are what really uh, control.
Woman: Uh-huh. I understand. That’s pretty clearly explained. Uh– and of course, he refuses to return the child so that’s where we’re gonna–
Brown: Well, that’s– So then you gotta get down to some of the bottom line here and uh–
Woman: Right. And either– either way, it’s best where he is or– Now, do you still uh– Okay. Well, what do you uh– you personally feel uh– Oh, I don’t know if it’s really fair to ask, but I wondered if uh–
Brown: I always prefer questions asked.
Woman: Okay– (laughs)
Brown: From– from what I’ve heard so far, uh, what– what it really comes down to one of the– the most troublesome aspects of law, when– when you have a– a natural mother and natural father who had initially uh, entered into at least some sort of tacit understanding that they were going to spend their life together and raise a child, and when that thing– when that understanding is breached, uh, at the outset of the thing, the– the– I mean, clearly, a father – a natural father – has as much right to custody of a child as the natural mother, and so– that it’s a straight 50-50 proposition. In– At that point, uh, the physical possession of the child’s controlling. Whoever has the child. And that neither– neither party can invoke the power of a court to force the other person to release custody of the child to them, uh, unless they can get the court to– to make a full ruling–
Woman: –to make a full ruling–
Brown: –and say who has custody of the child, that they can’t– they can’t without depriving one of the parties of– of custody, uh, physically remove the child uh– they can physically remove the child, and they’re perfectly legal in doing so. That’s that whole kidnap situation, that a parent cannot be said to kidnap their own child, as long as they have equal legal access to the child. But now, once a– once one of the natural parents goes before a court and gets a court order removing legal custody from one of the two parents and placing it in the other one, then the person– then physical possession of the child no longer controls. Then it’s the court.
Woman: Then you’re feeling that it would be, it– it– it’s– it’s going to– it’s going to uh, bottom out at a political level, and–
Brown: Yes. That’s right. That’s what it seems to me.
Woman: It would depend on uh– (unintelligible word) the location of– of the uh– of the parties concerned would be best determined at this point by the relations uh–
Brown: –of the countries–
Woman: –of the countries.
(two people talk other each other, both unintelligible)
Brown: Yes, I would just– you have to get– you have to get yourself into the position of trying to presume the worst, so you can get there as fast as possible, and then be in the luxurious position of figuring that, no matter how bad things get, you’ve prepared for it.
Woman: You’ve got the plan. Well, I’m sure that’s the case. But I’m– But uh, as far as– as far as exiting, then, then that would be– that would still be possible, I guess.
Brown: Oh yes, as– as– as far as I can tell right now, uh–
Woman: (unintelligible word) until Friday anyhow–
Brown: –(unintelligible word) there is no jurisdiction that presently has been properly asserted over this guy, uh, at least from my recollection of the facts, that he has not received any service, uh, any kind of papers–
Woman: But the moment he does, then– then it could change his status personally. His status is– is serious.
Brown: That’s– That’s right.
Woman: His location. But now as far as the child is concerned, that could still be– that could still be uh, in effect. The child’s (unintelligible word under Brown)
Brown: Yeah, but see the– the– the lever that the courts have uh, once they’ve established any kind of alliance with the court system and legal system of another country, is over and against the natural father. You know, I mean, all they would ever do is put him in jail in order to force him to tell where the child was or to punish him for kidnapping. I mean, (unintelligible under woman)
Woman: There. In that country.
Woman: In that country.
Brown: Uh, well, no, they could extra– they would extradite him, but they wouldn’t try him for the kidnapping itself. They have no jurisdiction over that. That uh, what would happen is if in fact there were an extra– there were a warrant issued up here, and it were served on a country, and in fact uh, they uh, chose to issue an extradition warrant, and got physical custody of the– the natural father, uh, then they would have an extradition hearing and possib– then depending upon what their political alliance were (unintelligible word under woman)
Woman: At the point, then, they could usher in the– the United States law enforcement, (clears throat) the national (unintelligible under Brown)
Brown: Yes, they would (unintelligible under woman)
Brown: They would send the United States marshals down and they would bring him back, and then stand trial on the charge, and she’s here. Now I would assume what they would do is they would try to say (unintelligible word) uh, you– you see that we’re getting ready to play hardball here. You’re back here under the custody of the court, and now what they would do, very possibly, is suspend any prosecution under the criminal statutes. They would’ve used them to get physical custody of him.
Woman: And then they would dismiss the criminal–
Brown: –and bring this back to (unintelligible word) court, and say, look, now we’re telling you that you’re under the jurisdiction of this court now, and we have issued an order mandating that you turn over custody of the child, and if you don’t do so, we will hold you in contempt, and we will put you in jail until such time as you comply with the court’s order of returning this child.
Woman: And then, once that were done, you think it might be something they could dismiss the criminal charge.
Brown: Well, they would just let– I would assume that they would just let it sit there pending. They would let it sit there pending, and my sense is that the worst that could happen is he could be put in jail for civil contempt with no term, just uh, in perpetuity, until he complied. That’s the worst that could happen, uh, ‘cause even that could at least technically be longer than a sentence for kidnapping.
Woman: Umm-hmm. I see.
Brown: And meanwhile, once the kidnapping charge had been initially filed, the– the statute of limitations would have run on that, and they could just leave the thing pending uh, until the civil court was done doing whatever they were going to do with it.
Woman: Umm-hmm. Okay.
Brown: And then prosecute him. But I mean, that’s– that’s stating things in the most nightmarish–
Woman: Well, that’s what we have to think, so your advice is much apprecited. Uh-huh.
Brown: So that what (unintelligible word) potentially looking at– So the– the real– the real bottom line is the political relationship
Woman: Political reality–
Brown: –between the place where he is and the United States.
Woman: And as far as going somewhere else, uh, it would simply– at this point it would simply just be a matter of not– Even if he didn’t know, even if he said he didn’t know, it’s not really going to help the situation, because–
Brown: No, it’s not. It’s uh– Well, let me put it this way. To the extent to which they technically– if– if the facts are that they technically have not established jurisdiction over him, that there’s no service that’s been performed on him to bring him under the jurisdiction of the– of the court – and that’s– I mean, I think we’d know that, if it had happened – that uh, he is free to go wherever he chooses to go. Uh, but given the kind of uh, life that he leads and the responsibility that he has to his people, it’s not likely he’s gonna (unintelligible under woman) where he is.
Woman: No, he’s not going to go anywhere. No, he’s not going to go anywhere. I was thinking of someone else uh, with the child, not he.
Brown: Yeah, well, no, see, I’m saying that is what they’ll do is they’ll move directly on him, you know– (unintelligible under woman) we know you know where the kid is.
Woman: –on him, despite– despite the fact the child– And still they could act against him, even though he could say he didn’t know–
Brown: That’s right.
End of side A.
End of tape
Tape originally posted May 2013