{"id":27554,"date":"2013-07-25T04:54:29","date_gmt":"2013-07-25T04:54:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/alternativejonestown.com\/?page_id=27554"},"modified":"2016-02-18T19:53:31","modified_gmt":"2016-02-18T19:53:31","slug":"q711","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=27554","title":{"rendered":"Q711 Transcript"},"content":{"rendered":"

Transcript prepared by Fielding M. McGehee III. If you use this material, please credit The Jonestown Institute. Thank you.<\/strong><\/i><\/p>\n

To return to the Tape Index, click here.<\/a>
\nTo read the Tape Summary, click here<\/a>. Listen to MP3<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> \u2013seeing 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\u2013 I personally accidentally ran into Tim [Stoen], the\u2013 the\u2013 you know, her husband in the\u2013 in the legal (unintelligible word) on the street, and we\u2019ve been trying to get in touch with him, but he\u2019s evaded us and\u2013 (unintelligible word) he did show up in court and uh, he got\u2013 he and Grace got legal custody yesterday.<\/p>\n

Sheehan Brown:<\/strong> Yes, that\u2013 that was predictable.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Uh. Yeah. (Laughs) Uh, he\u2013 Well, it was, e\u2013 except we thought that he had more loyalty, but I guess uh\u2013 I don\u2019t know what his motives are, we\u2013 we\u2013 he has always said that he would help us and that would never be an issue, but I\u2013 (unintelligible under Brown)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Never\u2013\u00a0never get between a\u2013 a woman and her man.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> So. Why?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> It\u2019s an old\u2013 it\u2019s an old adage, that they run to top loyalties, one to another.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> 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\u2013 It uh\u2013\u00a0He said that we were uh, to deliver the child by uh\u2013 (reads from letter<\/a>) was \u201casking 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.\u201d And further. Uh\u2013 Is he\u2013 He leaves instructions as to how to do that, cooperation with his and her attorney, and\u2013 I don\u2019t know\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay, now what uh\u2013 what jurisdiction did uh\u2013 did the court have over the real father at the time?<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> We say none.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> (Laughs) Well, that doesn\u2019t do you any good. Well, what\u2019s the court say?<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> That I don\u2019t know. And I wonder how I\u2019d find out.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, the uh\u2013 (pause)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> If he\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> It depends what type of service was given on him.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Did he have actual service of the hearing?<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yes, he did.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> He was notified to be there.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay. And uh, where was that service performed? Down south?<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> (Pause) I\u2019m not sure whether or not they got one down there? Uh, we did get one here at the church.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And he\u2013\u00a0It was communicated to him.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> (Pause) Uh, I\u2019m unaware of that. I don\u2019t know whether\u2013 I\u2013 Yes, I think it probably was.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay, so actual\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> But\u2013 but official\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013actual notice he had, the question of legal notice is another question.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Right. Now whether he had legal notice, I don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay, but you\u2019re understanding that he had actual notice, so he knows about the\u2013 the hearing, and the\u2013 the judge entered an order granting uh, legal custody and the right to physical custody to both uh, the natural mother and her husband.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Umm-hmm [Yes].<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay. And did the court\u2013 I take it the court entered an order to that effect.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> I presume. I haven\u2019t seen the papers.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay. And then was\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> And I wasn\u2019t\u2013 And\u2013\u00a0and no one that I know was there at the actual hearing, but that was by phone with\u2013 with (unintelligible under Brown)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Oh, okay, well, then, you don\u2019t\u2013 you weren\u2019t there to hear what happened.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> No, uh-uh. I could get the court papers, though.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yes, that would be wise. That would be wise, and uh\u2013 \u2018cause the court will be signing an order within a day or so, and uh, what you should do is get a copy of the\u2013 the actual papers that were filed and whatever copy of an order that the judge granted.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> (Pause) All right. Now if\u2013\u00a0You\u2019re saying then, if\u2013 This is what I understood you to explain last time, if something like this transpired, and there wasn\u2019t\u2013 the court didn\u2019t serve notice there to uh, (unintelligible word) he could get it or whatever, that uh\u2013 then the court\u2019s jurisdiction does in fact extend\u2013 Is that what you\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> 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\u2013\u00a0and 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\u2013\u00a0but that the\u2013 the United States court has no jurisdiction down there\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Uh, in it\u2013 in itself, it has none.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> In itself, it has no jurisdic\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> It has to be honored by the court there, is that right?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2019s right. They would have to\u2013 they would have to apply to the government there<\/em> and have a court order there uh, which grants full faith and recognition to<\/em> the United States court order. And then they<\/em> would issue an order uh, in turn, uh, mandating that a certain thing be done. (Pause)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> And in that<\/em> case\u2013 What my concern is\u2013 You see, our relations are\u2013 are very good there, and what we have to uh\u2013 what we have been able to accomplish there by way of\u2013 By now we have 800, over 800 people there. We also have a very uh\u2013 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\u2019s, I guess, what we\u2019re holding on to at this point, think that it\u2019s pretty good. But I uh, (Pause) uh\u2013 (sighs) Of course, there\u2019s still a matter of (unintelligible word) concern. It would\u2013\u00a0If you have uh\u2013\u00a0Uh, what my concern would be then is, is there any way in which you\u2013 when you previously talked to me, you told me about the uh\u2013 the\u2013 the kind of uh, warrant that was out for Huey Newton, in a sense a fugitive thing? Uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> (unintelligible) Just say that uh, if in fact, the only\u2013 the only uh, instance in which that would occur<\/em>, 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\u2013 that the real father be present, if he didn\u2019t show up, and they chose to move to have him held in contempt in some way.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Now, who\u2013 who could do that? What court could do that?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, the\u2013 the civil court could. Now, by the sounds of it, at least we don\u2019t have any affirmative information that that\u2019s been done. That\u2019s why it\u2019s important to get a look at the\u2013 at the papers.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> You think it might\u2019ve been done.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> No, it doesn\u2019t sound<\/em> like it would\u2019ve been. It seems like something would\u2019ve been said in the letter that you\u2013 that you received if it had been.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Could have issued contempt.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, yeah, just like, you know, for example, in a divorce case, where uh, a decree of divorce has been entered in uh\u2013\u00a0an enter\u2013 an order has been entered by the court mandating that the father pay alimony and child support. Then if he doesn\u2019t pay the child support, the court can enter an order uh, directing him to appear in front of the court. And if he doesn\u2019t appear, it can issue a citation for contempt, and then issue a warrant, \u2018cause contempt is criminal. And can issue a\u2013 a warrant. Now the\u2013 the fact is that it\u2019s a felony. And uh, then it becomes\u2013 if a United States court issues a felony warrant, the question becomes totally<\/em> political for the foreign country as to whether or not they will uh, have an extradition to\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Now, if\u2013 tell me, what would be the jump between the local civil proceeding and the U.S. court issue?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, no, it would be a\u2013\u00a0it would be a state court, uh\u2013 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\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Uh-huh.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Now if\u2013\u00a0if in fact it were a\u2013 a federal fugitive warrant, which is no way that that would likely get translated into one of those, that\u2019s when you get the sort of Huey Newton situation.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> I see. Now the federal situation would be, I thought, what you said if there was some kid\u2013\u00a0kidnapping charge.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Oh, that. That I mean if\u2013\u00a0if in fact they intended to bring a totally separate action\u2013 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\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> (unintelligible word) Superior Court in San Francisco.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Pardon?<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> It\u2019s the Superior Court of San Francisco.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yeah, that\u2019s right. Okay. So it\u2019s a\u2013 it\u2019s a state court.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> All right.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> It\u2019s a California court has entered a\u2013 a court order granting custody to the\u2013 to the natural mother and her husband. Now that means she has legal custody. And that also<\/em> means that uh\u2013 that the natural father has no legal custody whatsoever, that he is no\u2013 that he is no longer recognized as any uh, legal\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Well, it was not entered in the court. So it\u2019s simply something that could be revoked.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Oh well, then there\u2019s\u2013 then there\u2019s\u2013 there isn\u2019t any.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> No.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay. Then. Well, wh\u2013 what you have then is you have uh, the mother \u2013 natural mother \u2013 and the legal father who have custody<\/em> of the child. Now, no one else has the right to have legal custody of the child, right now.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> According to U.S., uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> So\u2013 so in fact<\/em>, if\u2013 if they could determine that someone had<\/em> the child, and a\u2013 and a request had been made to<\/em> that person to return the child, and the child was defying the parents, then<\/em> they would be in a standing\u2013 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\u2013 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\u2019s not longer a legal custody fight, because that\u2019s been resolved now. And so they\u2013 they\u2019re 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\u2013 the straight realm of\u2013 of a decision as to whether or not the\u2013 the southern state would in fact recognize a federal warrant for extradition purposes. That\u2019s a simple\u2013 simple enough issue to find out, is whether or not they have a\u2013 an extradition reciprocity treaty with the United States. Now if they did<\/em>, then what would happen is that the warrant would be sent down there to the executive department of the for\u2013 of the foreign state, and they would have to make a decision as to whether or not to execute on it.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Who would it be sent to? (unintelligible under Brown)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> It would be sent to the (unintelligible word under woman) federal law enforcement agencies. (unintelligible under woman)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Okay. It wouldn\u2019t be necessarily the executive branch, it might be the\u2013 for instance, the uh, highest magistrate or something.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, it would be\u2013\u00a0it would be sent probably<\/em> to the comparable agency to the U.S. Attorney. So the\u2013 their attorney general would get it, and it would be the national police force that would be asked to enforce it.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> (Pause) Uh-huh.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Now that\u2019s if in fact such a step were taken. If in fact no uh, warrant for kidnapping were issued, then you\u2019d be dealing with a civil<\/em> action, and as far as I<\/em> can tell, uh, they\u2013 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\u2013\u00a0he 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\u2013 devolve down to the question of whether or not the\u2013 the foreign state was going to enforce uh, the warrant.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> I understand that. I understand. Okay, how does\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Those are the two situations that you\u2019re looking at.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> 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\u2013 that they have jurisdiction over him on, he has the perfect right to go wherever he wants to go and that\u2013\u00a0and to the extent to which he\u2019s the natural father, uh, has a right to\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yes. I think so. They did sign\u2013 There\u2019re a number of documents signed, but they\u2013 and they were notarized, but they\u2019ve never been filed with the court.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay, well, to the extent to which there\u2019s a superseding court order now, granting custody to the natural mother and her legal husband, I would say that that\u2019s pretty much vitiated.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> I\u2019m sure it is. Umm-hmm. Okay. Well, this is the\u2013 the question then. If\u2013 if uh, they\u2013 we were to go out of the country, uh, say it were not he but another person, and he had no\u2013 no knowledge of where uh, the child were going\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, that\u2013 that wouldn\u2019t be very credible (laughs) as a matter of fact. I mean, it\u2019s\u2013 there\u2013 the thing you (unintelligible under woman)\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> But legally.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013that\u2013 that pl\u2013 ways that can be thought of creatively to avoid the legal implications of what you\u2019re doing are not very successful, because they\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> I see.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And they could st\u2013 You\u2019d still have the same problem with the federal warrant, in uh, issuing a warrant.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> What if he actually did not know?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, if he did actually not<\/em> know, then he\u2019d still<\/em> be uh\u2013 it could still arguably\u2013 if he were responsible for directing an agent to take the child and go somewhere, when he knew that the\u2013 that the\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Okay. So there\u2019s no way around that.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> So there\u2013 it\u2019s very unlikely.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> So uh\u2013\u00a0All right. Considering that, (laughs) that that would be the case, we\u2019re uh\u2013 If he went out\u2013 Would\u2013 What about uh, if he were to go out of the country through immigratio\u2013 (tape silence for several seconds)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, it depends on whether there was a\u2013 If in fact there had been no warrant issued, uh, and as I say, if it\u2013 clearly to the extent to which the letter is\u2013\u00a0is the\u2013\u00a0the avenue along which they\u2019re attempting to pursue custody of this thing, that uh, to the extent to which there\u2019s no federal warrant or anything outstanding against him, uh, and there is no \u2013 from what I can understand at least at this point \u2013\u00a0no jurisdiction that has been un, asserted over him, that he has the right to go wherever he chooses with the child. Now but the\u2013 the question is uh, the thing really shakes down to a question of, what country uh, has\u2013 would not recognize a federal warrant, and that\u2019s\u2013 that\u2019s where the bottom line political<\/em> question is, is if he\u2013 if he is the natural father of the child, and\u2013 and has the, you know, the requisite affection and things for the child and is\u2013\u00ad 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\u2013 from\u2013\u00a0at least ad initio\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> If the papers\u2019 signed by whom, at this point now?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> If they were signed by the natural mother.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Okay. There\u2013 well, there are such papers. She did sign\u2013\u00a0She actually gave<\/em> him the child and walked away in hostility, but, of course that\u2019s (unintelligible under Brown)\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> (unintelligible under woman) so\u2013\u00a0so the\u2013 the thing is, that if in fact from uh, uh, an initial position that the child was down there legally<\/em>, and with the person legally<\/em>, uh, the question is now that if that situation is changed, because of these recent court orders, is the burden\u2013\u00a0the burden is on the people who got the status changed, to communicate that effectively with some sort of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> All right, well, you see, Tim was there, and John was there at the same time \u2013 the child \u2013\u00a0so he\u2013 I don\u2019t 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)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Uh-huh. I hear you.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> So we wondered if that wouldn\u2019t put a condition on\u2013 on uh, any of the uh, kidnapping charges, if that ever came up.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, the\u2013 the\u2013 the question is then, is\u2013 no\u2013 the\u2013 the understanding would be \u2013\u00a0at least from my<\/em> judgment \u2013 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\u2013 as long as it is by his consent and his arrangement\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> The legal father, now\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2019s\u2013 no, no, I\u2019m talking about\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> You\u2019re talking about the natural father.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013the natural father.<\/p>\n

(End of side B)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

(Side A)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Conversation starts 15 minutes in. <\/em><\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013uh, were in physical custody of the child. If the father \u2013 the natural father \u2013 left and went<\/em> somewhere, as long as the\u2013 he\u2013 he was giving consent<\/em> that the child remain with his guardian, and that the guardian still had the papers from the natural mother, the\u2013 the real\u2013 the fact of the matter would be, as far as I can determine, that the natural father would still<\/em> 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\u2019s clear that what\u2013 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\u2019s enforcement? It becomes almost a straight, almost physical question.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Umm-hmm.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And then\u2013 then the question rises as to uh\u2013\u00a0as to what type of jurisdiction could be asserted in various countries over the child and the natural father. That\u2019s (unintelligible word under woman) question.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Umm-hmm. Well, uh, my\u2013 Yeah, I see. Well, the thing is that I\u2013 that I\u2013 if\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Oh. You mean down in the southern country?<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yes, uh-huh.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Uh\u2013 (Pause)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> The legal father\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, see, the le\u2013 the legal father, as I understand it, had no\u2013 had no legal status until just recently.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Hmm. Okay. Well, that answers that. So anything he did, he was not really (unintelligible under Brown) bearing. Um-hmm.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> It doesn\u2019t\u2013 It doesn\u2019t really have any impact on it. (Pause) So the\u2013 So\u2013 Sorta shaking the thing down, what it\u2013 what it looks<\/em> like is that\u2013 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\u2019s being in this southern country, uh, it\u2013 it seems that that is perfectly proper for the child to be there. That\u2013 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\u2013 to have the cu\u2013 child down there, the natural father was there, and the\u2013 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<\/em> 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<\/em> the people down in the southern country to mandate the return of the child. Now that\u2019s a physical question of what type of notice has been served, what type of jurisdiction has been obtained, uh\u2013 So uh, first it\u2019s a factual question, very simply, and secondly it\u2019s a\u2013 it\u2019s a legal question of what type of force and effect a\u2013 a court order from up here really has down there. And unless a court down there has so\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Little effect unless they pick up on it.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2019s right. Because the court up here can\u2019t get any real jurisdiction over them down there.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> And issue a warrant.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And issue a warrant. But it wouldn\u2019t really have any effect until such a\u2013\u00a0until s\u2013 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\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Court action, um-hmm.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Uh\u2013 My sense is that that\u2013 is uh, there\u2019s just no force and effect to it\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> I see.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013would be my guess.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah, well, I think that\u2019s where we\u2019re feeling. (unintelligible under Brown) Uh-huh.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yeah, that would be my guess. That would\u2013 But of course, the\u2013 then the question would be, what additional steps might be taken here by the natural mother and legal father? As I said, the worst<\/em> 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)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Okay, well, that would be\u2013 that would be (unintelligible under Brown)\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> 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\u2013\u00a0whoever 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, \u2018cause then they would start\u2013 See, the ones that they have to worry about down there are the\u2013 the authorities down there.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah. Well, that\u2019s\u2013 I\u2019m sure that\u2019s\u2013 that\u2019s been taken into account. (Laughs)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah. One other question, uh, Sheehan, that\u2019s\u2013 when I\u2013 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\u2013 less\u2013\u00a0that would be less apt to be uh, within (unintelligible word under lawyer) court\u2019s jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yeah, from a\u2013 from a simply political perspective. When you get down to sorta that\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah, well, of course, now, that\u2019s the situation right now.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Uh, but just in case\u2013 (Laughs)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> It\u2019s just a\u2013 it\u2019s just a\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Do you have any in\u2013 information as to the accessibility of Cuba?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Uh, actually<\/em> uh, there\u2019s\u2013 there\u2019s been considerable increase in the\u2013 in the communications and transportation and travel back and forth among people there. Now one of the\u2013 one of the caveats<\/em> 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\u2013\u00a0they are attempting to avoid any type of serious uh, exacerbation of the situation\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> I understand.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013but it\u2019s fairly easy to\u2013 to find out what the sort of extradition status is with various countries and the United States, that most uh\u2013 most international law firm would know those things fairly easily.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah. Do you have any you recommend?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, uh, let me think who uh, some of the better international law firms are. Uh\u2013 (Pause) Well, I could\u2013 I could give you the name of a man who could uh\u2013 who could\u2013\u00a0who would know<\/em> one for you.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Okay. Uh, let me give you his number here. (Pause) Okay, why\u2013 Call a Mr. Eugene Scheiman \u2013 S-c-h-e-i-m-a-n. He\u2019s up the Cahill Gordon firm in New York City on Wall Street.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Cahill?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Cahill Gordon.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> G-o-r-d-o-n.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Right. And that\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Zero one zero zero.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yeah, that\u2019s right, and ask for\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Let me read that back to you. 212-825-0100.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Right.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> And he would (unintelligible under Brown)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And what you do is you ask him\u2013 Just tell him that\u2013 that you have uh, an international uh, legal uh, problem having to do with uh, potential extradition of a person from a\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> All right, and I could (unintelligible under Brown)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> (unintelligible word) tell\u2013 tell him that I asked you to call him.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah, fine.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And uh, he\u2019ll\u2013 he\u2019ll know a firm to put you to.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Okay. I think that about does it. Let me\u2013\u00a0Let me look here, right. I had a couple\u2013 a couple more questions, we\u2013 Uh. We do have a written statement from the father \u2013 from the legal<\/em> father \u2013 saying that\u2013 that uh, that the natural<\/em> father is in fact the natural father.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yes.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Now I don\u2019t know if that would\u2013 even if\u2013\u00a0even if that\u2019s a written document, signed and all, in his own hand, that\u2019s\u2013\u00a0that isn\u2019t put any conditions on it at this point with the changed status.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> No. See, the\u2013 the\u2013 the\u2013 that uh\u2013 I\u2019ve been going upon the consistent assumption that\u2013 that there\u2019s\u2013 that there\u2019s not any factual<\/em> question about the status of the natural father.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> No, no, there is not, (unintelligible under Brown) that\u2019s true.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2013 that there\u2019s an evidentiary question, you know, of the type of evidence do you have and\u2013 and that\u2013 that\u2019s of assistance to the extent to which it\u2019s evidentiary in support of that thing. But the fact of the matter is, that uh\u2013 that the natural status of either mother or father uh, is\u2013 is not totally controlling, as you\u2019ve no doubt gathered by this time\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Yeah. Okay.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013in that the status of the courts orders are what really\u2013 are what really uh, control.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Uh-huh. I understand. That\u2019s pretty clearly explained. Uh\u2013 and of course, he refuses to return the child so that\u2019s where we\u2019re gonna\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, that\u2019s\u2013 So then you gotta get down to some of the bottom line here and uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Right. And either\u2013 either way, it\u2019s best where he is or\u2013 Now, do you still uh\u2013 Okay. Well, what do you uh\u2013 you personally feel uh\u2013 Oh, I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s really fair to ask, but I wondered if uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> I always prefer questions asked.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Okay\u2013 (laughs)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> From\u2013 from what I\u2019ve heard<\/em> so far, uh, what\u2013 what it really comes down to one of the\u2013 the most troublesome aspects of law, when\u2013 when you have a\u2013 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\u2013\u00a0when that understanding is breached<\/em>, uh, at the outset<\/em> of the thing, the\u2013 the\u2013 I mean, clearly, a father \u2013 a natural father \u2013 has as much right to custody of a child as the natural mother, and so\u2013 that it\u2019s a straight 50-50 proposition. In\u2013 At that point, uh, the physical possession of the child\u2019s controlling. Whoever has the child. And that neither\u2013 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\u2013 to make a full ruling\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> \u2013to make a full ruling\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013and say who has custody of the child, that they can\u2019t\u2013 they can\u2019t without depriving one of the parties of\u2013 of custody, uh, physically remove the child uh\u2013 they can physically remove the child, and they\u2019re perfectly legal in doing so. That\u2019s 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\u2013 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\u2013 then physical possession of the child no longer controls. Then it\u2019s the court.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Then you\u2019re feeling that it would be, it\u2013 it\u2013 it\u2019s\u2013 it\u2019s going to\u2013 it\u2019s going to uh, bottom out at a political level, and\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yes. That\u2019s right. That\u2019s what it seems to me.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> It would depend on uh\u2013 (unintelligible word) the location of\u2013\u00a0of the uh\u2013 of the parties concerned would be best determined at this point by the relations uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013of the countries\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> \u2013of the countries.<\/p>\n

(two people talk other each other, both unintelligible)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yes, I would just\u2013 you have to get\u2013 you have to get yourself into the position of trying to presume the worst<\/em>, 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\u2019ve prepared for it.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> You\u2019ve got the plan. Well, I\u2019m sure that\u2019s the case. But I\u2019m\u2013 But uh, as far as\u2013 as far as exiting, then, then that would be\u2013 that would still be possible, I guess.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Oh yes, as\u2013 as\u2013\u00a0as far as I can tell right now, uh\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> (unintelligible word) until Friday anyhow\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013(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\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> But the moment he does, then\u2013\u00a0then it could change his status personally. His status is\u2013 is serious.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2019s\u2013\u00a0That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> His location. But now as far as the child is concerned, that could still be\u2013 that could still be uh, in effect. The child\u2019s (unintelligible word under Brown)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yeah, but see the\u2013 the\u2013 the lever that the courts have uh, once they\u2019ve 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<\/em> 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)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> There. In that country.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Huh?<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> In that country.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Uh, well, no, they could extra\u2013\u00a0they would extradite him, but they wouldn\u2019t 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\u2013\u00a0there 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\u2013 the natural father, uh, then they would have an extradition hearing and possib\u2013 then depending upon what their political alliance were (unintelligible word under woman)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> At the point, then, they could usher in the\u2013 the United States law enforcement, (clears throat) the national (unintelligible under Brown)<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yes, they would (unintelligible under woman)<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Huh?<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> They would send the United States marshals down and they would bring him back, and then stand trial on the charge, and she\u2019s here. Now I would assume what they would do is they would try to say (unintelligible word) uh, you\u2013 you see that we\u2019re getting ready to play hardball here. You\u2019re 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\u2019ve used them to get physical custody of him.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> And then they would dismiss the criminal\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013and bring this back to (unintelligible word) court, and say, look, now we\u2019re telling you that you\u2019re 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\u2019t do so, we will hold you in contempt, and we will put you in jail until such time as you comply with the court\u2019s order of returning this child.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> And then, once that were done, you think it might be something they could dismiss the criminal charge.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Well, they would just let\u2013 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<\/em>, just uh, in perpetuity, until he complied. That\u2019s the worst that could happen, uh, \u2018cause even that could at least technically be longer than a sentence for kidnapping.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Umm-hmm. I see.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And meanwhile, once the kidnapping charge had been initially filed, the\u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Umm-hmm. Okay.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> And then prosecute him. But I mean, that\u2019s\u2013 that\u2019s stating things in the most nightmarish\u2013<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Well, that\u2019s what we have to think, so your advice is much apprecited. Uh-huh.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> So that what (unintelligible word) potentially looking at\u2013 So the\u2013 the real\u2013 the real bottom line is the political relationship<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> Political reality\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> \u2013between the place where he is and the United States.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> And as far as going somewhere else, uh, it would simply\u2013 at this point it would simply just be a matter of not\u2013 Even if he didn\u2019t know, even if he said he didn\u2019t know, it\u2019s not really going to help the situation, because\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> No, it\u2019s not. It\u2019s uh\u2013 Well, let me put it this way. To the extent to which they technically\u2013 if\u2013\u00a0if the facts are that they technically have not established jurisdiction over him, that there\u2019s no service that\u2019s been performed on him to bring him under the jurisdiction of the\u2013 of the court \u2013 and that\u2019s\u2013 I mean, I think we\u2019d know that, if it had happened \u2013 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\u2019s not likely he\u2019s gonna (unintelligible under woman) where he is.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> No, he\u2019s not going to go anywhere. No, he\u2019s not going to go anywhere. I was thinking of someone else uh, with the child, not he.<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> Yeah, well, no, see, I\u2019m saying that is what they\u2019ll do is they\u2019ll move directly on him, you know\u2013 (unintelligible under woman) we know you know where the kid is.<\/p>\n

Woman:<\/strong> \u2013on him, despite\u2013 despite the fact the child\u2013 And still they could act against him, even though he could say he didn\u2019t know\u2013<\/p>\n

Brown:<\/strong> That\u2019s right.<\/p>\n

End of side A.<\/strong><\/p>\n

End of tape<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tape originally posted May 2013<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Transcript prepared by Fielding M. McGehee III. If you use this material, please credit The Jonestown Institute. Thank you. To return to the Tape Index, click here. To read the Tape Summary, click here. Listen to MP3. Woman: \u2013seeing the mother got physical custody yesterday in a hearing. The hearing was held I think three […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"parent":27291,"menu_order":475,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-27554","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=27554"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27554\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60177,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27554\/revisions\/60177"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/27291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=27554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}