Cicada comments

amerijap:

The Tennessee court keeps the record of her testimony that clearly spells out her intention, and she suddenly ran away from legal constraint?

She did not "run away", "flee", "abduct", etc. She returned to Japan during summer vacation (as permitted by the court). Her violation is that she did not come back. That wise decision (not to go back to America) was made in Japan.

Considering that the children had never been to America, and only went there in order that Chris could initiate a divorce in Tennesse, where Noriko had never been before, it is not surprising that Noriko decided the best place for them to be was home.

Contrary to Amy's lies, Noriko did allow phone calls from America, and was even talking on the phone to Amy. We know this because news reports show transcripts based on recordings made by Amy!

(Incidentally, the recordings that Amy made of phone calls while both parties were in America are probably illegal. Yet she also turned those over to media in hopes of making Chris look good and Noriko look bad). Amy can probably be prosecuted or sued for that.)

There was no indication from Noriko that she would refuse visitation by Chris in Japan. Yet Chris decided to, with the help of friends like Shannon Higgins, kidnap the children forcibly.

There is just no comparison between the actions of Noriko and Chris, except that probably Noriko is smart enough not to visit America, even though she never committed any crime there. Chris, on the other hand, was stupid enough to perpetrate a violent crime in Japan. He did this without regard to the welfare of the children, Noriko, or even himself. Likely his business interests will suffer if he stays in jail or is banned from ever entering Japan again.

He chose to snatch the kids and run to the American Consulate, even though he has Japanese citizenship, as do the kids. Is that smart or stupid?

If I were in that situation, I would have simply joined the mother on the walk to school, asking her to a cafe afterwards to apologize for my horrid behavior and to beg her to allow visitation in Japan, assuring her that I would no longer allow that nasty wicked shrew Amy and her 3 kids into Noriko's life.

But I wonder how much free time Chris has, that he is going to spend lots of time with his new 3 children, and then do so with his own 2 children? Hence his plan was to efficiently get them all together and have 5 children, while dumping Noriko into an abyss of misery.

For someone very smart with PhD and stuff, Chris Savoie is just incredibly stupid, with no ethical scruples whatsoever. If he wants to throw away his happiness, fine, but he has no right to continue his abusive behavior toward Noriko and those 2 children.

I'm hoping he is stripped of Japanese citizenship and barred from entering Japan again, after he serves a year or two in prison.

BuddhismTech

His second wife should not deserve an interview with any American and Japanese media. Why should she? Stupid.

Exactly. But she is going at it full throttle:

"I don’t know if I’ll ever see Isaac and Rebecca again," Amy Savoie said, blinking back tears on CBS' The Early Show Wednesday morning.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/30/crimesider/entry5353444.shtml

She lies to the media and they repeat what she says, because Noriko "is not available for comment" and because they are too lazy to check the facts themselves:

She’s talking about her step-children, who were abducted to Japan by their birth mother, Noriko Savoie, who lost an American custody battle with her ex-husband and Amy Savoie’s current husband, Christopher Savoie.

She's always making it look like Chris had custody but the fact is that Chris lost the "custody battle", not Noriko. Noriko was granted custody by the American court, and maintained it all the way until she did not return from Japan. This is what bothered Amy and Chris so much: they lost the custody battle -- and so they then resorted to various other means, tormenting Noriko, hoping to win the battle another way.

Christopher Savoie grabbed his children while they were on the way to school. His ex-wife immediately called police, who were waiting for him at the American Consulate.

No mention that Chris did not act alone, but kidnapped the children with the help of "friends".

"She [Noriko Savoie] was not letting us speak to them [the children] on the phone," Amy Savoie said. "When he [Christopher Savoie] called the grandparents’ house he could hear Isaac crying in the background."

And yet she herself has recordings of phone calls allowed by Noriko -- herself talking to Noriko and the kids talking to Chris. She used the latter to show reporters that Chris is a great dad because he and the kids were laughing on the phone. She used the former to denigrate Noriko, who is heard saying that "America is not a nice country" (context shows that she only means America was not a good place to raise the kids, who have lived all their life in Japan).

She revealed that she has been recording phone calls all along, even while in America, "because it was a contentious divorce".

So maybe Amy would like to produce the full set of recordings with her ex-husband during her divorce?

Faced with the heartbreaking reality that she may not see her step-children for years, Amy Savoie said, "We hope that … they will come and find us when they are in their 20s maybe. And come see that we still love them, and that we miss them and that we always wanted to be a part of their lives."

Odds are the Amy-Chris marriage won't last that long. Hopefully she will be ready with her tape recorder for that divorce too.

This case is a very bad one to rally around for the Hague Convention.

The Hague Convention would not even apply in this case.

The "habitual residence" of the children (8 and 6) was not America. They spent their whole life in Japan and only half a year in America. In fact, the only reason they were taken to America was so that Chris could have them live near him (and he chose the place so that he could be living with his then-mistress now wife who has 3 kids by another marriage).

Meanwhile, he began plotting to obtain full custody after the primary custody (to his chagrin) was given to Noriko. He tried to get the judge recused, but that was rejected. He used the lack of Hague Convention in Japan as an excuse to obtain custody, but that was rejected. Next he started accusing Noriko of ignoring parent coordinators, etc to which she successfully answered the court in May.

And all along, Chris and his new wife Amy waged a public campaign (including posting to a local Internet Forum) deriding Noriko and they used the media to attack her as well.

You can even hear Amy bad-mouthing Noriko on CNN news, reporting Noriko's words in a phone call to Chris that Amy was listening in on. Chris abused his visitation rights by bringing along new wife Amy to Noriko's residence, allowing Amy to show her contempt and hostility in front of the kids.

Chris's outrageous abusiveness after the divorce knows no bounds. How many of you would tolerate such a situation?

It is no wonder that Noriko decided to forfeit alimony, monthly payments and education money (as had been explained to her by the judge) by returning to Japan, protecting the children from a pair of monsters.

The Hague Convention will now be seen by Japanese as dangerous if it would mean that people like Noriko would be trapped like that, eventually losing custody of the children in a foreign country where they had never been before (as was Chris and Amy's plan).

Wake up, people, and go find a more appropriate case to rally around and tout the benefits of Hague Convention.

I think the answer may be because the Convention does not adequately define "habitual residence".

For example, a child who lived his whole life in Japan, then went overseas for a couple of months during which time his parents divorce and battle over custody, and the mother returns to Japan with the child against the father's wishes. To most Japanese people, clearly that overseas residence was not the "habitual residence" and yet there will be anxiety that it will nonetheless be ruled as "habitual residence".

From Wikipedia article.

The Convention mandates return of any child who was “habitually resident” in a contracting nation immediately before an action that constitutes a breach of custody or access rights. The Convention does not define the term “habitual residence,” but it is not intended to be a technical term. Instead, courts should broadly read the term in the context of the Convention’s purpose to discourage unilateral removal of a child from that place in which the child lived when removed or retained, which should generally be understood as the child’s “ordinary residence.”

LFRGain,

Again, apologies for coming at you with claws extended.

I appreciate that, but I deserved a smack or two for injecting sarcasm into my earlier post, which sometimes invites misunderstanding.

I agree with you that the issue of ownership or control "has very little bearing on the ground-level troops that do the actual teaching in Eikaiwas."

Speculation about Yakuza control of Gaijin jobs interests me not only for the contrast with education sector politics, but also for the similarity to overall control of Gaijin population inflow and outflow.

By this latter, I'm referring to the recruitment of laborers, housekeepers, massage parlor girls, etc. which is of course controlled by Yakuza. No one disputes that, but it is not too much stretch of imagination to realize that likely most Westerners teaching English in Japan have in effect been recruited by Yakuza.

And certainly it is not something that would give any optimism for improving conditions for foreigners.

noborito

the ex-wife got an 800,000 USD settlement to not take the kids out of America.

Not true. The $800,000 was splitting of assets. Alimony and education money was, however, tied to her staying in America and the transcripts show the judge explained that if she returned to Japan she would lose that money.

She divorced him in the US because she could get more money.

Not true. She wanted to divorce in Japan, but the husband refused.

Most of the Japanese women who marry men who can afford 800,000 UDS settlements have this planned from the start. Go to the US for a few years. Have a few kids. Then take the Fathers money and leave with the kids.

Might be true in many cases, but not this one. Noriko had been living in Japan, as had the kids. She went to America at the request of the husband.

The CNN story is biased and inaccurate. Examples:

The ex-wife had agreed to live in Franklin to be close to the children, taking them to Japan for summer vacations.

True, she was allowed to take them to Japan for vacations but she agreed to live in Franklin to be close to her ex-husband, who shortly thereafter re-married.

In court documents filed in May, Noriko Savoie denied that she was failing to abide by the terms of the couple's court-approved parenting plan or ignoring court-appointed parent coordinators. She added she was "concerned about the stability of Father, his extreme antagonism towards Mother and the effect of this on the children."

The context of this is missed. Noriko is responding to complaints by Chris, and this is happening in May, long before any summer vacation in which she is allowed to bring the children to Japan. At this same time, Chris and Amy were waging a public campaign to discredit Noriko and obtain custody of the children.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/29/japan.father.abduction/index.html

Blue Tiger

and those who say that Chris somehow deserved this are really blind to the facts that he had already paid through the nose in alimony to Noriko, who agreed not to take the children out of the country, then broke her word.

I'm not blind to that because I've looked at the documents. The judge warned Noriko that she would lose alimony and education payments if she went back to Japan, and she acknowledged this.

So by returning to Japan, she has decided it was worth it to forfeit that money.

I find myself virtually in total agreement with michaelqtodd on this issue. Many are saying that we should not judge who is at fault in a divorce, but what I am looking at primarily is the behavior of Chris and Amy after the divorce.

That reprehensible behavior was insensitive and abusive, and clearly designed to create misery and distress for Noriko, in hopes of winning full custody from her.Note that Chris and Amy took this divorce public on Internet forums before Noriko returned to Japan.

One would have expected the opposite: that they bend over backwards to make life comfortable in America for Noriko, so that she could care for the children there.

But instead they managed a situation where she was essentially trapped in a place where Amy and Chris enjoyed all the advantages, and where she could look forward to nothing but abuse heaped upon her by them.

Under those circumstances, it is not surprising that she made a decision to forfeit alimony by returning to Japan to lead a life free from the disgraceful and treacherous machinations of Chris and Amy.

But, yes, as for circumstances leading up to the divorce, we need not judge.

As for Chris and Amy, any bets on how long that marriage will last? Statistically, second marriages do not do well, and when they are consummated after illicit affairs, the failure rate is well above 90%. Good luck to them, because after a few more divorces, if their attitude remains unchanged, the future custody issues may involve dozens of ex-spouses.

featherhead:

There's nothing saying he can't see them to my knowledge if he's still married to the mother.

This case brings all kinds of questions to mind. If, in Japan, they are still married and if it turns out that the divorce jurisdiction should have been Japan, and not America, then --huh?-- does the divorce get annulled?

If the divorce is annulled, then of course Chris's subsequent marriage to Amy would be annulled.

Also I believe it was required by Japan for him to renounce US citizenship in agreement to become a Japanese citizen. If he did not do that renouncing, he could be stripped of Japanese citizenship or forced to make renouncement.

On other forums there were allegations of drugging the children to subdue them while taking them from the mother. If that is substantiated, the man could be facing serious charges of abuse, rather than abduction. That would count against him in the (second) divorce proceeding.

Simon Foston:

I'm not aware of school operators changing their hiring practices significantly since NOVA went under... Furthermore, most native English speakers who come here to teach only stay two or three years at the very most, and for most of them that just isn't long enough to really get good at the job.

Yes, and moreover, if they do stay longer, they will then become ineligible for many jobs, because the hiring practice involves eschewing Japan residents and directly hiring from overseas.

You can see this right here in the JT classified section, where some jobs are restricted to those who are not living in Japan (I believe those were GABA ads, but it is typical for AEON and other NOVA-like enterprises).

And this policy often is implemented in the "education" sector as well, although the expected time period is often longer than the usual 1-3 years of the "industry" sector.

The hiring practices of NOVA-like enterprises are in reality an extension of Japanese immigration policy. This is the same idea as the JET program, which was originally an immigration initiative, not an education one. The big Eikaiwa chains are almost like designated immigration authorities helping regulate the inflow and outflow of foreign residents. So (if one believes the Yakuza influence) the people in charge of hiring foreigners for temporary Eikaiwa work in Japan are the most anti-foreigner faction possible.

Yojitani:

However, you seem to believe that these are Noriko's 'property' to which she has to forgo some rights?

No, but I agree with michaelqtodd, who posted above:

I am shocked that people are supporting Chris after how he has behaved...Surely the clever and humane thing to do would have been to have supported Noriko as much as possible in America.Instead he decided to send regular vicious emails deriding her parenting (see court transcripts).He tells his son (and this his wifes Amys words on CNN video) "Daddies do not see their children in Japan"... He then grabs his kids on their way to school.This is not the way to win friends in Japan. May go down as normal behaviour in America but when in Rome...

In your response to Michaelqtodd you indicated that you did not know about the emails, so I will assume you have not read the links Michaelqtodd provided, yet these are the basis for my views and the questions I asked.

It is clear from that information that Chris was deliberately making Noriko miserable, and that he used that misery as a means to obtain the custody which was initially given to Noriko, when she threatened to leave America.

No, the children are not her property, but initially she had custody and Chris was permitted visitation. When Noriko complained about him bringing the new wife (Amy) around, the simple, decent and sensitive thing would have been for Chris to come and pick up the kids by himself. What activities he did with the kids was his business, but he should not be allowing his new wife around Noriko's residence. Noriko has no obligation to form a relationship with that woman.

Moreover, the new wife began to post on public Forums criticizing Noriko (before she left for Japan), and it is plain that she (with Chris) was going public with some kind of crusade to obtain custody of the children. In a small town, that is guaranteed to make Noriko even more miserable.

Your point is that the children do become part of a new family, but that new family should not be coming around to the residence of the ex-wife, unless there is a cordial relationship. I thought this was common sense, but maybe I'm old-fashioned.

Why when asked, is it that you cannot be specific?

Re-read my posts a few dozen times, and maybe you will see that I was specific. Bye now.

kinniku:

How is it you know what he clearly meant?

Because I know how to read. It's obvious from the content and context of the article, including the quote I cited. However, if you disagree with me, feel free to ask President Ahmadinejad himself. lol.

kinniku:

I don't understand what your complaint is.

Why do you assume I am complaining? The news media presented this as Netanyahu having recently obtained important evidentiary documents:

The Israeli leader came armed with original documents handed to him last month when he visited Germany

I would have thought that any important evidence was already on display in some "holocaust" museum, or even perhaps available for viewing on the Internet. How surprising that the Israelis are still in the process of obtaining important documents.

LFRGain,

you failed to notice that my mentioning my experience in Japan was in direct response to a specific question from another poster, and not related to the topic of the thread.

No, I did not fail to notice that. However, I became intrigued by the distinction between English-teaching "industry" versus "education" sectors. My point was not that you were off-topic, but rather that veering into that area can reveal interesting things by contrast.

Probably the most important thing that you failed to notice was that the conversation between michaelqtodd and I has absolutely nothing to do with you and your dime-store crime novel Yakuza conspiracy theories.

To the contrary, I think it is you who failed to notice the important connection that I was hinting at.

The English-teaching "industry" (represented by NOVA and other such organizations) is, generally speaking, backed by right-wing forces. The Yakuza essentially run many of these, and their connections with government (immigration) is obvious.

On the other hand, the "education" sector is well known for the left-wing influences.

This is what I was intending. Nothing to do with "boo-yah" as you call it.

mnemosyne23: Thanks for your response to my wondering about the new wife's (Amy's) role in this. Frankly, I was shocked to know that Chris would bring her along on the visitations even though Noriko objected. And then reading Amy's posts in which she blabbered about how much she "loved" the children (whom she had only known for 1 year during such visitations), well, I thought she must be out of her mind. And yet I did hesitate because maybe this is some kind of American custom in divorce? But I cannot see why on earth Noriko should be forced to endure a relationship with the new wife, that includes the new wife considering Noriko's children as her own. So please you or anyone straigten me out on this.

What's wrong with Mr. Savoie's new wife taking an interest in his children? You'd prefer she was a wicked stepmother who tried to feed them poison apples?

No, I would prefer that she had nothing to do with them. Chris is the one who has visitation priveleges. If he had any sense, he would know that he should not involve his new wife in the interactions with Noriko's children.

Mr. Savoie's interactions with his children after the divorce were just that -- his interactions WITH HIS CHILDREN. We aren't talking about some kind of monitored visitation that requires the primary custodial parent to remain with the children when the other parent is visiting...

I thought it would be common sense that the purpose of visitations is for Chris to be with his children -- NOT for him to attempt to make the children part of his new family. Only in the rare case where a divorced wife actually is friends with the new wife would this be appropriate.

Otherwise it is outrageous behavior, and extremely abusive. Looking at the local news Forum, I see that Chris began stirring up stuff even before Noriko left for Japan, with his new wife Amy contributing her public posts, going on and on about how she "loved" the children , etc. That disgusted me. Normally, such a person would have "respect" for those children -- it is clear that she and Chris were plotting all along to gain custody. Initially the court gave custody to Noriko, and after that they hatched their plots, and made life miserable for Noriko.

Noriko's mistake was to write in an email that she could not take it any longer, and wanted to return to Japan. That was used by Chris and Amy as evidence for them to gain custody of the children.

My main question is whether or not Noriko was then justified in complaining about Amy's role in the visitations, or if this is normal in American divorces.

michaelqtodd:

Very good links, thanks!

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11171461

Reading that stuff, including the new wife (old flame) Amy who talks about Noriko's children as if they are hers... ugh!!!

And Chris tells his 8 year old son in Japan "get to an embassy". No wonder they did not want him on the phone after that.

I am beginning to think Noriko is lucky to have gotten rid of this creepy guy. But, hey, she married him. Was it worth $800,000?

Simon Foston:

Neither can I imagine why you would imply that I might think such a thing unless it was for the purpose of getting in a cheap dig at English conversation teachers...

Fair enough, I accept your criticism. I had assumed you were unaware of the NOVA/Yakuza connection since you asked me about something I see as obvious. Now I see that you are rather entertaining other possibilities as well.

it's entirely conceivable that NOVA's collapse was indeed a Yakuza scheme, but if so it was so ingeniously planned and executed that they left absolutely no fingerprints on it

They have long experience with this, it is their forte.

there's been quite a bit of media reporting about Saruhashi's screw-ups but absolutely nothing about possible organized crime connections.

Saruhashi is the fall guy and the media plays along.

Why would people capable of such a calculated and methodical crime see any need to draw attention to themselves by kidnapping the president of the company they'd forced into bankruptcy?

Yes, why take this risk? Clearly they felt an urgent need to intimidate him. It was a blunder because of the actions of Saruhashi's lawyer, but they must have known that risk, and still they felt the necessity to kidnap him.

Actually, one can better ask the same question in your scenario:

Saruhashi borrowed heavily from the Yakuza to try and get out of the hole he'd dug for himself, and that they're leaning on him now because he's thrown away their money.

Why would they kidnap him and thus implicate themselves in his NOVA affairs if it was merely a matter of him owing them some money?

So it had to be something extraordinarily serious such as (for example) him knowing details of where to find some NOVA collapse scheme "fingerprints".

Anyway, thanks for your admonition and additional insights.

LFRAgain:

I've been teaching in the Japanese public school system for 9 years.

The topic was "What is your impression of the English-teaching industry in Japan? Have things improved since Nova's collapse or are there still bad apples in the barrel?".

I'm curious if you consider the public school system as part of "the English-teaching industry". I had thought that only language conversation enterprises like NOVA constituted "the English-teaching industry"; that public schools would fall into the "education" category. Am I wrong to think so?

But in that time, I've also come to know both personally and professionally literally hundreds of English teachers at all levels of the education system, from elementary schools to the Ministry of Education.

I've known some English teachers too, but only figuratively speaking, so I will take your word as authority.

None of them, not a one, has been instructed to "to make English as boring and meaningless as possible," as some sort of perseverance test. Not a single one.

Oh, come on. Not even a single one? Isn't it possible that someone did not mention it to you?

Or maybe they needed not to be instructed, as it is an unspoken rule?

I too have witnessed how bad it can be in some schools.

Many schools, I should think. Consider yourself fortunate, though, to have been only a witness and not a participant. Were you observing schools for the Ministry of Education?

Simon Foston:

The actual facts of the matter are clear-cut and well-known.

There is nothing wrong with your analysis, except that you attribute the poor NOVA business behavior leading to bankruptcy as incompetence, whereas it was a planned Yakuza method of phasing out and closing down the school, while embezzling as much money out as possible in the process. They even took the pension fund.

Upon what do you base that allegation?

The Yakuza-NOVA connection is well known. (And not just NOVA of course, other conversation chains as well.) The President of NOVA was convicted of embezzling money from the company.

Just recently Yakuza were arrested for kidnapping the President of NOVA (forcibly holding him in a hotel room). Did you think that a coincidence? If you did, then teaching English conversation might be a good career choice.

From other news article:

Savoie has since remarried. His wife, Amy, told CBS's "The Early Show," that Noriko was not letting the children talk to him on the telephone after she took them to Japan. Amy said she doesn't know if she and her husband would ever see the children again.

"We hope if she (Noriko) is granted custody over there, that they will come and find us when they are in their 20s. Maybe and come see that we still love them," she said.

Why is the new wife butting in like this? I read someplace else that Noriko was complaining that the new wife was coming along on Chris's visitations. Isn't that an extremely insensitive thing to do? Surely Noriko has no obligation to have a relationship with the new wife.

It appears that Chris was treating Noriko like some kind of used mistress-servant. But then again it was up to Noriko to assert herself, with the help of friends, counsellors or even the courts.

Neither of them seems to have made any effort at building communication and trust, so no wonder their marriage failed. And does Chris expect his new marriage to be much different? Hardly likely.

These people don't get any of my sympathy. They have made themselves a laughing stock, parading their selfishness out in the open like this. Yet of course tragically they are hurting their children, right before the eyes of the world. Divorce does not get much more pathetic than this.

Still, look on the bright side. Many JT readers have offered good insights and the case does raise interesting issues.

dammit

I'm moving to the side of the ex wife too. It's amazing that I and (probably) others were willing to jump to the conclusion that the ex-wife was in the wrong.

Why take sides when both of them are selfish fools? You now have written up some points for us to feel sorry for the woman, but she did get an $800,000 (with additional monthly payments) divorce settlement. If she gladly takes that money awarded to her by courts, then she also needs to abide by other court instructions. She could have made adjustments in other ways, with frequent trips to Japan or whatever.

Yet I'll agree the man seems to be a selfish manipulative creep. He seems to think that he has a right to control the woman's life even after the divorce, because of his financial contribution.

Neither of them deserve too much sympathy in my opinion. How embarrassing to show the whole world how stupid and selfish you are, and then expect people to sympathize. I'm glad I don't know these people and if I were friends with them, I would give them both the butt-kicking they deserve.

sabiwabi

BTW, is it just me or is the title to this article somewhat odd:"Iran President Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial"

Yes, I think the headline comes from this passage:

Asked about widespread condemnation of such remarks, Ahmadinejad said Monday: “The anger of the world’s professional killers is (a source of) pride for us,” according to state news agency IRNA.

I assume he is primarily referring to the murderous regime of Israel. But it is a distortion to say he is "proud of his remarks" when what he clearly meant is that he is "proud of standing up to powerful enemies".

Most people are content to stay out of controversy and avoid questioning the prevailing propaganda and half-truths. Not only for this issue, but many others, 911, events in Palestine, etc. In this case, President Ahmadinejad's remarks can be taken as resistance of Israeli domination.

michaelqtodd

I wonder if the Judge in Tennessee still believes that full custody for him is appropriate after he did that!

Huh? After he did what? All he did was take his kids to the American consulate because he has been given full custody of them in an American court. He did not need the woman's permission. She is the one that violated court orders.

He showed no consideration for his children`s welfare whatsoever.

It is so easy to criticize like this, but if he did nothing, or if he relied on the Japanese system (same as doing nothing), then we could more truly say "He showed no consideration for his children's welfare".

I think the man has done nothing wrong at all. Sure I agree with all those saying that both of them are fools. But that is why the civil courts are there to arbitrate -- when people are too stupid and too selfish to work things out together.

Now, if these two are reading this thread, I hope they realize the general consensus is that they are both extremely self-centered and both have already caused harm to their own children. If they have any brains and half a heart, they would now get together by themselves and sort things out fairly and rationally. Maybe they could get some more good advice from JT readers along the way. lol.

How convenient, demand to know sources of information, and then unilaterally discredit those people with no regard to the veracity of the information.

How could they be credible, it is argued, when they have been jailed for violating "hate speech laws"? Never mind that these laws prohibit even the slightest questioning of "holocaust" details. It goes without saying that if someone persists with such questioning, then they will run afoul of the anti-free-speech laws.

The only thing discredited here is the pretention of the right to free speech in a democracy.

they will probably go after the kid again in retaliation.

If they don't drop dead first. The kid has likely cast a spell on them.

The Israeli leader came armed with original documents handed to him last month when he visited Germany...

The article does not state specifically what "documents" he was given. And, huh?, these very important documents he did not have until last month? Oh, come on.

joetheplumber:

Nova failed because it promoted inept teachers and lost some of its best teachers, because they were ill treated.

You are kidding, I hope.

NOVA "failed" because the controlling Yakuza decided to shut it down, putting in place methods of sucking out all the assets, deliberately bankrupting it.

LFRAgain:

You are filling in the blanks with an overactive imagination. And lest you forget, Tennessee courts awarded her custody.

Not according to the article:

a Williamson County court gave Christopher Savoie full custody of the children in his wife’s absence.

Imagine that.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his most passionate and public riposte yet to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s questioning of "the Holocaust".

sabiwabi:

This great man probably did more harm to the holocaust industry than ...

Well, yes, one would have hoped that he could actually back up his "riposte" with documents. It's not quite enough for him to get emotional about his wife's grandparents being killed in the war.

And this is a high stakes duel between the leaders of two countries. That was the best he could do?

This leaves a bad impression upon the majority of people, who are neutral and not taking sides at either extreme. Not to mention that Ahmadinejad’s people are in the vast majority already highly skeptical.

After the abduction [by Noriko], a Williamson County court gave Christopher Savoie full custody of the children in his wife’s absence. The courts also issued an arrest warrant for Noriko Savoie.

Legally, the man's actions seem justifiable. But the posts by Tetsukon and Bobbafett above do seem to probe into the man's faults. He married so soon after the divorce, and yet he demands to see his children from the previous marriage. But legally he did have that right.

What a mess, they need some kind of objective arbitration , and counselling. It's time to think of what is best for the kids.

Good luck to the kids, they will need it...