Axel Johansson request that the Highest Court, by changing the decision from the District Court, that the order from Minnesota District Court. from 26.3.1997 should not gain legal force in Sweden.

The basic for this request is that the American order was created in a way contradictory to Swedish Ordre Public

The order in the American Court was created in a way that is totally in contradiction to Swedish legal conscience since the Judge in the hearing wrongly alleges that Mr. Johansson was lying to the Court. Mr. Johansson has earlier submitted copies from the hearing the 15.1.1997 but has not specially referenced as to where the court has acted wrongfully. Johansson has therefor as an appendix to this motion, on every point, explained where he thinks that the order is wrong and the acting is wrongful from the side of the court, explained the real circumstances, and has even translated the protocol in it's applicable parts. Mr. Johansson refers to his appendix where he references the court report.

The real circumstances that was dealt with, and that is relevant, is underlined is this appendix and the translation of the unlawful statements is refered to under each section.

The court has in an inquisitorial way sentenced Mr. Johansson for contempt of court just because he asked the court to clarify in what reference the court insisted that he had been lying.

By sentencing Mr. Johansson to a jail sentence for 10 days and further on, another 90 days, the court has made it impossible for him, without fear for consequences, appear at the hearing that resulted in a sentence by default 97-02-20.

The courts statements concerning Mr. Johansson's economic situation and his possibilities to hire a lawyer in the USA is also out of touch with realities for the Swedish legal system. The judge has by his performance showed that Mr. Johansson is guilty before trial and in a way that is not in accordance with Swedish legal system.

Remarkable is also, and that is clear by the protocol, that the hearing continued after that the phone conversation with Mr. Johansson was terminated, something that is not in accordance with Swedish course of law.

It is also worth mentioning that the court's decision, see page 3 in the appendix, to award one of Mr. Johansson owned car to be used as compensation for child support, something contrary to Swedish legal proceedings.

Mr. Johansson wants to make it clear that it is not his desire to evade responsibility for child support, but that this should be awarded from the basis of needs and capacity and should be determined in a new objective hearing.

Normally court orders from the USA should gain legal force after proper examination in this country but Mr. Johansson maintains that this decision, since it's been implicated in a total violations of a persons rights, should not gain legal force in Sweden, and he now look forward to the Supreme Courts decision in this matter

Eslöv 11 November 1997

Reference to transcript from hearing 970115 before Judge David Duffy and his order dated 970203

Lying for the Court

(Page 21, Line 2)
THE COURT: Now let me ask you something. Why are you lying to the Court. Your last statement was "I don't have any Swiss bank accounts."
MR. JOHANSSON: I don't have any Swiss bank accounts..
THE COURT: You're saying they're in your children's name?
MR. JOHANSSON: No. I don't have any Swiss bank accounts. I have Swedish bank accounts for myself and my children have Swedish bank accounts. Switzerland and Sweden are two different countries
THE COURT: All right, I'm sorry. Are you aware of those Swedish bank accounts?
MS WOLD: Yes I am. I have even submitted a letter to the Swedish bank trying to obtain balances and they said they were not able to release that information to me without a transcript from the court.

After aborting me from the hearing they continued
(Page 31, Line 31)
THE COURT: All right. Please enumerate in the file when you do your proposed where his lies were. His first statement was he doesn't have the accounts. His second statement was he does but doesn't care to share the information.
MS LORENTE: May I, Your Honor? He's lying about Switzerland too. He does have a Swiss bank account, even though the names of the countries are similar and confusing sometimes. But he's got his retirement pension in that account where the head company is in Lazan. So he was lying about that too.

Threat from the court
While I was looking for arguments to question the repeated requests for updated information I was interrupted by the court with the following threat

(Page 23, Line 15)
THE COURT: So we could expect that by February 1 you will update all financial information relative to bank account statements?
MR. JOHANSSON: Now I'm in question, because….I mean ….this is since …. I am 1995…..
THE COURT: Mr Johansson, I am close to holding you in contempt, ordering a default judgement, ordering all arrearages paid, ordering anything I can to get your cooperation. You're beating around the bush. Now either I'm going to get your cooperation or I'm going to do everything I can to make your life miserable within my power to do so. Now I expect …..
MR. JOHANSSON: I think that I am cooperating.
THE COURT: You are not cooperating, and I'm telling you you're not cooperating. It is apparent by the conversation we're having here. Now I either get direct answers and direct responses from you or I'm going to hold you in contempt. I'll swear out a warrant for your arrest in this country if you should ever come over here. Its going to make it difficult on child custody, should you ever be awarded same. And I don't mean to tell you the position you're in right now, and the court wouldn't countenance it. Do you understand that? Do you understand that

The courts refusal to repeat what I should have lied about.
I can not understand how a court can refuse to recite its interpretation of what I should have been lying about..

(Page 24, Line 23)
THE COURT: Mr Johansson, I have caught you lying on the record to the court directly on two different occasions right now. I need nothing further to do to hold you in contempt. You're in the presence of the court here, and you're giving it misinformation. And if you'd like me to recite where you've done that, I'll be happy to do so.
MR. JOHANSSON: Please.
THE COURT: Mr. Johansson, if I do that I am going to hold you in contempt, this hearing is going to be over, and I'm going to do everything in my power to swear out a warrant for your arrest, to attach your bank accounts, and you're going to be in a very uncomfortable position.

The courts answer to my opinion about the US justice system.
When I tried to make it clear that I hadn't seen my children for 9 months, I was told that it will only be worse. This threat against my person and my children made me express my personal opinion about this court.

(Page 25, Line 25)
MR. JOHANSSON: I am already in an uncomfortable situation because I have not seen my children for nine months.
THE COURT: Mr Johansson, it will only get worse.
MR. JOHANSSON: If money had anything to do with this for me. Money doesn't have anything…….
THE COURT: All right, Mr. Johansson.
MR. JOHANSSON: I will pay whatever it is that I have to pay. It doesn't matter to me. The only thing that matters to me is the welfare of my children.
THE COURT: Well, I would say that directly related..
MR. JOHANSSON: You can threaten me with arrest or whatever it is because that's not important for me. The only things that are important for me are my children. And I don't care about the U.S judicial system, because within my heart I only have one feeling, and I don't care anything about anyone else.
THE COURT: Very well. Mr Johansson. I am holding you in direct contempt of court for lying to the court, for treating it with disrespect over the phone, for failure to cooperate with discovery. I will swear out a bench warrant for your arrest. I am ordering judgement of all arrearages owed. I expect to do everything within my power to order all withholding by your company. I will order, I will otherwise enter attorneys fees in the amount of $4,500. I'll order $750 for noncompliance with discovery, etc. At this time towards the ultimate distribution I will order the title to the 1992 Volvo be awarded to the petitioner so that she may do with it what she will towards the support of her children. That would come out of your marital portion of the distribution. And I think that about covers it for now.

In the order from 970203 you can read
(Page 8, Line 1)
As a result of his direct criminal contempt, Respondent is sentenced to 10 days in Hennepin County Adult Correction Facility. Let a bench warrant issue for the arrest and apprehension of Respondent.

Withholding evidence
Since I could not understand what I was guilty of I requested a transcript of the hearing. That the court puts conditions that looks like extortion is unexplainable. Hopefully this will not incriminate that nice person that helped me get this transcript.

(Page 26, Line 25)
MR. JOHANSSON: I have only one question, Judge , if I may?
THE COURT : Yes.
MR. JOHANSSON: Can I get a transcript of this court hearing?
THE COURT: You'll certainly have the right to have a transcript when you request it from my court reporter and advance the appropriate fees, and when you make your presence known in this country so that I may have that bench warrant issued for your arrest. When you're cooperating with this court, the court will be happy to cooperate with you.
MR. JOHANSSON: That means that I can't get a transcript of the court report?
THE COURT: I have already indicated to you under what circumstances. When I see your cooperation of the court, then you'll have an opportunity, the court will cooperate with you. It's that simple.

Legal assistance and economical conditions.
The court thinks that my income of $2,242 is enough to afford my lawyer, child support and petitioners lawyer. My lawyer fees between 951125-960620 were $11,398. With this expense of $1,628/month and support obligation of $785/month I consider it proven that this is impossible. To get legal representation in the U.S. I had to deposit a "Retainer" to get a lawyer to accept my case. I deposited $2,000 with Mr Jesperson 951125 and $3,000 with Mr. Ousky 951203. A condition for continued legal assistance was that I every month maintained this balance.
Even if it is my ex-wife that insist on this proceedings, I am ordered to also pay her legal fees so that she can protect her rights.
That no consideration is taken to my economical situation threatens my legal security in the U.S. I had canceled my lawyer to be able to have enough money to attend the final hearing. With the conditions put up by Judge David Duffy, I would probably endanger not only my employment but also my personal security and mental health.
Earlier ordered lawyers fees to petitioner is not $4,500 but $2,000. However the court puts more emphasis on this amount than the $7,000 I owe in wife and child support. But then it is also the petitioners lawyer that writes the order proposal for the judge.

(Page 8, Line 19)
MR. JOHANSSON: I have one more argument though. I mean, if I look into my minimum living expenses, if I should have any visitation with my children, if I should be able to take my children over to Sweden to visit with us, if I should be able to buy myself tickets and hotel or whatever it is that I need when I'm in the United States, that's quite expensive wonder in looking at economics how should I be able to do everything. I also have one issue that I owe the IRS now about $5,600 because petitioner refused to sign the joint return. My question is I owe so much money now that I don't really know who is the one that should have the money first.
THE COURT: All right

After aborting me from the hearing they continued
(Page 28, Line 3)
THE COURT: Lets get an order up regarding this. Why don't you send us a sample order, this should still be on the record, an order finding him in contempt. I'd like Findings of Facts, Conclusion of Law, and Order regarding his lies to the court and his misstatements to the court and his direct statements to the court regarding his opinion of the courts powers as well as respect, and all of the figures regarding withholding, transferring title to the Volvo, awarding attorney's fees. And we'll see what comes of it

From the order 970203
(Page 1, Sect. 2)
Respondent was questioned concerning his representing himself in this matter. He expressed the opinion that he could not afford representation. Respondent affirms that he has income in an amount equal to $2,242 net per month. This is sufficient income to allow respondent to have representation in this matter if he so desires.

(Page 3, Sect.7)
Respondents income of $2,242 net per month is sufficient income to enable him to make child support payments.

(Page 9, Sect. 2)
Respondent is sentenced to 90 days in at the Hennepin County Adult Correctional Facility; the imposition of that sentence is stayed to allow Respondent an opportunity to purge his constructive civil contempt for non-payment of child support. Respondent may purge the contempt by performance of the following:

1. Immediately payment of $2,000 toward arrears and commencing timely regular direct payments of current child support to petitioner in the amount of $785 per month
2. By full compliance with all outstanding discovery requests, including but not limited to updating previously provided information; and
3. Payment of $5,250 to Petitioners attorney; this sum represents the $4,500 previously ordered and $750 incurred by Petitioner to bring this motion.