The above entitled matter came duly on for hearing before the Honorable David M. Duffy, Judge of the above named Court, on the 15th day of January, 1997, at the Hennepin County Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

APPEARANCES: LINDA WOLD, ESQ., appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

RESPONDENT appeared pro se by telephone.

ALSO PRESENT: Support and Collections: Tom Anderson. Clerk: Pat Hansell. Court Reporter: Kathleen M. Feldman.

WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were duly had in Chambers 1307 on the 15th day of January, 1997:

MS. LORENTE: I sure hope. Yes.

THE COURT: And I assume Mr. Johansson does also, speaks?

MS. LORENTE: Yes. (Telephone connection made.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. JOHANSSON: Good morning.

THE COURT: Would you speak as loudly as you can?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you. I assume this is Mr. Johansson?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Very well. You're talking with Judge Duffy presently, and we'll handle this phone motion in the following manner. First, I'm going to introduce the case, and this is regarding the marriage of, please excuse the Court File No. 218 153. Mr. Johansson is present by way of telephone from Sweden. Is that correct, Mr. Johansson?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes, that is correct.

THE COURT: Very well. And would you make your appearances known, and you have to speak up.

MS. WOLD: My name is Linda Wold. I am the attorney for the petitioner Belia Jimenez Lorente.

THE COURT: Who is present. I should say, Mr. Johansson, just so that you understand, we're in My chambers because we don't have a phone hookup in the courtroom. And secondly, Ms. Lorente as well as Ms. Wold are sitting Across from me at my desk. The matter is being transcribed by my court reporter from the beginning of our conversation. All right, this matter is before the Court for various motions. And my first question becomes, Mr. Johansson, do you plan on hiring a lawyer?

MR. JOHANSSON: No. I can't afford a lawyer.

THE COURT: Well, it's my understanding you're making a fair amount of money, at least -- when I say a fair amount, I don't mean an exorbitant amount, but it's my understanding that you're making at least $2,242 dollars per month, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes, that's correct.

THE COURT: And that's in American dollars, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yep.

THE COURT: And while you were here you had a net monthly income of $5,685 American dollars. Is that correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: I suppose my first question to you is why the diversity in numbers?

MR. JOHANSSON: The diversity in numbers is because when I was working in the United States I had what you call an international contract where you get benefits and salary that is in correspondence because is you're giving up your normal way of living in the home country.

THE COURT: I see. Are you self-employed or employed by a corporation?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Which is it? I asked two questions there. Are you employed by a corporation?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: What's the name of that company?

MR. JOHANSSON: It's Tetra Laval.

THE COURT: Tetra Laval. That's T-e-t-r-a,Lavalle, L-a-v-a-1-1-e?

MR. JOHANSSON: That's a corporate organization.

THE COURT: All right, that's a precursor of TetraPak?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: And it's a Swiss corporation, is that correct?
MR. JOHANSSON: What?

THE COURT: Previously a Swiss corporation?

MR. JOHANSSON: No. TetraPak is corporate head of my company.

THE COURT: I see. Are you in the container business?

MR. JOHANSSON: What?

THE COURT: Are you in the container business?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes, container business.

THE COURT: What is your educational background?

MR. JOHANSSON: I have about high school.

THE COURT: What is your technical employment with Tetra Lavalle?

MR. JOHANSSON: Right now I'm assistant specialist within one software application.

THE COURT: So you're in the computer support aspect of the company?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. And how long have you been with them?

MR. JOHANSSON: Twenty four years.

THE COURT: All right, it's my understanding presently -- have you received any of the papers which would represent your wife's motions?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. So you're aware of what she is requesting in all respects, is that correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes, and I can't understand it.

THE COURT: Let's talk about a couple of things here. Why don't we go one by one through the requests of your wife, and we'll allow Ms. Wold to make brief arguments if she desires, and likewise yourself. Now try and keep on point, if you can, relative to the issues that are immediately being brought up by the Court. If you feel the need to diverge because one issue is tied to another, then you may do so. Let's start off with this -- let's start off by the first complaint, if you will. I don't know if it's an issue. And I've paraphrased it that -- basically that you are in Sweden and have not cooperated in establishing income withholding for your child support; and that petitioner, your wife, asks that a bond be posted in the amount of the arrearages. So she's seeking to get some of this money now to support the children, at least for the time being, and I believe you have been on order to do so. So why don't we hear from you first on that point, Mr. Johansson, and then we'll hear from Ms. Wold if need be.

MR. JOHANSSON: Okay. Should I start talking?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. JOHANSSON: I left the United States with two suitcases and I came to Sweden. And I have to establish a life for myself too. So a lot of my money is now is to reestablish myself and meet a minimum standard of living that I can survive here. And since I start every everything over again, I have a lot of initial costs and I have to ask for money from my family to have them support me so I can start over again. Second is that in the court order, when I paid the support that I was ordered by the Court in the United States, I overpaid because I had to pay the mortgage and everything. And when I overpaid it was ordered by the Court that whatever I overpaid would be deducted at the final settlement or in the final dissolution hearing or trial.

THE COURT: That hasn't occurred yet though, Mr. Johansson, correct?
MR. JOHANSSON: No.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JOHANSSON: But my question is when I paid too much it can be postponed until the final trial. When I pay too little it's a question of issue and warrant for my arrest.

THE COURT: Okay. Does that pretty much cover your arguments on that point?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Wold?

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. I 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.

MS. WOLD: Your Honor, Mr. Johansson, the respondent, is under a child support order.

THE COURT: What is the amount of child support per month?

MS. WOLD: $785.

THE COURT: Was that based upon a $5,685 income?

MS. WOLD: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That was based upon his European income?

MS. WOLD: Correct. Correct.

THE COURT: $2,242.

MS. WOLD: Correct.

THE COURT: And that's for his two children?

MS. WOLD: Three children.

THE COURT: Three children, I apologize.

MS. WOLD: Okay, and that order, he began, um, paying on that, um --

THE COURT: How much is he in arrears?

MS. WOLD: Well, that will vary according to, um, the month we're in.

THE COURT: When was he ordered to pay? As of what date?

MS. WOLD: As of what date? Um, oh --

THE COURT: When is payment? Ms. Lorente, when is payment?

MS. LORENTE: The first of every month.

THE COURT: The first of every month. How much is he in arrears?

MS. LORENTE: About $8,000 round numbers.

THE COURT: Just in child support?

MS. WOLD: Yes. I have an exhibit that, Exhibit No. 1 might elucidate the Court relative to, um, this is from the Minnesota Child Support Enforcement System. It indicates what he has paid, what he is in arrears, and the items of child support that he stopped payment on. But that was dated --

THE COURT: So it's approximately $8,000?

MS. WOLD: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And that would represent about ten months of nonpayment, correct?

MS. WOLD: Correct.

THE COURT: Do you agree with that, Mr. Johansson?

MR. JOHANSSON As to how much I paid, I owe probably child support from the first of May, 1996.

THE COURT: All right. Look, I'm asking you not how much you withheld because you supposedly overpaid on a mortgage in the ultimate disposition. I'm asking you how much you owe in child support that has not been paid per se? Now would you agree with the figure of $8,000?

MR. JOHANSSON: No, I don't agree upon anything that Ms. Wold said because that's irrelevant facts to whatever she's saying.

THE COURT: Mr. Johansson, this is verifiable in this court. Now I ask you, and if you lie to the Court I'll hold you in contempt. Now I expect you to be honest and tell me what checks you've sent in the last year for child support.

MR. JOHANSSON: The last check that I sent, the last payment I did in child support was for $4,036 on April, I think May 2.

THE COURT: All right. Now were you in arrears at that time?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

THE COURT: How much?

MR. JOHANSSON: I don't really remember.
MS. LORENTE: I do.
MR. JOHANSSON: I did try to pay off everything that I was ordered to do.

THE COURT: Just hold on for a second, Mr. Johansson. June, July, August, September, October, November, December. Now we're into January. It would be at least eight months. Is that correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: That's correct.

THE COURT: In which you have not made child support payments, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. And you agree that you had some arrearages prior to your May 2, $4,036 payment, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: I think that's in my area at that moment. I think I have it here so -- the end of April I was in arrears $783.91.

THE COURT: Well, that makes no sense. You just told me you made a $4,036 payment in May and that you were still in arrears. Now I asked you how much you were in arrears.

MR. JOHANSSON: Between the first of March until the eighth of May I had support obligation of $3,363.75.

THE COURT: All right. That you did not pay, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: I paid from March.

THE COURT: All right. I understand what you're saying. Just hold on here please.

MR. JOHANSSON: In May --

THE COURT: Hold on please. I'll let you know when you can speak. I'm using a calculator right now. I can't -- I'm using a calculator rather poorly. I can do it faster by hand. You would then say that you were in arrears $672.25, is that correct? Hello?

MR. JOHANSSON: Hello.

THE COURT: I'm just subtracting out your $4,036.00 payment and what you said --

MR. JOHANSSON: I paid for March, too.

THE COURT: Look, you told me and made the statement that you were in arrears even when you sent the check on may 2 for $4,036, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yep.

THE COURT: How much?

MR. JOHANSSON: I would assume that the total arrears amount according to the court order was $783.91. After that I paid $4,036.

THE COURT: All right. So you would then agree that as of May 2 you were short $783.91, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: That may be correct, yes.

THE COURT: All right. And then you've also missed eight payments of $785, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: That's correct.

THE COURT: All right. That's a grand total of $6,280 plus $783.91 for a grand total of $7,063.91 in arrearages. You can agree with that, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: I think that's the total amount that's mentioned in Ms. Wold's motion. By December 29 it is probably correct. If you add $785 to that, I don't what that adds out to, whatever amount the calculation. It seems to be quite close to me.

THE COURT: All right, very well. And Ms. Wold, what is your figure?

MS. WOLD: Okay, the figure as submitted in my pleadings were $6,469.78. Now part of that I need to indicate was an amount in arrears on spousal maintenance, and that was $974.78. And that is for the most part shown in Exhibit No. 1.

THE COURT: How much monthly is he paying in spousal maintenance?

MS. WOLD: That was rescinded when he moved to Sweden and when his child support order was reduced to $785.

THE COURT: So how much was he paying and for how long?

MS. WOLD: Okay, he was paying -- it was for two months and it was --
THE COURT: All right.
MS. WOLD: $1,500 in spousal maintenance.
THE COURT: All right. All right, Mr. Johansson, you can agree then that Ms. Wold's $6,469.78 figure is certainly a correct one, correct?

MR. JOHANSSON: I would say that that probably corresponds to what's in my account.

THE COURT: All right. Very well.

MR. JOHANSSON: I wouldn't say that it's correct. I mean correct in the sense that it's correct.

THE COURT: You're saying it may not be morally right in your opinion but it's a correct figure based upon the court order?

MR. JOHANSSON: That is exactly what I was saying.

THE COURT: All right. Let's talk about something else. Ms. Wold, what is your understanding of my jurisdiction to order Mr. Johansson to do anything when he's not a citizen of this country and when the Court theoretically has no jurisdiction over his person?

MS. WOLD: Okay, my understanding is number one, that is why my client was unable to file a contempt motion relative to these issues. She does not have the money to have Mr. Johansson personally served.

THE COURT: I didn't ask that. I asked you what the Court's authority is to order Mr. Johansson to do anything. Is there any or is there not?

MS. WOLD: Yes. Mr. Johansson, because he was under a prior income withholding court order, he was employed by a company in Minnesota that is a subsidiary of the Swedish company where he is now working, and --

THE COURT: What company is that?

MS. WOLD: TetraPak. And that is based in Minneapolis. And that's where the original child support and maintenance order was issued or ordered to be income withholding was to be taken from. And that current order has been registered or is in the process of being registered with the Swedish government because Mr. Johansson would not submit to allowing the company in Sweden to do income withholding on the current child support order. That process takes some time. The company will not honor it until that order is registered in Sweden and that is under the Hague convention.
MR. JOHANSSON: Can I say one thing, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. JOHANSSON: Does she have any documentation from my company that they have refused anything?

MS. WOLD: Your Honor, my understanding is -

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question, Mr. Johansson. Do you want your company getting involved in your personal business?

MR. JOHANSSON: Nope.

THE COURT: Especially where it goes to nonsupport of your children?

MR. JOHANSSON: It's not a question of that. is My company -- I mean we live in Sweden, and my company has to fulfill the laws of Sweden as I have to, because I'm a resident of Sweden now.

THE COURT: I understand that. Hold on for a second, Mr. Johansson.

MR. JOHANSSON: I sent the papers to my company.

THE COURT: Hold on, Mr. Johansson.

(Mr. Anderson enters.)

MS WOLD: This is Mr. Tom Anderson of Cild Support and Collections. He has more knowledge of the order that was submitted.

THE COURT: Come on in and have a seat. We have somebody from Support and Collections. Is that from the Welfare Department?

MR. ANDERSON: Child support.

THE COURT: Child support. Okay. Hennepin County?

MR. ANDERSON: Un-huh.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Johansson, there's somebody additional in the room right now. All right, I think I've heard plenty on the issue of income, etc., etc. She's requesting that a bond be posted. What's my power to authorize a bond and how do I enforce it? All right, let's just leave is it at that. I'm answering my own questions. All right, right now there's also an allegation, Mr. Johansson. We're going on to another issue right now, okay?

MR. JOHANSSON: Okay.

THE COURT: I think I've heard quite enough on support. Is that you have not been cooperating with discovery regarding identifying your Swiss bank accounts and various other accounts, and that plaintiff is entitled to such information according to her. Now what's your view on that?

MR. JOHANSSON: I have cooperated in everything that's possible for me.

THE COURT: Well, what's that mean? Why haven't they received the information they requested then?

MR. JOHANSSON: First of all, the Swiss bank accounts, I don't have any Swiss bank accounts, so how can I send something when I don't have anything?

THE COURT: How about the other bank accounts?

MR. JOHANSSON: When I was removed from my home it was under an order for protection. I was thrown out of my house -- (inaudible).

THE COURT: Hold on for a second please. You must speak louder and slower, Mr. Johansson. My court reporter is somewhat removed from the telephone. Please close that door since I'm yelling. All right, would you please start over. When you were thrown out of your house --

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes. The petitioner and her attorney spent ten days going through all my papers and removing all the papers that they found of interest. That's why when I got back into my home there was such a disorder in my papers and most of the papers that related to my economical situation were gone. So where those papers are today, petitioner and her attorney knows better themselves.

THE COURT: All right. Ms. Wold?

MS. WOLD: We have not received any updates of discovery, and some issues --

THE COURT: Well, address what we have here right now.

MS. WOLD: Okay. Some of the information, we have some of the information.

THE COURT: What information don't you have that you think exists?

MS. WOLD: Okay, the information on the Swedish bank accounts. That was not part of the -- okay --

THE COURT: What knowledge does your client have that Mr. Johansson has a Swedish bank account?

MS. WOLD: Well, he has indicated so in his, in some of the various papers that have been submitted and in some of his admissions, but declares that and, um, but declares that he, um, does not want to ask his mother to provide that information, even though he is the signatory on that account.

THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Johansson?

MR. JOHANSSON: I don't want to harass my mother. Those bank accounts for my children were opened by my mother. She has the --

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? is

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.

THE COURT: I'm confused right now. Are you saying you've gotten the discovery?

MS. WOLD: No. No. It's not complete and it's not --

THE COURT: Wait a second. Have you gotten the discovery, not whether it's updated? Do you have the basic substantive information that identifies accounts?

MS. WOLD: That identifies accounts, yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. When was it last updated?

MS. WOLD: April 19, 1996.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Johansson you're not seeking anything from Mr. Johansson, then, you're seeking something from the Court on that.

MS. WOLD: Yes, Your Honor, because we've had, um, several hearings and numerous letters trying to obtain this information to no avail. And in order to complete the dissolution petition and bring forth the issues at trial I need to have this information.

THE COURT: Mr. Johansson, do you want the Court getting in your face or do you want to cooperate here?

MR. JOHANSSON: I don't have any more information. If the Court finds --

THE COURT: The information is such that unless you send us updates I'm going to have to order or somehow get a transcript to your bankers, who will then disclose the information. Do you want your bank involved in that?

MR. JOHANSSON: My bank is already involved in this.

THE COURT: Are you saying you are not going to cooperate, Mr. Johansson?

MR. JOHANSSON: I can't cooperate. When I get -- I mean the final statements I have for 1995, from December 1995, Mrs. Wold has that statement. I don't get a new statement until now and I think the third week of January.

THE COURT: You don't get monthly statement updates?

MR. JOHANSSON: Nope.

THE COURT: Your statements are only once a year?

MR. JOHANSSON: Yes.

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 judgment, 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's 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. It's 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? is

MR. JOHANSSON: I'm not so sure that I understand Judge's language.

THE COURT: I think you understand English quite well, Mr. Johansson.

MR. JOHANSSON: I understand English, but I mean, I mean I've tried to say that I don't think because the contempt of court that means that you have to show court, I think --

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.

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 thing that's important for me is 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 your failure to cooperate with discovery. I will swear out a bench warrant for your arrest. I am ordering a judgment of all arrearages owed. I expect to do everything within my power to order all withholding by your company. is I will order, I will otherwise enter attorney's 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 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.

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've already indicated to you is 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.

MR. JOHANSSON: But still these last two or three sentences, are they still in the court report?

THE COURT: Everything is in the court report.

MR. JOHANSSON: That is the only thing that I need to hear.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Johansson, this motion and hearing is over.

MS. WOLD: Thank you, Your Honor.

(The telephone connection is terminated.)

THE COURT: Let's 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, Conclusions 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 Court's powers as well as respect, and then all of the figures regarding withholding, transferring title to the Volvo, awarding attorney's fees. And we'll see what comes of it. I don't know what to tell you. I think you is need to pursue your remedies regarding withholding. The Court will cooperate to the extent that it can and is happy to provide an order to TetraPak for the withdrawal. Temporary custody would continue with mother pending further proceedings and cooperation of Mr. Johansson. I do find that there has been discovery violations. It's apparent from the record that he has not cooperated with discovery. By the petitioners, pardon me, by the respondent's own admissions he has not updated since, I would assume, December of 1995, since he has stated that there's only one yearly report issued by his bank, which I find incredulous to believe. I think we need to hold the other issues regarding custody studies and psychological information in abeyance. I think status quo ante is appropriate there. Does that about cover it?

THE CLERK: Will this be heard by default on February 20 if he is not

THE COURT: Yes. The matter will be heard by default, and notice should be appropriately sent to him. Pat, would that be our responsibility?

THE CLERK: He already has a notice that is that's the trial date.

THE COURT: When was he given that?

THE CLERK: It's in the file when the date was set, probably a couple months ago.

MS. WOLD: Might have been December 3 or thereabouts.

THE COURT: Was he still in the country at that time?

MS. LORENTE: No. He left in May.

THE COURT: Then how was he served?

THE CLERK: He probably wasn't served. He received the mail notice that attorneys get in this country.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I don't know how we can have a default without appropriate service that's verified.

THE CLERK: We do on pretrials, you know, because it's the same. There's no service. They just get a mail notice and if they don't show up we can go by default.

THE COURT: Well, that would mean that there's an affidavit of service by mail in the file which would support the default judgment.

THE CLERK: I don't think the assignment office sends those routinely.

THE COURT: It isn't a question of what the assignment office does. It's a question of supporting the record on whether appropriate service has been had so that a default judgment can be entered. I would ? assume they would have a copy of it or there would be a copy in the file that something was mailed.

THE CLERK: I'll look for that.

THE COURT: And that whoever might have mailed that can then fill out an affidavit of service by mail. And that should be prepared, or at least investigated regarding the next hearing. Did you want to add anything?

MR. ANDERSON: I don't know if you wanted updated figures or arrears as of this date.

THE COURT: I have arrears right now of -- well, at least in the papers it's $6,469.78, although we figured out today that we thought, I had a higher figure of $7,063.91. What figures do you come out at?

MR. ANDERSON: For child support through this month it's $6,874.13.

THE COURT: All right. And how about for spousal maintenance that's in arrears but not ordered anymore?

MR. ANDERSON: Right, $974.78.

THE COURT: All right. We should, do we need is to reduce those to judgment, Pat, at this point?

THE CLERK: We can.

THE COURT: Pardon me?

THE CLERK: We can. If the attorney requests it, I presume we could do that.

THE COURT: Is that something that we would want to do?

THE CLERK: We either want to do it now or in the Judgment and Decree or otherwise make sure it doesn't merge in the Judgment and Decree.

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.

THE COURT: So would that information be available from his company Tetra Lavalle?

MS. WOLD: If they want to release it. And we've not gotten the information as to who to speak to at that company regarding those matters.

THE COURT: Well, my assumption is that you would speak with the personnel director. I'm just assuming that would be a good person to call.

MS. WOLD: Just so that the Court knows, my client does not have the money for me to pursue phone calls to Sweden, so that's part of why this has not been done.

THE COURT: What's the problem with letters?

MS. WOLD: Okay.

THE COURT: Formal letters. Most of the Swiss speak perfect English, as well as TetraPak is one of the largest international companies in the world in the packaging industry and consequently most of their scientists speak English, and I imagine pretty much everybody at their company speaks English. And if not, they'll have a translator. So I would suggest that you just send a letter off in English indicating the information requested and that it's been court ordered. And also in this order we should have, I think we should bring in the subsidiary TetraPak if it's doing business in Minnesota. And you need to do some research with the Secretary of State, Joan Growe, whether it's d/b/a, my guess is it's not incorporated is in this country but it's doing business and has a presence here. And if so, it's within the jurisdiction of the Court to order up such information in my opinion, and it's not privileged or confidential. This is especially so where these children have not been supported for ten months, ten plus months. So I'd ask you to do that also. And then what can Support and Collections do that way?

MR. ANDERSON: We have to register the Order in Sweden and then they do have to honor it once it's registered. It takes about or a minimum of six months I believe. It might be --

THE COURT: So what you're telling me is TetraPak which is doing business over here in this state, by treaty we have to go through Sweden?

MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, they have not been cooperative and --

THE COURT: Who has not been cooperative?

MR. ANDERSON: The local company. I do have their address right here. And they said we did have to go through Sweden. So I talked with our people in their ERISA unit and they said yes, we have to go through the corporate company in Sweden.

THE COURT: You might want to do a little bit is more research on your own about how to get at a foreign national corporation doing business here in Minnesota. I'm guessing you can do it independent of treaty, like if they have any bank accounts here.

MR. ANDERSON: I'm also meeting with the county attorney today. I have another hearing, but because of this I'm going to ask them if they have any other solutions.

THE COURT: All right. I'm also, I should point out that I think this was a direct contempt on the Court and in the Court's presence by way of telephone. Even though Mr. Johansson was in Sweden, he was verbally present before the Court when he lied to the Court and when he otherwise made his statements of disrespect regarding the Court, and that therefore it's a direct civil contempt. Actually I should say it's a direct civil contempt in that he said he was not going to follow the court orders. It would also be a direct criminal contempt for which he does not need or have a right to a jury trial inasmuch as it was done in the presence of the Court relative to the disrespect and relative to the lying to the Court. And it would be civil contempt in that he has told me he's making $2,242 a month and that he has not paid child support for ten months and has the present ability to do so, and I so find. And that he has failed to make payments. So this is a twofold order, one a criminal contempt and I would sentence him to ten days in court. On the civil contempt -- pardon me, ten days in jail. On the civil contempt it would be an indeterminate sentence at the workhouse until Mr. Johansson complies with discovery and shows good faith efforts by making some payments of the arrearages and promises to pay in the future and otherwise submits himself to the jurisdiction of this Court, or until further order of this Court, realizing that an indeterminate sentence may at some point become a violation of due process. The Court is not going to address that right now, but seeks compliance of its order rather than punishment. I think that about covers it.

MS. WOLD: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thanks.

MR. ANDERSON: The figure you had for his earnings he was saying, was that his net he was saying?

MS. LORENTE: Yes. It's supposed to be but is that's a lie too.

THE COURT: I don't know. That's not on the record whether it's net or gross, but I'm assuming if he was making $5,000 over here and now it's down to $2,200, that that is probably a net figure.

MR. ANDERSON: I was just following a letter that showed what his new job was going to be in Sweden. They had it as $3,676.47, and then a tax of $1,434.26.

THE COURT: What's that come out to?

MR. ANDERSON: $2,242.21.

THE COURT: $2,242 I have. Is that and 21 cents?

MR. ANDERSON: Yes.

THE COURT: Very well. The record should reflect that that would be a net figure, that we do have a document. And I'll take that document. I will mark that -- this was from whom? Would you please explain this document that's before me that I now am stickering as an exhibit? It will be Exhibit, it will be Court Exhibit A, and made an official part of this record. And would you explain to us what this document is?

MR. ANDERSON: It was a fax to him indicating what his new job and salary would be when he moved back to Sweden.

THE COURT: Very well. And was this faxed to somebody else? How did you come into possession of this document?

MR. ANDERSON: Actually I got that in May and I honestly cannot remember if he sent that to me or if his company sent that to me or Linda if you sent that to me.

MS. WOLD: Your Honor, this item is a part of the file and it was submitted and used to determine the reduction in child support.

THE COURT: All right, very well. Then perhaps the only thing I would say is identifying the document, it's TetraPak, with the corporate logo of TetraPak, which the Court is personally familiar with, having heard an eight week trial partially involving TetraPak last year. This is a sub "Tetra Rex Packaging Systems, Inc., Telefax. Telefax transmitted from (612) 362-8614, dated April 12, 1996, to Ron Ousky from Axel Johansson. Pages (incl. Cover) 2. Translation of my employment verification. Re: Your employment with TPDS. Hi! Anders Lundgren asked me to fax you the following: Your employment starts 1 May 1996. Your salary will bell -- I'm going to lose it on this -- is 5,000 -- what is the Swedish?

MS. LORENTE: Swedish krona.

THE COURT: "Swedish krona per month ($3,676.47 with rate 6.80)." I assume that could be a tax rate, although I don't know that for a fact.

MS. LORENTE: It's the exchange rate.

THE COURT: All right, that's with the exchange rate at 6.0.

MS. LORENTE: It's gone up a point so it should be 7.5 right now.

THE COURT: So it's 7.5. Then the $25,000 would convert to more American dollars than $3,676.47, is that correct?

MS. LORENTE: Un-huh.

THE COURT: Is that $6.80 per Swedish krona?

MS. LORENTE: Now you have it the other way around, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's 6.8 Swedish krona to one American dollar.

MS. LORENTE: That was what it was last year. So it would be actually less money if you translated.

THE COURT: Yes, it would be. "Tax that will be deducted from this amount will be 9,753.00 Sek/month ($1,434.26). Please let us know if there's anything you are wondering about. With kind regards, Carina Bertilsson." B-e-r-t-i-l-s-s-o-n. Then there's some other writing on the TetraPak stationery regarding the communications extent, which obviously is already beyond its stated purpose. All right.

MS. WOLD: Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. LORENTE: Thank you. God bless you. You are the first person who cared.

MS. WOLD: Thank you.

(Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.)

CERTIFICATE

I, Kathleen M. Feldman, a Certified Stenographer, do hereby certify that the foregoing 39 pages of typewritten material constitute a full, true and correct transcript of my original stenographic notes, as they purport to contain, of the proceedings reported by me at the time and place herein before mentioned. Dated: Jan. 20, 1997 Kathleen M. Feldman (348-5062)