Complaint

• In connection with divorce proceedings in Minnesota January 15, 1997 I was sentenced to 10 days in jail for contempt of court, lying to the court and treating it with disrespect. A warrant for my arrest and apprehension was issued. Judge Duffy explained that I have no right or need for a jury trial. He further explained that he would make my life miserable within his powers to do so and make it difficult with visitation with my children.

 
• In fear for my personal and judicial safety in USA, I did not appear in a default hearing held on February 20, 1997. In this proceeding Judge Duffy removed my rights to free visitation with my children.

 
• My ex-wife requested from Swedish District Court September, 17 1997 that Sweden should acknowledge and execute the Minnesota orders.

 
• I appealed her request on October 3, 1997 and requested that Sweden should reject the Minnesota proceedings held on January 15 and February 20, 1997. I also requested help from the Swedish justice system to secure my children's rights to both their parents. (See appendix 1)

 
• The Swedish court returned their decision October 15, 1997. To my despair they denied my requests with the explanation that they could not be "legally tried" by Swedish Courts. . They also expressed their opinion that I had sufficient time to answer before the court in U.S.A. (See appendix 2)

 
• I then contacted a lawyer in Sweden and asked him to review my appeal. He recommended me to appeal to the Swedish Supreme Court with reference to the "Ordre Public" for Swedish courts. I filed this appeal November 10, 1997 (See appendix 3)

 
• The Supreme Court denied my appeal on April 3, 1998. In a letter from my lawyer I was explained that my legal remedies to appeal were exhausted. (See appendix 4).

 
• May 20, 1998 the collection services decided upon income withholding and on May 26, 1998 they expropriated my bank accounts. On August 28, 1998 they expropriated my tax return. I tried to appeal their decision in our "Lowest Court" hopping that they had the authority to make decisions that would secure my children's right to both their parents. My appeal was denied on June 30, 1998.(See appendix 5)

 
• I then tried to appeal to Minnesota Court of Appeal. I explain that I am willing to submit myself to their jurisdiction to do whatever they want with me in the interest of my children. My papers came in return and were not even registered due to failure to comply with Minnesota rules of civil procedure. (See appendix 6)

 
• I then started searching the Internet for information about human rights and found the European Convention. This made me write a request to bring a bill of review to the Swedish highest court of appeal, Regeringsrätten, 30 July 1998.They have received my request with case number Ö-3490/98. It may take 6 months before I hear from them officially.(See appendix 7).

1. if acknowledgment and execution of the order is not consistent with the fundaments of the Swedish legal system
 

2. if the order has been influenced by fraudulent proceedings

Axel Johansson
Gårdsåkra 11 A
SE-241 36 Eslöv, Sweden
 

II – STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

14. Your ref.: PL 11679 Johansson v. Sweden

January 15, 1997 my civil and human rights where violated in a fraudulent proceeding held by Judge David Duffy as a representative for Minnesota Justice System in United States of America.  (See appendix B1/B2)

February 20, 1997 the same Judge David Duffy held a default trial where he removed my rights to visitation with my children based on the testimony of petitioner. (See appendix B3)

Judge David Duffy’s attitude against me as a European that does not agree with the American justice system has influenced his judgement to the extent that he misuses his powers to seek punishment instead of justice.

To remove children’s right to a relation with their father shows anti-father gender bias not worthy a representative of a democratic justice system and totaly against the Convention of the rights of the Child.

My complaints about “Ordre Public” and request for assistance to the Swedish justice system about these proceedings have been ignored. Their explanations have been that a Swedish court can not legally hear my complaint and that I have had enough time to answer before the court in USA.

By acknowledging the Minnesota orders, Sweden acknowledges that the same violations of civil and human rights are accepted in Sweden.
 

III –  STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATION(S) OF THE CONVENTION AND OF RELEVANT ARGUMENTS
 

Article 1
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
 

Sweden has violated the provision in Article 1 by not securing my rights and freedoms as defined in Article 6.

Section 1, Article 6
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
 

It is my believe that the trials in front of Judge David Duffy where not public, fair, independent or impartial.

In the Court Report from 970115 Judge David Duffy does not understand his own authority over my person and request assistance from petitioner’s lawyer. (Page 15:22)

He also questions his own powers to authorise a bond and how to enforce it. (Page 18:13)

He declares that he will do everything he can to make my life miserable within his powers to do so. (Page 23:24)

He threatens to remove my visitation rights based on petitioner’s request for continued updates of my bank accounts. (Page 24:10)

He refuses me a copy of the court report to prevent me from presenting the actual course of events if I do not submit myself to his jurisdiction. (Page 27:3)

He terminates the hearing with me but continues elaborate the issues with petitioner and her lawyer. (Page 28:2)

In the Order from 970220 he insinuates that I should be mentally ill. (Page 7:XIX)

He autocratically rejects the Custody Evaluation and does not mention that it is their recommendation that I should have custody of our children and that they should move home to Sweden with me. (Page 6:XVIII)

He finds risk of kidnapping when 3 different judges have dismissed this earlier. (Page 9;XXIV) (See also appendix B4)

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
 

Judge Davis Duffy is confused about Sweden and Switzerland and insists that I was lying about bank accounts even after I explained the geography. (Page 21:2)

Petitioner lawyer admits she has information of all my account as of 960419. (Page 21:23)

My statement about the US Justice System in relation to my children should be judged from Judge Duffy’s provocations. That a Judge in Family Court does not understand a father’s feelings and instinct when threatened about his children shows a total anti-father gender bias. (Page 25:25)

His continued statement that I lied to the court clearly shows that he found me guilty without evidence. I do not have any Swiss bank accounts and I have not said I don’t want to share the information. (Page 31:25)

He states that for the criminal contempt I do not have the right or need of a jury trial. I assume he is telling the truth and that there are no possibility for appeal in USA (Page 35:8)

He states that on the civil contempt he can keep me in a workhouse for an indeterminate time even if it would become a violation of due process. (Page 35:22)

In the order from 970203 he disregard whether I lied or not (Page 5:16)

He sentences me to 10 days in jail for criminal contempt. (Page 8:1)

He sentences me to an additional 90 days in jail for constructive civil contempt. (Page 8:1)

     3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation  against him;
 

In the trial 970115 I explained that I did not understand the judge’s language when he explained he was going to make my life miserable and make it difficult with visitation with my children. (Page 24:15)

I was denied the opportunity to have recited what I should have lied about. (Page 24:23)

b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
 

In the court report from 970115, Judge Duffy is very concerned that proper service is made about the default trial. (Page 30:15)

Six days before the default trial I got the notice that the date had been changed from 970325 to 970220. The decision was mailed to my parent’s address with normal mail even if I have always stated my current address. (Appendix B3, page 1)

c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
 

My minimum standard for existence according to Swedish Social Security is $ 1,019. During the 8 months when I did have legal assistance in USA I paid $1,600/month in lawyer fees.

In the order from 970203 Judge Duffy denies me legal assistance based on my income of $2,242. (Page 1:2)

He also find that my $2,242 is sufficient income to pay $785 in child support (Page 3:7)

He then sentence me to 90 days in jail for not having paid petitioners lawyer fees of $5,250, child support arrearages of $7,000 and for not following Minnesota Civil Procedure. (Page 9:2)

He also gives priority to petitioner lawyer by demanding $5,250 = full payment and only $2,000 of $7,000 for child support. According to Swedish law, child support has preference over other debts except taxes. (Page 9:2C)

In earlier order I have only been ordered to pay $2,000 to petitioners lawyer, not $4,500.
(Page 9:2C)

d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
 

Since the fraudulent proceeding resulted in a default hearing 970220 I am not given any opportunity to question petitioners testimony or give my own. It is my strong belief that Judge Duffy planned the default hearing in co-operation with petitioner and her lawyer with the intention that I should not appear for trial to challenge petitioner’s testimony.

IV –  STATEMENT RELATIVE TO ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONVENTION
 

16. Final decision (date, court and nature of decision)
 

1998-04-03, Supreme Court of Sweden, “Högsta Domstolen”.
Rejection of appeal of decision from District Court “Svea Hovrätt”

My appeal was rejected without any further explanations.

17. Other decisions (list in chronological order, giving date, court or authority and nature of decision)
 

1997-10-15, District Court of Sweden, “Svea Hovrätt”.
Acknowledgement of foreign decision concerning child support

My appeal was rejected with reasons that the court could not legally try my request. I was also considered to have had enough time to answer in the case before court in USA.

1998-06-30, Local Court of Sweden, “Tingsrätten”
Acknowledgement of decision from Swedish Collection Authorities, “Kronofogden”.

My appeal was rejected with reference to higher court decisions.

1998-07-15, Minnesota Court of Appeals
Appeal of Judge David Duffy's orders.

The clerk of Appellate Court, for not fulfilling the requirements for appeal, rejected my appeal.

18. Is any other appeal or remedy available, which you have not used? If so, explain why you have not used it.
 

1998-07-30, Government Court of Sweden, “Regeringsrätten”.
Appeal of Supreme Courts decision with reference to the European Commission Convention of Human Rights.

I am now awaiting the decision from “Regeringsrätten”. If they do not give me right to appeal, the decision from “Högsta Domstolen” 1998-04-03 is final.

V –  STATEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE APPLICATION
 

19.

I want to restore my believe that the Swedish Justice System is fair, impartial and independent according to those traditions and cultures that rules the lives of Swedish citizens in an International community. As a Swedish citizen I have never felt any fear of personal retaliation if I should challenge the lawfullness of any of its authorities. Instead I would expect that our legal representatives would voluntary adjust their decisions within the law, if they found that injustice had been done. It is with sadness that I find I have to resort to the Human Rights Convention to explain the atrocities they fail to protect me and my children against.

My civil contempt is a result of the economical situation I was forced into by the American Justice system and that now is acknowledged by Sweden. When civil obligations are enforced to the extent that economical means to maintain a relation with the children is removed, then I think it is every parent’s obligation to protect the childrens rights. I want Sweden to recognize that father’s social obligations are just as important as their economical, by questioning the fairness of the ordered support obligation and visitation provition and allow me reasonable allowance and legal support to maintain a relation with my children.
 
 

VI –  STATEMENT CONCERNING OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCEEDINGS

None

VI I –  LIST OF DOCUMENTS

21 These documents where submitted in my letter dated 98-09-03, Your reference

a) Appendix A1 concerning Svea Hovrätt decision dated 1997-10-15.
b) Appendix A2 concerning Högsta Domstolens decision dated 1998-04-03
c) Appendix A3 concerning Malmö Tingsrätts decision dated 1998-06-30.
d) Appendix A4 concerning rejection of appeal from the clerk of appelant court in Minnesota dated 1998-07-15.
e) Appendix A5 concerning request for review by Regeringsrätten dated 1998-07-30.
 

Following documents are submitted with this application

f) Appendix B1 concerning Minnesota court report from the hearing 1997-01-15.
g) Appendix B2 concerning Minnesota court order dated 1997-02-03.
h) Appendix B3 concerning Minnesota court order dated 1997-03-26.
i) Appendix B4 concerning risk of kidnapping.
 
 

Your Ref.: PL 11679
Johansson v Sweden

Dear Sirs,
It was with great discomfort that I received your letter dated 10 November 1998. Your interpretation that the execution in Sweden of the Minnesota court’s decision does not violate my human rights is incomprehensible for my family and me.

By isolating my case to the Minnesota Order from 26 March 1997, You disregard the circumstances as to how this order was achieved. That is the same procedure used by the Swedish Courts. It was my believe that Sweden should secure its citizens rights against atrocities committed by the justice system of any country. I also thought this was the meaning with Article 1 of your convention about human rights.

You also state that it appears that I have a possibility to appeal in USA. I would like now how I can do this without any legal help. According to Judge Duffy, I do not have any right or need for a jury trial concerning his sentence for the criminal offense. Would he make this stament if it was not according to the laws in USA? I have not got any information of how I should appeal any of the orders issued in the USA. It was just by accident that I found that they do have courts of appeal. By their rejection I can understand that it is not accessible for a father acting “pro se” and that can not afford their procedural requierments. The international complicacy is ignored.

The last 3 years I have often asked myself if any person involved in this judicial process have any idea what it means to be removed from your children. If someone could explain to me what I have done to deserve such a punishment, maybe I could maintain some kind of understanding of the process. Instead I find myself overwhelmed with a traditional anti-father bias that will turn me into a “deadbeat”. So far I have survived with the custody recommendation, the only event in this process that gives me recognition of the parent I used to be.

In the last 6 months the Swedish collection authorities have collected Sek 58,032. At the same time the Minnesota collection authorities have accumulated arrears of $24,028. The Swedish courts decision to not work through our social insurance office result in doubled child support. Judge David Duffy’s desire to make my life miserable in the name of justice has come through. It is obvious for me that I do not have any future, either privately or with my children.

I intend to pursue my application to the European Court of Human Rights. It is my last hope to obtain some kind of legal recognition of my human rights and persue the search for a relation with my children. Since I can not afford any legal assistance I can just hope that the Court will have mercy on any procedural fault that may exist in my application.

Eslöv 15 November 1998
Axel Johansson
Gårdsåkra 11 A
S-24136 Eslöv
Sweden