Case: Ö-4368/97 and Ö-3007-97

The complainant

Axel Johansson, 530902-4155

Gårdsåkra 11 A

241 35 Eslöv

Referring to Law (1976:108) about acknowledgment  and execution  of foreign support orders and also the European  Convention for Human Rights I  bring a bill of review  in above cases and request that Swedish authorities legally  reconsider if the trials in Minnesota the15 January 1997 and the 20 February 1997 should be  declared nugatory    .

In Svea Hovrätts decision from  1997-10-15 my earlier requests are rejected with  reason that they can not  legally try my requests in this case. The Supreme Court has in their decision from 98-04-03  left my appeal without consent .

Law (1976:108)

4 § Acknowledgment  and execution of  orders can be refused 

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

I maintain that neither Svea Hovrätt or the Supreme Court has tried my appeals in accordance with the above.

I maintain that Sweden violate  Article 1 in the European Convention for Human Rights by not securing my rights and freedoms defined in Article 6 of this Convention.

Rejection of my appeal to Minnesota Court of Appeals with the motive that I do not fulfill the economical or basic rules and regulations for them to register my appeal. (Appendix 1) .

Judge Duffy's statement that I do not have the right or need of a jury trial from the court report 970115 page 35, line 8. This report was part of my earlier appeal to Svea Hovrätt. I interpreted this as if I have no rights whatsoever in USA why I did not appeal  earlier. The  explanation that I have had enough time to answer before court in USA does not take  this statement into consideration. I interpreted it as if I should disregard the judge's statement which I now have done without gaining a hearing.

The decision to move the default hearing from 970325 to 970220. (Appendix 2) I was earlier not aware of that I should be given adequate time to prepare my defense. This decision made me write "Respondents Statement" 970214. It is part of mt appeal in Appendix 1

Article 1

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

• 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. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

To deny me a copy of the court report shows fraudulent procedure to prevent me from presenting the actual  course of events.

To insinuate in the trial 970220 that I should be mentally ill and give misleading statements about my intentions shows anti father gender bias in favor of the petitioner.

To deny me free visitation with my children based on my inability to comply with economical obligations is a crime in Minnesota.

The judge is also referring to the  threat  of kidnapping when this has been found  irrelevant in 3 trials by 3 different judges. This shows  anti father gender bias in favor of the petitioner with suggestion to extortion. Pay or you want see your children.

To autocratically reject a custody evaluation without listening to the involved professionals shows a  neglect to the interest of the children and the judge's bias in favor of the petitioner.

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

• 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offense 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;

I also explained that I did not understand the judges language when he explained he was going to make my life miserable and make it difficult with visitation with my children.

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

This shows on fraudulent proceedings. In all my communication I have stated my current address, phone and fax.

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;

Judge Duffy allege differently and deny me legal assistance. At the same time he sentence me to 90 days in jail for not complying with the 2 first demands.

He also give priority to petitioner lawyer by demanding $5,250 = full payment and only $2,000 of $7,000 for child support to purge the jail sentence. This again shows  fraudulent procedure specially since judge and lawyer belongs to the same business area. .

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;

It is an insult to my whole family when judge Duffy makes the conclusion that my family does not have "the heart" for my children based on petitioners testimony. Petitioner has broken all relations with our old friends both in Sweden and Spain without any explanations.

As a comment to  Minnesota Court of Appeals demand for formal procedures I would like to clarify that,

a) I was denied a copy of the court report I try to appeal. I have to appear personally to get a certified copy. Cost $176 + traveling expenses. Board and lodging is free of charge, I think.

b) My ex-wife does not have any legal assistance anymore according to the order 970326 § 14. "Discharge of counsel. 91 days after entry of the final judgment and decree, Linda L Wold, Esq. shall cease to be attorney of record for petitioner.

c) I do not have any address or phone to my ex-wifes new homestead. According to my children they where buying a house when I talked to them 980612. Their old phone is now closed (612-416-4402). I am currently trying to get the Swedish collection agency to disclose where they send the child support. They did not have an updated address 980725.

d) Since I am living on the minimum for existence I do not have any $250 (2,000 kr) that is requested to even file my papers.

e) I do not know what an  "Original Notice of Appeal" is.

f) I do not know what "Statement of Case" is. I think it is where I must clarify what rules and regulations I think that Judge Duffy is breaking.

Eslöv  30 July 1998

Sincerely

Axel Johansson

Gårdsåkra 11 A

241 35 Eslöv

Appendix 1: Appeal to Minnesota Court of Appeals

Appendix 2: Notice of changed date for the default hearing 970220

Appendix 3: Court report from the trial 970220