We had several requests to cover this story, which sounded to me like more of the same from Kelly Rutherford. She’s determined to get her children back, although she’s made so many obvious missteps that I wonder if she’s deliberately sabotaging herself. Last week, Kelly kept her children with her beyond the deadline in which she was supposed to send them back to their father, Daniel Giersch, in Monaco. She was ordered to bring them with her to an emergency court hearing, and although she showed up to the hearing she didn’t bring her kids with her, angering the judge. Kelly did surrender her children to their paternal grandmother when ordered, and by most accounts they seemed happy to go back to their dad. The next hearing in Kelly’s case is scheduled for September 3rd in Monaco. It’s thought that Monaco will take jurisdiction and that Daniel will gain sole custody at that time.
After the NY judge ruled against her, Kelly released a scathing somewhat unhinged screed declaring the judgment illegal and personally attacking the judge. Kelly also did an interview along with her lawyer in which they made a lot of untrue claims about the case and about Daniel’s immigration status. This case has been ruled on by multiple courts in two states and previously at the federal level, and Kelly has been shot down at almost every turn. So it’s not surprising to hear that Kelly tried to appeal the most recent NY decision at the federal level again, just an hour after that ruling, and that the case was immediately thrown out. Kelly has appealed that most recent decision. Here’s more:
“Gossip Girl” actress Kelly Rutherford filed a federal lawsuit in a last-gasp bid to get back custody of her kids just one hour after a state judge sent the children to live with her ex-husband in Monaco, The Post has learned.
But a federal judge tossed out her suit the same day, saying the matter belonged in the state system, court records show…
The distraught mom walked out of the Lower Manhattan courthouse at about 11:30 a.m. and quickly filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court an hour later.
Rutherford attorney Wendy Murphy slammed the federal judge’s decision.
“The federal court’s decision was obviously incorrect, and we are appealing,” Murphy said.
Legal experts said Rutherford has hurt her case by disobeying court orders and filing in federal court.
“Monaco is going to assume jurisdiction over the child custody and they will decide whether or not it’s in the best interest of the children to return to New York or whether they should just be with their father and I think Kelly has done herself some serious damage,” said lawyer Michael Stutman, who is not involved in the Rutherford case.
“By not abiding by, by constantly trumpeting whatever she thinks is being done to her in every court, using every vehicle available to her from congressional briefings to ‘Good Morning America,’ she’s done herself no favors.”
As the legal experts quoted by Page Six state, Kelly has really screwed herself in this case. The more I see of her, the more I think she wants the attention that comes with this case and doesn’t necessarily want custody of her kids. She seemed so happy to receive paparazzi attention and to get interviews. It’s bizarre and sad, but this is what’s best for the kids anyway. Their dad has kept them out of the spotlight and has refused to do interviews, only giving controlled statements through his lawyer. He’s also said repeatedly that he will continue to let Kelly see her children. This whole situation is her own doing.
Kelly’s lawyer has issued a statement to People Magazine about this ruling. It’s as hyperbolic and ridiculous as everything we’ve heard from her to date, just be forewarned. It looks like Kelly lawyer shopped until she found the one willing to feed her delusions. A federal court already ruled in April that Kelly’s children were not deported so this makes no sense.
“Even convicted murderers who are in this country illegally are entitled to federal review before being forced to leave. Surely two American citizen children are entitled to at least the same due process?” Murphy said. “We are appealing the state and federal court decisions and look forward to proper rulings based on correct analyses of the Constitution, The Hague Convention, and the UCCJEA.”
Murphy added that they had asked the State Department for help and well as New York politicians, and members of Congress, “but nobody spoke up for the children.”
“Several congresspeople named above promised Kelly earlier this summer that they would at least write a letter to the state department telling them them to ensure that Kelly’s children remained on U.S. soil, but they did nothing” Murphy said.
The press is slanting coverage to a degree that makes me worry that some well-meaning congressperson will advocate on Kelly’s behalf. This is an open call to congressional interns: research this case. Tell your bosses not to touch it with a ten foot pole. Given Kelly’s lawyer claim they was promised letters on her behalf and that nothing materialized, I think that’s happened already.
Photo credit: FameFlynet, Pacific Coast News and ABC News
She doesn’t want her kids back – she wants a movie made about her that she can star in. Pathetic and sad. Those kids are better off far away from this nutjob
Oh My! You are right–I can see it coming on Lifetime–“A Mother’s Anguish” starring Kelly Rutherford as herself. I’ll bet others can come up with lots more original titles, though! All Kelly cares about is publicity and acting out her vendetta against her ex. Daniel seems like a caring and SANE parent. I agree the kids are a lot better off with him. Why does this trick keep acting like Monaco is some third world hellhole?
”An American Mother’s Anguish”
Yes, don’t forget the “American” in the title, because American mothers feel grief more deeply than mothers of other countries.
Omg – I bet that’s it.
Exactly! I am glad people started reading the court documents and the federal order where they slammed her and her lawyer for even coming to them about her nonsense suit.
not to mention Homeland security that called her case frivolous and push back from the white house saying it wasn’t their wheelhouse.
Coming this fall, a Lifetime Original Movie starring Kelly Rutherford as Kelly Rutherford in, “Not Without My Lawyer!”
Whose going to star as her lawyer? I was gonna say Sean Penn with a wig but Sean Pen doesn’t look that botoxed or what ever that lady has done to make her face look that scary.
If Caitlyn Jenner was an actress I would say she should play the lawyer. Every time I scroll past this post I keep thinking that header pic is Caitlyn Jenner.
Then again the actress doesn’t have to be a good actress. It is Lifetime after all.
And a book deal. And paid “consulting” appearances on various talk and news shows.
she has to keep donations coming in to that bogus foundation she started. Perhaps she’s drawing a salary from that.
Yes. And I don’t see why anyone should cover her when there’s no breaking news. It’s only feeding her delusions. I only came here to say her lawyer looks maniacal.
it’s silly season.
Silly season in news terms is that period of the year when there is no news because everyone is on holiday. politicians, celebrities. everyone. so other news is highlighted. stuff that would be the last piece of reported news on a bulletin or stuff that doesn’t warrant coverage rest of the year. and yes, these are always silly stories hence the name.
it actually would make an awesome movie — if it were honest about what shenanigans Kelly has been pulling. I mean, we’re finding it riveting, aren’t we? 😀
It’s always been about her winning, it’s never been about the kids. She has lost at every step and every level of court. Time to quit this circus and be a good parent.
Exactly. She’s like a dog with a bone. She can’t or won’t stop herself from sabotaging her case at every turn because she can’t believe she is not getting what she wants. She will continue to find lawyers who are happy to file briefs and appeals until kingdom come so they can rack up the billing….
Is it possible that in addition to all the other levels of crazy, this a a major grift on her part?
My guess is that she receives hefty child support from Daniel and the more time/custody she has = more child support?
I think it really does boil down to a personality disorder. This fits narcissism. Narcissists care about getting what they want; they never care about how it affects anyone around them.
I don’t think there is child support involved, but I cannot remember which court document stated that.
Ok I haven’t been following this closely, but I do know it is nearly impossible for a mother to lose custody so while she in recent weeks has appeared to be a nutter what happened to make the judge give him primary custody?
I mean seriously abusive drug addict mothers don’t lose their kids this fast, what did she do? I apologize if this has been discussed I’m just confused how this all happened.
She and her ex (a German citizen) were to share custody, but that wasn’t good enough for her. So she lied to the authorities and said he was involved in selling arms to terrorists. His VISA was revoked, so he can’t come to the U.S. even though the accusations were untrue. Even an unproven accusation is enough to have your VISA revoked. The judge here figured out that she made the whole thing up to gain custody herself, so he either granted primary custody to the husband with visitation for her, or gave Monaco, where the husband lives, jurisdiction, I forget which. The husband has offered to pay for her to have an apartment in Monaco so she can be a regular part of the children’s lives, but no, she’d rather moan around wearing white saying her children have been deported for the cameras. Her husband could reapply for a VISA if she would admit she lied, but she won’t.
Wait she lied and accused him of selling arms to terrorists? And she isn’t in prison for that? That is a beyond horrifying action? She slandered a man, caused him to not be able to come to a country his children are citizens or and I’m sure wasted our governments time investigating a false claim because she didn’t want to CO-PARENT?!?!
Then after all that the guy still offers to pay for her to live in Monaco, Monaco not Iran but luxurious Monaco and she whines. Sorry I hope this Monaco judge takes all visitation from her she clearly isn’t fit to raise a gold fish.
Thank you all for filling me in. That is a truly disgusting story, and for her to act like she is some picked on mother who had her children stolen when she could easily solve the problem is well on a another level of disturbing.
I’m glad you mentioned the thing about wearing white. This isn’t a story I’ve been following closely, but I do read about here on the site. I’d never even noticed it before now, but in all of the footer photos, she’s wearing white. Every. Single. One. And her children too. For those that have followed Kelly Rutherford before this story, is this a normal thing for her? Like, does the woman only ever wear white? Or is she trying to subtly convey innocent and angelic?
K: the consequences of her admitting that she lied are probably the reasons she refuses to make that admission.
….but that hasn’t stopped her lying to the public about why he has visa issues and why those visa issues can’t be resolved. And NO, he can’t enter the USA without a visa no matter which passport he holds, so that was also another lie on her part.
@Phoenix, I still can’t believe she didn’t wear white for her GMA appearance (pictured above in the navy striped top). It does seem to be pathological with her. I haven’t done research to see if the white thing held true prior to the custody shenanigans, though. I’ve seen photos of her & Daniel out with Hermes prior to the divorce, but I don’t recall what she was wearing…
I’m going to go look at some photos on imdb, just for kicks.
ETA: the all-white does seem to be a more recent phenomenon, so I think it’s an attempt to project innocence and purity of heart.
Basically a judge decided that because her husband could no longer come to the U.S., his kids would have to live with him in order for them to have a relationship with him. The judge determined she could not be trusted to make sure they would see their father in Europe. This is truly her own doing. A bad plan on her part backfired.
Her husband does not have primary custody. They have 50/50 custody. The only issue is that because of her actions the kids live with their father during the school year. During the summer she has them and also he flies her to Monaco and pays for her stays while she is there.
Also, the husband has to pay for her to come to visit them in Monaco six times a year. She’s visited more than that, though, and has the kids in the summer. Much more liberal visitation than normally is granted for the non-residential parent.
She made such a big thing about Daniel not appearing in court this latest time, talking as if he didn’t care enough about the children to even be there. Overlooking the fact that SHE is the reason he wasn’t there, and can’t ever be there, because she not only got his visa revoked, she refuses to provide the letter he needs to start the process of reinstating it.
Her willingness to publicly lie that Daniel did not care enough about his kids to come to the court hearing….wow….I have no doubt, no doubt whatsoever betting she sold that lie to both kids.
When she visits, she can have them for extended periods (she’s not just seeing them for an hour or so), just as when they visit her in New York. By all accounts, their dad is very accommodating even about unplanned visits. He really does want her in their lives. The court made a good call having them live with him.
The judge also concluded that Daniel was the parent who would most likely follow court orders to co-parent and that Kelly had no concrete plans for work in NYC, so it wasn’t known if Kelly could even keep the kids with her if she should find work outside of NYC.
In the court documents, there’s a list of examples of how Kelly did her best to alienate Daniel as the kids’ father.
Search: Harris Ginsberg Kelly Rutherford PDF
I don’t understand why they keep harping on this deportation thing when it’s so clear that the children have not been deported. They are free to return to the states during their scheduled visits, and they are dual citizens and they are going to be with their (sane) father. I guess they’re trying to pull on patriotic heartstrings, but it’s not working. Give it up. And, I think it was Lilacflowers who said STOP WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS!! Somebody just needs to shut this woman down.
I am beyond embarrassed that Wendy Murphy is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Oh, Wendy? Neither you or Kelly speak for the children. The courts appoint people to do that.
Stop wasting my tax dollars.
I’ve had to interact with her professionally (we’ve both done some pro bono work for the same organization) and she is batshit. What’s sad is that I think she used to be good at her job back when her job was working for abused women and children. She just got too high on being a screaming head on television and has clearly lost her way (and her knowledge of the law). What a waste.
Agreed, and who really helped create her inflated talking head status? Oh, Dan Abrams. She was on his MSNBC show all of the time & a frequent guest when he’d sub for Geraldo.
apparently so has Dan Abrams who’s gone from someone who was a great supporter of CASA and ensuring a child’s best interest were the focus of any case to being so far up Kelly Rutherford’s ass he claims to have read all the court documents is cannot figure out why she doesn’t have sole custody.
Wendy’s pencil sharp, perpetually surprised looking eyebrows are next level. Those eyebrows mean BUSINESS. AMERICAN BUSINESS.
Lol. Dead at “American Business”.
This lawyer should be sanctioned. She’s some alien or evil demon right? She not only doesn’t know family law, she doesn’t know her ass from her elbow. #kookoo
Wendy Murphy isn’t a lawyer, she just plays one on tv….lol….she makes the rounds on the Nancy Grace type shows and is annoying as the day is long. I’m quite surprised the other tv save the women of the world lawyer isn’t chiming in…..Gloria Alred or whatever her name is.
Gloria has a brain. That’s why.
Oh no! You mentioned Nancy Grace and Gloria Alred all in one paragraph. I need garlic, a cross, a wooden stake and holy water.
I knew Kelly’s case was DOA when Gloria never gave her a call.
hahahha…..in her whisper sincere Nancy Grace voice: I hope Kelly gets her kids back because I know because I have twins and if someone tried to take them away…..and did I mention my fiancé was murdered so I know pain, I know pain. And please don’t get me started on tot mom. Okay Jodi Arias, you didn’t get the death sentence, the devil is dancing tonight in my hometown of Georgia. Goodnight friend
@Nancy, you’ve nailed Nancy Grace perfectly! The only thing you left out – Breaking News!
Lol….it’s been awhile but let’s unleash the lawyers. Okay cut off Geragos’ mike……..or anybody who doesn’t agree with me!
Making inflammatory, emotionally charged statements to bolster her point seems to be this attorney’s thing. She was apparently Nancy Grace’s favorite guest during the Duke lacrosse case. Was all in favor of the prosecutor lying publicly and concealing evidence favorable to the defendants in the case. She made some doozy statements during that whole thing.
No wonder Kelly hired her. Neither one operates based on the law or reality. Just what they believe should happen.
Anybody who witnesses lawyer misconduct can file a complaint with the board of bar overseers in the state where the misconduct occurs or the attorney is licensed.
Wendy is licensed in Massachusetts. The Board of Bar overseers complaint form can be found through the state’s website.
I feel horrible for any mother separated from her children. But with Kelly’s continuous interviews, speaking of her disdain of the judicial system, etc., she is becoming very Lifetime movieish. As in all stories involving kids, they are the ones I feel for. I’m sure they’re living quite comfortably in Monaco but must feel like they are being used as pawns. We should think hard before we choose our partners, because as in this case alone, things aren’t always as they seem.
Re: getting to know your partners – have you read Kelly’s cuckoo interview with the Daily Beast from June? It’s the Lifetime cherry on top of the Lifetime cake
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/15/gossip-girl-star-kelly-rutherford-clears-the-air-regarding-her-custody-drama.html
It’s worse the one she gave in June… Let me look for it..
Eerytime I read the last sentence, I get a chill up my spine. Am I reading it correctly? If someone “rescued” her children and something happened to Daniel or the children? I can’t even phrase it, it’s something too twisted…
Of what she would like to see come from the movement, the Gossip Girl star told TMZ Live on Wednesday: ‘I think it would be wonderful for someone to show how much they appreciate US citizens. I think that, you know, whoever brings my kids home is going to be pretty much of a hero.’They are going to be doing the right thing for children, for citizens of the United States of America. I mean I think it’s a very pro-American thing to do.
‘If something went wrong, we’re not saying it’s their fault, we’re really saying we need some help here and what it’s taking to get help here is a lot.’
She also admitted a few years ago to putting her cell phone # on a piece of paper and putting it in her son’s shoe and told him to scream and run away if he was ever alone with his father in an airport
I admit I don’t follow this story super closely, but it sounds like she has a few screws loose
That is an interesting read. That article confirms my suspicion that Kelly is one of those women who just wanted children and didn’t give a damn about the who she was having them with. She doesn’t value fathers as anything more important than sperm donors. I remember reading some interview with her years and years ago-back when she still had custody- about what she would and wouldn’t allow for the children; she came off as a total control freak. When you have control freak women with no respect for fatherhood custody battles get real nasty, real quick (think Halle Berry.) She is just mad that he didn’t go away.
Glad you linked to that Daily Beast interview. I read it a few days ago and felt really uneasy afterwards. Firstly, Daniel has never (or rarely and through his lawyer at that) criticised Kelly publicly, but Kelly seeks every opportunity to do so towards him. She also states he loved fame and wanted a publicist. Yep, maybe he did, so what? (I saw a German Youtube interview of him building his Bel Air home and he seems to be enjoying the attention). But it sounds so hypocritical now that she is the one that is in front of the cameras all the time whereas he has kept quiet behind-the scenes.
Secondly, Kelly is basically insinuating here that Daniel and his mother have an inappropriate relationship – almost incestuous. What a thing to say publicly about the father of your children. If Daniel has a close relationship with his mother (and it sounds like he does if he only lives two doors down from her in Monaco) it shows he values the mother/child relationship. This is a big clue as to why he is happy to facilitate Kelly’s relationship with her children. He sees it as important.
Thirdly, she insinuates that their whole relationship was a set-up from the start. A mysterious waitress who had a accent and husband & children in the Middle-East (cue: shady & terrorist) pushed for her to go out with Daniel. It was all a set-up ladies & gentlemen! It was all Daniel’s long-term plan to marry an AMERICAN woman, have AMERICAN children, so he could continue to launder money & commit fraud in the U.S. with shady Middle-Eastern & German friends.
You know, I do think something was found that was alarming enough for Daniel’s visa to be revoked – tax evasion, visa fraud, whatever and god knows if it ended up being true. As Kelly herself has said, she doesn’t have the power to revoke a visa on her own. She and her lawyer may have led the State Department to him but it ultimately was the State Department that acted on it. So, I don’t think Daniel is perfect but I do think he is the better, more sane parent and obviously, so do the AMERICAN courts.
Did you know wacky Wendy Murphy is claiming that the letter Daniel received stating his visa was revoked was faked? That he did it on purpose to be able to stay in Monaco? Does anyone know what became of that claim?
The UCCJEA and Hague are combined in cases like this and would recognize Monaco as the children’s residence
Kelly’s definitely got a cat, but I can’t find an international idiom strong enough to describe her lawyer. I’m repeating myself here, but I don’t understand how this woman is a professional attorney. Did the guy, who injects her face with botox in some back alley, add a law degree as a frequent user gift at some point? There’s definitely a village missing their idiot somewhere.
other lawyers wonder the same.
http://constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1859:how-does-wendy-murphy-have-a-job&catid=42:news&Itemid=71
Thank you for the link LAK. I knew this woman has issues but I didn’t know how big. “In 2010, Murphy went on John Stossel’s show and made up criminal statistics out of thin air, such as the claim that half of all inmates in California prisons are illegal aliens.” – xenophobia is strong with this one. And hate towards men. Daniel is a man and a foreigner – he must be an antichrist in her mind.
Norman Bates’ Mother: I love your name so much, probably because I have a girl crush on Vera Vermiga. A mother is a boy’s best friend.
Thank you. I like Vera too, but I’m too much of a Hitchcock and Psycho fan to watch Bates Motel. Is it any good? Norman Bates’ Mother from my name is Anthony Perkins in drag. 😉
Good read. These two are clowns and need to just drive off in their American clown car and disappear.
It is so good. First season Norman is a sweet confused teenager with just hints at what is to come. Every season thereafter, they added more and more insanity to him. Watching Freddie Highmore and Vera together as the damaged duo is worth the price of admission. The supporting cast is just as engaging…..Norma has suitors, like the sheriff who just may be (in my mind) the one who gets the arsenic in the end. It doesn’t take away from Hitchcock’s Psycho, it puts it in the present day and adds delicious twists and turns. Obviously I’m a huge fan and would recommend it highly to people who are fans of this genre. (lol at name explanation!)
I agree. It’s one of the best shows in the past few years.
Someone should take all the documentation from this case and make it into a law text book to teach future lawyers what not to do in a custody case.
God hates divorce–because of the children.
The way this case has unfolded I have to wonder if Kelly found a lawyer to do whatever she asked whether or not it would help her case. There just seems to be so many glaring errors in the way things have gone it is almost as if someone is trying to make Kelly lose custody on purpose( I am no supporter of Kelly btw) Also who is paying for all the legal costs? This must be costing a fortune
Read LAK’s link in the comment(#9) above. The article explains just how psycho she is. She is also apparently doing this for Kelly pro bono.
What did Daniel ever see in this woman? How was she able to keep the crazy so well hidden?
Surely he knew of her foul treatment of her first husband. That should have given him pause.
According to a TV Spiegel interview to Daniel, he thought she was beautiful and though she was an actress, she didn’t wear any make-up, didn’t do plastic surgery. He thought she was a simple, naturally beautiful person who wasn’t vain. He didn’t have info on her before meeting her, and she got pregnant 3 months later.. (If I’m not mistaken)
Wow sounds like the poor guy was really bamboozled with love (or lust) at first sight. Kelly must have hid the crazy.
That was a terrible error in judgement on his part. I guess it happens. I feel sorry for him though. Mistake or no mistake, this woman is a nightmare.
Edit: off topic though, I never understood why some guys assume women not wearing lots of make up or not had obvious plastic surgery or didn’t have certain demeanour automatically equalled simple, good-natured women. Human nature is far more complex than that.
It’s a good question, one that can only be explained by psychology / sociology? Why people in general assume that a person wearing a suit and tie is a good person and would never steal money from a wallet found on the ground and a person wearing ragged clothes (like a homeless person) woulod steal them?
It’s exactly the same line of thinking… Remembered this example because I saw today on facebook a “study” where a wallet with a large amount of money was left in the middle of a sidewalk to see how many people returned the wallet. One who returned it was a homeless person. There are also “social studies” where people tend to help faster someone who is wearing clean clothes than a person who’s wearing ugly and ragged clothes…
Huh, makes me think of the “Halo Effect”, in which people will automatically assume that attractive people are above reproach. Though personally I find Kelly to be pretty but not spectacular looking, she does get (very) slight props for keeping her look natural and age appropriate.
i can understand why he fell for her from the psychology of a normal person moving to LA and having to deal with vacuous, self absorbed plastic people all day everyday whose only thought seems to be fame whoring and gold digging. it happened to me when i moved to LA for my career. you start to ascribe better than normal qualities to people you meet who don’t fall in the ‘LA’ category. especially if they are an actor [whatever gender] who is fairly successful. If they’d met anywhere else, he might have seen through her immediately and or questioned her motives and or not been so taken with her naturalness/seeming lack of vanity.
When i returned to London, it was as though i’d shed this weird skin of skewered perception. it took me about a year to stop judging my fellow Londoners through the LA prism.
@Lak, that’s what he explained in the interview (at the time they were together and building a house). Everyone seemed plastic, void and she seemed like a normal person similar to the people he had met in a non LA environment.
Plus he was young and, judging by his career, something of a nerd. Must have been very impressed that this beautiful, successful and famous woman was interested in him.
@Triple: The scary thing right now is if he is still in love with her. He displays so much patience and tolerance towards her and the crazy mess she has him in that I just have to wonder whether he still loves her.
I think that ship has sailed.
He’s doing this for the kids, who, despite all of her nuttiness, still love their mother.
That ship is half-way to Fiji by now.
He may well still have compassion and fondness for her as the mother of his children, but I would give his lawyers credit for advising him to make the difficult choice of putting his emotions and needs second to the the best interests of the children. Good family law attorneys council their clients’ that judges do not rule in favor of parents that denigrate the other parent or try to keep the children to themselves. Daniel had both good attorneys and the good sense to take their advice. I also think he truly loves and wants the best for his children, but if the attorney is good enough that is what I should think.
I don’t know how is it in the USA, but here, if you file certain type if cases in the wrong court, or even at the wrong time, you mess your chances of ever winning.
.
I also found two sites regarding Carlos Tarajano, Kelly’s first husband. In one they describe how they met and their wedding(it probably is their marriage mag feature, and another is a site that Carlos himself created when he was recovering from his cardiac arrest, after Kelly left him.
He seems to have been a sweet man, she married him and left him in the cold three months later.
Edit:
Link to the bio, but the whole site is his: http://wizart.org/intoanewlife/bio.html
Article about how they met and their wedding, worth a read:
http://www.geocities.ws/Hollywood/4616/is0202b.html
Wow, I’m amazed Page Six actually ran comments from someone critical of Kelly. I didn’t think that was allowed.
I know right! I don’t understand why the majority of press reports favour her. Have none of the journalists done any research? I saw a TMZ (I know, I know) poll that said 76% of people thought she had been screwed and that’s totally down to the reporting.
Because this is an extremely complex legal case, involving citizenship laws, foreign treaties, etc. And most journalists are not legal experts (heck, most self-proclaimed “legal experts” are not experts (cough*Dan Abrams*cough). Most of them don’t bother reading the actual court documents or they try reading them, don’t get it, and don’t bother. They just report on sound bites and spin.
Isn’t this woman one of the legal experts on CNN or MSNBC? If yes, someone needs to re-evaluating that decision. She clearly is out of her depth here- think she may be as much of a press hound as her client.
Oh, they didn’t write letters on her behalf? Kinda like what shedid to her ex in the visa issue.
Karma, Kelly. She WILL get you, every time.
I’m hoping these members of Congress that promised to write letters did so just to get her off their backs and won’t really write them. Also, I wonder what would happen if she was given custody of the children (not that I believe she should)? What would she have to complain about then and how would she stay in the lime light?
Munchhausen syndrome by proxy.
A few years back, I saw Wendy Murphy giving an opinion on the big white female murder case of the day, I forget which, but I swear, as Mom would say, she was ‘three sheets to the wind’. I had second hand embarrassment for her.
Wendy Murphy was also a commentator on the Duke Lacrosse case. She initially took the position that the men were guilty. As more evidence started coming out, a lot of commentators started changing their tune and saying “Hey, this is looking like they’re actually innocent.” Murphy dug in and started making all kinds of excuses as to why her initial analysis was right, and it wasn’t her job to figure out the facts, she was just presenting a “scenario” etc. She absolutely could not admit to getting it wrong. Could not admit it. So I’m thinking that she’s really, really bad at objective judgment.
Maybe that was the case, Sam, but I thought it was one or the other, Casey Anthony or Jodi Arias, or some other person who was accused of murder; she seemed out of sorts, stumbling on words, and looked like she tossed back a few before her segment was aired. It was a mess beyond her looking immovable on a staunch position.
Looking at the screen cap of her GMA appearance – “Star opens up after courtroom loss” – star???!! I did not know that….
Congress has more important things to do like passing a freaking budget by the end of September than to get involved in a case where they have no business butting in.
Seriously I cannot wait for the 3rd so the judge can just say once and for all, custody arrangement as is stands or adds in that now all visits with Kelly will be supervised. Something.
Let’s not forget that if Congress got involved they could cause an international incident with Monaco’s Courts…
Oh Congress won’t get involved. I am shocked any idiot even allowed her a hearing. It’s nonsense. I know we give Congress crap, but they are not going to get involved in a custody dispute. Federal court has no jurisdiction over this, neither does NY (because of Kelly not doing her mirror order) and CA has said have fun Monaco. She has messed up big time and it’s no one’s fault but her and her ridiculous lawyer.
It’s ridiculous that Kelly & Murphy think that letters from the legislative branch is going to make the judicial branch re-think the case.
If anything, Congress would have to change the laws to suit Kelly in order for the judges to have any legal standing to rule in her favor.
Shut the hell up ! Just shut the hell up ! Do NOT give that woman idea!!!!!
(ps : I hope that’s not an offensive way of saying it. English is not my first langage.)
I am usually loathe to separate a parent from their kids unless they are in danger of physical or mental abuse, and I respect that her husband continues to advocate for no change to her rights despite the continued slander she spews against him, but I am beginning to think someone just tells her no. No shared custody and only supervised visits IN Monaco. This has moved well beyond caring about her kids and more into her personal attention and need for revenge and people in that mode will do anything. I would be quite worried about a Munchausen by Proxy situation developing.
I just said the same thing about Munchausen. Should have read a little further.
Convicted murderers only get automatic federal review via a petition for writ of habeas corpus because they have been sentenced to death. Regular life in prison murderers do not get this automatically.
Your kids are alive and well with their dad in Monaco, Kelly. At his point no federal court wants to see you or your deranged attorney ever again.
Sssh! Don’t cloud the narrative with realities. Although if the regular life in prison murderer doesn’t get an appeal on the state level, the attorney tends to get sanctioned, but no, there is no automatic federal review of regular life in prison murderers.
Oh right, Lilacflowers, there I go again stating facts! WHEN will I ever learn?!?
In semi-related news, I clerked at the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in law school. One of the staff attorneys there kept running lists of all death row inmates as well as those executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the 70s. I remember that the most popular middle name was Wayne, and the most commonly requested item for a last meal was some sort of steak. Bizarre…
Apparently People is going to do an “investigative” piece on Daniel *eye roll*
I heard that too!! Apparently some ‘eye-opening expose’ on his ‘shady past’ hahaha. Can’t wait for Daniel’s lawyers to sue for slander….one can dream!
Kelly must have blown half of People to get this going.
Edit: Omg!! Shady stuff like “he didn’t want a green card or to be a resident of the US” (from the Daily beast interview she gave. Wow! A rich non-American businessman who didn’t want to double tax in America and Europe! That’s never been done before! No way would any American company ever do the same!!!!! this guy is CLEARLY EXTREMELY dodgy. Sigh.
Yes! And they’ll apparently be talking about how Daniel “has a reputation for ‘destroying people’s lives,’ with a series of trademark lawsuits”
Heaven forbid you own the trademark for something and don’t want a company to buy it for a pittance.
Giiiiiirrll, don’t you know America is land of milk and honey…he must be evil terrorist if he does not want the great green card.
More supposedly shady stuff from the Daily Beast article: disappearing for five days without telling her where he was or why (umm, maybe he wanted to get away from you Kelly?); having a close relationship with his mum and putting everything in her name – so what?; having mysterious German hairdressers as friends who looked after the money side of his Bel Air home development – watch out for those scissors Kelly!; buying a house in South of France without telling her (perhaps to plan his getaway from her??); needing a bridging loan from her for the Bel Air mansion when he was meant to be a multi-millionaire. Gosh, maybe he just needed one?? And my goodness, actually sticking up for your rights if you own a trademark and someone is illegally using it?? Well, that’s just not on, is it??
Listen, the guy may be guilty of some kind of U.S. tax evasion and there was a rumour he had a disbarred lawyer sponsor his original U.S. visa, but it does not mean he is a bad parent. As his lawyer quite rightly pointed out, his business issues have nothing to do with a custody arrangement and his ability to parent.
More lies about him… Dana Kennedi spread the word to his “supporters” if they could tell him she wants to interview him.. So, they trash him in their magazine and then they want to interview him…? Yep…
it’s a given that it will be a hatchet job and i hope he sues.
So People keeps doubling down on the sucking huh (ie. pro duggar coverage) and now this mess?!
You’d think they’d start by actually reading the court documents. But no….
Hope he sues for everything he can, demands a public apology and retraction of every lie they’ve spewed.
You know what, I rarely say this because I am a lawyer and I get that lawyers sometimes have difficult clients and they gotta do the best they can with what they have, but here goes:
I hope her lawyer gets sanctioned for this. I really do. She’s told blatant untruths on tv, in print, etc. She either is blatantly misrepresenting the law as is or truly does not understand it – and either way, that means she is fully out of her depth. Daniel was intelligent enough to retain a lawyer who specializes in the international family disputes, and she seems to be doing a decent job. This woman seems to be little more than a hack, and she deserves to be held accountable for it. I know Kelly has had multiple prior attorneys who either she has fired or they walked away from her. This one is probably the only one left who’s willing to go along with her.
I am a lawyer too (in Canada) and only practiced in family law briefly, but I completely agree with you, she is a disgrace to the profession.
I second this. I am half-tempted to file a state bar complaint myself, but I am not licensed in MA and do not know if I would have standing to sustain one. I have been halfheartedly researching whether I can bring an FCC (or other federal) complaint against GMA and FauxNews for giving her a platform to spread outright lies, but I just don’t care enough. Besides, the crazier they act in public fora, the higher the likelihood Daniel gets sole custody and/or supervised visitation for Kelly. In my mind that may be better than keeping them out of my media.
How will the judges know what Rutherford is up to? I am sure they are not reading gossip sites. Her prior attys are most likely glad to get rid of her. Lets hope that Daniel’s attys are paying attention.
You said ‘fora’.
Bearcat Lawyer, I think I love you.
😀
I think Kelly keeps running through lawyers, either firing them or they quit because she doesn’t listen to them or doesn’t like what they have to tell her. Then she found this hack who doesn’t rein her in, encourages her off-the-wall behavior which is hurting Kelly in the long run, and gives her bad legal advice. She just tells Kelly what she wants to hear and bills her.
She also doesn’t pay them. She filed for bankruptcy after running up the bills for legal fees and clearly said so. Who would take that for an extremely time consuming client?
But I Bet Even convicted murderers have the wherewithal and Tact of Coming off a TON More sympathetic than this Thirsty Harpy in White
I just can’t with that lawyers eyebrows. They scare me.
she looks like when Jack Nicholson’s The Joker put on Flesh Colored makeup in that old Batman Movie?? YES That
Now you’ve said it, I can’t UNSEE – hahahahahaha! She so does look like that joker.
She makes me nervous with her resting crazy face and her need for attention.Stop using your kids for press, lady.
Lol @ resting crazy face.
Cannot take credit for this, found it on DM, but have a good laugh:
[Asked to comment, a spokesman for America’s entire legal system said “To be as efficient as possible, we’ve provided every court in America – from the Supreme Court down to municipal traffic courts – with rubber stamps that say ‘Um, no, Kelly.’
This small step ensures that our court system can quickly respond to Rutherford’s repeated filings over her already-settled custody matter without consuming the courts’ time on delivering the messages we’ve delivered at the state and federal level for years now.”
However, according to Rutherford’s attorney, Wendy Murphy, “The courts continue to stubbornly insist on keeping the kids settled in their calm, paparazzi-free life in a safe, wealthy enclave in Europe. That is an outrage! As an American, Rutherford has a constitutional right to use her kids as props in staged photo shoots in effort to gain enough publicity to someday land another minor acting role. No, I’m serious. That’s in the Constitution! AMERICA!”]
LOL… Good one..
I have a different kind of stamp that I save for very special things. It says the vernacular for “cow poop” in an 1 inch high font. 🙂
Oh, I have to find one for when my students write really idiotic answers… “WTF?”.
I already have one saying “Perfect!” when they get the answers right.. 😀
I’m loving that DM comment so hard.
So very hard.
Thankfully we have blogs, you can’t get away with compulsive lying with the internet and independent media! The mainstream media may embarrass themselves by showing us how unprofessional and biased they are for promoting her lies and I’m sure there’s a foolish politician somewhere but they won’t achieve anything. The courts will deal with the facts, people will report them through independent sites and we’ll all celebrate her not getting her own way. She’s advertising her crazy.
I was thinking about blogs the other night too. If all we knew was what we heard on TV or in magazines we would probably be on Kelly’s side too. All we hear is ‘a foreigner took custody of my children.’ I wouldn’t know anything about Daniel if it weren’t for blogs, cause he sure isn’t speaking.
Yeah. Although out of curiosity I had a look at Perez Hilton’s site. Big mistake.
I found this article about her first marriage. Wow, she also married the guy after just a few months. She seems to have an MO, find some rich guy, get him to quickly seal the deal, and dump him after his usefulness runs out
http://www.geocities.ws/Hollywood/4616/et0124.html
She dumped him right after he got sick… She must have really loved him…
At this point, I’m on this bus too: “The more I see of her, the more I think she wants the attention that comes with this case and doesn’t necessarily want custody of her kids. She seemed so happy to receive paparazzi attention and to get interviews. It’s bizarre and sad…”
@Peanutbuttr: …..yow, unreal, but – real.
There are photos of her last week smiling and shopping before going on GMA giving her sob story. Talking about how her kids were taken away from her and how devastated she is, funny she didn’t look upset when she was shopping.
You know, I’m going to give Kelly a pass on that. Maybe she needed some new pants to wear for her interviews and had to get something quickly? Although I don’t know why she wouldn’t just use something she already had. Maybe someone said something nice to her and she smiled at them?
I agree its not a good look but I’m not going to criticise for going clothes shopping. She has a lifetime of other ridiculous actions that we can criticise her for.
Not that it will make a difference but I finally wrote a letter to the editor of People about their tone deaf and inaccurate coverage.
I respect you greatly for this. Good turn my dear.
It may just help. Reading the comments on people, most are about the court papers. Which surprised me.
People are spreading the word and advising people to read the court docs, so people are changing their minds…
I am having an awesome time on twitter. Nobody has read the court documents there at all. Winning every argument. Well actually most are ignoring me or deflecting.
I actually have a subscription and have sent a few letters to the editor about their shoddy reporting and fact checking in this case. No reply. Not surprised. Kneepads only cares about selling magazines, not annoying things like the truth or the law.
A recent People article on this sorry mess has been removed…..not sure if its temporary though.
I don’t think Kelly Rutherford found an attorney who believes in her case or thinks it’s winnable. I think she found a Jose Baez-type who welcomes the free publicity and has made arrangements to ensure that she gets paid for this lost cause (so many people rack of tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to harass their ex-spouses out of spite and then stiff their lawyers). I think what really rubs me the wrong way about Kelly is how she flaunts this in front of the press. For the good of her children, these matters should really be private.
Did you see Michael K of Dlisted’s descriptor for the lawyer? “Tussaudesque”. Perfect. 😀
I thought that was Caitlyn Jenner in the header pic.
This whole thing just reeks of entitlement and privilege. Nobody but a rich, high-profile actress (though that’s debatable) would be able to get the funds or the attention to keep this crap going for so long.
Kelly has shot herself in the foot big time. Several judges have ruled against her and the kids continue to be happy & healthy living with their father in Monaco. She is determined to not face the truth.
The only thing she has left is lie and repeat the mantra “American Mother”. She is stuck in a vicious circle of her own making. Her lawyers are certainly not helping, not that she would listen anyway.
When the Monaco courts on the 3rd of September make a decision, assumably maintaining the status quo, she is going to freak out.
I feel sorry for Kelly and Murphy. How come they NEVER get a judge who knows the Constitution and the Hague Convention? Are such judges really that rare? It’s like living in a nightmare world!
I’m so glad Murphy is here to tell the judges when they’re incorrect. She’s a law professor, so she knows.
Sarcasm right?
Yup.
Well done.
Thanks Jessiebes 🙂
I just sat next to her at a restaurant in Sag Harbor Sunday. She had on sunglasses so you couldn’t see the insanity in her eyes haha but she does look better in person than in photos and had on a white top 🙂 Spoke very quietly obviously. We just kept laughing saying she’s the one that abducted her own children. Seemed normal with emphasis on the “seemed” part!
lol Is she joking? Although I’m not surprised a crackpot defending a crackpot would say something so stupid.
The lawyer in the title pic has sanpaku eyes
She may be a complete nutter, but he spent 7 YEARS in court battles with Google – he likes a legal battle.
It also seems a bit sketchy how he actually earns a living. And I just can’t believe it’s that simple to have someone’s Visa revoked.
But when she says she does not know the guy, I have to agree – how does someone go from oddly boyish cute to creepy: http://abcnews.go.com/US/time-state-department-bring-actress-kelly-rutherfords-american/story?id=29982224
Shady, shadyn shady… how dare he trademark a name years before google even thought of using it and then have the nerves not to just handle it to them paper wrapped ? sooo sketchy…
Not sketchy at all if you actually took the time to look up what his job is: monitoring trademarks and patents for infringements. Kinda why he sued Google – they infringed on his own trademark. And he won. Millions. (How dare he not back down when up against Google! Evil!)
As for getting a Visa revoked… in this post-9/11 world, believe it. It can be very easy. For example, in Daniel’s case, all one had to do is falsely accuse him of a terrorist offense (illegal arms dealing) and it was instantly revoked. They don’t mess around.
I was not criticizing fighting for trademark rights, just saying that 7 years is a lot of time & legal fees to find money for… especially if his own G-mail business wasn’t even operational when Google launched Gmail.
He and his family are wealthy, so he had the money to fight. And if he’s paying out of his own pocket, as he did, who cares how long it took? It was still legally HIS trademark and therefore he had every right to fight them on infringing on it, even if it took several years.
His family was not wealthy
Fighting for his own trademark, active or not, against Google – I respect that,and the more money he got out of them, the better.
“Monitoring” trademark infringements and then suing the shit out folks – eh, I have to agree that it’s not the nicest way to make money, and people who do that generally aren’t well-liked. But it’s perfectly legal, so there’s that. And it has nothing to do whatsoever with this custody case. He has to protect this children, otherwise they’d be pimped out all year round.
And yes, he comes from a very moderate family, he’s self-made.
Interesting because it’s been stated by many that his family is/was wealthy (some pro-Kelly people even trying to claim his family made money in illegal arms LOL); in 2012 it was reported that his parents owned a home in Monaco, which he had been living in (IIRC, it was pointed in stating the parents owned the home, not him – and that he was only living there for the time being).
Any links or something I could read proving either way?
Though honestly it’s a moot point. LOL He had the trademark, he had the right to fight. And his fight with Google really makes no difference in this case. Sooo… whatever. 😉
Do you speak German? I have a link to a talk show where he talks a bit about his upbringing (mother housewife, father blue collar worker) and his endeavors. I still haven’t watched the whole thing, so I don’t know how exactly they ended up in Monaco, but I figure it’s for tax reasons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ZUusmXjgA
No I don’t 🙁 Someone needs to do English subs! LOL
Just watched that German talk show link. I studied German in school so recognized a few words here and there but they were speaking too quickly for me to understand anything substantial.
Watch it and check out the lady wearing what looks like a red lampshade on her head. Plus the woman sitting next to Daniel looks like she wants to jump his bones.
But, as his lawyer pointed out and a few posters here have said, this is a custody case. It has nothing to do with his profession.
It is strange that this is the biggest argument against him. That he sued google for gmail, which he owned. Poor google.
So when she says she didn’t know the guy. She got pregnant with their first baby after three months, she could have used birth control. And later she had a second baby with him. It takes two to tango. Very hypocritical.
Right? LOL “I didn’t know the guy… but I jumped into the sack with him, didn’t take birth control and got knocked up within’ 3 months of meeting him. Then had a second child with him. Oh, and I married him. I didn’t know him though. Derp.”
Ohh and blame the barista who introduced them to each other. That barrista was married to a saudi arabian. Therfor it is all a big conspiracy against Kelly.
She’s insane. End of.
What ticks me off is the biased “journalists” giving her airtime and print space, and the courts allowing her to waste taxpayer funds with her repeated filings and wasted court time. Ugh.
She was looking for a well-bred, intelligent, well-to-do foreigner to act as sperm donor and then go back to whatever foreign hellhole he came from. Having little extensions of herself was always the goal. She married the first guy after what..6 months? Then he went and ruined everything by getting sick. No point hanging around. She waited a whole three months after meeting DG to get pregnant? Is that right?? She probably hated being with the poor guy, but the goal was two…a boy and a girl that she could dress up like Ken and baby Barbie and pose for pictures and then the world would know how wonderful she is. She probably threw him out as soon as she found out the second one was a girl. Fait accompli.
Luckily for all involved, she’s not that bright.
She really is that stupid. If anything, the Google law suit should have told her that he wouldn’t let her walk all over him.
Take this all with lots of salt.
In one of the rabbit hole discussions on People, a poster named Nancy wrote about how German companies are often structured. That poster seems pretty rational, although I do not know how much experience she has with laws in Germany. What she sketched out was that many German companies legally function in a way to be family-owned and protect assets. Logical really.
If this is the way Giersch did things, his assets *may* have been protected because the ownership of those assets was shared by several people. I can see her thinking that is shady, even though it is legal and common practice. Rutherford could have been thwarted going for a big divorce payout in that case. It meant *possibly* she couldn’t kick him out the kids’ lives and get his money simultaneously. I can see that sending her into a tailspin.
I don’t really understand how that is supposed to be german or weird in whichever way.
In the US corporations are hel in vehicles and entity to protect them, various trusts and limited liabilty company, foreign/offshore accounts etc pp.
Basically it would mean that, although he is worth millions, she couldn’t touch any of it in a divorce. IF his personal and business assets were all tied up as “business” in a family company where it wasn’t technically “his money”.
Her posts may have meant absolutely nothing. If People does this article, we’ll see if they write about how his companies are structured.
I think she means a GmbH as that is the most common form of a German company. It’s basically a bit like a joint stock company. One or more people decide to start a company and pay money to it. That money is then company money and not their private anymore. He wouldn’t get out of paying her in a divorce though. The company is still his and it still counts into his wealth, so he still has to pay her accordingly.
Didn’t the court papers say that both parents officially said that they have enough money to provide for the children, so that’s why the court decided to not order any child support?
Thanks, Ana A. , I saw it down one of the many People threads, skimmed it, then couldn’t find it again to get details.
@Justagirl I’m sorry but where did you read that he earns a living by suing people and companies? Thank God I speak German. From what I’ve read in interviews before even meeting Kelly, he owns a communications company, you know, emails, etc… An email company and a post office’s company is definitely very shaddy… The only company on record he sued was Google, because of the name G-mail in Germany, Switzerland and other european countries. He had patented the name G-mail in 2000 (Giersch-mail), then Google came along and wanted to use Gmail, which confused clients. He won the lawsuit. In an interview he acually explained (in German) where it all started, in his mother’s house’s garage… He used it to store the mail (leters and packages) from neighbours from his hometown and he rode his bike to deliver them all day long. The he hired some friends and relatives to help him out… Then he started with e-mail and computers. Then he started creating apps for phones (Blipcard for iphones is an example) already after divorcing Kelly. Where are the suing for a living in here?
But here, I found you info in English:
NOTE: Deustche Post is the national post offices in Germany, you know, they send packages, letters, postcards, there are postmen, kinda like FedEx…
“When he was 18, Giersch founded his first company, a same-day mail delivery service designed to offer a swifter alternative to the Deutsche Post. Within a few years, by his estimation, the company was delivering 80 percent of the mail within his hometown of Itzehoe, a town of about 30,000 residents near Hamburg.
Giersch ultimately sold control of the physical delivery operations and started on a new venture he called “hybrid mail.” The idea is to combine the relative security of physical mail delivery with the speediness of e-mail. A sender’s document is scanned into Giersch’s system at its origin, transmitted electronically to a G-mail office in the destination city, printed out at the other end and hand-delivered to its recipient. Giersch also offers users a “secure” gmail.de address, which they can obtain only by verifying their identities with a passport or other official ID card–a far different business model from Google’s Gmail, he said.”
Here, links:
http://www.theagencyre.com/2014/08/billy-rose-speaks-blipcard-founder-daniel-giersch/
http://www.cnet.com/news/behind-googles-german-courtroom-battle/
Justagirl:
I’m not going to post the entire block of facts re Google and gmail in other countries again–you can find it on previous threads.
But he started his company five years before Google even put gmail out in beta.
Google couldn’t use ‘gmail’ in the UK on thousands of accounts for six years because of legal conflict with a UK company that had previous rights. Other companies using the ‘shady’ business practice of protecting their copyrights and trademarks were an issue for Google re gmail in Poland and Russia.
I believe he won the lawsuit with Google.
They generally say his mother and her partner live in Monaco. So maybe her mother’s current partner had money but his father didn’t? Daniel apparently started his own company in his teens, which isn’t impossible in his field (very small companies are common, starting with one person). I had thought he lived in Monaco after he was 18 because of his parents living there, but I read the more likely story that he moved to Monaco and bought a place there in his mid-twenties. In his late teens/early twenties, he might have been at a university. German citizens can get a free university education, so lack of money wouldn’t have mattered.
In any case, I’m sure the LA court investigated and knew the real story. They did not feel he was doing anything that made him an unfit parent.
Justagirl: the creepy guy in that article is actually Kelly’s brother.
He’s frequently and inexplicably being labelled as her husband in a few articles. They have no similarities whatsoever, but that’s lazy ‘journalism’ for you.
DG remains boyishly cute.
It’s like a circular attack.
Dan ‘reports’ accusations against Daniel and the visa issues as proof of how terrible Daniel is.
But then it’s Kelly’s side making the accusations and had worked to cause trouble with Daniel’s visa.
So that’s all that Dan has? His ‘facts’ based on whatever Kelly has been pushing?
OMG this crazy attorney and her nutso client! Convicted murderers got a federal review because they were most likely sitting in death row! This is a child custody case! Those kids are not in danger of being executed therefore why should the federal courts get involved in child custody cases?
It’s unfortunate that schools no longer teach civics because it seems a lot of people don’t know how the system works. It’s also unfortunate that Miss Surprised Attorney is spewing nonsense. She should have her license revoked for this stunt.
Here’s an interestng reading…
http://www.inquisitr.com/2347795/the-judge-was-right-to-return-kelly-rutherfords-children-to-monaco-heres-why/
Thank you. Really great article. I wish more media would be like this.
It’s high time we see an article which actually detail SOME of the interchange between Mr. Rich and Daniel. The fact that the lawyer, with the full complicity of Kelly, tried to blackmail Daniel into giving up his right to be part of his children’s life is not highlighted nearly enough.
Even when people say, “Kelly lied. She’s the reason her ex lost his Visa”, it still doesn’t do justice to the truth, because people assume that Daniel must have done something to “deserve being deported”. Daniel has been given short shrift by people not knowing THIS is how his Visa came to be revoked. The guy stood up for his rights. He refused to be blackmailed. He valued staying in his kids’ lives more than the threat of having to leave his business interests in the U.S.
I hope this gets wide circulation. The only complaint I have is the writer could have gone even further and detailed how Kelly was right there in that hallway, seated right by Mr. Rich when he made his threats. Who could have foreseen the harm that Kelly unleashed the day she hatched that scheme with her lawyer.
To quote the ruling:
“At this juncture, there probably is no one in this case who would not turn back the clock to the day before Kelly’s attorney, Mr. Rich, entered the courtroom in this case.
When Mr. Rich contacted the immigration authorities and then used the threat of immigration trouble as leverage to try to convince Daniel to sign a stipulation agreeing not to see his children, he did damage not only to Daniel, but also to Kelly, if not more so to her.”