1, none of Nissen’s evidence proofed that he had rights of custody to Kevin and Jenvey nor does it proof that he was allowed visitations.
2. none of Nissen’s evidence proofed that his rights were violated
3. in Nissen’s own evidence submitted, the United kingdom court order he submitted. stated that the court date the 15th June 2010, that Nissen under oath stated that the children were still in the UK on the 26th July 2010. this court order is dated at the bottom, the 20th August 2010, not stamped or certified or signed.
In the Hague the Mexican judges refer that with the proof that Mexico, South Africa and the USA have, it renders Nissen’s evidence as fruadulent. how can you have a hearing on the 15th June 2010, where under oath you are stating the people is still in the Uk on the 26th July 2010, and the ordere dated in typing at the bottom as the 20th August 2010.
We must all remember that during this time, Nissen claimed that maryna and boys are illegal in Mexico which ended with them being in Mexico immigration, thus MExico got proof of where the Baylis family was and it really was not the United Kingdpm
Thus the Mexican authorities ruled that the children has to remain in the custody of their parents Jeremy and Maryna Baylis and is allowed in their parents company to travel to the UK for two months only to obtain their belongings from Nissen.
The uk refuse the mother and father into the UK, but steal the children now Nissen wants to claim there is no hague and the UK has granted him full custody. The UK cannot override what the Hague has stated……
And no proof was ever supplied to any claims made by nissen and Olivier to the parents of the children.
Nissen your evidence is a joke all 4600 pages and it is fun paying Brussels for it as it is all public record.
Like we pointed out before we will happily supply anyone with a copy of the paperwork for a donation, or buy it straight from the Hague in Brussels