write as if a barrister in hong kong wrote it
1. Leave for removal to visit CT/NYC for Chinese New Year’s to see immediate family (grandmother, Sister, extended family such as Aunts, Uncles, Cousins). I have recently discovered my 85 year old Mother in February 2024 is in much poorer health than I was told by my family before the Christmas Holiday.
2. Grandmother Georgia Varvitsiotes has a materially negative change in her health and wants to see BOTH her only grandchildren before she may passes away. I was told of her material negative change in health after the Christmas Leave application was rejected as they did not want to alarm me before hand considering all of the pressures myself and the children are under now.
a. This is a new update not included in the prior Christmas Leave application which was dismissed without the full facts;
b. I tried to urgently tell the Duty Judge so the children could see their loving and financially supportive Grandmother before she passes as “New information is that the Grandmother is 84 years old, in poor and failing health, and does not have a prognosis. The children being prevented for FOUR years now need to see their loving and financial supportive grandmother before she potentially passes.”
c. I did not have a doctors letter for the prior URGENT application, and I was not told about how poor her health has become. I have provided my Mother’s Cardiologist prognosis as attached confirming the poor current health of my Mother.
i. Exhibit 1 – a letter from my mother’s cardiologist stating the failing health of my Mother and need for her to see her grandchild and son.
3. Preventing the Father to take both children to see their Grandmother (and Grandfather) has caused a very large amount of emotional distress to the children, and severe emotional duress to the Father.
4. The Mother has ADMITTED to maliciously deny the children the right to see to see their grandparents to cause pain, suffering, and harm to the children, the Father, and the Father’s family. This is simply wrong to use the HK Family Court in this manner to alienate family members.
a. The Mother also denigrated the Father and his family to both children all while the Mother ADMITTED she will keep DENYING the children the right to see their grandparents “IN PERPETUITY” next Summer, and next Christmas. It has SIX years to block the Grandfather from seeing his own grandchildren and FOUR years to block the Grandmother from seeing her own grandchildren); this is simply wrong.
b. The above is not an allegation but a FACT. The reason for the Mother’s opposition to these applications is MALICE.
c. The Mother is welcomed to DENY the above UNDER PERJURY; I believe the Mother will not DENY the above TRUTHFUL statement Under Perjury.
5. The Mother most recently (but also on other occasions) on 28 December 2023 again abused her own children stating that if she does not receive the money’s the Mother wants she will continue to perpetually DENY access of the grandchildren using the children as ‘personal bargaining chips’ No past current or future Christmas, and No past current or future Summer holidays with their own grandparents and family. This is both ADMITTED, and Wrongful extortion of access to family members for children by the Mother. These applications should have been done via Mutual Consent and never even need to be made. The denial of children’s access to their grandparents and family members out of malice to knowingly cause the children, the Father, grandparents, and their family harm is wrong.
6. The HK Family Court should not knowingly be used an instrument of family alienation, malice, and extortion by the Mother. The HK Family Court is there to be fair and just and protect the well being and best interest of the children and not be used as tool of extortion and wrongdoing by the Mother.
a. The Mother went on to denigrate both the Father on this most recent and many other occasions which are on record.
b. The Father’s family provide material financial support to both of her children; notably more financial support than the mother herself, and yet the Mother denies the very same grandparents access to their own grandchildren. This is a Fact.
c. These are facts which have been occurring over the last now FOUR years whereby the Mother gloats over the pain she knowingly inflicts on the children, and the Father by wrongly denying access to the children to see their grandparents and immediate family members, and the Mother has been successfully using the HK Family Court as the instrument of this ADMITED form of abuse.
d. The children have a right to see their elderly grandparents and the grandparents also have a right to see their own grandchildren.
7. Its has now been some FOUR years since the children have seen their immediate family and SIX years to see their grandfather in Greece. The children have an inalienable right to see their immediate family and their own Grandmother. And this has been a reprehensible and inhumane cruelty imposed on children, and the Father by a clearly malicious mother overtly acting in this manner to cause harm and distress. The Father is not a flight risk and these prolonged divorce proceedings have lasted over FOUR years (this is not the first application).
8. There is NO flight risk and the concept of providing returnable ‘Bail Bond’ or ‘Security for Flight Risk’ IF needed so that the wrongful cruelty to children can end. A “Bail Bond” or “Security for Flight Risk” that is returnable immediately after I bring the children back to Hong Kong IF needed eliminates any potential allegation of me being a “Flight Risk”.
9. I am not and never was a flight risk but A bail bond or ‘security flight’ is also being offered by the Grandparents to hold as collateral to be returned when the Father brings back both children to Hong Kong.
a. Even accused criminals have the right to a ‘bail bond’ and if I am to be treated as such for a crime I could not have committed. I believe this can alleviate any concern of being a flight risk.
b. It is reasonable that a ‘Bail Bond’ concept be applied so the children can see their grandparents after FOUR years and SIX years respectively. IF needed.
c. I believe this is only more than fair and should provide the HK Family Court with the Peace of mind to grant the children the right to see their own grandparents and family after so many years being blocked by the Mother to do so.
10. The Father is NOT and Never was a flight risk and the below reasons document why:
A.The business Asia Interactive is run out of the immovable Registered office on 42 Macdonnell Road flat 2E (the converted company REGISTERED office). There can be no MISREPRESENTATION of FACT that the company needs a PHYSICAL office and all of IT network and IT server equipment which are ALL physically located physical office on 42 Macdonnell Road. The Business CANNOT be run remotely without this Physical office this was a FALSE statement and misrepresentation. This is a finding of FACT and NO further misrepresentations can be made on this finding of documented fact.
B. This business needs a physical location to hold its secure IT network and It development servers. That physical location is in HK / immovable office where the Father lives. The costs to move are prohibitive some $300,000 - $500,000 HKD – (this fact has been repeated in many sworn affirmations add emphasis) and a new physical location is needed to move the ‘office’ to. There are NO IT staff or capabilities to make this risky move and if this move is attempted – the entire business can SHUT down in seconds if any move is even attempted. This is the REPEATED finding of facts that NO further ‘misrepresentation’ or FRAUDULENT misrepresentations can be made in light of the repeated finding of facts. The business cannot be ‘run online’ or remotely without the physical office set up. The businesses physical office cannot be moved with material investments and HIGH RISK for closure causing threat of liability from investors if wrongly attempted. I will not bear this liability to leave 17 year OLD business in Hong Kong and be a ‘flight risk’ on 19 Hazelwood Lane, Stamford CT. 06905.
C. I am Yale University graduate with no criminal record at 51 years of age. A professional who is not a “flight risk”.
a. Both children attend schools in Hong Kong
i. American International School for Leonidas Varvitsiotis (age 13); needs to return to finish this school year or lose a grade
ii. Catholic Mission School for Philip Varvitsiotis (age 10); needs to return to finish this school year or lose a grade
iii. I believe my views on elite Private Education for both children and ‘Bright Futures’ is well documented.
iv. Leonidas Varvitsiotis is now being considered to attend the #1 and #3 Private High Schools in the World on full academic scholarship. These schools Admit some 80% into the IVY Leagues like Yale, Harvard, Standford, Duke, UPENN, etc
v. I would not jeopardize my children’s “Bright Educational futures” which came at great personal effort by me personally by being a ‘flight risk’. This is an embarrassing argument.
b. My entire LIFE in Hong Kong and am the CEO of a business in Hong Kong for the last 17 years’ and I am running many litigations concurrently here in HK simultaneously for which my presence here makes managing them very cost effectively. I intend to move out of Hong Kong, and will do so legally. My well documented applications are on record.
vi. If I did not LOVE both my children would I have self represented for FOUR years now so they could have a BRIGHT FUTURE with Quality Stable Housing and elite Private Schools? (what I am on record fighting for)
vii. I believe this argument makes NO sense at all and is meritless.
c. All our possessions and life has been in Hong Kong and we have to return. I do not have any track record of being irresponsible and just ‘running away’. I believe my actions have shown just the just the opposite.
d. The criminal ‘Bail Bond’ or ‘Security for Returning’ can be provided by the grandparents, if I am to be treated like a criminal for a CRIME I have NOT committed or under some for inditement for a ‘suspected crime’ I could not and have not committed yet. Even accused criminals get bail bonds to visit their families for crimes they are being accused of formally that the Police suspect they may have done. I have NOT committed any crimes and the children and myself are suffering as if we have based on the Mother’s malicious opposition for the basic rights of the children to see their own grandparents and family members for so long.
e. All of the above should address the pointless argument after now over FOUR years of the children being PREVENTED to see their own loving and financially supportive families due to the Mother’s ADMITTED Malice.
Re: Application for Leave to Visit CT/NYC for Chinese New Year’s to see Immediate Family
Dear Duty Judge,
I am writing to request leave for removal in order to visit CT/NYC for Chinese New Year’s to see my immediate family, including my grandmother, sister, and extended family such as aunts, uncles, and cousins. I have recently discovered that my 85-year-old mother's health is in much poorer condition than I was initially informed by my family before the Christmas holiday.
I was informed of my grandmother Georgia Varvitsiotes' material change in health after my previous Christmas Leave application was rejected. This change in health was withheld from me in order to spare me additional concerns given the pressures myself and the children are currently under. This information was not included in the previous application and I urgently raised it with the Duty Judge, as it is vital for the children to see their loving and financially supportive grandmother before it may be too late.
I was unable to provide a doctor's letter during the previous urgent application since I wasn't aware of the extent of my mother's poor health. However, I have now attached a letter from my mother's cardiologist, which confirms her failing health and emphasizes the importance of her seeing her grandchild and son.
The denial of access for the father to take both children to visit their grandmother (and grandfather) has caused significant emotional distress to the children and severe emotional duress to the father. Furthermore, the mother has admitted to maliciously denying the children the right to see their grandparents, aiming to cause pain, suffering, and harm to the children, the father, and the father's family. It is unacceptable to use the Hong Kong Family Court as a tool for family alienation.
The mother has also denigrated the father and his family to both children on multiple occasions and has admitted to continuing to deny the children access to their grandparents indefinitely. This behavior has persisted for four years to prevent the grandfather from seeing his own grandchildren and six years to prevent the grandmother from seeing her own grandchildren. These facts are not mere allegations but established truths, revealing the mother's malicious intent.
It is important to note that the mother has extortionately denied the children access to their grandparents and family members, using them as personal bargaining chips for financial gain. These applications should have been handled through mutual consent and ideally would not need to be made. Denying children access to their own grandparents and family members out of malice is ethically wrong and causes significant harm to all parties involved.
The Hong Kong Family Court should not be knowingly manipulated as an instrument of family alienation, malice, and extortion by the mother. Its purpose is to be fair, just, and protect the well-being and best interests of the children. The mother's behavior, as evidenced in her recorded denigrations and admissions, has clearly been using the HK Family Court as a means of abuse.
It has now been four years since the children have seen their immediate family and six years since they have seen their grandfather in Greece. The children have an inalienable right to see their immediate family and their own grandmother. The continued denial of this fundamental right represents a reprehensible cruelty imposed on the children and the father by a clearly malicious mother.
It is crucial to emphasize that the father is not and never was a flight risk. Nonetheless, to alleviate any concerns of flight risk, the concept of providing a returnable 'Bail Bond' or 'Security for Flight Risk' is proposed. This would ensure that if needed, the father could provide a bail bond that would be immediately returned after the children are brought back to Hong Kong. This would eliminate any potential allegations of flight risk.
Additionally, the grandparents are willing to provide a bail bond or 'security for flight' as collateral, to be returned upon the father's return to Hong Kong with both children.
I, as the father, am a Yale University graduate with no criminal record and have no intention of jeopardizing my children's "bright educational futures" by being a flight risk. My entire life and business are based in Hong Kong, and I have been running multiple litigations concurrently. Moving the business would not only be cost-prohibitive but would also put it at risk of closure, causing liability issues for investors.
Moreover, all our possessions and life are in Hong Kong, and there is no track record of me being irresponsible or running away. Accused criminals even have the right to a bail bond, and I believe it is only fair that a bail bond concept be applied to allow the children to see their grandparents after years of being denied access due to the mother's malice. This would provide the HK Family Court with the peace of mind to grant the children their fundamental right to see their own grandparents and family members.
In conclusion, the children have a right to see their elderly grandparents, and the grandparents have a right to see their own grandchildren. The unjust denial of this right by the mother has caused immense harm and distress. I kindly urge the Court to consider this application and grant the leave for removal, allowing the children to visit their immediate family and grandparents for Chinese New Year's.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]