write the below as a barrister in legal form with paragraph numbering
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.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
IN THE HONG KONG FAMILY COURT
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE FOR REMOVAL
Case No. [insert case number]
BETWEEN:
[name of Applicant/Father]
Applicant
AND:
[name of Respondent/Mother]
Respondent
--------------------------
AFFIDAVIT OF [Applicant/Father]
I, [name of Applicant/Father], of [address of Applicant/Father], MAKE OATH and say as follows:
1. Leave for removal is sought in order for the Applicant and the children to visit CT/NYC for Chinese New Year's to see their immediate family, including the Applicant's grandmother, sister, aunts, uncles, and cousins. The Applicant recently discovered that his 85-year-old mother's health is significantly worse than he was informed by his family prior to the Christmas Holiday.
2. The Applicant's grandmother, Georgia Varvitsiotes, has experienced a material decline in her health and expresses her desire to see both her only grandchildren before she potentially passes away. The Applicant was informed of this material decline in health after his Christmas Leave application was rejected, as it was deemed inappropriate to alarm him considering the current pressures faced by himself and the children.
a. This information was not included in the prior Christmas Leave application, which was dismissed without full knowledge of the facts.
b. The Applicant urgently attempted to inform the Duty Judge about the situation so that the children could spend time with their loving and financially supportive Grandmother before her potential passing. The new information revealed that the Grandmother is 84 years old, in poor health, and lacks a prognosis. The children have been denied the opportunity to see their loving and financially supportive grandmother for the past four years.
c. The Applicant did not possess a doctor's letter for the previous urgent application and was unaware of the extent of his mother's health decline. However, the Applicant has now provided a letter from his mother's cardiologist, confirming her poor health and the necessity for her to see her grandchild and son.
3. The denial of the Father's request 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.
4. The Mother has admitted to maliciously denying the children their right to see their grandparents, with the intention of causing pain, suffering, and harm to the children, the Father, and the Father's family. This misuse of the HK Family Court to alienate family members is morally and legally wrong.
a. Additionally, the Mother has denigrated the Father and his family to both children on various occasions while admitting her intention to continue denying the children the right to see their grandparents indefinitely, including throughout the upcoming summer and Christmas periods. This denial has been ongoing for six years in the case of the Grandfather and four years in the case of the Grandmother.
b. The aforementioned statements are facts and not allegations. The reason for the Mother's opposition to these applications is malicious intent.
c. The Mother is welcome to deny the above under perjury, although it is believed that she will not dispute the truthfulness of the statements under perjury.
5. On 28 December 2023, the Mother once again abused her own children by stating that if she does not receive the desired funds, she will perpetually deny the grandchildren access to their grandparents during Christmas and summer holidays. This admission of wrongful extortion of access to family members is both admitted and morally and legally wrong. These applications should have been resolved through mutual consent and should never have required court intervention. Denying children access to their grandparents and family members out of malice, with the knowledge that it causes harm to the children, the Father, grandparents, and their family, is fundamentally wrong.
6. The HK Family Court should not serve as an instrument of family alienation, malice, and extortion by the Mother. The Court's purpose is to administer justice fairly and protect the best interests of the children, not to be exploited as a tool for wrongdoing by the Mother.
a. The Mother has also engaged in the denigration of the Father on various occasions, which are well-documented.
b. Despite the Father's family providing significant financial support to both children, surpassing the contributions made by the Mother, the Mother denies the same grandparents access to their own grandchildren. This is an accepted fact.
c. These facts have been ongoing for the past four years, during which the Mother has taken pleasure in inflicting pain on the children and Father through unjustified denial of access to the grandparents and immediate family members. The Mother has successfully utilized the HK Family Court as a vehicle for this admitted form of abuse.
d. The children have a right to see their elderly grandparents, and the grandparents have a right to see their own grandchildren.
7. It has been four years since the children last had the opportunity to see their immediate family and six years since they last saw their grandfather in Greece. The children possess an inalienable right to see their immediate family and their own Grandmother. The Mother's actions represent reprehensible and inhumane cruelty inflicted upon the children and the Father, clearly motivated by malice. The Father is not a flight risk, and these prolonged divorce proceedings have lasted over four years.
8. There is no risk of flight, and as a gesture of goodwill, the Applicant is prepared to offer a returnable 'Bail Bond' or 'Security for Flight Risk' if necessary. This 'Bail Bond' or 'Security for Flight Risk' will be returned immediately upon the Applicant's return to Hong Kong with the children, eliminating any potential allegations of flight risk.
9. The Applicant has never been a flight risk and is prepared to offer a bail bond or 'security for flight' held by the Grandparents as collateral, to be returned upon the Father's return to Hong Kong with both children.
a. Even accused criminals are entitled to a 'bail bond,' and if the Applicant is being treated as a criminal for a crime he could not have committed, such a bond would alleviate any concerns regarding flight risk.
b. It is reasonable to apply the concept of a 'Bail Bond' to grant the children the opportunity to see their grandparents after four and six years, respectively, if needed.
c. This arrangement is more than fair and should provide the HK Family Court with peace of mind to grant the children their rightful access to see their grandparents and family members after such an extended period of denial by the Mother.
10. The Applicant is neither a flight risk nor has ever been a flight risk for the following reasons:
A. The business Asia Interactive operates from the immovable Registered office located at 42 Macdonnell Road flat 2E. The physical office is essential for the secure operation of the company's IT network and servers. The notion that the company can be run remotely or online without this physical office is a misrepresentation of fact. This is a documented and irrefutable finding of fact.
B. The business requires a physical location to accommodate its secure IT network and development servers, which are physically present at the registered office in Hong Kong. The cost of relocation, estimated at HKD 300,000 - HKD 500,000, is prohibitive. Moving the office to a new physical location would carry significant risk, including the potential for immediate business closure. The repeated finding of fact negates any further misrepresentation or fraudulent claims concerning this matter. The business cannot be efficiently operated remotely without the physical office.
C. The Applicant is a 51-year-old Yale University graduate with no criminal record. He is a professional who poses no flight risk.
a. Both children attend school in Hong Kong, namely the American International School and Catholic Mission School. Returning to Hong Kong is necessary for them to complete the current school year and avoid academic setbacks.
b. The Applicant has consistently advocated for elite private education for both children, communicated through various documented submissions.
c. Leonidas Varvitsiotis, the 13-year-old child, is being considered for admission to prestigious private high schools on full academic scholarships. These schools boast an 80% admission rate to Ivy League institutions such as Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Duke, and UPenn. The Applicant would not jeopardize his children's "bright educational futures," which have required significant personal effort, by becoming a flight risk.
d. The Applicant has resided in Hong Kong his entire life and has served as the CEO of a Hong Kong-based company for the past 17 years. He is currently managing multiple lit