2000 is when he was looking into this:

Hm. Okay, I did link you to that ruling with the expectation that you’d go back and tweak some of your timeline stuff from the original post based on the ruling’s contents. Just FYI, at the moment it reads as heavily weighted towards Kelly, and much of it is based on media outlets that appear to be relying on the word…

I think he was referencing that an actor may have to relocate for shoots for long periods of time, causing disruption for their kids. That’s particularly relevant here, where Daniel wouldn’t be ABLE to come in and take over childcare for a month-long location shoot, and the kid would either have to be cared for by a…

Yeah, I’m not trying to throw shade at Google here - just saying that a company that large is going to make some basic investigation into a guy who’s claiming prior copyright to make sure he hasn’t got a history of this or any other shady connections. And even if that information isn’t used, once the trail is blazed…

The Dan Abrahms thing drives me up the wall.

Totally true, just... if there was dirt there, there was an opportunity to unearth it long before this. And good motive, too.

Rutherford has started claiming he can visit on a visa waiver, as though he’s here for a vacation. This seems nuts to me, but might sound juuuuuust reasonable enough (“hey, my German friend didn’t need a visa when he came over for Thanksgiving!”) that the general public fall for it.

Germans can visit the US under the “visa waiver program” which allows 90 days in the US without a visa.

I’ve been responding to notifications that you’ve posted replies to me.

I genuinely don’t get what you’re trying to say here. The passport is not a get-out-of-jail-free coupon, it’s a visa waiver. But he already got another visa, which was rejected. If your visa is revoked, then you don’t get to come in under an alternate visa program. That makes no logical sense.

Where are you getting 89 days? They have a 50/50 custody split, but he’s unable to enter the US, so he’d only be able to see the kids when she arranges for them to meet outside the US. Kids have schedules.

Combination of laziness and preferring the storyline of a pretty actress done wrong by a scurrilous German bastard? I don’t know - then again, they’ve also had constant propaganda coming their way from Kelly’s side while Daniel’s been silent. Maybe they just decided it was easier to write stories when the content is…

I think that might be a result of what you find if you do a superficial search for news coverage about the case: so much of it was generated either from Kelly’s side or using Kelly’s public statements as a baseline, it’s all skewed in her direction.

No problem - this one’s useful too, in explaining exactly why they’re in court again right now: http://www.eonline.com/news/684516/ke…

It took me a while to find that 2013 ruling, so I can understand overlooking it - but I really hope he updates.

Yes, that seems to be inexplicably missing from this account: that Kelly Rutherford just announced that she was not sending the children back in direct violation of the custody agreement, and that’s why they’ve ended up in court again.

Technically Germans visit the US under the visa waiver program, a 90-day tourist visa, essentially. I am not at all confident that someone who has had another German-US visa revoked would be able to travel under that waiver program, because that seems to me that it makes no bloody sense.

Is this dude a secret German spy? Could he REALLY be an international arms dealer? It really makes it sound like sketchy shit is afoot.

They explain this pretty clearly in the 2013 ruling: Kelly’s worst-case scenario with the France plan is the same as Daniel’s best-case scenario with the NYC plan, and Kelly’s the parent with a track record of interfering with visitation. When you add in the shenanigans about the visa and the fact that the kids…

This is what confuses people about this case: there’s a 2012 custody ruling that E!’s got, and then there’s the 2013 ruling that I believe is an appeal of the 2012 ruling: http://harris-ginsberg.com/wp-content/upl…