If trusting legal documents and mechanisms is “brainwashed”, then we’re looking at an epidemic and should probably halt democracy altogether.

I said 2015 because if the legal requirement was Dec 2014, then it could be Dec 31st - so the clock would run out in 2015. You know: shorthand. I’m really hoping you don’t think it’s some sort of coup to claim I’ve mixed up a 4 and a 5, rather than me mixing up months. Is that the kind of minutiae you’re into? Either…

Man, if you think your strongest card in this discussion is that I mistook January 2014 for December 2014, you have a very weak hand.

Heh, you really are hyperbolic.

1. If he violated the terms of the agreement, he’ll have to answer to the court. That is how legal rulings work.

Well now you’re just being histrionic. “Vile”? Really? You have a really low bar for all sorts of stuff, don’t you? When you the barista gets your coffee order wrong, I bet you try to bring her up on war crimes.

Let’s try this again, because once again you’re picking and choosing your time periods: at the time of the ruling, why would it have been more just and fair for Rutherford to retain custody and Giersch to be the one traveling.

1. You of course have no evidence for any of this, as court activities have not been made public. It’s possible the neutral observer said he’s acting in good faith and there’s another catch. You’re quite draconian in your expectations.

They went on and on about how both parents were great, but how they were about to royally fuck over one of them for being a working mother.

1. Okay, you don’t trust the court or rule of law. So... solutions?

One’s a legal distinction (“primary caregiver”) and the other is an assessment of the quality of time. They were 50/50 caregivers, but it looks like both sides agreed that Giersch was doing the majority of the quality parenting.

You’re right - January 2014, which I’d conflated with the December 2013 date and come out with Dec of 2014. So either the court hasn’t appointed that neutral role, or they have and the neutral rep says Giersch isn’t acting in bad faith. Otherwise I’d expect a filing from Rutherford.

You have a very limited vocabulary. Sexist, disgusting, FeMRA (which sounds like a Thundercat), misogynist... Blah blah blah.

Let’s have some fun with reading comprehension:

And since I don’t want to go over how your interpretation of a legal document is flawed, here’s the relevant bit:

Prior to the bullshit ruling, Rutherford was the primary care giver for the daughter. That was was even mentioned by the court.

You still don’t address why it would somehow be more right and just for Rutherford to have custody.

Except he clearly does not want to come back to the U.S. as I have pointed out and you apparently still can’t comprehend, he has made no move to initiate the possibility of a return.

Dear god, read things contextually. Directly after you outline the supposed conditions for Rutherford to keep custody, I point out that all of the same factors apply to Giersch, but with the additional burden of not being able to enter the US, where the kids would supposedly be living. These are the flat facts of the…

He has a job, and a known history; CNET describes some of it here. From what I can tell he’s a venture capitalist who is also trying very hard to defend a prior trademark against Google. His ex tried to use the supposed content of his job to default custody to her, it failed, but it booted him from the US. If he’s a…