Author Topic: Introduction (Read 26290 times)

JoseGrullon · « **Reply #60 on:** February 17, 2010, 08:09:17 PM »

Quote from: LukieD on February 17, 2010, 02:42:29 PM

Once again José doesn't seem to get it yet he wonders why his word is not taken as gospel on the BSH site. He never answered Karl's simple question: What are you hoping to achieve by posting here on BSH? While he would probably spew some nonsense about wanting to get to the truth, the fact remains his agenda is clear -- namely to discredit and taunt the father of this abducted child in the hopes that BSH will drop its support for Dhanika. Sorry José, you've failed miserably. BSH stands behind this father and will push to raise public awareness of the case and make sure the Dominican authorities review their decision to deny his Hague petition.

I understand José is also sending emails and Facebook messages to Dhanika trying to harass him. José, if you are so confident that you and your friends, the Zemialkowskis, have the law on your side then why are you so concerned?

My dear friend:
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains, in fact, a lie.

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32

ChristineS · « **Reply #61 on:** February 17, 2010, 09:19:31 PM »

Quote from: JoseGrullon on February 17, 2010, 08:09:17 PM

My dear friend:
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains, in fact, a lie.

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32

And there you have it. Perfect proof that everything JoseGrullon has posted on BSH is garbage. JG calling LukieD 'my dear friend'? Please. Must have needed a shovel for that one.

JoseGrullon · « **Reply #62 on:** February 17, 2010, 11:53:42 PM »

Quote from: ChristineS on February 17, 2010, 09:19:31 PM

Quote from: JoseGrullon on February 17, 2010, 08:09:17 PM

My dear friend:
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat a lie, it remains, in fact, a lie.

“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32

And there you have it. Perfect proof that everything JoseGrullon has posted on BSH is garbage. JG calling LukieD 'my dear friend'? Please. Must have needed a shovel for that one.

Hi ChristineS, nice to meet you, welcome to this conversation

It's too bad you refer to my postings as "garbage" when all I've done is to state actual facts (that no one has been able to refute) and to quote the Hague Convention.

If the HC means "garbage" to you as an individual, that's your problem. But if the HC means "garbage" to YOU as an Administrator in this forum, then this might have been a big waste of everybody's time. Which one is it Christine?

JG

ananddad · « **Reply #63 on:** February 18, 2010, 08:58:14 AM »

Jose,

The father in this case has bigger things that need his attention than respond to your taunts. Also, why should he answer all your questions and reveal what might be the legal foundation for his case?

Also, you still haven't answered what everyone here has been asking you: Are you providing legal assistance to the mother and her family? If not, what is the nature of your relationship with the mother and her family? Once you openly explain your relationship with the mother's family, people on this forum can make a call on whether to ignore you or not.

LukieD · « **Reply #64 on:** February 18, 2010, 09:07:49 AM »

Quote from: JoseGrullon on February 17, 2010, 08:09:17 PM

Hi ChristineS, nice to meet you, welcome to this conversation

It's too bad you refer to my postings as "garbage" when all I've done is to state actual facts (that no one has been able to refute) and to quote the Hague Convention.

If the HC means "garbage" to you as an individual, that's your problem. But if the HC means "garbage" to YOU as an Administrator in this forum, then this might have been a big waste of everybody's time. Which one is it Christine?

JG

Actual facts? According to who -- you? The reason no one is refuting your "facts" is because as several people have already pointed out to you, the BSH forum is not the place to litigate the case. You provide "facts" that only a true insider to the case would have access to (gee, I wonder why...). Pardon us for being skeptical, but your ties to the abductor and her family make you anything but a credible source of information on this case. Dhanika is obviously smart enough not to engage in a back and forth with you on this site. And I have to laugh seeing how you claim to be some sort of expert on the Hague Convention just because you can cut and paste its text here. As I said before, if you are so confident that the law supports your "friend's" position, why are you wasting time here? Are you worried that Dhanika will get his day in court to make his case? If not, then why bother? You're about one post away from being DQ'd anyway.

ChristineS · « **Reply #65 on:** February 18, 2010, 10:28:26 AM »

Quote from: JoseGrullon on February 17, 2010, 11:53:42 PM

Hi ChristineS, nice to meet you, welcome to this conversation

It's too bad you refer to my postings as "garbage" when all I've done is to state actual facts (that no one has been able to refute) and to quote the Hague Convention.

If the HC means "garbage" to you as an individual, that's your problem. But if the HC means "garbage" to YOU as an Administrator in this forum, then this might have been a big waste of everybody's time. Which one is it Christine?

JG

JG.
Your constant hostility and sarcasm have no place on this forum. No one here will be at a loss when your time is up.

dhanika · « **Reply #66 on:** March 06, 2010, 10:09:41 AM »

A local newspaper in Western Massachusetts has published 3 articles on my case, here is the link to the first one:

http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/03/06/fighting-kali

In the article the reporter had interviewed Sandra and her Attorney in the Dominican Republic "Jose Grullon". Interesting that Jose had earlier said he was taking an academic interest in the case.

JSUERO · « **Reply #67 on:** March 06, 2010, 01:29:34 PM »

Estimado Sr. Jose Grullon,
Le escribe Juan Manuel Suero Velez, soy:
1) titular de la cedula de identidad 001-0961018-8;
2) egresado de UNIBE;
3) autorizado para ejercer la profesion de abogado en la Rep. Dom. mediante el exequatur otorgado por el Decreto No. 282-93 del Poder Ejecutivo de la Republica Dominicana;
4) juramentado y registrado ante la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Republica Dominicana; y
5) con mi matricula del Colegio de Abogados de la Republica Dominicana (CARD) No. 14116-282-93, vigente hasta el 24 de Abril del 2011.
Yo fui contratado por los abogados de Massachusetts del Sr. Dhanika Athukorala, para ser perito en la revision y verificacion de declaraciones, documentos e informaciones otorgada a los Tribunales de Massachusetts por la Sra. Sandra Zemialkowski y de multiples instituciones gubernamentales de la Republica Dominicana; declaraciones, documentos e informaciones que han sido revisados por los multiples abogados de Massachusetts de la Sra. Zemialkowski y por los Tribunales de Massachusetts apoderados; Tribunales que fallaron a favor del Sr. Athukorala, en vista de las pruebas documentales y las declaraciones aportadas por ambas partes (Sra. Zemialkowski y Sr. Athukorala).
En esta ocasion, le escribo a titulo personal, no como el ex perito del Sr. Athukorala ante los Tribunales de Massachusetts.
Agradecere profundamente si Ud. puede indicar a todos los miembros de este forum, su informacion sobre los puntos 1 al 5 que yo ofreci al publico, porque sinceramente, por curiosidad personal estuve revisando los registros publicos de la Suprema Corte de Justicia y su nombre no aparecen. Lo cual me puede hacer pensar que Ud. no es un Abogado Dominicano y que Ud. pueda ser una pseudo-abogado como el Sr. Jorge Puello, que estuvo representando a los 10 ciudadanos americanos en Haiti.

forthelost · « **Reply #68 on:** March 06, 2010, 08:04:12 PM »

Quote from: dhanika on March 06, 2010, 10:09:41 AM

A local newspaper in Western Massachusetts has published 3 articles on my case, here is the link to the first one:

http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/03/06/fighting-kali

In the article the reporter had interviewed Sandra and her Attorney in the Dominican Republic "Jose Grullon". Interesting that Jose had earlier said he was taking an academic interest in the case.

That explains a lot.

LukieD · « **Reply #69 on:** March 08, 2010, 12:54:39 PM »

suddenly Jose Grullon is no where to be found. Hey Jose, what's the matter, cat got your tongue? Sounds like you have some 'splainin' to do as Ricky Ricardo used to say. You went from telling us that you were doing a "case study" (as if it was merely an academic interest) to now being quoted in media reports as the attorney for Sandra Zemialkowski? Hmmm...

JonathanR · « **Reply #70 on:** March 08, 2010, 03:05:39 PM »

Quote from: LukieD on March 08, 2010, 12:54:39 PM

suddenly Jose Grullon is no where to be found. Hey Jose, what's the matter, cat got your tongue? Sounds like you have some 'splainin' to do as Ricky Ricardo used to say. You went from telling us that you were doing a "case study" (as if it was merely an academic interest) to now being quoted in media reports as the attorney for Sandra Zemialkowski? Hmmm...

Anytime anyone starts arguing against the grain or is isolated in his/her opinions, it's not unreasonable to assume that the dark side has broken through BSH's firewall.