I won my Hague case!!! Now what???

[tweinstein]

Another advice given by the Rabbis is that if Smadar Hameiry wants to return with the children to Israel, that will also be acceptable, and that I should agree with her on visiting the children in Israel.

I'd be careful with this one. Last time I checked, Israel wasn't fully compliant. Read pages 31-32 of this report:

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/2008HagueAbductionConventionComplianceReport.pdf

[hatufim.org]

This is odd on so many levels. You really need to have this document translated by someone for whom Portuguese is their first language (not me). What strikes me is all the family issues purported to being dealt with in Federal Court.

The first document was already translated and the second is now in the process of being translated. Several Brazilians that I know in Florida have also read these documents and have given me their opinions. They say that, while they are not lawyers, the Court decision makes no sense. It looks like a custody hearing more than a hearing of an application for the return of the children. They say the document is very unfair and unbalanced, and ignores the fact that abducting the children to Brazil and not allowing them to communicate with their father is causing great psychological and emotional trauma to the children. The document also says this is not really an emergency situation. And it recommends continuing with the present situation as it is now. Someone said it has some connotations of anti-Americanism because it says that the US family Courts cannot be trusted and that sending the children back to the USA is a decision that cannot be reversed. In short, it appears that the Brazilian Court has no intention whatsoever in returning the children to the USA. Nevertheless, it has ordered the confiscation of the children's passports in order to prevent the mother from taking them to a different country without the Court's permission. It was also noted that it took 20 months from the time the application was received from the Brazilian authorities until the case was filed. They said that in Brazil a 6 month interval would have been considered normal, but 20 months seems excesive.
 
 
The U.S. Department of State 2008 Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention explains the problem:
 
"Brazil continued to demonstrate patterns of noncompliance with the Convention in its judicial performance. The USCA notes several instances during FY 2007 in which Brazilian courts treated Convention cases as custody decisions, rather than applying the principles of wrongful removal or retention laid out in the Convention. In two cases, Brazilian judges refused returns to the United States, citing the "best interests of the child."
 
These decisions contradict the Convention, as the Preamble of the Convention declares that the interest of children is attained through their return to their country of habitual residence. In addition, the USCA notes that judges in some cases continued to demonstrate a bias towards mothers and towards Brazilian citizens. Further, the judicial process is excessively lengthy, with cases going on well beyond the six weeks mandated by the Convention."

[hatufim.org]

I'd be careful with this one. Last time I checked, Israel wasn't fully compliant. Read pages 31-32 of this report:
 
http://travel.state.gov/pdf/2008HagueAbductionConventionComplianceReport.pdf

The proposal from the Rabbis to agree with Smadar Hameiry to move with the children to Israel have many reasons. First of all, the Rabbis say that the children were abducted by Chabad. They feel, based on the facts, that Chabad is manipulating Smadar Hameiry. The Rabbis say that the first priority is to remove the children from the Chabad school in Brazil and put them in a normal Jewish school, either in Israel or Florida.
 
Today in Brazil, Smadar Hameiry has become dependent on Chabad to continue with this abduction. She cannot afford to pay school tuition so Chabad has offered her FREE tuition for the children. Chabad has also hired a child psychologist to assist Smadar Hameiry in alienating the children from their father. The stated objective of Chabad is that the children never see their father again.
 
By moving to Israel, Smadar Hameiry will not depend on Chabad anymore as in Israel the schools are free. Also health insurance is free. The economic situation of the children will be better. They will get a better education. And they will live much better in Israel than in Brazil. The Rabbis also want to end this abduction situation.
 
Also, if the children are in Israel, I can go and visit them. But even if she still behaves crazy and still refuses to let me see the children in Israel, there are many people in Israel who know me and who will probably try to convince her to let me see the children.
 
And even if she still refuses to let me see the children, the Rabbis have told me that if the children are in Israel, they are not abducted. In other words, instead of being considered an abduction, this will only be considered another case of thousands of cases of crazy women who don't allow their ex-husband to talk to their children (welcome to the club!). But it will not be an abduction. And frankly, I agree with the Rabbis, it's better to have the children in Israel than in Brazil, and to keep the children away from Chabad.
 
Also, the Rabbis have told me that if the children are in Israel or Florida they will be most of the time with their mother and I will have to pay child support. But if the children are in Brazil, the Rabbis have told me to not send her any money, and also, to not go to Brazil.
 
Do you see any problems with this advice? I think it makes sense.

[sue]

Is she having an affair with somebody from Chabad in Brazil?  Why would they be paying all of her bills?  Just to keep the children in there school for free?  This all sounds so crazy.

[tweinstein]

The Rabbis say that the first priority is to remove the children from the Chabad school in Brazil and put them in a normal Jewish school, either in Israel or Florida.

This sounds like good advice.
 
 

By moving to Israel, Smadar Hameiry will not depend on Chabad anymore as in Israel the schools are free. Also health insurance is free. The economic situation of the children will be better. They will get a better education. And they will live much better in Israel than in Brazil. The Rabbis also want to end this abduction situation.

It's a toss-up for me. I agree that it is good to get them away from Chabad, but I'm afraid of a few things:
1. With the ongoing Palestinian/Israeli conflict, I'm concerned about safety. (I understand the argument for Zionism)
2. I think you want your children classified as abducted. It gives you more legal standing.
 

Also, if the children are in Israel, I can go and visit them. But even if she still behaves crazy and still refuses to let me see the children in Israel, there are many people in Israel who know me and who will probably try to convince her to let me see the children.

Are you saying that you would be satisfied with visitation in another country and not participating in your children's lives on a daily basis?
 

Also, the Rabbis have told me that if the children are in Israel or Florida they will be most of the time with their mother and I will have to pay child support. But if the children are in Brazil, the Rabbis have told me to not send her any money, and also, to not go to Brazil.
 
Do you see any problems with this advice? I think it makes sense.

I agree with the advice about child support. However, under Article 16 of the Hague Convention, you are entitled to file for the local courts to stay any motions pending the outcome of the federal case.

[Dan_Plainview]

The proposal from the Rabbis to agree with Smadar Hameiry to move with the children to Israel have many reasons. First of all, the Rabbis say that the children were abducted by Chabad. They feel, based on the facts, that Chabad is manipulating Smadar Hameiry. The Rabbis say that the first priority is to remove the children from the Chabad school in Brazil and put them in a normal Jewish school, either in Israel or Florida.
 
Today in Brazil, Smadar Hameiry has become dependent on Chabad to continue with this abduction. She cannot afford to pay school tuition so Chabad has offered her FREE tuition for the children. Chabad has also hired a child psychologist to assist Smadar Hameiry in alienating the children from their father. The stated objective of Chabad is that the children never see their father again.
 
By moving to Israel, Smadar Hameiry will not depend on Chabad anymore as in Israel the schools are free. Also health insurance is free. The economic situation of the children will be better. They will get a better education. And they will live much better in Israel than in Brazil. The Rabbis also want to end this abduction situation.
 
Also, if the children are in Israel, I can go and visit them. But even if she still behaves crazy and still refuses to let me see the children in Israel, there are many people in Israel who know me and who will probably try to convince her to let me see the children.
 
And even if she still refuses to let me see the children, the Rabbis have told me that if the children are in Israel, they are not abducted. In other words, instead of being considered an abduction, this will only be considered another case of thousands of cases of crazy women who don't allow their ex-husband to talk to their children (welcome to the club!). But it will not be an abduction. And frankly, I agree with the Rabbis, it's better to have the children in Israel than in Brazil, and to keep the children away from Chabad.
 
Also, the Rabbis have told me that if the children are in Israel or Florida they will be most of the time with their mother and I will have to pay child support. But if the children are in Brazil, the Rabbis have told me to not send her any money, and also, to not go to Brazil.
 
Do you see any problems with this advice? I think it makes sense.

I am sorry for the lack of information you are being provided. It is one example (of many) of the turmoil that a LBP endures.
 
My opinion, for what it is worth:
 
Based upon what you have reported, I think you do not have a final decision from the Federal Court, I think you have a preliminary decision.
 
My guess (again, based upon what you have said and some background knowledge) is:
 
1) That the AGU boldly asked the Judge for the children's immediate return to their "habitual residence" based upon the information provided in the application.
 
2) The Judge agreed that it seems that the children were "wrongfully removed" but that everyone had enough time to hear from the TP as to her "rationale" for the abduction. Sieze all documents, order her not to relocate, order her to respond to civil allegations made by "Brazil" vs Her within a defined length of time ... effectively "serving" her.
 
Next steps are that she (through her Attorney) responds to the allegations Brazil/ AGU/ OCI/ you have made against her. This is where she makes slanderous remarks about you or "grave risk" arguements to which the AGU will file a response (they may need to talk to you at this point). After that, probably a hearing and depositions for which you may need to prepare yourself (financially and emotionally) to travel to Brazil. Final decision somewhere thereafter ...
 
Just a guess, take it for what it's worth ...
 
I think it is too soon to be discussing mediation with the TP. If she were inclined to voluntarily return, she would have already. Her heels are dug in and she does not fear a return. At this point the Courts would have to turn the children's documents over to you or her for the purpose of a voluntary return in the case she had a change of heart.
 
Brazilian Federal Courts will not/ can not send the children to Israel; their "habitual residence" is Florida. This is not a custody battle it is a jurisdictional return (hopefully). Florida Family Courts have jurisdiction over separation/ custody/ divorce. They have ruled. If/ when she returns she can dispute that judgment but I would think the Florida Courts might consider limiting her access to some sort of supervised visitation (court or otherwise) for fear of re-abduction. I would think they have some liability, but I may be living in some fantasy land. I would weigh the advice you are getting very carefully. In fact, I think you are fortunate that the "habitual residence" is Florida and not Israel because the Federal Courts may have determined it "grave risk" to return the children to a war-torn country.
 
Is she a permanent resident or US Citizen? Does she have the right to return/ follow?

[hatufim.org]

It's a toss-up for me. I agree that it is good to get them away from Chabad, but I'm afraid of a few things:
1. With the ongoing Palestinian/Israeli conflict, I'm concerned about safety. (I understand the argument for Zionism)

I lived in Israel many years and I can tell you that Israel is very safe (despite what you see on TV), and it's the best place for Jewish children to be.
 

2. I think you want your children classified as abducted. It gives you more legal standing.

Well, I prefer that my children will no longer be abducted so I can see them. Besides, what Smadar Hameiry has done, has been done. She abducted the children, and this can never be erased. Now we need to concentrate on recovering them.
 

Are you saying that you would be satisfied with visitation in another country and not participating in your children's lives on a daily basis?

 
No. Of course I would prefer to see my children everyday, and participate in their lives. But if I have to chose between NEVER seeing them and seeing them only a few days a week, a few days a month, maybe even just a few days a year, I would rather see them just a few days a year, than NEVER seeing them at all.
 
A tragic situation has been created by a crazy woman, a lawless country, and a godless religious cult named Chabad, where either I take the offer of seeing my children a few days a year or nothing. And on top of it, I will have to pay her money to see my children a few days a year.
 
Which reminds me of another Rabbinical advice: "Next time you get married, try to get married to a woman who is not crazy."
 

I agree with the advice about child support. However, under Article 16 of the Hague Convention, you are entitled to file for the local courts to stay any motions pending the outcome of the federal case.

The AGU requested that in their motion. But the Brazilian Court apparently did not do it. Instead it asked to send information about this proceeding to the local court in Aruja handling the divorce and to inform them of this proceeding, and requested the full file of the divorce proceedings to examine what has been done there. I do not know what orders have been issued by the Aruja Court in regards to the Brazilian divorce, which in any case was done illegally and fraudulently.

[tweinstein]

Which reminds me of another Rabbinical advice: "Next time you get married, try to get married to a woman who is not crazy."

It's too bad I didn't get this advice from the rabbi who married me.:nixweiss:

[sue]

It's too bad I didn't get this advice from the rabbi who married me.:nixweiss:

LOL

[hatufim.org]

Based upon what you have reported, I think you do not have a final decision from the Federal Court, I think you have a preliminary decision.

Yes, this is a preliminary decision.
 

My guess (again, based upon what you have said and some background knowledge) is:
 
1) That the AGU boldly asked the Judge for the children's immediate return to their "habitual residence" based upon the information provided in the application.
 
2) The Judge agreed that it seems that the children were "wrongfully removed" but that everyone had enough time to hear from the TP as to her "rationale" for the abduction. Sieze all documents, order her not to relocate, order her to respond to civil allegations made by "Brazil" vs Her within a defined length of time ... effectively "serving" her.

This appears to be what is happening. There also appears to have been an investigation prior to the initial filing.
 

Next steps are that she (through her Attorney) responds to the allegations Brazil/ AGU/ OCI/ you have made against her. This is where she makes slanderous remarks about you or "grave risk" arguements to which the AGU will file a response (they may need to talk to you at this point). After that, probably a hearing and depositions for which you may need to prepare yourself (financially and emotionally) to travel to Brazil. Final decision somewhere thereafter ...
Just a guess, take it for what it's worth ...

If this is correct, then this appears to be the start of a very long and completly needless legal process, because it's already very obvious from the information gathered, that the children should have been immediately returned.
 

I think it is too soon to be discussing mediation with the TP. If she were inclined to voluntarily return, she would have already. Her heels are dug in and she does not fear a return. At this point the Courts would have to turn the children's documents over to you or her for the purpose of a voluntary return in the case she had a change of heart.

She might be afraid that if she returns the children she could get arrested or that the children would be taken away from her. This is one of the reasons that the proposals were made, to make it clear to her that the children will not be taken away from her, and that she will not get arrested.
 

Brazilian Federal Courts will not/ can not send the children to Israel; their "habitual residence" is Florida. This is not a custody battle it is a jurisdictional return (hopefully). Florida Family Courts have jurisdiction over separation/ custody/ divorce. They have ruled. If/ when she returns she can dispute that judgment but I would think the Florida Courts might consider limiting her access to some sort of supervised visitation (court or otherwise) for fear of re-abduction. I would think they have some liability, but I may be living in some fantasy land. I would weigh the advice you are getting very carefully. In fact, I think you are fortunate that the "habitual residence" is Florida and not Israel because the Federal Courts may have determined it "grave risk" to return the children to a war-torn country.

Yes, if Brazil would honor its obligations under the Hague Convention, and would return the children, she would probably get supervised access initially in order to prevent a re-abduction. Nevertheless, Brazil has no intention whatsoever in returning the children. Therefore, the proposals have been made, and if Smadar Hameiry decides to return the children, not only will she have them most of the time, but it will also cost me a lot of money, so I can see them at least 2 days a week, which is much better than never seeing them again.
 

Is she a permanent resident or US Citizen? Does she have the right to return/ follow?

Smadar Hameiry has the right to return and follow the children to the USA. At this point in time, neither the Police nor the FBI have filed criminal charges against her precisely for not giving an excuse to the Brazilian authorities to not return the children. If she decides to return the children, or if Brazil returns the children, then the custody fight, if any, will be at the Florida Family Court. But if Smadar Hameiry decides not to return the children and Brazil does not return the children, then this may cause the FBI and Police to file criminal charges against her.
 
It's interesting to note that shortly after the FBI got involved in the case I was contacted by someone from Chabad who told me they wanted to help me. During the meeting we had they wanted to know what was the FBI asking me about. They also told me that if the FBI or the Police would file criminal charges against Smadar Hameiry, Chabad would stop assisting her in Brazil. It's interesting that Chabad was trying to convince me to tell law enforcement to file criminal charges against Smadar Hameiry. This doesn't sound like Chabad cares much about Smadar Hameiry.

[hatufim.org]

Yes, this is a preliminary decision.

Adding to my previous post, being this a preliminary decision, it seems that Brazil has no intention of returning my children. I think it would be a real miracle if Brazil would even order the return of my children. The simple fact that it has taken so long to do even the preliminary decision, when the Hague Convention mentions a 6-week time period, defeats the purposes of the Hague Convention.
 
From the legal point of view, I feel I have won the Hague case. The facts mentioned cannot be changed. For example, the fact that the children were removed illegaly from Florida and taken illegaly into Brazil because Smadar Hameiry did not have my permission nor the permission of the Florida Court is something that cannot be changed.
 
Also, the fact that the divorce and custody was done properly and legally in Florida, and that Smadar Hameiry did it illegaly and fraudulently in Brazil can also not be changed.
 
Smadar Hameiry will never be able to say that she won the Hague case. When she abducted the children to Brazil, she commited several crimes according to the laws of Brazil, Florida, and the USA. She is also causing severe psychological harm to her own children.
 
The only reason that the children have not been returned is because Brazil does not return abducted children. It's that simple.

[André Felipe]

Adding to my previous post, being this a preliminary decision, it seems that Brazil has no intention of returning my children. I think it would be a real miracle if Brazil would even order the return of my children. The simple fact that it has taken so long to do even the preliminary decision, when the Hague Convention mentions a 6-week time period, defeats the purposes of the Hague Convention.
 
From the legal point of view, I feel I have won the Hague case. The facts mentioned cannot be changed. For example, the fact that the children were removed illegaly from Florida and taken illegaly into Brazil because Smadar Hameiry did not have my permission nor the permission of the Florida Court is something that cannot be changed.
 
Also, the fact that the divorce and custody was done properly and legally in Florida, and that Smadar Hameiry did it illegaly and fraudulently in Brazil can also not be changed.
 
Smadar Hameiry will never be able to say that she won the Hague case. When she abducted the children to Brazil, she commited several crimes according to the laws of Brazil, Florida, and the USA. She is also causing severe psychological harm to her own children.
 
The only reason that the children have not been returned is because Brazil does not return abducted children. It's that simple.

a preliminary decision ordering the return seems to me is very unlilkey to happen, and if it happened, it doesn´t fit with your affirmative "Brasil has no intention of returning...".
 
One of the requirements for a preliminary decision is the possibility of the decision can be reversible, and sending the children to another country when both parents are fighting against each other, it doesn´t not seem to me like a situation where the preliminary decision can be reversed. In other words, if the judge gave you a favourable preliminary decision is because he wants your child/children back to your arms.
 
In Brasil, each judges have thousands of proceedings to deal with, so it´s almost inevitable HC proceedings will take more than six weeks to be analysed, and it´s doesn´t necessarily means "Brasil" doesnt want to return abducted children just because more than six weeks have passed.

[Dan_Plainview]

a preliminary decision ordering the return seems to me is very unlilkey to happen, and if it happened, it doesn´t fit with your affirmative "Brasil has no intention of returning...".
 
One of the requirements for a preliminary decision is the possibility of the decision can be reversible, and sending the children to another country when both parents are fighting against each other, it doesn´t not seem to me like a situation where the preliminary decision can be reversed. In other words, if the judge gave you a favourable preliminary decision is because he wants your child/children back to your arms.
 
In Brasil, each judges have thousands of proceedings to deal with, so it´s almost inevitable HC proceedings will take more than six weeks to be analysed, and it´s doesn´t necessarily means "Brasil" doesnt want to return abducted children just because more than six weeks have passed.

hatufim.org

I agree with Andre, what the AGU asked for (that I referred to as bold) was extremely unlikely to have been indicated. What the Judge did was very typical (agree "wrongful removal", serve TP, sieze all (Brazilian, US & Israeli Passports, abductor and children) documents, order not to relocate, order to respond w/in (x) days). From what you have told us about dates, I would not be at all surprised if this has already happened; her Attorney has probably submitted her response to Brazil/ BCA/ AGU civil charges against her. According to me, you need to be burning-up the phone lines to DoS-OCI and pressuring them daily to get you the information out of the BCA/ AGU. They (OCI/ BCA/ AGU) are overworked and understaffed; be polite and persistent ... squeaky wheel gets the grease and their is no policy against what you are asking; you'd be asking them to do their job.

Don't give up! I've been bashed a bit about being hopeful but it won't work. I think you stand a better chance in Sao Paulo Federal Court than Rio; should not be but may be.

Emotionally, expect some false allegations from the TP. Financially and emotionally, budget for a trip to Brazil.

It is early in the process at the first level of Federal Court. Too early to give up hope, way too early to mediate w/ TP ... and besides the Courts have the passports now. When I said she did not fear a return I did not mean she did not fear what would happen if she were returned; what I meant is she thinks Brazil is a safe haven for her and her ilk. If this unfolds as I described above, during the hearing/ deposition stage they quite possibly will ask your respective Attorneys to conduct a mediation ahead of the Court ruling. I think initiating mediation now weakens your position and she does not feel threatened at this point to negotiate. My opinion ...

[André Felipe]

I didn´t read the previous post, so, the judge didn´t (preliminay) ordered the return of the children, according to brazilian law, there is no problem with that, as this preliminary order has very little chances to be reversed. Would be fair without the slowness of the court...

[hatufim.org]

I agree with Andre, what the AGU asked for (that I referred to as bold) was extremely unlikely to have been indicated. What the Judge did was very typical (agree "wrongful removal", serve TP, sieze all (Brazilian, US & Israeli Passports, abductor and children) documents, order not to relocate, order to respond w/in (x) days). From what you have told us about dates, I would not be at all surprised if this has already happened; her Attorney has probably submitted her response to Brazil/ BCA/ AGU civil charges against her. According to me, you need to be burning-up the phone lines to DoS-OCI and pressuring them daily to get you the information out of the BCA/ AGU. They (OCI/ BCA/ AGU) are overworked and understaffed; be polite and persistent ... squeaky wheel gets the grease and their is no policy against what you are asking; you'd be asking them to do their job.
 
Don't give up! I've been bashed a bit about being hopeful but it won't work. I think you stand a better chance in Sao Paulo Federal Court than Rio; should not be but may be.

It's extremely hard to talk to the DOS-OCI and the BCA-AGU don't want to talk to me. It took me about a month to get these 2 documents, the BCA initially told me they could not send me the preliminary decision. They do not want to send any other documents or tell me what is going on with the case. Is this a way to conduct a fair trial?
 
For more than a year the DOS-OCI had me under the belief that there was no ongoing Hague process, and that the BCA had rejected my application. One day I sent an email to the BCA just to check if there was anything going on, and they responded by saying that a preliminary decision had been issued and the passports had been taken. Everybody in the USA was completely surprised with that response, starting with the DOS-OCI who had no idea there was a process going on in regards to my children's case. From what I know, the DOS-OCI had already classified this case as non-compliance by Brazil. And then it took about a month to get these 2 documents, which the BCA initially did not want to send. Is this a way to conduct a fair Hague process?
 

Emotionally, expect some false allegations from the TP. Financially and emotionally, budget for a trip to Brazil.

Smadar Hameiry has already stated in all previous documents that the reason she left is because her tourist visa had expired. This allegation has already been proven to be false simply by showing the relevant immigration documents.
 
About the trip to Brazil, I have been told by many people that I cannot go to Brazil for any reason until the Federal Court has issued a final judgment ordering the return of the children and stating that I can travel to Brazil and pick them up. Many people have told me that if I go to Brazil before this happens, that I could be arrested and forced to pay child support for my abducted children and sign over custody to my ex-wife. What is your opinion about this?
 

It is early in the process at the first level of Federal Court. Too early to give up hope, way too early to mediate w/ TP ... and besides the Courts have the passports now. When I said she did not fear a return I did not mean she did not fear what would happen if she were returned; what I meant is she thinks Brazil is a safe haven for her and her ilk. If this unfolds as I described above, during the hearing/ deposition stage they quite possibly will ask your respective Attorneys to conduct a mediation ahead of the Court ruling. I think initiating mediation now weakens your position and she does not feel threatened at this point to negotiate. My opinion ...

The children were abducted on March 20, 2007, more than 2 years ago. At this rate, when will the process be completed, after 6 years? At that point in time the children will have already been so brainwashed that they will probably not want to come back. And if they come back, I'm not so sure they will be able to readjust. This is precisely why the Hague Convention gives the 6-weeks timeframe, to avoid this type of psychological problems.
 
The reason why I made this proposals is to try to expedite the return of the children by convincing Smadar Hameiry that it's in her best interest to return the children. The offer I made is the best offer a woman could get in Florida in a standard divorce, that is, a divorce where a woman did not abduct her children to Brazil and prevented them to communicate with their father for more than 2 years. In Florida she will have the children most of the time, and I will also pay her money. This solution appears to be really bad for me, but I want to see my children, and more importantly, I want my children to be able to see their father and to know that their father loves them very much.
 
As I said before, based on what I have read in the preliminary decision, and based on how this process has been conducted so far, I do not believe that Brazil has any intention of returning my children, more specifically, the BCA and the Court handling this case, have no intention of returning my children. It is also my impression that the DOS-OCI considers that the chances of obtaining the return of my children is ZERO. So much so, that they had already classified this case as non-compliance by Brazil. I think it would be a really big surprise and miracle if the Court orders the return of my children.
 
Another issue is that if Smadar Hameiry starts to believe that Brazil may order the return of the children, she can just go and hide in a different Brazilian city, and then no one will find her. Can the AGU request that a psychological evaluation be conducted on Smadar Hameiry?