Voluntary international relocation with a finnish child

[cors187]

I think your missing the point, if evidence in any court suggest that the legislation is partial or in consistent,then i think a judge has the right to say"i think the legislation is partial in this case, therefore i recommend ............ , or he can say" Under current legislation i do not have the Authority in this court to change the course due to the evidence, therefore i recommend............, or he can say"

No, it is not the task of Finnish judges to legislate (or to campaign for legislative changes). This is not a Common law system. They may need to sometimes decide what are relevant laws related to the case and which of them to follow and how are they to interpreted in a particular case, but their business is not to decide against the law.

Those finding due to evidence are not admissible in this court, therefore seek further legal council elsewhere.

(I have no idea what you tired to say)

You didnt even answer the question!

He tried to answer it as good as he could (with a "no") considering the original question was nonsensical
"evidence contrary to legislation" makes no sense. Evidence is a group of facts or purported facts presented to court. It in itself can be neither contrary or in agreement with the legislation.

do you think that Mrs hankosontie now dead husbands case might rarely be highlighted so that his example can not benefit the consulting documents that help the legislators make better conditions?

Are you trying to refer to some actual case? The background material witch describe the status quo for new legislation may make references how related cases have been handled in the courts. Its rare that these are an important part.

Every document that is verified as "admissible for use" for those "legal teams" that build or help build the consulting documents are more valuable in a way that you cant truly conceive.
Without the pool of "admissible documents" and without the "legal teams" using verified documents from the pool, you golden country is just like another retarded 3rd worlder with legislation building that is partial to the whole(including annex).

Every admissible document is important for freedom!It builds the frame work of why certain legislative attributes should be used.It doesnt matter where admissible documents come from,Law courts, internal memorandums, case studies , whatever.Its important that admissible documents are treated as they should be.

I dont even need any of you to submit and say that "admissible documents are important in legislation", i know they are.
And to win my argument here that started with me saying that the immigrant mother should go to court, is the best possible advise you can give someone asking for advise.
Because as soon as that immigrant mother has created the admissible documents, then she has won.She has effectively created something that someone somewhere can use in the future to make immigrant mothers to be coming into the country so much easier to understand.

You think you know sisu, you think you have sisu , but i know without the ability to verify sisu , then its just a old grand mothers tale to make the grand children feel happy they live in a swamp.If you neglect the importance of admissible documents to the Legislative consultant document then your sisu is a pipe dream, and ive marked the Australian aboriginals guts greater than yours.

So as soon as you agree that admissible documents to the Legislative consultant documents are important, then you also agree that the immigrant mother should find a way to get her case into that document category..Now thats sisu .

[cors187]

You can contest the fine. It is useless though, if it is clear that you violated the law. (Even if better design of the intersection could have helped, except for extremely rare case where one could consider the design to be criminally negligent (can't remember a vsingle case related to road traffic)).

No it does not. It may get fixed, but not because of court cases where the result is known in beforehand. There will be for example aboard of inquiry for all deadly traffic accidents even if the case is not contested or there is nobody alive to charge. Statistics (including location) are collected also regarding other accidents. People who design roads take note of them.

Traffic collision notice alerts the "trafic regulation teams developing safety" that there is a problem.
Admissible documents notify the "legal teams developing legislation" there is a problem.

Are you telling me that if i go to court about my accident and that my defense stating that the inadequate design of the road and the distance of the warning sign is just pointless and that pointless record is not somehow passed into other hands who categorize such info?

And if it is pointless , then there is no other place i can record my concerns about such a problem?
Where does someone go to record by statement the inadequate road structure, because thats my case right there.

[cors187]

The only thing that's not documented is how a judge might interpret new evidence that makes a simple ruling more complicated.Which everyone else thinks it doesn't exist,lol

In English please...

This proves my point ,Finnish people think they have an answer for everything ,so why would Finnish legislation not already have the answer to everything?
My comment suggest your legislation is not the answer to everything and will never be until the focus is clearly on the target audience.
I have given your judge at least the ability to say this square peg doesn't fit in this round hole and we are not prepared to comment.
voimme keskustella siitä in another office more suitable.
Finnish mentality is openly reporting that an individuals case is useless(in this case useless), yet at every step forward they proclaim the multitude of wondrous legislation that is clearly being revised because its not good enough.

Isn't it true that the Finnish representatives in the EU always put forward their argument , is it because the EU has an office, court , ruling defined body that turns their words into admissible documents.

Isn't it obvious that you disregard a multitude of well designed arrangements just to try and prove "admissible documents" are vaguely,rarely,carelessly used.
The same admissible document that the immigrant mother should get if shes going to do something at all.

[Rip]

Are you telling me that if i go to court about my accident and that my defense stating that the inadequate design of the road and the distance of the warning sign is just pointless and that pointless record is not somehow passed into other hands who categorize such info?

Basically "yes". If it is serious enough case going to the court is not your decision to make. If several people break plastics and metal at the same crossing, traffic planners quite likely take notice. They would not care of your court case that you would have lost.

And if it is pointless , then there is no other place i can record my concerns about such a problem?

Media (readers letters, offer a tip to reporters if you have reason to think they might be interested) or contact somebody at the relevant city elected committee or somebody whose paid job is to plan those things. One or other might actually work without costing you a anything.

[rinso]

Because as soon as that immigrant mother has created the admissible documents, then she has won.She has effectively created something that someone somewhere can use in the future to make immigrant mothers to be coming into the country so much easier to understand.

What is difficult to understand?
"If you have joint custody you cannot take the child out of the country without your ex consent."
No amount of paperwork you produce will change that result.

[Upphew]

Are you saying there is no room in any FINNISH LAW COURT that can offer new evidence contrary to legislation?????????????

That would be breaking the Judge's oath. Judges don't judge how they like, they judge how the law says.
"Minä N.N. lupaan ja vannon kaikkivaltiaan ja kaikkitietävän Jumalan edessä, että minä parhaan ymmärrykseni ja omantuntoni mukaan kaikissa lainkäyttötehtävissä toimin oikeudenmukaisesti lakia noudattaen." (bolding mine)
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1987/19871183

I think your missing the point, if evidence in any court suggest that the legislation is partial or in consistent,then i think a judge has the right to say"i think the legislation is partial in this case, therefore i recommend ............ , or he can say" Under current legislation i do not have the Authority in this court to change the course due to the evidence, therefore i recommend............, or he can say" Those finding due to evidence are not admissible in this court, therefore seek further legal council elsewhere.
You didnt even answer the question!

Let me try to answer: evidence contrary to legislation... evidence that contradicts a law? Or illegal evidence? Latter doesn't exist. Finnish courts doesn't throw evidence out.
I would like to answer better if you would tell me what kind of answer you want with your question: "Are you saying there is no room in any FINNISH LAW COURT that can offer new evidence contrary to legislation?" because that doesn't open to me. Courts decide according to legislation, not about legislation.

Dont you think that all our legal case-law comments and any other verified information that is available for referencing should be treated with a bit more respect than ,Rarely valid?

Valid, binding, relevant...

[cors187]

Because as soon as that immigrant mother has created the admissible documents, then she has won.She has effectively created something that someone somewhere can use in the future to make immigrant mothers to be coming into the country so much easier to understand.

What is difficult to understand?
"If you have joint custody you cannot take the child out of the country without your ex consent."
No amount of paperwork you produce will change that result.

I think the argument has gone past that blanket statement.

[cors187]

Are you telling me that if i go to court about my accident and that my defense stating that the inadequate design of the road and the distance of the warning sign is just pointless and that pointless record is not somehow passed into other hands who categorize such info?

Basically "yes". If it is serious enough case going to the court is not your decision to make. If several people break plastics and metal at the same crossing, traffic planners quite likely take notice. They would not care of your court case that you would have lost.

And if it is pointless , then there is no other place i can record my concerns about such a problem?

Media (readers letters, offer a tip to reporters if you have reason to think they might be interested) or contact somebody at the relevant city elected committee or somebody whose paid job is to plan those things. One or other might actually work without costing you a anything.

It might not be so right to say that information is not used for other areas.I dont think you can say that.Information can be used at a later date for all kinds of things.

[cors187]

Let me try to answer: evidence contrary to legislation... evidence that contradicts a law? Or illegal evidence? Latter doesn't exist. Finnish courts doesn't throw evidence out.
I would like to answer better if you would tell me what kind of answer you want with your question: "Are you saying there is no room in any FINNISH LAW COURT that can offer new evidence contrary to legislation?" because that doesn't open to me. Courts decide according to legislation, not about legislation.

Dont you think that all our legal case-law comments and any other verified information that is available for referencing should be treated with a bit more respect than ,Rarely valid?

Valid, binding, relevant...

The question is an easy one , you didn't answer it because you cant answer it without giving me my reward .Your a fin, so its not easy for you!

I will answer it for you.A court is not fallible , if evidence is presented and the assessment given shows that the legislation in this case was partial , then that exact piece of case history is recorded as such, and can be used later.
You fins rattle off like it cannot happen in Finland ever.

par·tial
Adjective
Existing only in part; incomplete.

[007]

if evidence is presented and the assessment given shows that the legislation in this case was partial , then that exact piece of case history is recorded as such, and can be used later.

if legislation is not clear, supreme court comes into play. "The most important function of the Supreme Court is to rule on important points of law in cases which are significant for the entire legal order, guiding thereby the administration of justice in future cases. These precedents are usually created in cases for which the applicable Acts of Parliament and Decrees do not provide a clear solution for a question of law or in which there is room for interpretation. Approximately 150 such precedents are decided each year." source: http://www.kko.fi/29537.htm

note: Acts of Parliament and Decrees

Acts of Parliament and Decrees by President, become the laws, and supreme court interprets and in cases where there's been unclarity in laws, makes precedents for later cases. But I don't think this particular child custody case where a parent wants to deprive a child of another parent will go as far as to the supreme court...

one can always expect that another parent will commit some mistakes or breaks down.......

[enkeligod]

You fins rattle off like it cannot happen in Finland ever.

Where is this western educated lawyer coming from to tell us we to be Finns and Finns, living in Europe to adopt European laws ? Our law and ways of doing things are from old tradition!

[Upphew]

The question is an easy one , you didn't answer it because you cant answer it without giving me my reward .Your a fin, so its not easy for you!

I will answer it for you.A court is not fallible , if evidence is presented and the assessment given shows that the legislation in this case was partial , then that exact piece of case history is recorded as such, and can be used later.
You fins rattle off like it cannot happen in Finland ever.

par·tial
Adjective
Existing only in part; incomplete.

Can be used later, don't mean will be used later. Not to mention that precedents aren't binding. Just like courts aren't infallible.

[cors187]

But I don't think this particular child custody case where a parent wants to deprive a child of another parent will go as far as to the supreme court...

Good link.

I know i created a circus and im almost certain my country has the exact same laws.But really Finland is like a circus to the immigrant fiance woman.
Rather Finland,Finnish customs,Finnish Husbands, Finnish legislation, Finnish language,Finnish cold shoulder,Finnish social aspects,Finnish cost of living,Finnish environment,the other Finnish cold shoulder.
Its not some simple to live in country.
Everyone else mostly understands what finland is, but the fiance entry that has the flowers and gifts,first class seating, all details taken care of deal,just the sheer thrust of having to accept that everything will be fine gets the biggest wake up call of us all.Life sentence with parole after 18 years.

Its like she goes to a circus with her husband and the ride their on collapses and the woman's leg is stuck in the machine so they had to cut it off , but the man isnt damaged at all.
And after the chaos has subsided the owner of the circus shows her that on the back of the ticket is the disclaimer "All property is circus property".
But the tickets were given to the husband and he shoved them in his pocket.
Its almost a romance novel, the plots there, its thick with emotion.

[Rip]

Where is this western educated lawyer coming from to tell us we to be Finns and Finns, living in Europe to adopt European laws ? Our law and ways of doing things are from old tradition!

The time might come, but we still are not completely subjugated, we have some level of democracy and not ruled by central European dictates. Besides I don't see how we could be particularly old tradition when the French legal code from the time of Napoleon has left deep impression in large number of countries. Common law system is not the norm in most of the rest of Europe either.

[Rip]

What is difficult to understand?
"If you have joint custody you cannot take the child out of the country without your ex consent."
No amount of paperwork you produce will change that result.

I think the argument has gone past that blanket statement.

Does anybody else except you think so?