Oral argument on the AMH case held on Oct 4, 2006

The oral argument on the AMH case appeal was held at the Tennessee Supreme Court today from 1:00PM to about 2:10 PM. Each side was given 30 minutes to present their argument. The Attorney General of Tennessee also presented an argument, since the Hes challenged the constitutionality of title 36 of the TN statute.

Hes' lawyers and supporters, including Dr. Gray of the Rainbow/PUSH organization, attended the hearing. The Justices asked some pertinent questions, indicating they knew the case quite well.

The PRC embassy at Washtington DC sent a representive and issued a statement to the media. Previously, the PRC embassy wrote directly to the five justices of the Court with an Amicus brief written by Dr. Dongxiao Yue attached. The TN Supreme Court expressed their understanding of the issues brought up by PRC embassy and Dr. Yue.

Mr. Cai Jinliang organized a group of supporters from Memphis, arriving at the Court in a big van. Dr. Yue flew from SF Bay Area to attend the oral argument. Ms. Pan from Memphis distributed summary of Dr. Yue's  amicus brief at the Court. Their spirit was very high, believing justice is on their side, and justice will prevail in this case.

In today's argument, the justices asked the question of what happens after the parental rights of the Hes are restored. The Hes' attorneys suggested that the cusotdy determination be remanded to the juvenile court.

Baker's lawyer, Larry Parrish, who testified that he signed the guardianship and no contact order under the table with a previous judge (Alissandratos, who recused himself), told the court that he changed his testimony. He stated both orders were issued because the Hes refused to turn in AMH's passport.

Parrish's story was in direct conflict even with his modified testimony, in which he stated that the "no contact" order was issued after the passport incident, but the guardianship order was issued right after Hes left the Court on Feb 7, 2002. Parrish told the court, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, this doctrine seems to be very applicable to himself.

Home > Oral argument on the AMH case held on Oct 4, 2006