National Center for Rights                                                                    Even if the children complain, who will listen?

Finnish Court Appellate Decisions

Argument that an investigation was made is false given that on 4 August 2016, the court ruled that no investigation is necessary of Ross' complaint. The Children, the police, the Court officials, and the photographs depicting the abduction transport and harboring were all excluded from the Court hearings. No was permitted to testify or submit evidence on threats against Ross' safety. Ross was not even entitled to argue before a judge. Ross was assigned a politically motivated and biased clerk who was unaware of the legal concepts of probable cause and a plea bargain were. 

Ross rescued children and was the Expert Witness for the US Treasury who testified against the perpetrators.
The process is sham. It was designed to make nothing happen, refuse a report to Interpol, and delay to ensure the election of Ms. Clinton.   Thus the documents created by Finland not do they not comply with the law, they wholly falsely report the facts and evidence of the case shown on the following pages below. 

No children were allowed to testify. 
No police officers were allowed to testify.
No Court officers were allowed to testify.
No photographic evidence was transferred to the court.
No wiretap evidence was transferred. 
No hearing before a judge. (The judge's clerk heard the case).
No evidence concerning the direct threats by US Officials against Ross safety was permitted to be substantiated. 
Ross' lawyer was not permitted to translate any of the documents. 
So argument that Finland conducted a hearing and can express an opinion on the credibility of the children and evidence is sham. 

Ross is clearly:
1)  a member of a group who rescued children, 
2) testified against the perpetrators, and 
3) suffered material retaliation given the physical attacks on Ross designed to prevent him from placing evidence in court, and suspension of his basic civil rights given the NSA Court order saying Ross' basic civil rights (seizure of his home, his money, his future income - claiming that the order is not reformable by bankruptcy - are suspended "even when a litigant alleges that a state violated federal constitutional principles…."  See Seal 1 et al v. Seal 3 et al. RDB-13-153 (13 February, Dist. Ct, MD. 2013).
The attachments show the prior legal history. On 11 February 2014, Ross was taken into custody. The first claim was that Ross had stolen National Security Documents, the second claim was that Ross stole Maryland State Police Murphy's money. If either had probable cause, Ross would have been charged with the crime in 2008 when they claim the crimes occurred. Certainly by 2016, there was enough time to file charges. 

After six weeks in custody without charge, Ross was instructed that Finland had a "process" by which compliance with the Anti-Trafficking Convention was administered. Ross complied, and cooperated with that process. That is what is shown in the documents right.  

Ross is not a refugee - Ross has been held involuntarily without a passport, and banned from Europe to stop the prosecution of this case. Ross is certainly in custody when Finland in 2016 refuses to return Ross' passport so Ross can peaceably leave. Instead, Finland seeks to forcibly ship Ross to Algeria.  

Compare what the Finnish Court writes to the express text of the law shown here, and you will see a willful refusal to repudiate the Treaty to protect Ms. Clinton from charges.