Kelly Rutherford: American citizens are not required to obey a foreign country

ABC Latest News | Latest News Videos
After Kelly Rutherford released that insane screed against the judge who ruled against her in her latest custody stunt, I’m surprised that news outlets are still giving her a platform. They are, though, and ABC News interviewed Kelly and her smug scarily Botoxed lawyer. ABC News of course only told skewed facts about the case, never mentioning that Kelly got her ex’s Visa revoked (that’s stated in the 2012 judge’s ruling on her custody case) or that her ex can’t come to the states at all still.

Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 3.38.34 PM_edited-1

In her interview on Good Morning America Kelly did not look depressed, sad or upset to have “lost her kids” as she puts it. In fact she smiled a lot at the beginning and practically beamed. I mean I get trying to put a good face on when you are sad but she in no way looked like she was faking her delight about being interviewed. She is eating up the attention. When Kelly’s lawyer came on I wondered if the lawyer was the one who wrote that response because the lawyer came off worse than Kelly. Maybe Kelly is just a decent enough actress to seem sober and sane.

Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 3.34.15 PM_edited-1

Anyway you can imagine what these two said. The video is above if you want to watch it but I’m including the relevant parts here. It was all ‘Murica and blaming Kelly’s ex. Kelly totally admitted she’s already talked to her kids. Her access to them hasn’t been cut off at all.

On how she’s doing
I’m good, I’m just trying to process everything and make sense of it.

The court case felt like a done deal
I just feel like their voices have not been heard in a way. I walked into a courtroom where everything felt like it was already done and his mother was sitting there with plane tickets smiling, ready to take them.

Nobody had heard our argument. I was accused of things I was not even able to defend. I think kidnapping is where no one knows where the kids really are… the kids were skyping with him every day. I wrote him an email…

Nobody had jurisdiction in my country and I was concerned… I talked to my lawyers and they were saying ‘this is concerning on many levels’

On how the children were when they left
I’m glad they didn’t have any notice really, I felt like it would have been harder in the moment, ‘oh your grandma’s here you’re going to go…’ we all had to be up for them. I was happy the way it was happening because I didn’t have to sit in the courtroom and watch them deal with media or anything…

On if she’s been able to speak with them
Yes of course

Kelly’s lawyer: When you’re an American citizen you’re not required to obey a foreign country, especially a foreign country where you have no citizenship… it’s preposterous to think that there was a court order in place that Monaco was commanding them to be arrested… the agreement was back in 2012 the kids were toddlers and Kelly was ordered to send [them] to Monaco temporarily. The children’s father and Kelly and the court agreed that it would be a temporary stay while the father got a US visa… and for three years he did nothing.

The father agreed and the children were told you’re not staying here… he violated an American court order and the saddest part is no American court seems to give a damn.

On how Kelly thinks the ruling in Monaco will go in September
Kelly: Monaco has been incredibly kind to me and respectful. This was the first 5 weeks I’ve had with my kids straight in six years. The reason that the children… were ordered home by California was because Daniel was refusing to let me see them unless I surrendered their US passport. California ordered them home before they said they didn’t have jurisdiction and Monaco didn’t demand them back, New York just sent them back so it was a very odd situation. I think that Monaco has been put in this position because of the decisions that have been made here in the US.

On how this is some kind of bigger issue
Kelly: This is happening to so many people. I am having people stop me on the street… send me envelopes [of] their cases. I was just in D.C. speaking with members of Congress and the State Department. There need to be some laws put in place here – you’re setting the children up for a problem, the parents up for a problem. I should be having to fight this in a foreign court at this point. This wasn’t the intention of the order.

[From video on ABC News]

There was a lot of fibbing and nationalism in there. A lot of international couples get divorced and their kids get sent to live with the parent the judge believes will do the best job. Obviously Kelly’s kids are with that parent. In Kelly and her lawyer’s mind, all American kids should always stay in America. However these kids are also German and EU citizens, they’re not just Americans. Her kids were happy to see their oma and get the hell out of there and she practically admitted it. And what the hell was Kelly saying about how this was the first time in six years she’s had her kids for five weeks? We’ve seen photos of them in the Hamptons in all white every summer. She’s so full of it. I also get the impression she doesn’t want custody at all, she just wants the press coverage.

Fox News, which has run exclusive interviews with Kelly in the past, has a new article about how this custody debacle shouldn’t hurt Kelly’s “career”. The experts they quote say it should only help her get acting work. I mean she’s getting more exposure that’s for sure and only the gossip sleuths are really calling her out on her lies.

Page Six has a new article detailing Kelly’s 2012 custody ruling. Many of you have already read it, but if you don’t know some of the details it’s interesting. They have two great quotes, one from Daniel’s lawyer and another from a lawyer who used to work for Kelly. Daniel’s lawyer said simply “Are all these judges wrong and she’s right?” and Kelly’s former lawyer said “Her grip is slipping away. The more time they spend in Monaco, the tougher it will be for her to get them back in the US.

Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 3.36.25 PM_edited-1

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

396 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford: American citizens are not required to obey a foreign country”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Mia V. says:

    So americans can do whetever they want anywhere cause they are americans?

    • EKP says:

      According to Kelly.

    • David says:

      She has never spoken for all Americans. Of course we Americans will obey international law.

    • Linn says:

      Of course, and if you are an american MOTHER you are practically god.

    • Franca says:

      American soldiers can’t be trialed for war crimes in the Hague Tribunal while soldiers of other countries can, etc.
      There are certain things Americans can do while others can’t simply because they are from a global superpower.

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        They cannot  be tried for war crimes because the U.S. is not a signatory to that part of the Convention. Other countries that are not signatories are not subject to war crimes trials either.

      • Thick of it says:

        Most civilised countries have signed the Convention. The only reason why the US government and elites won’t sign it is because they want to keep up starting wars in other countries. The US government have pushed out dozens of democratically elected non-tyrannical governments since WW2 and mostly because of natural resources. Or in other words: a bunch of US robber barons makes the US governement go to war without legitimate reason in order to get their hands on other countries’ natural resources.

        Note: I wrote “US government” in order to not include all US citizens. And yes, Rutherfords statements about not obeying the laws in other countries when they apply do hit a very sore point with the rest of the world.

      • Sonya says:

        Thank you Thick for not including us all. I think that the fact that our political powers and our people are not one in the same is becoming more and more obvious.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Because I’m allergic to grey situations painted black and white, I’d like to point out a few facts:
        UN Peacekeeping Missions are also exempt.
        Approximately 25% of ‘civilised countries’ who are signatories have not RATIFIED the Rome Statute.
        Other major non-signers include China, India, and Malaysia.
        The US position has been in a state of flux dependent on party of President:
        “Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC’s founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the court.”

        This site extensively examines ICC activity and interactions with non-signing nations:

      • Thin says:

        Since America has invaded and toppled “dozens” of democratically elected governments since WWII, please list at least 24 democratically elected governments that we invaded. Take all the time you want.

      • Sixer says:

        Thin – excellent way to make the question more specific than the original assertion!

        Here are the countries the US has bombed and/or invaded since WW2; China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Belgian Congo, Dominican Republic, Peru, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Serbia, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria (several of these in multiple campaigns).

        Here are the countries subject to covert regime change action by the US since WW2: Syria, Iran, Tibet, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Iraq, Congo, Dominican Republic, Chile, Vietnam, Brazil, Afghanistan, Turkey, Poland, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine.

        I’m sure I’ve forgotten some!

        Like Thick, don’t blame the American people for the actions of its government. Also, since I’m British, I am certainly not coming from a position of superiority on any country’s imperial actions outside its borders!

      • zimmer says:

        I know this is true, but what drives me crazy is this attitude some of us have when we are abroad ( the ones that behave like they can act anyway they want because they are American), no wonder we so often have a bad reputation.

    • Kattttt says:

      Word from a ‘legal expert’ – ” When you’re an American citizen you’re not required to obey a foreign country, especially a foreign country where you have no citizenship… ” quick! All Americans, go to foreign countries and do as you please! You are not required to obey foreign countries!

      • dagdag says:

        Amanda Knox would have been glad.

      • Robin says:

        Woo hoo! I’m going to head to other countries and rob some banks !

      • lucy2 says:

        Me too Robin! Would you like to partner up in a Thelma and Louise style crime wave? Minus the ending of course, since there will be no consequences!

      • Carmen says:

        Before I depended on this whackadoodle for legal advice, I’d stab myself in the eye with the hedge clippers. IJS.

      • Fluff says:

        I’m not American, can I go to America and commit crimes, or does it only work one way?

      • FLORC says:

        By this logic I think it only works 1 way… You can do what you want because Murica.

      • Greenieweenie says:

        Typically, the US military prefers to try soldiers before a US military court even for criminal offenses. If soldiers are deployed as part of securoty guarantees, this can vary. But US soldiers are tried for crimes–they have been and are tried for rape in Japan.

        The US has an aversion to subjecting US citizens to supranational courts. But like everyone else, all US citizens are subject to the laws of the country they reside in–this is a common warning all over the DoS website. However, if those laws differ significantly from those in the U.S.–for example, death penalty for drug offenses–the embassy will try to remove them.

        This is not the cross to die on when it comes to the US and immunity from prosecution. Where does it really matter? In cases of civilians not subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice having immunity (as with Blackwater).

      • Reeely?? says:

        I think the stones have been thrown enough. She did not “kidnap” those children, and she is correct in her definition. Also, California should have been more invested in this case but as we all know, the courts are backed up and the state is in virtual bankruptcy. Lastly, the father -has not- applied for an American Visa as per their original agreement and the grey areas in this case are blaring. Really posters, keep throwing stones because God forbid any of us are in her shoes. CB is way too hard on this woman.

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Oh, Reeely.
        Tsk tsk tsk. If you’re going to throw stones yourself, accuracy counts.
        The State of California has budget surpluses. Rumours of its financial demise are out of date.
        The visa issue is a non-issue–you are waving that red herring around, but it doesn’t distract from the facts as laid out in the court documents, which are pretty much required reading for these threads.
        I’ll let one of the many lawyers commenting chime in with the legal definition of kidnappping, but my gut reaction here is not returning the children on the due date + hiding their location from their father during a time period he has legal custody of them probably does = kidnap.
        As long as she continues to lie, tie up court time with specious arguments regarding a situation she created, and use the media platforms inexplicably granted her to spout jingoistic, xenophobic garbage that feeds every Ugly American stereotype out there–let’s just say she won’t receive a warm reception here.

    • Cee says:

      Yeah, so if an american commits a crime abroad, they shouldn’t answer to any laws and just carry on.

      She is delusional. Her sense on entitlement is absurd.

      • als says:

        I know this is not the case here but in my country an American soldier killed a man in a car accident – the soldier’s car was speeding in the middle of the night and it hit a taxi that had a passenger. The passenger (that was the son of a local famous musician) died. There was not even a discussion of a trial or any kind of consequence since the American embassy took the soldier out of the country in less then 24 hours after the accident.
        Kelly and her lawyer have a hint on how American authorities operate in some foreign countries. However, Monaco is small and very wealthy, as is her ex I imagine, so it should be more difficult.
        Also, in Pitch Perfect 2 it is a joke when Banks’ character tells the Bellas that they won’t win the international competition because the world hates Americans – the joke has some truth that derives from very ugly and complicated situations in which American authorities have protected criminal behavior on the pretext of American citizenship.

      • dagdag says:

        In Germany, under the NATO SOFA, all civilian court actions are under German jurisdiction. Criminal actions on a military base are subject to US military law and criminal actions outside of a base are subject to German jurisdiction. It is often waived. That is for the military and their components.

        An American citizen on tourist or residental status falls under German jurisdiction.

      • BlueNailsBetty says:

        @ALS. As an American, I’m so sorry to hear that. I firmly believe Americans should be held to the laws of the country they are in.

      • bluhare says:

        That serviceman should have faced what anyone else would have faced in that situation. He wasn’t on duty and he was breaking laws as he did it. He didn’t have diplomatic immunity did he?

      • Thick of it says:

        @ als

        Most US embassies do try to get even ordinary US citizens out of foreign countries if they face legal procedures for criminal deeds there. No joke. US embassies often help criminal US citizens. I wish it weren’t so.

      • ERM says:

        Perhaps the law for soldiers is more like that of Foreign Diplomats who are usually “exempt” from many laws – I believe that this is common across most of the western world.

      • Carmen says:

        At least five American servicemen have been convicted of rape in Okinawa. Three of them raped a twelve year old girl. The other two raped a young woman in her 20s. All were convicted and sentenced in Japanese courts.

      • Cricket says:

        I’m curious if the American Military crimes are conducted the same way regardless of location? If the car accident happened in the US would the military courts step in? I kind of remember a case where soldiers were involved in a rape, murder in the US and it was conducted in military court.

        This American (for what it’s worth) believes if you commit a crime, you should be held accountable based on the laws/courts in which the crime occurred. I was never an Amanda Knox supporter. I always thought something didn’t pass the smell test with her and if she were found guilty in Italy, Italy is where she should do her time based on their laws.

      • FLORC says:

        It happens all the time though not always broadcasted. Also happens in other countries. Nations tend to take care of their own unless the act of such backfires into bad press.
        Other nations don’t really hate americans. They hate the system/goverment/ideology. Not the people though. Much like war. The soldiers are sent under orders of others. They are loyal and that loyalty is respected by both soldiers. They don’t hate eachother. They are just fighting against the others system. That’s how i’ve come to understand it anyways. Poorly worded as it is.

        That prosecutor is a villian in my nightmares. He didn’t pass the smell test.

        And Kelly is unstable. Or getting bad advice. Or something. You don’t get that unhinged spouting that much crazy without help.

    • j.eyre says:

      Yes. When I am in England, I walk straight into Windsor Palace, boot Lizzie off the throne, kick my shoes off, give Philsie a swat on the butt and tell him to fetch me some sherry – STAT! As soon as the first finger wag starts, the first tut given, I point to myself and say “ah, ah, ah – American. This here, not America – doesn’t count.”

    • Sparkly says:

      Ah, so THAT’S why so many commentors (not here) are rallying to her side…

    • Starrywonder says:

      UGHHHH! You do not get to say you don’t follow the rules in another country. Is she high? Crazy? How is no one calling her out for this mess.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Yet they are the FIRST to complain about foreigners “coming here and acting like they don’t have to obey OUR laws! “

      • Starrywonder says:

        Yup. And someone correct me. Didn’t this crazy have her kids last summer? Why is she now lying again saying this is the first time in 6 years she had them for five weeks? I remember the pap walks.

      • Ennie says:

        She does not want to follow the rules in her own country, what doyou expect?
        How many times did she try to change the shared custody agreement?

      • Sarah says:

        Plus, she keeps saying her kids were “arrested.” They were not arrested. They were placed in the care of their grandmother as they were supposed to have been days ago. Good grief, they aren’t languishing in some foster home. And I still say if she wanted to be with them, she would merely hop on a plane and move. Period.

    • zozigr says:

      On how Kelly thinks the ruling in Monaco will go in September
      Kelly: Monaco has been incredibly kind to me and respectful.

      i would like to read her statements when the monaco court decides against her case.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        Probably sucking up to them – so transparent.

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        Of course the Monegasque court has been kind and respectful. The judges there know with whom they are dealing thanks to all of her outlandish statements in the media. They have no interest in unnecessarily ramping up the crazy. But she better watch what she says and does or else she may be banned from the principality.

    • funcakes says:

      Can psychiatric counselling and supervised visits be imposed before she can see the children again?

      • Boo says:

        I’d like to know answer to that too. It is disturbing that she’s clearly not well mentally or emotionally and the experts are not addressing it. I mean, how is that good for her or especially her kids??

        If she got some good psych help, she might be able to recover some rationality and better behaviour, which would only help her kids and herself.

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        If the Monegasque court assumes jurisdiction on 9/3, then it would appear that they could order their own psych evaluations, home studies, parental fitness reviews, etc. and set new limits on visitation, travel, handoffs, and statements to the media. The children and Daniel at least will be physically present in Monaco on that date and thus subject to the court’s jurisdiction. I would hope Kelly would show up too, but she may just send her lawyers unless she is specifically ordered to be there.

    • BlueNailsBetty says:

      If yes, then I’m going to march over to England and bring home the Crown Jewels.

      • Carmen says:

        And I’m going to the Topkapi Museum and clean the place out.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I’ll see some of you at Cartier in Paris where we can liberate all the historic tiaras from their archive.

      • Tara says:

        I’m on board with the Cartier reclamation. I’ll bring some box wine. Meet me on the corner at 3.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Tara, I’ll bring the padded tiara boxes. Have you ever seen How To Steal a Million with Hepburn and O’Toole? It is a fun caper film and it happens to be set in Paris.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        Just don’t take any pictures of Prince George if you happen to see him!

      • MediaMaven says:

        I think I’m going to topple the Musee D’Orsay – I love me some French Impressionists. I’d love to liberate some of the Monet Waterlilies from the Orangerie, but I don’t think my rental car has enough space in the trunk.

    • holly hobby says:

      Well gosh, so the Iraq war is justified because those “foreigners” did bow down and kowtow to big brother? WTF.

    • 9 says:

      They have lived in France and Monaco (admitted through France in the EU) for longer than they ever lived in the U.S. They have lived with their father as the primary, custodial caregiver for longer than they ever lived with Kelly in that capacity. If the shoe were on the other foot, would Daniel then have the right to say that he didn’t have to obey the U.S. court? It’s preposterous. You cannot circumvent a treaty like the Hague which sees these children as residents of Monaco. PERIOD. This attorney should be sanctioned, and Kelly…well she’s just mentally ill and stuck. Grow up. Put your kids first.

    • . says:

      @ Mia V.
      this is a thought-terminating cliché, bc. there is no real argument.

    • ERM says:

      Laws? We don’t need no stinkin’ laws we’re Americans.

      Who knew…. think of all the wasted years following the law while abroad.

    • 9 says:

      More than Kelly, this attorney is batsh^t bonkers and on the verge of professional malpractice. She cannot be a family law specialist and SHE IS NOT ADMITTED TO THE BAR IN CALIFORNIA. She does not know her ass from her elbow and creates mahem with no basis in fact or law. She is completely discredited each time she opens her mouth. She prowls the comments and argues with commenters with unreasonable and repetitive arguments with no merit. Kelly is just a sick, magical thinker who found a nutjob attorney to tell her what she wants to hear. GMA HAVE MISLEAD THEIR VIEWERS BY ALLOWING THIS IRRESPONSIBLE SLANTED REPRESENTATION OF THIS STORY S H A M E ON GMA

    • jane says:

      This woman and her lawyer are nuts. hope those babies stay with Dad forever. GMA should have researched this lawsuit a little better.

    • Ctaylor says:

      I was actually told once by Customs and Border Patrol that I’m an American so I can do whatever I want … so … ya

  2. QQ says:

    These Xenophobic ass Dog Whistles in an election year no less.. I wonder if Trump Could pick her for VP . this trash is right up his alley

    I also don’t believe her cause she isn’t wearing white in a gifting suite/photowall setting #WhatCanISayIveBecomeConditioned

    • Ronda says:

      “She votes Trump” was my first thought as well. Maybe they can even spin it into “FOREIGNERS ARE STEALING OUR CHILDREN!”

    • Kiddo says:

      I still don’t understand how she is a ‘thing’ to begin with. She is the colorless white wall. I could never pick her out on the street, she is generic like the person you never quite notice in a commercial. That said, ‘Murica, USA! USA!

      She is doing serious harm to people whose children actually have been kidnapped, brought to countries and hidden, where they may not see them again.I saw a clip of her on a news bit and was pretty shocked that the narrative was in her favor. Flag wrapping at its worst. It’s no wonder how other countries can hate us at times, if we put reprehensible people up as our cause.

      This is the greatest role of her life. What would she do if she actually got the kids back, for an encore?

      • QQ says:

        ^^^ everything you said Kiddo…EVERY SINGLE THING

      • Cee says:

        She is, 100%.
        There is a woman in my country, Gabriela Arias Uriburu, who married a man from Jordan and they lived in central america. They had 3 children. One day, in 1997, the man left the country with their children and went back to Jordan. Her children were basically kidnapped by her husband and because of muslim laws, the children had to remain with him and couldn’t leave the country, and she was barred from entering Jordan. She has fought for them for years, finally getting visitation rights in 2005 and as soon as her kids were older (in their teens), they were allowed to travel abroad to see their mother and meet their maternal family. In 2010 they agreed amicably on a better situation for the sake of their children. All in all, she was forced our of their lives to the point in which her children barely spoke spanish.

        Kelly’s situation is 100% privileged and she caused it. She could’ve had it all and instead she chose to eff it up. The fact she says her children were kidnapped is like laughing in the face of women like Gabriela Arias Uriburu, which is why I’m furious at her and her legal team. They’re making a mockery out of this very serious issue.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        All of this.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Cee that’s horrible what happened to that woman and her children. Kelly can visit her children and spend time with them and she doesn’t cherish it. She’s mocking women like Gabriela Arias Uriburu with her antics…

      • bettyrose says:

        Cee- your example perfectly illustrates the point I was going to make: it doesn’t matter what kind of privilege one parent thinks their citizenship gives them. The children are also citizens of the other parent’s home country, and when physically present in that country, their laws take precedent. Your example is the extreme, but dual EU/U.S. citizenship should be easy to negotiate since we have open travel between these regions (unless your crazy ex has you deported, I guess).

      • Cee says:

        @bettyrose – The problem for Gabriela was that our country doesn’t give citizenship to the children born abroad to nationals, only to those born within our nation. Children born abroad can apply for citizenship when they turn 16, however they would be legal residents, unless they’re born somewhere where citizenship is acquired by ancestry, like for example Bulgaria, regardless of place/country of birth. Then they would be given their parents citizenship.

        The Giersch children are both American and German and can live anywhere within the EU. It doesn’t matter they were physically born in the US.

      • bettyrose says:

        Cee- that is a really heartbreaking story, and I feel for the mother. It reminds me of the famous story that inspired the “Not Without my Daughter” movie. I kind of side-eye Kelly Rutherford though for acting like she didn’t know her children would be EU citizens.

      • Nance says:

        I also have a Not Without my Daughter vibe about this, but instead of Iran, we are talking about Monaco… *roll eyes*

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:


    • lisa says:

      qq im a straight girl but id marry you for the registry gifts and laughs

  3. ada says:


  4. Lee says:

    She’s really dumb…

  5. Andrea says:

    This type of language is the impression a lot of foreign countries get about Americans. Disgusting. I wish they would shut up with the American angle already! We are not all arrogant, entitled people!

    • Delta Juliet says:


    • Liberty says:

      This x 1000

    • Erinn says:

      Absolutely. I’d also like to note that while today is my last day taking inbound calls (thank god) a lot of my American customers are lovely to work with; some are downright sweet as pie. But for every one lovely one, there seems to be two nutters calling in. I know it’s not a fair representation of the country, because I’m dealing with people who really don’t understand their websites and can’t understand our limitations sometimes; or who shouldn’t have a website to begin with – but yesterday I got ripped up the most I’ve been in so long by a ‘lovely’ woman whom I had never spoken to prior to this. I think anyone who calls up a customer support rep and acts like a complete entitled asshole should have to spend a month working this kind of job because you’re going to have to deal with all of the ‘Kelly’s’ of the world.

      The call went like this:

      me: sorry ma’am, we don’t call third party companies on your behalf for security reasons. You should be able to just ask them to switch the IP over – I’m not sure why they’d ever tell you we need to call them for you – so maybe there’s some confusi—

      her: there is NO confusion. YOU clearly just don’t understand. You have wasted two DAYS OF MY LIFE. I’m trying to remain calm but I am PISSED OFF. You need to call this company. I don’t care if it is you, or if it is GOD calling them. I’m not calling them because I’m paying you people to do this for me! I’m incredibly disappointed and want a supervisor.

      me: I’m really sorry… it’s just not something I’m legally allowed to do. It’s company policy. If you don’t mind me placing you on a quick hold I can see if my supervisor can take the call?

      her: No. You know what. You’ve been Soooooooo Helpful. Thank you SO MUCH for fixing this for me. It’s been an absolute pleeassuureee having someone take care of this for me.

      • Tentacle Kitten says:

        i work in tech support. This is my life. People are hideous beasts on the phone. Had a guy call me a ‘stupid woman’ because I was explaining I can’t troubleshoot a tech issue that isn’t happening while he’s speaking to me. I imagine Kelly would be the type of person service industry types talk about once she’s gone…and not nicely. Then again I once had a Nun call me a Cee yoU Next Tuesday because I wasn’t solving her issue fast enough so…

      • Robin says:

        I’m sorry that you two have to deal with so many d-bags in your jobs. FWIW I try always to be polite to the customer service person, and if I am really annoyed with the company, I make it a point to tell the person that I understand the problem is not their fault.

      • Cricket says:

        Customer Service jobs are the worst! I think also because it’s a phone conversation and not face to face people are more vile. I worked it straight out of college and it was like going through boot camp. People could say anything that wanted to you, make it personal and the company I worked for policy was you were to take it, not hang up on them. It was really hard and people are such irate asshats many trying to get out of paying their bill. If they yelled and screamed enough, they’d get credit. I took great pride in that once I escaped boot camp and moved up the chain a bit and was in a position to make decisions others couldn’t trump (i.e. can I speak to your supervisor) I loved those irate callers. They got zero, nada from me. The more they screamed the less they got.. lol.. if felt great to be able to say no and no was the answer. Every time I call into a customer service department, I try to be very nice and respectful bc I know the caller before me or after me could be a real shit and this person is just doing their job.

      • Trashaddict says:

        OK I admit being a customer service rep really sucks. And I try to behave politely to the person on the other side of the line. But I have to say, usually by the time I have talked to the person who is theoretically supposed to help me with whatever problem, I have gone through an automated menu, told my story to one person, been forwarded to another person who asked me to give all the same data again (insert more levels here), sometimes been routed to the wrong number and had to start from the beginning again, and then possibly been told I need to go through a different route. Sometimes 30 minutes when I’m supposed to be accomplishing other things on my job. You’re not to blame, but in many companies the way their system processes these calls would try the patience of a saint.

    • bettyrose says:


    • morc says:

      Yes, and it really does such harm to America because people who behave like her and the ‘Murica faction are the loudest idiots.
      Same with Republicans who applaud the figurative death of an uninsured person without cost to the tax payer.
      Americans need to be aware that they can NEVER drown out these motormouths.

  6. tifzlan says:

    Kelly Rutherford is every single American stereotype hated by non-Americans everywhere – entitlement, arrogance, smugness, ignorance, just plain old nasty.

    • Andrea says:

      I couldn’t agree more with this statement!

    • MonicaQ says:

      Yup. She makes me ashamed, honestly. Anytime I travel I begrudgingly admit to my nationality but usually they then want to ask about rap music (Latvia, Romania) LOL.

      • jwoolman says:

        Americans have been known to try to pass themselves off as Canadians while traveling…

      • MonicaQ says:

        @jwoolman I do! I do it in Germany and Austria when my job sends me there. They get confused–I am black after all–but then I mention Drake and the younger people are like “OH RIGHT!”

      • Miran says:

        Jwoolman- I’m not even from the US originally and I still say Im Canadian when traveling. I try not to admit having moved here.

      • littlestar says:

        I don’t think Americans are as hated abroad as you guys think. I was in Eastern Europe this summer with family and most people assumed we were American based upon our accents (we are actually Canadian). They treated us well regardless of believing we were American (although I will admit that in a couple of countries, once they found out we were Canadian, they treated us REALLY well lol).

      • Ennie says:

        I speak Spanish and English and when I backpacked Europe I was told that in some parts it was preferably to speak Spanish, that it was better looked upon, instead of confusing you with an American.

      • Cee says:

        Yeah, I’ve never seen this “hate” for american tourists. I’ve seen people shaking their heads at foolish american tourists doing silly or extreme things. However, foolish and ignorant tourists come in all shapes, colours and nationalities.

        The first time I went to Venice I was standing in front of the vaporetto (sp?) waiting for my sister, when an american couple gave me their return ticket stubs for us to use. I think this was because one of my bags had an american flag as part of the name of the brand LOL They helped us save some money, though. Eternally grateful.

      • Sixer says:

        To bring some British snobbery (!) into the equation – I mean, what else am I good for?! – for what it’s worth, I think most non-Americans understand that the “ugly American” stereotype isn’t everyone: it’s your version of our lowest common denominator type. We all have them.

        Even so, I feel for you guys saying this stuff. I get the same feeling when my fellow Britlanders get so arsey about the EU because they somehow assume they’re everything great about Europe and the “continentals” should be grateful we joined. Ugh. I’m cringing just typing it.

      • Linn says:

        Honestly, there might be a couple of people in Germany who dislike Americans, but unless you expect us to worship the ground you walk on simply because of your nationality we couldn’t care less.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        I think everybody is proud and ashamed of certain “traditions” / “actions” of their fellow citizens and their own country.. I feel ashamed of my country’s economic state at this point, Portugal is bankrupt because of the lousy politics of the past decades and the fact that people keep voting on the exact same parties over and over and nobody does a damn thing… Every country has its own flawns and isn’t perfect…

      • Ennie says:

        That’ s true, solanacaea.

      • lucy2 says:

        I’ve never denied being an American while traveling, and have never been treated poorly for it – but I’m a polite and respectful traveler. If someone is a loud mouth jerk, people might be rude to them, but that’s not because they’re American, it’s usually because they’re a loud mouth jerk.

      • Birdix says:

        They still love Americans in Normandy…

      • Cricket says:

        One of my favorite holiday memories is our trip to England. We stayed in a little village in Kent and frequented the local pub. One night after we were there a few days and the locals knew us – there were always very kind and welcoming – a group of people were sitting outside drinking their pints. It was so super cool bc we were a combined group of Yanks, English, Scots and Oz. It was such a blast chatting and just being there taking it in. As much as the world is a huge place, as I travel I find there tend to be very cool, nice, interesting people of all cultures and countries.

        And the strawberries there in Kent were the best I’ve ever had. I wish I could be there today enjoying some :)

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Cricket, when living in Austria I went to Greece on holidays with an American friend . One of the best trips ever. When crossing from Brindisi (Italy) to Patras (Greece) we ended up doing a picnic on board of the transmediterranean, with a group of germans, one of americans and one french.. Each bought something, chips, wine, cookies, bread.. And there we were on the deck of a cruise,getting drunk and doing a midnight picnic… It was awsome..

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @jwoolman, while traveling in Europe, I have been asked if I was Canadian many times and when I have inquired as to why they think that, people have replied that few US citizens speak any language other than English or even try even simple greetings in the local language but Canadians do, so therefore, I must be Canadian. That said, I have never experienced bad treatment while traveling that could be considered based upon my origins but I have, on many occasions, cringed at the behavior I saw Americans exhibit.

    • GoOnGirl says:

      I think she should shut her mouth. She sounds like a fool.

    • 9 says:

      Totally agree. I for one, as an American, do not share her way of thinking. France and Monaco are BEAUTIFUL countries with an amazing culture and people. It’s that simple. I would be happy for my children’s opportunities there and join them as a dual citizen. (which is recognized in France but not in the US—but you still have both passports)

      • jwoolman says:

        Kelly must have liked having “international” children at one time. According to

        she unilaterally decided to put them in French schools and engage a French tutor for Helena when they lived in New York. She also said she often spoke French at home with Hermes.

        The judge said the kids were used to international travel also, so once upon a time Kelly must have liked the idea of children who would be comfortable in Europe. She was probably quite comfortable there herself.

      • Cricket says:

        Agreed! and if Monaco was good enough for Grace Kelly.. why isn’t it good enough for this Kelly?

    • Cynthia says:

      @Miran…..if that is how you feel then please move back to where you are originally from!

  7. Zapp Brannigan says:

    So when is she saving Prince Albert of Philadelphia? Dude was totally kidnapped as an American, right?

    (whoever first started that here thank you, I have been laughing for days about it)

    • Andrea says:

      LOL It really is hilarious!

    • Liberty says:

      +1 And just look what happen to American citizen Jeanette Jerome’s kid! Poor traumatized little Winston Churchill, he was really nothing.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Forced, FORCED to live a life of extreme luxury in a pink palace with his billion dollar net worth. Forced to create a Monacan Bobsled Olympic Team because he was secretly longing for Pennsylvania winters. #FreeThePennsylvaniaPrinceling

      • LAK says:

        You guys, the injustice of it all….

        #freeprincealbertof Monaco



    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      But, but, but – does it mean that if my grandfather was an American citizen, who later moved to Poland and started a family with a Polish woman, I still qualify for a rescue? Because if Kelly wants to rescue me and take me to the Hamptons, I won’t mind. I can deal with crazy in the Hamptons.

    • Ursula says:

      Actually, I think Monaco is now something like a U.S. Protectorate since obviously it is ruled by an American. He only has American citizenship also just like Kelly’s kids. That posing as a monegasque prince is totally false.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        @Ursula, no, It’s just half US Protectorate since Prince Albert is only half American. He only has half American citizenship and Kelly can only rescue half of him… ;)

    • Bearcat Lawyer says:

      I am not sure what the law was at the time Grace married Prince Rainier, but in general U.S. citizens can lose their citizenship if they accept a foreign title upon marriage or after naturalization in another country. One of the Swedish princesses is married to an American, and he apparently refused to accept even a courtesy title for that reason. Similarly, people who naturalize to U.S. citizenship swear to give up all foreign titles of nobility.

      Hereditary titles are different. So for example, if a U.S. citizen inherited a foreign title merely because of a preexisting family relationship, s/he would not lose U.S. citizenship. One of my law school friends is a naturalized U.S. citizen and ended up chief of his tribe after his father died in his native country. He is effectively royalty but still a U.S. citizen.

      • Sixer says:

        That is the coolest piece of trivia ever!

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I’ve learned so much about custody and immigration law from the Krazy Kelly threads… and international expressions for describing someone as nutso. For those reasons alone, I could put up with more posts about her. Every one is a learning experience.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It looks like the Titles of Nobility Amendment (original Article 13 or Amendment 13) was never ratified by the required number of states. It does not appear in the current US Constitution. Officers of government are not allowed to accept titles from other nations without Congressional approval, but US citizens not in those positions may be able to accept them and maintain citizenship. Emphasis on *may be* since I have no personal experience of it. It would be interesting if people were losing US citizenship based on accepting a non-hereditary title, and it turns out that action wasn’t legal.

        The ‘Original’ Thirteenth Amendment: The Misunderstood Titles of Nobility Amendment, Gideon M. Hart, March 17, 2011
        Marquette Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 311, 2010

    • Sopha says:

      I’m a US citizen, but my parents are Australian. Under her logic they must have kidnapped me when we left the states when I was 4. I should totally sue them …

  8. Lurker says:

    She just keeps digging her own grave, doesn’t she? Does anyone know if Monaco can take over this custody case as the kids primary residence must be there by now?

    • Ana A. says:

      As I understood they have already. In the original ruling it says that California has jurisdiction, but that Monaco might be able to step in if the kids live there. It was to be decided between those two courts which one is responsible for this case. I think that’s one of the reasons why California said that they don’t have power anymore. None of the parties live there and another court (Monaco) is ready to take over and has more reason to do so as the kids live there.

    • swack says:

      Think he also has a mirror custody agreement filed in Monaco.

    • Ennie says:

      Maybe someone can answer this that I don’t understand.
      When she went to live in the East coast, She was supposed to file a mirror order in NY for the shared custody order, right? And she didn’t. But she filed something in NY, that I suppose was either a petition to diminish his time, or a petition to change the Jurisdiction to NY… But since there was no mirror oder in NY, she was rejected…
      Is that right?
      Then she went back to ask for sole custody in California,due to supposedly Daniel objecting to see the children (when she’d not give up the American passports and he was afraid of a kidnapping).
      That emergency sole custody order was then something that kind of backfired too, because then the two courts, Monaco and California conferenced and after that Californi. Did not accept jurisdiction. is that right?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Kinda… California lost jurisdiction because nor Kelly nor the kids have been living there for the past 3 years, NY has no jurisdiction because there was no mirror order and the kids never lived there. Monaco apparently has a mirror order filed by Daniel… So it’s the only place left to solve this mess..
        (That’s from what I’ve read, not a legal expert)

      • anne_000 says:

        During the 2012/2013 CA custody hearing that wasn’t going her way, she tried to get NY jurisdiction even though she had no job there and no guarantee that the children would have a stable and continuous life there because she had no backup plan on what would happen if she couldn’t find work in NY.

        In a July 2015 CA hearing, after she got a favorable ruling from the May 2015 CA hearing, she tried to claim both CA and NY jurisdiction. It came out that her driver’s license is from NY and she pays income taxes there. Her side said that though she sold her CA home, she gets to claim CA jurisdiction because she has friends and family there and had some medical treatment done there.

        I get the feeling that she’s playing footloose and fancy free with the jurisdiction issue, including using it to pretend that no US law can prevent her from going against US court orders anymore.

      • notasugarhere says:

        This is why I think the first thing Giersch’s lawyers need to do is get Monaco’s jurisdiction solidified and unable to be contested. The US, Monaco, EU, Hague – they all need to agree that Monaco has full jurisdiction moving forward.

      • Ennie says:

        tnx. I was confused

      • anne_000 says:

        I read on pages 50 on that the judge thought Kelly was judge shopping, because Kelly’s requests for jurisdiction change came on the same day (in Dec. 2011) her then-lawyer made that visa/kidnapping ‘offer’ to Daniel and his lawyer and also a month later in January 2012. Note that Daniel’s visa was revoked a month after Kelly’s then-lawyer contacted the government.

  9. Ronda says:

    were they trolling her with that text? it looks a bit like the german flag.

  10. Betti says:

    Saw this coming – she grave she’s digging for herself is getting deeper and deeper and her lawyer looks odd. Those eyebrows make her look like she got caught in the headlights.

  11. Ninks says:

    If you saw the video (on silent), or the screencaps without context, there’s no way you’d think she’d just had her children taken away from her as she claims. She looks delighted to be there. I have no doubt she loves her kids and wants to have them with her, but she’s loving the publicity this is giving her more.

    • bluhare says:

      And she’s no longer wearing white.

    • Belle says:

      That is not the face of a grieving mother missing her kids. That is the face of an attention whore getting her fix. Those kids are nothing more than props in the “Everyone Pay Attention to Kelly” show.

      If Ennie is right (and I can believe it!) I bet we’ll see a few strategic tears in her next interview. Not enough to mess up her make up though.

  12. NUTBALLS says:

    She’s got a cat.

    • Norman Bates' Mother says:

      Hahaha. And her lawyer has got at least two cats. ;-)
      Or maybe Kelly’s got two, and the lawyer’s got just one cat? That’s the real dilemma.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      LOL… I understood that one… (where did I read it? :D )

      Ok, Daniel said to the German press: “She made herself liable to prosecution” and also that he’s going to protet them from any harm and Media Shows”- Das Bild.. hum hum…
      Definitely, he’s smart and so are his lawyers and she’s sas dumb as a door… He’s given her rope and she’s hanging herself with it…

    • notasugarhere says:

      And a furrowed beret. I like that expression. It works well here. No matter how much time you spend digging, you’re not doing to find much of a brain in there.

  13. islandwalker says:

    I’m beginning to think she is genuinely certifiable.

  14. Kattttt says:

    Am I wrong in thinking that she claimed her ex ‘kidnapped’ the children at one point, and yet now she is saying that kidnap is only when you don’t know where the child is? I could have recalled this incorrectly but if I haven’t OMG, I can’t even cope with this contradictory insanity any longer.

    • Neah23 says:

      No your right that’s exactly what she said. Her story changes to fit her narrative to excuse her actions.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      I must have missed the part where she went to law school and passed the bar.

    • anne_000 says:

      His lawyer said that Daniel repeatedly asked her where the kids were and she would refused to tell him.

      In her statement and in the ABC and Fox interviews, she can’t even say that he knew exactly where they were. All she says that he Skyped with the kids, so I guess she thinks that’s all the information he should have and not give him the exact address.

      Yes, in December 2011, at the court house and while in Kelly’s presence, her then-lawyer told Daniel and his lawyer that he’s calling up the State Dept and telling them that Daniel is kidnapping the children and to have him arrested.

  15. Algernon says:

    My guy works in federal law enforcement, and his job is basically going overseas and fetching Americans who get into trouble while on vacation. They will often say “I’m an American citizen!” as they break the law in Istanbul. It’s an incredibly common attitude. Occasionally he gets to operate in the way his job was intended, either by working extraditions or helping journalists or aide workers who get into tight spots in unstable corners of the globe, but the vast majority of his cases are dumb tourists. In his more cynical moments he says it’s that people are stupid, but when he’s analytical about it, he thinks it’s because we put so much emphasis, as a culture, on the Constitution and the idea of our rights as American citizens, that we get a sort of (cultural) tunnel vision and forget that other people have rights, too. Kelly Rutherford is acting like her rights as an American trump her ex’s rights as a German, but they don’t.

    • Andrea says:

      Don’t forget Reese Witherspoon and similar issues with this too.

    • Hawkeye says:

      “Fetching Americans who get into trouble while on vacation” is the classiest, most professional way to say “hauling poorly brought up adult babies home.”

      • Andrea says:

        I agree…what a job description. The stories he must hear though!

      • Algernon says:

        He has *amazing* stories, especially of the trouble on cruise ships. He has the most horrifying stories of the crap people get up to on cruise ships. It’s like totally normal, otherwise intelligent people lose their minds the moment they board.

      • bluhare says:

        Settling down on the couch with a snack and cup of tea . . . .

        So what kind of things to normally intelligent people do when they get on a cruise ship?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        On cruise ships? bluhare, may I join you on the couch. I’m bringing apple pie? Or maybe an apple and nutfruits crumble…

      • Algernon says:

        One of my favorites is the time he had to go to the Grenadines to pick up a guy who had been pooping in front of people’s doors on a ship, and got kicked off the cruise. This guy, who was like 25, was getting super drunk and then would poo outside doors very late at night, so that in the mornings guests would leave their rooms and step on his poo. When they went to pick him up to bring him back, he’d signed a form in the Grenadine police station “the poo king of California.” He had no f-cks to give. My guy’s partner asked him why he was pooing on the ship, and he said for what he paid for the cruise, he should be able to do whatever he wanted. They were like, “that’s not how it works,” and he said, “Well it should!”

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:


      • Ennie says:

        Hey, Algernon, maybe it was this “serial pooper” guy that was terrorizing Ohio!
        Gross but fun story:

    • Betti says:

      He must have some stories to tell – he should write a few books in his retirement about it all. I’d read it.

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      And one day, these self-important “American citizens” may find themselves moving or moved to another country and filing 2 tax returns (but not double payments) every year because of America’s unique insistence on taxing by citizenship and not residency. Then they’ll reconsider.

      Still think she’s exploiting nationalism for the sake of public opinion. I mean, does she tour for the USO or something? Has she been involved with any other movement or organization that demonstrates she is committed to the USA in terms of its democratic form of governance, well-being of its people, etc.?

      • notasugarhere says:

        She’s escalating this into an international, political, ‘Murican rights issue, in the middle of an election cycle. This needs to go away before it causes more damage and confusion. Before candidates decide to start advocating for her as part of their campaign.

        There are obviously people who believe every lies she’s spewing, with the support of Jezebel and GMA and FauxNews. Politicians will take any vote they can get. 100,000 signatures on a White House petition in support? Monaco, please make this go away quickly.

      • Andrea says:

        I am an American living in Canada and only until I make 92k a year do I have to pay taxes in both, anything less than that I still have to file with the IRS every year but I don’t get taxed. I must say having the IRS “watch me” is truly aggrevating.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I thought there was an amount over which you triggered a dual payment. Thanks!

    • lisa says:

      this would be the basis of a great movie

      your boyfriend hauls home reese witherspoon starring as AN AMERICAN CITIZEN

  16. Pedro45 says:

    Even if I didn’t know she was crazy — she totally has the crazy eyes going on.

  17. Sam says:

    This woman is insane, plain and simple. I tend to assume there are always two sides to a story, but she literally brought ALL of this on herself. She had him deported in a shady attempt to stop him from seeing his kids. She is the embodiment of cut off your nose to spite your face. Her kids are going to grow up hating her and she is so wrapped up in her own little world that she will tell the world her ex filled their head with lies, rather than see the truth that she is a vile, spiteful ignorant idiot.

  18. The Original Mia says:

    Someone needs to file a complaint against ABC News for their erroneous legal arguments. At least, put a disclaimer up that these wackos don’t represent ABC News or their views. Something. And yes, she’s loving all of the attention. I hope this is the last time she gets those kids unsupervised. The only one doing damage to them at this point is her.

    • holly hobby says:

      The chief of ABC News programming, James Goldston is on Twitter.

      You can tweet him and make him tell his staff to cut it out. He is an “awarding winning journalist.”

    • ERM says:

      Agreed, they have totally lost credibility by airing such a one sided inaccurate story.

      • Cricket says:

        you could say they did the same as they reported the Amanda Knox case. All the American coverage I saw was oh, poor innocent college student in Italian jail and rotting away.. blah blah.. never saw any argument that maybe she was involved and belonged in jail.
        I have a soft spot for Italy and really loved my visit there and all the amazing, beautiful people we met. It irked me that the views of the Knox case made it seem like all Americans should auto get jail out of free card bc they are like Americans and they have like rights, and like this isn’t fun anymore I want to go home.

    • lucy2 says:

      Seriously, they totally just lobbed her softballs too. Why not ask about the visa issue? Why not press her on the kidnapping? She’s a liar and a law breaker, and they just catered to her sob story of lies.

  19. Scarlet Vixen says:

    So, if I’m on vacation in some foreign country, and I kill someone, does that country not have any jurisdiction over me? Can I just say, “I don’t live here! I’m an AMERICAN CITIZEN!! Y’all ain’t the boss of me!!!” and get away with it??

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Can you imagine if all Americans abroad started ignoring the laws of foreign countries now, because “American citizenship, you know, and we only have to follow American rules no matter where we are!” Or children living in other countries will soon be kidnapped and brought to America and never returned because “We’re America, we don’t have to listen to what foreign courts tell us!”

      She really is a piece of work. I read a comment on another post that Daniel’s biggest mistake was marrying her. I disagree. His biggest mistake was having kids with her, and not just one but two. Eventually, though, the kids will come to realize on their own that their mother has a first class ticket on the crazy train, and decide to take an alternate mode of transportation.

      • jwoolman says:

        He probably doesn’t consider his kids a mistake… He must wish their mother behaved differently, but those two children would not exist if even one tiny thing had been different. A particular sperm had to meet a particular egg to create each one with their particular DNA. This is true for every child, rather awesome when you think about it.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      No such luck Scarlet… :D

    • Carmen says:

      When I was on vacation in Malaysia, there were signs all over the airport in Kuala Lumpur warning that drug trafficking was punishable by death. IIRC, none of those signs said “except for Americans”.

      • Genny says:

        Also know that places like Singapore tend to execute drug smugglers with the approval of the persons residential government. So if Kelly wants to go there and kidnap, good luck to her? Doubt they’ll deal with her like she thinks they will.

      • Cricket says:

        LOL! I had a Bridget Jones flash back with that one.. why are the dogs coming over to me?

      • Betti says:

        I believe that US citizens have been executed for drug smuggling – might have been Thailand or Malaysia.

    • ahsin says:

      In response to the silly proclamation that American citizens don’t have to obey the laws of another country, I will say just this: Michael Fay in Singapore

      • holly hobby says:

        I remember a case where an American was caned in Singapore for littering. How did that work out for that guy?

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      Well, if AMERICANS don’t have to follow FOREIGN laws, than FOREIGNERS don’t have to follow AMERICAN laws.

      Logic. Where is it when you need it.

    • bluhare says:

      I would love that. If they only have to follow American law and then kill someone in a country with no capital punishment . . . . . bring them home and face American law for it.

  20. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    That lawyer sounds even more crazy than Kelly, considering she is the one supposed to have at least some legal knowledge. Her entire statement about Monaco and foreign laws is completely wrong on so many levels that I don’t know where to start. Has she ever heard about international treaties, dual citizenships, European Union and European Free Trade Association (4 countries associated with the EU incl. Monaco), The Hague Convention, international child abduction – anything about international law, really? Or does she think she is sooo important as an American citizen that she won’t deign to acknowledge the rights of the peasants from across the pond?

    Did ABC use the colors of the German flag on purpose on that “ABC News exclusive” bars or is this their usual color scheme?

    • Liberty says:

      @Norman Bates’ Mother
      I could not possibly love any comment more than I love this one, right now. :-)

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      @Norma Bates’ mother out of curiosity I decided to check the abc online.. They don’t have black,yellow and red… But it could be from a different show?

  21. meme says:

    Kelly and her attorney are publicity seeking idiots. And why is the media giving her so much coverage?

  22. MonicaQ says:

    I’m going to have to stop reading about this…woman…if I want to keep my sanity.

  23. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    man, I think everything has already been said. What a loon. A despicable, delusional loon.

  24. Giddy says:

    It’s too bad that no one at ABC or GMA can be bothered with the truth of this situation. Kelly must have a good friend there who has dictated how they will cover this story. Meanwhile, she is absolutely loving the attention. She and her lawyer are a gruesome twosome, both of them twisting the truth, and the lawyer’s eyebrows are frightening! It irritates me so much that they are claiming that the children were arrested! They were simply brought to their loving grandmother who was naturally delighted to see them and take them back to Monaco.

    #TeamKids, #TeamMonaco, #NoScaryEyebrows

  25. Sansa says:

    When she get caught with illegal drugs abroad her head will spin how fast they throw her in jail,
    Just saying ….

  26. LAK says:

    How is she able to lie with such a straight face?

    How do people still believe her?

    It can’t be simply ‘Murica’ and sacred motherhood, can it?

    Truth and facts are not in her wheelhouse. Why are people willing to overlook that?

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      @LAK How is she able to lie with such a straight face? Aapparently she’s a better actress than shown in Gossip Girl?
      How do people still believe her? People believe anything they wantn and overlook it because truth and facts don’t interest them…

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        That’s the thing, in psychopathy or NPD or whatever is in that woman, lying comes easily and they are indeed facile and believable. Viewers with no other information will be easily duped by her manner. Most people would be.

    • Saywhatwhen says:

      @LAK, we know she loves the attention. Good or bad she wants it. The more outrageous her statements the more attention she gets. If everyone commenting on the sane blogs simply started talking about Giersch and make no reference to her she loses the media focus and may just catch a moment of quiet to think and reflect on the disservice she pays her little children.

      More posts need to be directed at Giersch and his sensible approach to parenthood. Let us drown out the noise of negative parenting. Let, for once, good sense prevail.

    • Little Darling says:

      I think it’s gotten to the point where she really believes. She has this story so propped up, so tightly wound, so many times replayed in her head, that she simply believes her point is true.

      • Bearcat Lawyer says:

        I think you are spot on. She genuinely believes whatever version of events she is spouting on any given day.

      • Giddy says:

        Yes! She has memorized her lines like the professional actress she is. I’d rather hear from a sincere mother.

  27. pleaseicu says:

    Kelly and her lawyer are really helping her case in Monaco. They do realize they do have the internet in those nasty foreign countries, right? Saying she doesn’t have to obey the laws and judicial orders of countries like Monaco will really win her points for her hearing in September.

    The jingoism and xenophobia at the heart of her arguments is just ridiculous and nasty. And I say that as an American! citizen.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      You’re kidding!!! Monaco isn’t even a country, it’s a Principality. They have the internet and cable? They have TV and radio stations there, telephones and smart phones? Next we’ll find out they even have indoor plumbing and actual houses with roofs, four walls, glass windows, doors and real floors instead of dirt! My gosh, you mean America ISN’T the only country with 21st century technology and living conditions?!?!?! ///Sarcasm ended.

  28. Kiki says:

    when she says “American”, am I also included? I am from Mexico and it is a part of the American continent.

    • agnes says:

      But it is on the wrong side of the Great Trump Wall.

    • Ennie says:

      Oh , kili! You should know by now that EVERY place south of the border is Mexico, Guatemalans, costaricans, and everyone kind of darkish looking and who speaks Spanish is Mexican according to Trump and his followers. “America” is the home of the American citizens, people like Reese, Kelly and Trump.

      Sarcasm up there, I know great people, including you ‘Murican celebitches

      • Lucky Charm says:

        My mom is of Spanish heritage (her family has lived here for three hundred years), but my paternal grandmother always told everyone we were half-French. In her mind Spanish and Mexican were the same thing, and she wasn’t going to have any Mexican grandchildren running around. It also didn’t help that my siblings and I were the only grandchildren that were not blonde or redheaded. Most of my cousins on that side of the family are half-Italian (since all but one of my uncles married Italians) but Italy was in Europe so that was perfectly fine! Yes, Spain is ALSO in Europe, but she didn’t seem to comprehend that.

      • Ennie says:

        What I nice mix!
        When i visited the USA for the first time there were some older ladies who asked where I was from ( funny lisp accent, tall, light sallow skin brunnete with green eyes, 100% Mexican).
        They were calling me Italian or greek, i swear that when I said ” mexican” I saw the dissapointment in their eyes! It was a sad, confusing feeling that I should be asamed of something… Thing that had never crossed my mind before, gosh I was young and naive.
        Thank god many people I met in that trip were so wonderful that I remember that as an anecdote.

  29. Crumpet says:

    This is why I don’t watch the news. All the lies and misinformation drive me straight up the wall.

  30. Norman Bates' Mother says:

    She’s pretty, but her crazy is so evident, that I can’t find an explanation on why Daniel married her in the first place. He seems so sane and reasonable. I just listened to Absolutely Cuckoo by The Magnetic Fields and it must have been their wedding song:

    “Know now that I’m on the make
    And if you make a mistake
    My heart will certainly break
    I’ll have to jump in a lake

    And all my friends will blame you
    There’s no telling what they’ll do
    It’s only fair to tell you
    I’m absolutely cuckoo”

    • littlestar says:

      Yes, why did he marry her? Good question! Probably because she’s a narcissist and they are able to manipulate people very easily. She was probably VERY charming when they first met. And didn’t she get pregnant like three months into their relationship? That probably had a lot to do with it too.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        I actually saw an interview of his on how the two met, he said he was jogging and they met … I just watched the beginning. let’s see if I can find it again..

      • Linn says:

        Wasn’t there a post here on celebitchya while ago how evil foreign Daniel manipulated poor american Kelly to go out with him with the help of an equally evil foreign waitress?

        edit: Here is the story:

        “There was a waitress there who pressured me for weeks to go out with this man that she knew. I just remember she had a foreign accent and she was married to a Middle Eastern guy and her kids were in Kuwait. I think her name was Carla. She said this German man had spotted me at the restaurant and wanted to go out with me. She said he was super cute. She handed me his business card and said how great he was and how I ought to call him because he really wanted to go out with me.”

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        What a self-serving story that is.

      • kai says:

        They tell the story of how they met in an episode of SpiegelTV, it’s on Youtube. (It’s in German, though) Solanacaea is right. He said they met running or at the gym and his point was that when they met, she couldn’t have known that he was rich by looking at him and he didn’t know she was famous either. (The entire show was about how humble and down-to-earth he is and how they don’t want to spoil their kids… while renovating their 500qm villa. I’m sure he’s a good man, but I got dizzy from rolling my eyes all the time.) At one point, he also says he loves how natural she is, because she rarely wears make-up and had no surgery etc. I laughed.

        So, that story with Carla the waitress is new. She’s not subtle with her xenophobia, is she? Yikes.

  31. TessD says:

    What make up do they use in that studio? She looks amazing… A primer? Blush? Anyone has any idea?

  32. original kay says:

    This is interesting. Has that dentist been extradited yet?

    no, I don’t have to obey laws from other countries- IF I have no connection to that country and my country won’t extradite me. Like Amanda Knox, she does not have to follow Italian rule because she wasn’t resident of Italy when that sentence was passed.

    However, Kelly’s kids ARE residents so of course, if she wants to see them, she has to follow the rules because they do. Pretty simple.

    • Kate says:

      Oh, Original Kay, honey, everything you said is so, so incorrect. Amanda Knox was absolutely subject to Italian law, but her sentence was (rightfully) overturned. If it had been reinstated, Italy would have requested her extradition, which she surely would have fought but absolutely not because you’re entitled to commit murder without any consequences in a foreign country just because you don’t live there. I’m an attorney, but I’ve also lived abroad twice (in the UK and coincidentally in Italy), and I’ve traveled to about 25 countries on nearly every continent, and I’m HIGHLY aware that I have to follow local laws. Wear a bikini top in a mall in Dubai while publicly intoxicated and brazenly making out with your same-sex partner and let us know how that works out for you. Go on, and have fun.

      • original kay says:

        Yes, I understand while you are in that country you have to follow their laws. I must be dense though, because I still see my point and yet cannot seem to articulate it. I am not talking about following the laws of a country you are visiting. Kelly is not visiting Monaco and not following their laws, I think she is saying she doesn’t have to follow their laws because she doesn’t live there. But I disagree with her, but only because her kids do live there.
        Thank you for your information. This is yet another reason I do not, and will not, travel. It’s enough to make sense of Canadian laws.

        However, your last 2 sentences and the sarcasm are not necessary. I am not being deliberately obtuse, I simply lack knowledge in this area. My initial post has obvious glaring errors. You’re not the right person to help me redefine my thoughts though, apparently. Thanks anyway, Kate.

      • bluhare says:

        You’re very polite, original kay. Kate lost me at “honey”. I had to go read the last lines after you mentioned them. :)

      • Ennie says:

        The Monaco court orders allowing her to see her children i. The summer were happily received, she complied with the law, and if she agreed to give them back in a certain date, the court will look for reinforcement.

      • original kay says:

        **laughs** we all have our moments.

        this is a very hot button topic, and I think this site does a great job keeping things on track. I think we’re a pretty cohesive group actually, beside the obvious trolls. lmao!

        thanks bluhare :)

    • jessiebes says:

      No, that is too simply put. If you are in another country, whether visiting or living, you really have to obey that countries rules.

    • Kate says:

      Sorry, Original Kay! I did come across as unnecessarily bitchy. I just get very irritated when I read about this situation, and the media’s coverage is exasperating in how uninformed it is. I get needlessly ornery. Her sense of entitlement is frustrating, and she’s promoting that “arrogant American” stereotype many people abroad assume is true of all of us. In any case, Monaco does have jurisdiction in this matter, which has been confirmed by U.S. courts, so while it’s true that normally the tentacles of another country’s laws don’t ensure an American, when an American is involved in a judicial matter that falls under the jurisdiction of a foreign court then they must comply with its orders. Sorry again!

      • original kay says:

        it’s ok. I don’t always make sense and I do like this site a lot because people actually post facts and I learn a lot :)

    • jwoolman says:

      I think that child custody decisions follow the child, wherever they go. Otherwise it would be chaotic and ever-changing. That’s why Daniel and Kelly were ordered to set up mirror orders of the California decision whenever they changed their residence. Kelly was supposed to do that in New York, Daniel did it in Monaco. Kelly must think that by not setting up the mirror order, she can ignore the California decision. But it just doesn’t work that way. Other courts will respect the original decision.

      • original kay says:

        thanks :)

        I think I will comment only on the parenting aspects of this case (like how nuts she is) and just read and learn from others about the judicial side.
        I get my feelings of not having my kids, involved in my thoughts and I am certainly not well versed to be commenting on the actual facts.

        thanks to all for their information and patience. here’s to learning!

  33. Saywhatwhen says:

    “When you’re an American citizen you’re not required to obey a foreign country, especially a foreign country where you have no citizenship…”

    What???!!! I mean, what!!!??? WTF!!!! She is a lawyer. I am deeply worried about the profession if this is what they have masquerading as a lawyer these days!!!

    Take over BearCat!

    • Bearcat Lawyer says:

      I. Cannot. Anymore.

      I watched that s#%^show last night out of curiosity (had to search for the channel number because I don’t watch FauxNews). The stupidity and jingoism was just too much for me, especially since today is my birthday.

      Another round of Kelly and her moronic lawyer acting unhinged was not the birthday gift I wanted. Seeing Daniel get sole custody of the kids with tighter restrictions on her visits and public statements…now that would be a terrific present!

      Btw, Daniel, if you are reading this, good luck in court and to you and the children. You are a better person than I could ever be.

    • Bearcat Lawyer says:

      Thank you, Saywhatwhen! I have had a pretty good day thus far and am about to have a nice supper with friends. :-)

  34. Adrien says:

    Try saying that in Italy, Kelly, and you’ll end up like Amanda Knox.

  35. Jezza says:

    She’s wearing black!!! Ooohhhh!!! That shows she means business now!!!!!

    At this point, she must be throwing anything around, hoping it sticks and praying no one has read the statement of decision.

    I hope the next time she goes for an interview, someone – anyone – asks her the tough questions. Let’s see how she answers when confronted with the truth!!!

    • Insomniac says:

      I suspect she knows enough not to go on any shows where someone might actually challenge her BS.

      I also like that she whined about Daniel wanting the kids’ US passports — right after demonstrating why he wanted to do that in the first place.

    • Lady D says:

      Don’t y’all have a Nancy Grace, (I think that’s her name) a real pitbull when it comes to ferreting out the truth? Doesn’t she get people accused of crimes on her show to explain their side? She might ask some tough questions.

      • Cricket says:

        Are you serious? She is a quack.. honest to God, she was on our TV one night as my husband was walking in to the room and she said in her southern accent “heroin in daycare” .. and he spit out his drink.. it was so damn funny.
        Nancy was big into the Caylee Anthony trial (little girl dead/missing mom on trial).

      • Lady D says:

        That’s where I heard of her. Didn’t she drive one of her guests to suicide, if I recall correctly?

  36. nic says:

    This is the happiest day of her life. No pesky children under foot and all the glorious attention in the world. That glow you see is the closest a narcissist can come to the afterglow of love… She’s engorged on attention.

    The come down is going to be legit hard on her. When all the attention has gone away, she’s going to look like that Home Alone kid circa 2008. And like a vampire, she’s going to go looking for her next fix. Mark my words.

    • Little Darling says:

      Nic~ I’m going to mark your words because I agree with you 100%.

    • PoliteTeaSipper says:

      I was abused by a narcissist for years. Everything you say is spot on.

    • GingerCrunch says:

      You said everything I was thinking! Truth-teller!!!!

    • . says:

      It was never about her kids, with the narcisstic personality disorder (she clearly has it) it was is and will be ever only about kelly.
      gladly the kids are far away, she would abuse them like all mothers with NPD.
      and like all vampires, she only is interested as long as the fight about the kids give her attention.

      thats all she have, i mean the former d-carrer in HW is over , and will nowhere go, and she wants and needs attention, ignore her and she will show her true colors, oh right she finally did…

    • Giddy says:

      You speak the truth! She was glowing on GMA; not the picture of a heartbroken mother who claimed that her children were “arrested”!

  37. Bee says:

    So this will be a lifetime movie for sure.

  38. Kate says:

    I used to think that she was probably acting crazy on her own and disregarding the advice of her attorneys with her unhinged statements and shenanigans, but after seeing her attorney … nope. I now think she’s getting bad advice from someone as publicity-hungry as Kelly herself. And I know she’s appealing to the lowest flag-waving denominator with her outlandish “America is the only country that matters” diatribes, but the reality is that American courts recognize foreign court orders frequently. If the U.S. wants to have its sovereignty respected by others, it must respect their sovereignty as well. Countries that do not are rogues. We ask foreign courts to respect our orders all the time, and when appropriate they usually do. And look, when it comes to child custody, the standard applied in just about every state by family court judges is the “best interest of the child” standard. Prior to the revoking of his visa, the original determination was that shared custody was in their best interest, and while he’s the custodial parent because he cannot travel freely any longer, shared custody is still the arrangement here. Having two sane, co-parenting adults is in most kids’ best interest. Fathers are just as entitled as mothers to be in their children’s lives, and the children benefit from that involvement. Period.

    • littlestar says:

      The crazy feeds the crazy feeds the crazy. It’s crazy cycle!

    • Little Darling says:

      Kate, me too, I definitely thought she just violent contain herself, but nope, bad legal advice all around.

      I’ve posted this before, but I went through a divorce with my high positioned ex husband in CA a few years back and we had the same judge, Theresa Beaudet, and I learned very quickly that unlike in NYC (I moved here from there so the kids to be closer to their dad after he moved here alone the year before), where sole custody is provided, in CA it is going to be 50/50. No matter what, in most cases. You have to be a terrifically horrific parent to have custody stripped, and the law will still give parents many chances to clean their act up and retain custody.

      Everything else becomes litigation, as kelly has shown. She threw so many things into this court case while Theresa Beaudet was the judge, and she was given the same responses again and again. It’s SO EXPENSIVE to hire specialists, and psychologists, and that can be more intrusive and jarring for the children, for the most part most parents figure things out before it gets to that point. The parents I’ve seen who do go to court and fight and hire specialists rarely ever have their court decision changed, as mentioned you have to be a very bad parent to have custody reduced.

      I remember the judge saying in the court statement (as I cried my face off at the realization that although I had quite literally been the stay at home mom primary care taker while my husband worked, and even though he moved across the damn country for a year leaving me the sole caretaker, he was still going to get them 50%) Theresa Beaudet said, “I believe this is going to be a much harder adjustment on the parents than it will be the children.”

      Kelly clearly never got over the adjustment like I did. Trust, I have every reason to hate he heck out of my ex. I simply choose not to.

      Forgiveness heals, co parenting works and children are resilient until a certain age.

      • Paleokifaru says:

        Just wanted to say I really enjoy your comments on these stories and admire the way you have moved through your divorce and co-parenting. As a stepmom I wish all parents were able to dig deep and try to be mindful of kids first. Kudos to you.

  39. Ursula says:

    I am not sure if I am just furious at her or if I should feel sorry for her. There is absolutely no way this woman is sane. I am beginning to believe she is not guilty because of a mental disease or defect. Nobody in their right mind can continue to behave and talk the way she does. If she were sane she would know that there is so much documentation about her lies, misstatements and stories made up from whole cloth that she would be embarrassed to show her face and be interviewed. I personally would be worried that the host would ask me a question that would expose my lies.
    But in the end the whole kidnapping achieved the desired outcome: her face is all over the news again. And now that the kids are back in Monaco she has that much more time to indulge herself without having to hire a nanny.

    • . says:

      Narcisstic Personality Disorder, no need to feel sorry for her, Mothers with this disorder are the worst, would you feel sorry for a Sociopath?

      These people are insane, deluasional, liar, they abuse her kids, you can’t imagine what amount of destruction they bring on their kids, i hope she never gets her kids back, she only care about herself, she only uses her kids, not good

      Peolpe with NPD have twisted minds, they do not see the reality, only they own created…

  40. jess says:

    Laughing at ABC’s line “Star opens up about courtroom loss” . Ok, first of all, “star”??? Seriously, when did she become a “star”? Angelina Jolie is a star, Nicole Kidman is a star, Meryl Streep is a star. Kelly Rutherford is a dlister who seems to be chronicially unemployed.

    Secondly, “opens up” is a bit of a hoot as she jumps at any chance she gets to talk up her situation and bad mouth her ex with little or no encouragement.

    I guess it’s the ABC interns at work. Fail.

  41. Gemstone333 says:

    Two points that will forever make me Anti-team Kelly.
    1. Back in the day, Kelly married a wealthy man, and their wedding was featured in “InStyle Weddings” (She was their first cover subject). But before the cover hit the street, she left her husband (whom she dated for 3 years) because he was terminally ill with a heart condition. She never contacted him again, and tried to have the marriage annulled. That is beyond cold…..
    2. Wendy Murphy is a frequent Fox contributor, and made the most inflammatory statements during the highly contentious Duke Lacross rape trial in 2006. She went out of her way praising Mike Niflong (the Durham DA). He went on to be disbarred for lying (among other assorted misdeeds).
    They’re two peas in a pod.

  42. anne_000 says:

    Here’s another videotaped interview she did post-hearing/after the kids were allowed to go home to Monaco. It was on Fox News:

    Both her and her lawyer are on this one too.

  43. xxx says:

    I had to turn off the interview because it was so terrible. She was never challenged on what she said, her actions and the undisputed facts regarding the case. She looked mentally unstable. Maybe I’m wrong but I never heard her say she was most concerned for the well being of her kids. And she let her kids Skype their father every day? They had to be terrified wondering what is going on. The woman is completely unhinged and I think they’re better off in Monaco with the father.

  44. DEB says:

    At this point I’m wondering how her current partner can have any respect for her … her delusions are just getting silly now and I’m shocked she’s actually getting a platform. Gawd, she’s only making a desperate gigantic ass of herself. Pathetic really.

  45. holly hobby says:

    OMG I can not read another comment from this delusional idiot and her constantly “surprised” attorney? Where did she hire this clown from and where did this clown get her law degree?

    So full of lies and deliberate omissions. I’m just sorry to say the unknowing public is getting suckered.

    Shame on you ABC.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Maybe the lawyer got her law degree from a correspondence course, and then just printed her certificate after completion!

  46. K says:

    I’m beyond sure we have to follow the laws of other countries. This is why Americans can be imprisioned abroad.

    Both these women seem a bit off. I think the obvious not even trying with the father is so sad and damaging to those kids.

    • Ursula says:

      No I am fairly certain all Americans are exempt from foreign laws/ I mean Americans are the best and all the other people in the world wake up jealous everyday that they are not Americans. But US laws definitely apply to everybody, especially Daniel Giersch who was told by a California court that he could have the children for a little while and then he would have to give them back, And that time was up when Kelly decided and she wants that to be now. so there you go.

  47. funcakes says:

    Kelly’s right and all of planet earth is wrong. Got it.

  48. Maria says:

    You people are so mean to this woman. I would love to see any of you in this situation and see how you feel. She is a mom. Usually a mother is the caretaker. Forget that you hate her, put yourself in her position. You are cold heartless people.

    • Insomniac says:

      A few commenters have been in this position. They love their kids more than they hate their exes, so they learned to make it work. Kelly should try that.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      I’d be packing for Monaco … no second thoughts on that.. House for free, car for free, and 50/50 of the time with my children…

    • Bearcat Lawyer says:

      Ordinarily I would not argue with a sea lion, but I will make an exception here.

      Perhaps, but we are cold, heartless people who apparently value obeying the law and respecting ex-spouses enough to effectively co-parent their children. How Kelly feels is NOT the issue; the best interests of her children are way more important. But she does not seem to grasp that concept, and her public statements reflect that.

      She can hate the situation (even though she created it) and weep and whinge as much as she likes. What she cannot and should not do is break the law, lie about what the law actually is/requires, and twist the facts of the case to suit her purposes.

      • Tara says:

        All of you Celeb!tches make my day. But, Bearcat Lawyer, you may have just outdone yourself with that succinct, spot-on piece of wisdom. Love it!

    • Neah23 says:

      Hey Kelly

      You forgot to add that she is American Citizen and who dare we American born post not agree with her.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Maria

      ‘Hating’ and ‘disagreeing’ are two different things.

      Not everybody has to agree with how she went about this process.

      Many people have actually read or skimmed through the 2013 court decision and have found very little to agree with in her actions.

    • . says:

      Oh Maria, again, you never learn, READ THE COURT DOCUMENTS!

      you are a really bad example of Human, uninformend, clearly uneducated, and still under every “Kelly-Thread” the same stupid shit, instead of informing, still the same dim-witted stupidity….

      try something new, dear.

    • Ennie says:

      Maria, read what poster Little Darling went through. Her posts are upthread.

    • I, for one, would never be in this situation because I don’t try and extort people, violate court orders repeatedly, lie to the Department of State, and try and damage the lives of my innocent children& violate their privacy by parading them in the media and trying to make sure they don’t have a father who loves them & wants to participate in their upbringing. So, I’m good.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      “You people are so mean to this woman. I would love to see any of you in this situation and see how you feel. She is a mom. Usually a mother is the caretaker. Forget that you hate her, put yourself in her position. You are cold heartless people.”

      This woman you defend is wasting MY tax dollars with her nonsense – tax dollars that could be better spent educating our children, fixing our crumbling bridges, and caring for our frail elders and disabled veterans. SHE and anyone who defends her wasting my tax dollars in this manner when they would be better spend helping Americans are the mean ones. As for the mother is the caretaker, please go volunteer with some services that help children who have been abused by their mothers.

    • JaneS says:

      You know what I’d love to see, Maria?

      You reading the court documents. Your ignorance is truly astounding.

    • Tara says:

      Ha! You’re joking, right Maria? Good one :D

  49. Belindaya says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but.. if I sum this mess up , Kelly R doesn’t have to obey foreign countries’ laws because she is an AMERICAN citizen…AND despite being a PROUD AMERICAN citizen , she doesn’t have to comply to the decisions taken by AMERICAN judges/jurisdictions??? !!!!What a patriotic point of view. *sarcasm, sarcasm *
    So basically , it’s truly her AMERICAN self against the unfair world…
    She makes me stratch my FRENCH head in disbelief…

  50. Mark says:

    Why do people get married in first place? To end up in a messy divorce?

  51. ERM says:

    At this point I really want Daniel to go on the offensive. I appreciate that he has taken the high ground and has put the welfare of the children first BUT someone on his side please start sharing the facts…. Now that she is being given a voice by the media she will continue with her lies.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      I think he’s getting there, read on a German magazine that he had commented “She made herself liable to prosecution” and also that he’s going to protect the kids from any harm and Media Shows
      And now that the US have no jurisdiction (it was only CA an NY, right? And they both claimed not have no more jurisdiction), Europe is different in terms of laws… She might get a really bad result…

  52. Andrea S. says:

    “he violated an American court order.” So, in their reasoning then, if Americans don’t have to obey foreign courts, so should it go that foreigners don’t have to obey American courts? Just sayin’…slippery slope argument.

  53. NellStar says:

    Does someone have a comment template that says:


    for those saying that we are cold and heartless for actually having knowledge in the case and not siding with an American mother. As much as the tide has turned on Kelly (and rightfully so), it’s still annoying to come across the Mother Protectors. Rule of thumb for divorcing parents, “Love your kids, more than you hate your ex!”

  54. . says:

    As i said before, she has a narcisstic personality disorder, she clearly enjoys the attention, it is and always be only about Kelly, nothing more, the kids are only tools, sadly.

  55. SavageGrace says:

    Apparently, in Kelly’s mind, not only are ‘Muricans not supposed to obey foreign courts (even when they go in their favor, letting the kids go to ‘Murica with their passports) but, judging by her behavior, they aren’t supposed to obey their own either. Idiot.

    If this is how she’s going to be… no more leaving Monaco for visits. No more time alone with mummy unless they are heavily supervised – I’d even make sure there were bodyguards on these kids 24/7. And I’d demand a psych eval on this loon before she ever got to see them again. Enough with the kid gloves.

  56. Sunshine says:

    Can I just say as a non American it is such a relief to come here and read your posts which remind me this woman does not represent the thinking of most sensible American citizens. Otherwise for those of us in small countries in other parts of the globe these statements of American entitlement are quite scary.
    Thank you guys for having a more international view of the world!

  57. Okay, I know Daniel likes to keep quiet but his attorneys really need to start correcting the record. I don’t care if they do it on the dl from a third party but feed everyone from high level to low level media the sh*t Kelly has pulled and the only argument that matters is parental rights not citizenship rights. I’m so sick of hearing her lies and she never gets called on it in the mainstream media.

    Notice it wasn’t Kelly’s lawyer who repped her in front of Judge Gesmer that was on GMA this morning. But Wendy Murphy did it instead & didn’t tell the truth as usual. And I just can’t believe that from GMA to Access Hollywood after they keep shaking their head and saying how bizarre this case is, don’t stop & think to look it up themselves because it’s not that confusing what’s you know all the facts.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      He’s not saying anything and good for him, she would twist anything he’d say… This is a guy who doesn’t want anyone knowing anything about his life and that of his children. He’s just giving and giving her more rope and she’s taking the bait. She may win the sympathy of the public but he knows what matters are the courts. He is a guy who actually gained a lawsuit against Google in Germany… Against Google. It’s quite a feat in terms of courtrooms.. He’s not saying anything and doubt he’ll ever say…

      • Giddy says:

        He is so smart with the way he is handling this situation. I sit in admiration of this man. She doesn’t understand how incredibly generous he has been to her.

      • I know, he’s too damn smart for his own good. It just irritates me to no end the see mainstream media, particularly ABC, not doing their due diligence and smearing him by by only posting Kelly’s bs.

        But, you’re right. It’s the courts that matter and anyone who is trying their case in the press is doing so because they can’t win where it counts. In the end he will be able to raise his kids in a healthy, private, environment.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        He’s not smart in where he put his pecker, but he’s smart enough not to go on an emotional tirade to the media defending himself. He’s got top-notch lawyers working for him, advising him and like you said Nighty, it’s the courts you need on your side, not public opinion. #TeamDaniel

    • Tara says:

      I agree — would like some call for standard sanctions for breaking the law. Others have mentioned Daniel and lawyer are probably waiting for Monaco’s jurisdiction to solidify, which is smart. Am going to try to find time to post on mainstream corporate media sites, esp. ABC, to call them out on this instance of pseudo-journalism… if it can even be called *that*.

      I would also like to see the court issue comment about her and Wendy Murphy’s disrespect for them, for the truth and for the law. Don’t know if that’s something courts or judges ever do… but if they do… this is a good time to do it.

      If the lawyer who represented Kelly last week in Judge Gesmer’s court was the man in the pics, he looked non too happy or impressed as she blarneyed for the cameras.

  58. hannah says:

    Apparently she also owns some clothes that are not white . Black and in mourning I guess.

  59. Puffy B. says:

    Legally, Kelly IS in the right. This case is in clear violation of US Constitutional and the Hague agreement. Somebody in the State Department needs to get a clue. Anyone who thinks she’s legally in the wrong is clearly uneducated about US and international custody laws.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      Oh for Goodness sake. Read the DOCUMENTS FROM THE CASE FIRST!!!!!!!I It was the American courts who decided back in 2012 that the kids should live with their father in Monaco….

    • Who ARE these people? says:

      See Comment #53, above.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Ah, Puffy, didn’t you try this yesterday? Allow us to introduce you to the immigration lawyer who deals with these issues every day, BearcatLawyer. Feel free to read through all the Rutherford threads to see her informed legal analysis and generous explanations.

      p.s. Homeland Security saw through Rutherford’s games and shut her down hard.

      • SavageGrace says:

        She did. Same old statement about poor Kelly being right and we’re all idiots who don’t know what we’re talking about. Yawn.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I thought so! Some of these threads have gotten so long, it is getting difficult to keep track.

    • Ennie says:

      But they were not discussing it when the monegasque courts sent the children for the summer, they were/Kelly accepted that she was happy about it.

    • jwoolman says:

      Read it. This is the child custody decision by a California judge in 2013, which is still in effect. Daniel has been following the judge’s orders to the letter, Kelly has not. She and her lawyer are also lying about matters of fact. Read the decision, it is quite clear, very detailed about the reasons for having the children live in Monaco with frequent visits by Kelly, and it is easy to read.

      She seriously violated those orders when she refused to send the children back home to Daniel last week. The decision provides penalties even if a parent is ten minutes late without legitimate reasons. Deciding “I don’t wanna” is not on the list of legitimate reasons.

      I hope Daniel’s lawyers put together a video full of all the crazy statements Kelly has been making on camera, including her belief that her children don’t need a father and that some American hero should kidnap her kids for her and if mistakes are made (killing the father, perhaps?) she would not cause problems for the hero. Until the children are old enough to hold their own passports and return tickets and hail a cab to the airport on their own, Kelly really should not be allowed unsupervised visitation. She will simply continue to try the same stunts. She is now the only parent with a proven risk of abducting those children.

    • LAK says:

      Puffy B: admittedly, i’m not american and completely uninformed about the US constitution. Therefore please would you provide the exact wording in the constitution ie clauses and amendments that support Kelly’s argument.

      Further, whilst I’m well versed in the Hague agreement and how it deals with international custody laws, i’m curious at your reference to it in support of Kelly’s argument. Therefore please would you provide exact clauses, amendments and wording in the agreement that support Kelly.

    • K says:

      The Hague Convention means that any child who is habitually resident (and that is determined by where they have been living in the last couple of years or so, NOT by domicile) in a nation cannot be removed or retained away from that nation without the agreement of everyone with parental rights, let alone in contravention of a court order of that nation. The kids went to Monaco as a result of a US court’s order. They aren’t there unlawfully, but by order of courts in two nations. Kelly has no lawful authority to retain the kids over and above that court mandated time.

      Hague ensures a child isn’t ricocheting around from state to state, or denied contact with one parent, while the courts in the nation of habitual residence work out what should happen next. It’s about minimising disruption to the child by sending them back to their most familiar home as soon as humanly possible.

      At this point, the status quo is so established that altering it is unlikely to be in the interests of the kids, and for all Kelly’s complaints, she’s in a situation where she has all the vacations and lots of visits and daily Skypes. In terms of pure time, she has them roughly half. That’s working. They spend half the year in Monaco and half in the States. She has nothing, morally or legally, to complain about. Her kids see their father and she doesn’t like it, but that is and should remain her problem, not anyone else’s.

      The kids are dual nationals. They are in touch with both sides of their national heritage, European and American. I genuinely don’t understand what people who support Kelly think should change. Nobody is stripping them of their US passports, or exiling them – they are in the States a lot. There are other places in the world to live. Even places many US citizens choose to live. How in the world is that against the US Constitution?

    • SavageGrace says:

      Hi again, Wendy!

    • Lilacflowers says:

      “Legally, Kelly IS in the right. This case is in clear violation of US Constitutional and the Hague agreement. Somebody in the State Department needs to get a clue. Anyone who thinks she’s legally in the wrong is clearly uneducated about US and international custody laws. ”

      Seriously? Please cite for me which article or articles of the Constitution of the United States of America and which statutes and regulations arising under have been violated by this case? Specifically, please? You should be able to do that without hesitation. Here, let me help you. This link will take you to the Constitution of the United States of America. Oh, as for my education, I have a juris doctorate and am licensed to practice law in three states and two federal court jurisdictions. My legal view of this case is that Kelly Rutherford is a jingoistic bigot who needs to stop wasting my tax dollars with her bigoted rubbish and her children would be better off without that jingoistic, manipulative bigot in their lives.

      • Ursula says:

        This is so unfair. How dare you counter her talking points with knowledge and education. I mean what would a real lawyer know that Wendy Murphy doesn’t ?

      • TotallyBiased says:

        Lilacflowers: wouldn’t you say the 14th Amendment and the Immigration Act specifically acknowledge potential jurisdiction of other countries?

      • Lilacflowers says:

        I must bow to Puffy B’s knowledge of the invisible portions of the Constitution of the United States, which were passed and ratified by a special secret society. Perhaps she will return to share these specific portions of the Constitution of the United States of America that, as she claims, support Kelly’s legal rights, since I, as a licensed attorney with a juris doctorate who has actually tried cases based on constitutional claims, cannot find these portions within the document itself or the amendments. Or perhaps Puffy B will just hide and go elsewhere to accuse everyone who doesn’t recognize that Kelly is the sole parent of these children because “‘Murican uterus” of ignorance

      • Sixer says:

        Lilac – you are SO making me laugh on this topic (in a good way, I hasten to add).

        I’ve just shown Mr Sixer all your various posts and he says, “Wow. In Real Life, you and she would be BFFs for sure. She sounds just like you when you’re tearing a strip off Little Englanders.”


    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      here, an answer for you…: Rickert says that no court will pay any attention to the argument of Rutherford’s lawyer that the children, as U.S. citizens, have a right to live in the U.S. “There is no fundamental constitutional right to live in the United States.” It’s important to remember that this is a custody case, and the magic words are “best interest of the children.”
      Rickert is an LA Family Law specialist..
      in : legalbroadcast dot com

      You should listen to it…

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Orf! Orf! Orf! {smacks flippers together, balances court documents on nose to avoid reading them.}

      • NUTBALLS says:

        TB, how lovely to see you outside of our usual meeting place. Thanks for the giggle you little sealion mimic, you.

        Puffy, if you’re going to cite Constitutional violations here, you’d best list them out for all the lawyers that are going to consider your argument and then take it apart piece by piece. Just saying “you’re wrong” and then running away takes all the fun out of proving you to be the one “without a clue”.

  60. debra says:

    Just addressing the question in the above article about Kelly’s statement that this is the first time she’s had the children for 5 weeks in 6 years. Kelly seems to be an expert at making statements that have a bit of truth, but will make the listener sympathetic to her. She stated the first time she’s had the children for 5 weeks ‘straight’. I assume the first 3 years when Daniel was still in America, they were sharing custody, so neither would have had the children for that long a time ‘straight’. After the children went to live in Monaco, the court order stated that neither parent should have the children for the entire summer without contact with the other parent. I believe the way they have been doing it the last 3 years is that Kelly would have them the first part of their summer vacation (probably all of July) then they would go back to Daniel for a week or two, and Kelly would get them for the remaining summer vacation. So she has had them for more than 5 weeks before, they just haven’t been ‘straight’ weeks, they were broken up by a trip for the kids to see their father. I assume this is how they have been doing it based on the interview Kelly gave to Hampton’s magazine:

    : Kelly, how are you spending your summer so far?

    KELLY RUTHERFORD: I’ve been traveling back and forth to France. The kids have been here, then they went to see their dad for two weeks, and then they’re going to come back for three weeks, so we’ve just been enjoying our time. My son’s been taking guitar lessons, my daughter’s been taking ballet, and we’ve been in the Hamptons a lot.

  61. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Very interesting comment on legalbroadcastnetwork dot com, insightful:

    Check it out

  62. Greenieweenie says:

    Given her previous lawyer’s comment, I think Kelly is unstable and this lawyer is unscrupulous. I think what they mean to say is that Americans on US soil aren’t subject to foreign courts. Okay. But a custody ruling only indirectly applies to you, the adult. It is a ruling on behalf of the children, who are not simply US citizens on US soil. This lawyer is really bad at her job.

  63. YT says:

    Does Kelly help support her children? Does she send child support payments, or is Daniel the only one financially supporting the children?
    Does anyone know how strict the libel laws are in Monaco? Kelly is bound to run her mouth too much in whatever news interviews she can get there.

    • Tara says:

      YT: very good question about libel/defamation laws in Monaco. Will keep my eyes on Celeb!tchy for the answer… and will get some popcorn and mimosas… :D

  64. Mon says:

    I know that different people deal with their emotions differently and what’s seen on the surface might not be what it seems but she doesn’t look like a mother who is suffering because of what’s happening with her children. Oh no. She looks like an actress playing the role of her life. She seems to be very much enjoying this situation and the attention is brings her. This is not about the children at all.
    Sorry if anyone said that before – too many comments!

  65. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    This is like watching a soap opera together with a train wreck.. Last night someone suggested Daniel should pay for the teachers and children’s friends to be flown to the USA and back to Monaco twice a year so that they could live 6 months in one country and 6 months in the other… Maybe he should fly the school building too?
    Do people know what they are saying?
    *facepalm, headshake,,, etc…*

  66. InvaderTak says:

    Psych eval. NOW. I don’t get it. There are a million reasons for her ex to request an evaluation of her mental health and/or her parenting skills. The courts can do that in the US (been a part of one. Testified on behalf of a male friend of mine who was trying to get his kid away from its druggy/suicidal/all around bad news mom), what about Monaco? I would think they’d have something similar. Would that route only make things more difficult? How is the kids’ dad supposed to deal with her when she’s not even being rational. I hope the kids’ side gets a major win in Monaco somehow. It really does look like she is playing a role. That’s beyond scary and there are kids involved.

  67. Timbuktu says:

    I’m surprised by so much negativity. Sure, she does seem manipulative, but it’s her kids we’re talking about, who wouldn’t be?
    If she did set her husband up to lose his US visa, that was a nasty move, sure, but we all make judgment mistakes, it’s just some mistakes end up costing us more than others. This one was a big one for her, but divorces are often messy and bitter. It is quite possible she deeply regrets it, just not publicly, and it’s quite possible she wishes she had taken a different path, now that she knows how ugly this turned out, but again, she can’t take it back.
    I’m sure her lawyers are advising her to keep that fact out of her official interviews and public statements, and to press on, so I think that she’s neither delusional, nor necessarily all that manipulative. She’s doing what all businesses are doing: crafting their message, picking and choosing facts and wording, etc. And big businesses are often doing it to cover up abuse of thousands, if not millions, of customers, whereas she is merely doing it to get her kids back.
    If I were looking at losing the custody of my children and having them live overseas, I’d be fighting with everything I’ve got, too.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      She can live in Monaco, her ex pays her 6 trips to Monaco, a flat and a car in Monaco so she can visit anytime she wants.She said she works 45 to 70 days a year. Why not accept the ex proposal and live the rest of the year in Monaco.
      Why does she keep on insisting they are American, therefore they must be raised in America?
      It was her lies that got her ex to lose the Visa. They were both sharing custody in the US. If she hadn’t done this, he’d be also living in the States as well as the kids, and she’d see them 6 months a year…
      The judges decided the kids should live in Monaco with their dad because he can’t enter the US. She doesn’t want joint custody, she just wants her ex to disappear as if he’s no one, forgetting he’s also the father and has as much rights as her.

    • Ennie says:

      Fight or cooperate? I bet it is the worst, but she needs perspective and cooperate to make the best for her children.
      I bet if she had changed her tactics three years ago, after she f*cked things up the worst, she might have improved things with her ex by now. If they both love there children they’d probably could worked out things by now.
      It seems that she just digs deeper instead of cooperating (these leaks about the child in the pool, interviews where she slashes mud at him, her lawyer, the kidnapping attempt), you know?

    • Peanutbuttr says:

      I am a former PR person and I got out because of how shady the business was. But there is a vast difference between massaging the truth, cherry picking facts, and making mountains out of mole hills vs flat out lying. For a PR person to craft a message, they need a tiny bit if truth to spin. They can’t make something out of thin air. What Kelly is doing is completely making something up.

      McDonald’s cares about its employees-Massaging the truth. Whether you can pay your rent is your problem, but I’m sure no one wants an employee to die on the job. That’s caring isn’t it?

      Kelly’s kids are not German Citizens: flat out lie. No shred of evidence.

      Daniel forged the letter informing him about his visa revokation: flat out lie.

      Not subject to foreign laws: flat out lie

    • Melly M says:

      Timbuktu, what are you talking about, “to get her kids back”? The children have two parents; these parents have shared custody and the arrangement in place makes it possible that the kids see both parents, which is in their best interest.
      The only thing Kelly has been fighting for is trying to exclude the father, but a father losing his kids is fine?????
      By the way, Kelly should have realized by now that her arguments have never helped her in front of a judge, but they have gotten her a lot of attention. Nevertheless, she hasn’t changed anything.
      So I am beginning to agree with those commenters who think she loves the attention more than her children.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Timbuktu

      I’ve been wondering why Kelly keeps sabotaging herself.

      If she’s not crazy or stupid, then why?

      Surely she can see after all these years that her schemes end up not working out for her in the courts.

      It’s like she purposely keeps pushing for a drastic outcome against her favor.

    • Ursula says:

      She is not crafting her message. As my mother would describe it: she is knitting herself a story and she is wearing it.

    • Ana A. says:

      If she so deeply regrets the mistakes she made she’d write the letter to acknowledge her false accusations. Just like she was ordered in the court documents. She’d done so three years ago. Daniel would have applied for a new visa, etc. Then they would co-parent in the USA and she’d have none of the problems.

  68. Tara says:

    testing gravatar — i finally decided I want one…

  69. Adele Dazeem says:

    I’m definitely #TeamDaniel on this (if you have to pick teams) but I actually have some genuine questions. Hoping one of you wise ladies can help:

    1. Are Hermes and Helena definitely German citizens (and therefore EU citizens)? Yes I know their father is German. Does that automatically make his offspring German citizens? Are there different laws for this in different countries? Would Daniel have had to register/apply for them to become German citizens and perhaps he hasn’t? Is there any proof whatsoever that they actually are German citizens? I’m asking because crazy Kelly & her lawyer keep insisting that the children are ONLY American citizens and that is it.

    2. The visa. Kelly – in one of her latest rants – said she has actually done everything that has been asked of her: that she did fill in an affidavit and has done everything to help Daniel in obtaining a new visa. The Statement of Decision is a few years old now. Maybe, just maybe, in recent times, Kelly finally did what was asked of her. Is there any proof whatsoever that Daniel has deliberately NOT begun the process of getting a U.S. visa, as Kelly & wacky Wendy are saying? (and yes, I do know that the immigration issue is now void). Wouldn’t Kelly’s affidavit have only be a part of the whole process of obtaining a visa?

    3. The September 3 court date. I read on some other site that this hearing date is also to discuss the children’s vaccination status. Apparently France/Monaco have compulsory vaccination (not sure if true??) and Kelly is an anti-vaxxer so they are going to court to resolve this issue. Anyone know if this has any shred of truth?

    Have to laugh at Kelly’s GMA interview where she says she is “trying to process” the NY judge’s decision. Here you go Kelly: you broke the law! See? that was easy.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      In answer to your #1 (and thank you for at least attempting to become more knowledgeable than ‘legal correspondent’ Dan Abrams on the subject), I give you this verbatim from a German government site:

      “The principle of descent

      A child becomes German through birth if at least one parent holds German citizenship. This applies irrespective of the place of birth. However, a child born to a German abroad does not acquire German citizenship if the German parent(s) themselves were born abroad on or after 1 January 2000 and continue to live there, unless this means the child would be stateless or the birth is registered with the German embassy or consulate within a year.

      If only the father is German and he is not married to the mother, acknowledgement or legal establishment of paternity is required. This sort of procedure may only be initiated before the child turns 23.”
      –As you can see, there is a VERY important point in the second paragraph. IF Helena was born after their divorce was final, she is only an automatic German citizen by descent IF Daniel’s name is on the birth certificate OR paternity is established in some other manner. Remember how Kelly fought to keep Daniel’s name off of the BC? I’m quite sure she is very aware of every little detail regarding German citizenship requirements.

      Now, things could get a little complicated in later years–Germany recently put into effect law that changes when children who are dual nationals by descent must choose between the two citizenships, and have even created a process whereby dual nationals can retain both but it requires a certain amount of time lived in Germany. (Please note that I’ve really simplified this) So it is possible part of what Kelly is doing is trying to ensure the children won’t ever be able to get the necessary time as official residents. But that seems like a REAL long game. Of course, at this point I wouldn’t put anything past her.
      The US State Department sites state that children of a US and a German citizen become dual nationals at birth, no matter where they are born, and never have to make the choice I describe above. The German sites I checked on were not quite so definitive regarding the choice, but IN ANY CASE all agree that the children are AUTOMATICALLY dual nationals at birth.

      But the IMPORTANT take-away here is this: ANYONE with internet access, the discernment to believe official (e.g. government) sites over willy-nilly anyone, and perhaps ten minutes (plus the motivation) can easily determine that both children are indeed German citizens. So why are so many ‘pundits’ going along with Kelly’s claim that they are not?

      • Melly M says:

        Well, maybe people are confused because her lawyers lie so shamelessly. Massaging the truth a little, you would expect that, but this?
        But it obviously only influences the public opinion, not the courts, so that seems to be important to Kelly.
        What I don’t get is why none of the journalists who interview Kelly ask critical questions, bring the court documents, quote them and so on.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Firstly, thank you so much for such a thorough reply – much appreciated!

        So, the children are definitely German citizens but may have to, at some future date, live for a period of time in Germany and not Monaco. Thank you for clearing it up for me.

        This all just emphasises the gall of Kelly and Wendy Murphy to sprout such nonsense when they MUST KNOW what they are saying is just not true. Plus, the continued use of the word ‘exiled’ is outrageous. I quote a dictionary definition of ‘exile’: “the state of being barred from one’s country or home”. These children are not exiled. Monaco, as part of the EU, is their legal home. And they are not barred from the U.S.: they come back to their home in the U.S. as the custody agreement requires.

        These women are beyond belief.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      2. If the Visa affidavit was done after 10. January 2010, it’s no validality. That was the limit date for the Affidavit. In legal documents, there are only references to her not doing what she’s supposed to, nothing on his side.

      Vaccination is compulsory in every EU countries, and if you don’t follow the calendar stipulated you can actually go to jail in some countries, In others, like Portugal, the parent have to sign a document in which they acknowledge the dangers of non-vaccination. If something happens to the children bacuse of lack of vaccinations, they can be charged with negligence… In France, the children can’t go to school.
      If she is an anti-vaxxer, then she is just idiotic…

      • notasugarhere says:

        I thought I’d read about vaccinations being part of this. Next she’ll get all the anti-vaccination people to rally in her defense. If the kids aren’t vaccinated, are they allowed to attend school in Monaco? She’s crazy like a fox.

        My assumption was they were at the International School in Monaco. Maybe that isn’t true? From their website:

        “Please note that the place is only confirmed when the school has received this signed Agreement and the Registration Fee has been paid. A Medical Form requesting evidence of good general health and copies of standard vaccination documents, as required by Monégasque law, must also be completed and returned to the school. All Registration, Capital Fund and tuition fees must be paid before your child can start school.”

      • Sixer says:

        NOTA: the kids go to the Mougins School. Newsletter here – – says:

        “Medical Forms On entry into Mougins School, most parents provide a full medical history of their children using the medical form provided by the school. Some parents still need to do this for the welfare of their own children. Also every 2/3 years, a full physical examination given by your doctor is necessary to keep these records updated. This will ensure that any problems with vaccinations, hearing or eyesight are detected at an early stage.”

        By which I assume Monaco goes by the French system of some compulsory vaccinations: compulsory vaccinations for schools are : tuberculosis (BCG), diphtheria-tetanus-polio (DTP). Recommended ones : measles, German measles, chicken pox.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thanks. How are they going to school if they aren’t vaccinated? The only mention I can find that vaccinations is an issue with these parents is on a NYnews site, so that might be the press making things up.

        If the kids were given a waiver for X amount of time for the parents to get this resolved, the September 3rd date could be because time is up on the waiver. If she refuses to allow vaccinations, does that mean they cannot attend school in Monaco or France?

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        If the kids are attending school means that their vaccinations are in order… There’s no x time in schools to get things resolved… When enrolling your kids everything has already to be in order, vaccinations included. For instance, in Portugal, in July kids have to bring a copy of the vaccinations form when enrolling for the following year which starts mid-september..

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thanks, Solanacaea. So whatever the Sept 3 meeting was originally about, most likely it wasn’t about vaccinations.

      • Ennie says:

        She agreed with the kids being in that fancy school, hence she must agree with the conditions of the administrators/France health department.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Unless the kids were given the vaccines with the father’s permission and not that of the mothers. That ‘s one other possibility.

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Thanks everyone. It seems this vaccination and anti-vaxxer rumours are just that: rumours. So, if they weren’t vaccinated they couldn’t be attending school.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Adele Dazeem


      This is from the US Court of Appeals, 2nd District, that dealt with KR’s argument of using the 14th Amendment, Federal Constitution, Federal powers over State court’s custody decisions, US citizenship of the kids, etc.

      It basically says that KR has nada in her legal arguments.

      The children are legally with their custodial parent and that parent has a right to live with them in a foreign country; they’ve not been deported; nobody took away their US Constitutional rights nor citizenship; they have the opportunity to decide upon using whatever US rights they want when they reach 18; etc.

      Basically, it doesn’t matter which citizenship they use right now when it comes to where they live since as minors, they’re living legally with their custodial parent.

      2. On page 43 of the Harris Ginsberg court document pdf, it states that Kelly had until Dec. 31, 2013 to submit her affidavit to US authorities to help get Daniel’s visa back and to send him a copy of it.

      On pages 43 & 44, it states that they have a Dec. 31, 2013 deadline to find an Immigration Expert to help with Daniel’s visa, and that there’s a a January 10, 2014 deadline for them to request the court appoint one if they can’t agree on one without the court’s help.

      It then says that if either party doesn’t make this request by Jan. 10, 2014, then the Court will assume the parties waived the Immigration Review.

      I read from a poster on another site, that Kelly wrote some sort of affidavit in May 2014, which was after the Court’s deadline.

      3. From New York Daily News:

      “The [Giersch] source said an upcoming Sept. 3 court date in Monaco would center on Giersch’s request to vaccinate the kids.

      “He’s simply requesting to be able to vaccinate the children. There’s dispute there. He’s asking for court permission and some decisionmaking abilities,” the source said. “She’s fought him for years on vaccination.”

      • Adele Dazeem says:

        Thank you Anne. So this could be about vaccination after all?

        I think this September 3 court date will be very interesting, indeed!

    • Katherine says:

      Yes, but that’s inconvenient to the whole “Woe is me, scorned mother” pity party Kelly is trying to sell. Pesky facts.

  70. Jezza says:

    Wait!…so I can go anywhere and do whatever I want, and if people come up to me and say “that illegal”, I can just say “American, bitches!” and they should be all like “carry on”?!?! YES!!

  71. Katherine says:

    She’s still on this? lol God, this woman is desperate and pathetic.

  72. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    Oh my .. Dan Abrams twitter: “Seems there are suddenly an army of highly detailed but uninformed on line “supporters” of kelly rutherfords ex. #suspicious”

    Someone trew at him a link to the court documents and this is the answer they got. Suspicious? Oh , maybe Daniel is paying all of us around the world to “support” him.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      That uninformed bit is hilarious–my friend tweeted him some of the same sources (State Department and German Gov sites) that clearly establish the German citizenship of Hermes and Helena. His response was to delete HIS tweet where he said something along the lines of ‘do we know if they’re even German citizens’.
      Support the #SHODDYJOURNALISM hashtag!

    • Melly M says:

      How about answering that the truth just can’t be hidden forever. That’s why there seems to be an “army” of supporters, not surprising or suspicious at all.

    • Jezza says:

      Dan Abrams hitched his star to cray cray’s wagon, and now he can’t handle the that he got served!! Douchtard!

    • SavageGrace says:

      He’s ridiculous but a prime example of how low “journalists” and journalism in general has sunk; no research, no ethics. Pathetic.

  73. And then there were none says:

    Seems Dana Kennedy at People Magazine is writing a huge cover story on this for next week, focusing on the mysterious Daniel Giersh & how no one knows anything about him & how he has apparently ruined people’s lives. She’s sending out tweets desperate to get someone to get in touch with Daniel so he could do an interview with her. Good luck with that Dana.

    • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

      Hope he tells them to go to a place where the sun doesn’t shine…

    • SavageGrace says:

      Defamation of character, anyone? Libel, anyone? I really hope he files a suit against them and demands a very public apology and retraction, including fessing up to all the lies they’ve spewed for Kelly. I’m so beyond sick of their biased reporting so I can only imagine how he’s feeling!

  74. anne_000 says:

    My comment wasn’t posted, so I’m just re-posting but without the link…

    Page Six reports that just one hour after the NY judge told her to hand over the kids, Kelly and her lawyer filed a federal lawsuit to get them back again.

    The federal judge dismissed it the same day.

    Kelly’s lawyer Murphy said the judge was incorrect in her decision and that they will appeal.

    Seems nobody in Kelly’s camp is getting off this crazy merry-go-round they’ve put themselves on.

    • SavageGrace says:

      Time for the courts to tell them to bugger off. Seriously – no more wasting taxpayer funds and valuable court time on this craziness.

  75. Grace says:

    Ladies, brace yourselves, Dlisted reported a suit being filed and thrown out, I guess we will get another Kelly thread tomorrow… This woman can’t give it a rest!

    • anne_000 says:

      She keeps asking and telling the court the same things, gets told there’s no legality in it, then asks and tells another court, gets told ‘no’ again, and so on. Rinse and repeat.

      What’s the definition of insanity?

      Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    • SavageGrace says:

      Is there anything the US courts can do to stop this woman from abusing the system? She’s burning through taxpayer funds with her nonsense – enough is enough.