Made's Angels - Testimony of Jean Lane

Jean Lane (or Jean Lane Murniati to add her Indonesian name - she is a California woman who has lived in Bali for over thirty years) is an owner of TJ's Mexican Restaurant in Kuta.

After the Mahkamah Agung - the Supreme Court of Indonesia - ruled in 2008 that our California marriage was legal in Indonesia and ended by divorce, Made continued to refuse communication or settlement with me, so in 2009 I filed a civil suit in Indonesia requesting fifty percent of our family assets.

Made Jati opposed the suit and refused to admit to or enter any evidence of our family assets.

With Made's witnesses in earlier trials already reported to the police for suspected perjury and apparently refusing to cooperate further, Made Jati and her attorney Ida Bagus Wikantara SH had to produce new witnesses, including Jean Lane.

Their strategy appeared to be to claim that all our family assets already belonged to Made Jati before our 1985 California marriage.

Jean Lane was very cooperative.

According to the testimony of Jean Lane Murniati as quoted in the Decision of Perdata No 130/ Pdt.G/ 2009/ PN. Dps,

Witness 1: Jean Lane Murniati:

1. That the witness has no family connection to either party, but knows the Respondent and the Petitioner;

2. That the witness knows the Respondent and the Petitioner because the Witness is a neighbor of the Respondent;

3. That the Petitioner is an American citizen;

4. That the name of the wife of the Petitioner is Ni Made Jati (the Respondent);

5. That regarding the marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent, when it occurred and under what jurisdition the Witness does not know;

6. That from the marriage between the Petioner and the Respondent there were born three (3) male children between the ages of 13 to 15 years;

7. That the children of the Petitioner with the Respondent are not in Bali, and the Witness has heard they are with the Petitioner;

8. That the Witness has heard that the Petitioner and the Respondent are already divorced;

9. That the Witness has heard that before the Petitioner married with the Respondent, the Respondent was married with a man named MICHAEL MCHUGH;

10. That the Witness often met with the Respondent, because the Respondent had a Warung and the Witness often shopped at the Warung;

11. That to the knowledge of the Witness, the property for the Warung of the Respondent was the home of the parents of the Respondent and was also used as a place of business for the Respondent and her first husband: MICHAEL MCHUGH;

12. That in the first marriage of the Respondent with MICHAEL MCHUGH, they had businesses including:

a. Business making garments on Gang Poppies, Kuta;

b. Business making garments in Tabanan;

c. They also had a rumah makan that has now grown into a large restaurant which is contracted from a person in Sanur;

d. That also PT Uluwatu was established while the Respondent was married with MICHAEL MCHUGH, but in whose name the Witness does not know;

13. That regarding the ownership of land the Witness does not know;

14. That the Witness saw the Respondent with her first husband MICHAEL MCHUGH about 1979 they were still husband and wife, but three (3) years later, the Respondent told the Witness that they were separated;

15. That from the marriage between the Respondent and MICHAEL MCHUGH there were no children;

The testimony of Jean Lane Murniati was elicited under questioning from Ida Bagus Wikantara. It was recorded by the Panitera of the National Court and forms a basis for the Decision of the National Court, and the testimony of Jean Lane Murniati was advanced for the consideration at the High Court and the Mahkamah Agung in an appeal by Made Jati.

In the summary from Wikantara to the National Court, and again in the Memo of Appeal to the High Court, and again in the appeal to the Supreme Court, Wikantara and Made Jati did not qualify the statements of Jean Lane Murniati but let them stand as facts in the case.

Jean Lane's testimony appears to be Perjury.

Her testimony about a marriage between Michael McHugh and Made Jati, about the existence of a restaurant, about the founding of a PT in the garment business while Made Jati was legally married to Michael McHugh, is not supported by any documents presented in a court of law in any case, and is not supported by testimony from Made Jati or any other of her witnesses in any case.

It's interesting, but Made Jati doesn't face possible criminal charges about this. Only Jean Lane does.

Response of Jean Lane

I called Jean Lane in 2010 to ask her about her testimony. She repeated hung up on me, but after several tries I finally convinced her to answer a few questions.

"Why did you say that McHugh and Made were married?" I asked.

"How many years do you have to be with someone before you're considered married?" she answered.

"There is no number of years. Is that your defense? Are you unaware that there's a legal status of marriage? That it's defined by law? And what was that about the restaurant?"

Jean hung up.