No 1428 K/ Pdt/ 2006

FOR JUSTICE UNDER GOD

THE SUPREME COURT

Having examined the civil case at the level of appeal to the Supreme Court do decree as follows in the case

MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY, residing at Jalan Pengembak Gg III Sanur Denpasar, in this instance giving power of attorney to 1. Maharidzal, SH and 2. Mangasi G. Simangunsong, SH, Lawyers, having offices at MAHARIDZAL, SH & Partners, Jalan Pandu No 24, Denpasar-Bali, based on the Letter of Power of Attorney dated 10 April 2006:

The Plaintiff in Appeal to the Supreme Court, previously the Accused / Appellant

Versus

NI MADE JATI, residing at Jalan Pengembak Gg III Sanur, Denpasar:

The Accused in the Appeal to the Supreme Court, previously the Plaintiff / Accused

The Supreme Court

has read the documents in the case

Considering, that from the aforementioned documents it is declared that the Respondent to Appeal NI MADE JATI previously the Plantiff did accuse the now Appellant to the Supreme Court MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY previously the Respondent in the venue of the National Court Denpasar and that the essence of the case is:

------ Quoted: Original Accusation of Divorce from NI MADE JATI -------------------------------

That, between the Plaintiff and the Respondent did occur a marriage according to the Hindu religion and Bali custom at the residence of the Plaintiff that is Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta, Kecamatan Kuta, Kabupaten Badung in accord with the quote of the Marriage Document No 299/ 1996 that was issued by the Civil Records Office Kabupaten Dati II Badung on 30 September 1996:

That, in the aforementioned marriage there were born two male children with the names

1. WAYAN SEAN DONNELLY, age 12 years,

2. BRENDEN SURYA DONNELLY, age 11 years.

that until this moment the two children are in the care of the Plaintiff according to the Family Registration No 225003/ 97/ 03033 dated 03/07/1997.

That at the start of the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Respondent all proceeded smoothly as it should in a family but it developed that there became frequent arguments and conflict as the results of discord between the Respondent and Plaintiff;

That these arguments were caused by the actions of the Respondent who was too selfish, always wanted to win, liked to insult, did not value the position of a wife and tended to lower the self esteem of his wife. These conflicts started about the year 2001 when the Respondent began to not talk to his wife, until there became a separation of dining and sleeping until this moment, although they still live together in the same house.

That Plaintiff feels unable to continue together in a single family with the Respondent, besides which the Plaintiff can no longer accommodate herself to life with the Respondent.

That regarding the frequent arguments and conflicts the Plaintiff has tried repeatedly to maintain the family including controlling herself and asking advice and seeking the views of friends together with seeking maximal help from her family, but the Respondent persists in his attitude.

That the Plaintiff can no longer live together to maintain a home as in the previous commitment. The commitment that was originally the basis of the marriage is now no longer present in the marriage of the Plaintiff and Respondent, such that for the benefit of both the marriage should be ended.

That as a normal human being the Plaintiff has a limit of patience and a limit of strength to withstand the pain of her broken heart and dashed hopes, such that she feels unable to any longer accept the Respondent as her husband or continue to live together as a family.

That for the welfare, happiness and peace of the Plaintiff herself and also for the Respondent and the children of the Plaintiff – Respondent, therefore divorce is the only and best solution and can no longer be avoided.

Based on these considerations listed above, therefore the Plaintiff requests to the Chief Justice of the National Court in Denpasar to declare a ruling and with it to reach a decision in accord with the following points:

PRIMARY:

1. Grant the Plaintiff’s accusation in full,

2. Rule the marriage that was according to Hindu religion and Bali custom at the residence of the Plaintiff in Bajar Pengabetan, Kuta according to the Marriage Certificate No 299/1966 issued by the Civil Records Office on 30 September 1996 is officially ended by divorce with all of the resulting legal consequences,

3. Rule that the Plaintiff has custody of the Plaintiff / Respondent’s children that are still under age, each named:

3.1. Wayan Sean Donnely, age 12 years,

3.2. Brenden Surya Donnely, age 11 years

according to the Family Registration Card 225003/97/03033 dated 3/7/1998 without reducing the right of the Respondent as their natural father to come at any time to see the children to give them affection,

4. Order the Clerk to send a copy of the Divorce Ruling to the Civil Records Office,

5. Order the Accused to pay all the costs of this court action.

SECONDARY:

In the sense of justice we request an equally fair decision (ex aequo et bono)

------ End: Original Accusation of Divorce from NI MADE JATI -----------------------------------

Considering, that opposing the accusation above the Respondent denied the details and in return entered a response to the accusation that in its essence is as follows:

----- Quoted: Respose to Accusation for Divorce from MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY -

IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCUSATION

That the accusations used in the original accusation should be considered to be used perfectly well in return by the counter accusation.

1. That the Plaintiff and the Respondent were married in the City of Los Angeles, California, on 14 September 1985 and were registered in the Office of Records, Los Angeles County on 24 September 1985, and the Marriage Certificate was also registered in the office of Civil Records Office Denpasar with Registration No. 16/K.DKC/2005 dated 6 April 2005.

2. That as a result of the marriage in California, the above marriage is valid and legal as also specified in Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 Section 56 paragraph 1 specifying that marriages outside Indonesia are legal if carried out according to the law that applies in that country where the marriage is carried out and the marriage does not conflict with the laws of Indonesia, so that the marriage of 14 September 1985 is correct and accepted by law and protected by law, such that also by law the marriage that was carried out in Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta according to Marriage Certificate No 299/1996 as issued by the office of Catatan Sipil, Badung on 30 September 1996 is cancelled and must be ruled Cancelled By Law.

3. That the cancellation or Cancellation By Law be caused by the conditions of the marriage that was carried out in Banjar Pengabetan, Desa Kuta with Marriage Certificate No 299/1996 as required in Chapter II, Section 6 and 9 Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 concerning marriages and Section 1320, 1321, 1328 KUH Perdata.

4. That one condition of marriage in Section 6 paragraph Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 concerning marriages is that marriage must be based on agreement between the two applicants, that connected with this in Section 1320 KUH Perdata it is stated that the conditions required are four, namely: Agreement of those that commit themselves, ability to make the commitment, …, …, and continuing in Section 1321 it is stressed that “there is no agreement that is legal if the agreement is give through false representation, or achieved by force, trickery, manipulation, or misleading information.”

5. That the marriage that was carried out in Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta No 299/1996 was done with trickery / manipulation / misleading information and/or the necessity to cover up the true state of a participant, that between the Plaintiff and the Respondent when they were listed and notarized at the Civil Records Office Denpasar Badung there occurred a trick, manipulation, misleading information in claiming in a legal document that the Plaintiff had status as a virgin / never married and the Plaintiff had status of an unmarried boy/ never married, although in fact already they had been legally married in Los Angeles 14 September 1985.

6. That the marriage of 1996 that was made and listed with information that was not correct, manipulative, misleading and counter to law should be considered as follows:

a. According to the Marriage License of 1985 the status of the Plaintiff was single/divorced

b. According to the Marriage License of 1985 the status of the Respondent was single/divorced

c. At the time of the marriage of 1996 the Plaintiff and Respondent were already in a marriage.

7. As per Section 1328 KUH Perdata “trickery / manipulation / misleading information is one reason to cancel an agreement…”, we ask the court to rule and cancel the marriage certificate No 299/1996 dated 30 September 1996.

8. That with the cancellation of this marriage certificate it is also requested that the court rule to cancel the Prenuptial Agreement or Cancel By Law, because the Prenuptial Agreement was an after the fact agreement that postdated the actual marriage.

9. That all the rulings between the Accusation and the Counter-Accusation accept that the marriage that took place in 1985.

10. That the marriage of 1985 was gifted with two male children:

a. Sean Wayan Donnelly, born 17 March 1993 in Long Beach, California, where in the Certificate of Birth is listed the name of the father as Michael Patrick Donnelly and the name of the mother as Ni Made Jati and registered on 29 March 1993 in the Records Office in California and also listed in the office of Civil Records Office Denpasar with Reg No 18/K.DKC/2005 dated 12 April 2005.

b. Brenden Surya Donnelly, born 17 September 1994 in Singapore, where in the Certificate of Birth is listed the name of the father as Michael Patrick Donnelly and the name of the mother as Ni Made Jati and registered on 26 September 1994 in the Office of Records in Singapore and also listed in the office of Civil Records Office Denpasar with Reg No 17/K.DKC/2005 dated 6

Based on the reasons above, the Respondent requests the Court to handle this case to examine and rule as follows:

Regarding the Accusation

1. Reject the Divorce Accusation in total.

2. Rule by law that the marriage according to Agama Hindu and Adat Bali at the place of residence of the Plaintiff in Banjar Pengabetan, Desa Kuta No 299 / 1996 on 30 September is NOT VALID and cannot be used as the basis of divorce and all consequences to it.

3. Reject and rule that the Plaintiff is a wife who is not fit by law to receive the custody of the children until the children are adults.

4. Rule that the Plaintiff is to pay all court costs.

Regarding the Counter-Accusation

1. Receive and rule in favor of the Counter Accusation in total

2. Rule that the marriage in Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta No 299 / 1996 30 September 1996 and the Prenuptial Agreement is Cancelled By Law along with all its consequences.

3. Rule that the marriage in Los Angeles, 14 September 1985 and registered in the Office of Records in Los Angeles 24 September 1985 and registered in Civil Records Office Denpasar 6 April 2005 is valid according to law and ended because of divorce.

4. Order the Clerk to send notice of divorce with the force of law to the office Civil Records Office Denpasar,

5. Order by law that custody of the two children Sean Wayan Donnelly and Brenden Surya Donnelly by given to the Respondent until the children reach legal age.

6. Order the Plaintiff to pay the costs of this case according to law.

OR

If it be the finding of the Court, a decision of equal justice (ex aequo et bono)

------ End: Response to Accusation of Divorce from MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY ---

That to these accusations the National Court Denpasar made a decision, that is decision No 119/ Pdt.G/ 2005/ PN.Dps. dated 22 November 2005 which in summary stated:

------ Quoted: Decision of the National Court Denpasar --------------------------------------------

REGARDING THE ORIGINAL ACCUSATION

• Grant the accusation of the Plaintiff;

• Rule by law that the marriage that took place according to the Hindu religion n Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta, Kecamatan Kuta, Kabupaten Badung, according to the quoted Certificate of Marriage No 299/1996 issued by the Civil Records Office Kab. Badung Dati II Badung on 20 September 1996 is hereby ended by divorce together with all consequences;

• Rule by law that the Plaintiff has custody of the children of the marriage of the Plaintiff with the Respondent that are still under age and of the names:

o WAYAN SEAN DONNELLY;

o BRENDEN SURYA DONNELLY,

in accord with the Family Registration Card No 255.003/ 97/ 03033 dated 03 July 1997 without lessening the right of the Respondent as a natural father to at any time visit the children as appropriate to give affection as a father.

• Order the Clerk of the National Court Denpasar to convey this official decision of the Court that now has the force of law to the Civil Records Office Denpasar;

• Lift the freeze of assets of the marriage as placed by the Assets Board of the National Court Denpasar dated 6, 7 and 8 September 2005 because it is no longer relevant to be maintained.

IN REGARD TO THE RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL ACCUSATION

Rules that the petition of the Respondent cannot be received.

IN REGARD TO THE RESPONDING ACCUSATION

Rules that the Respondent is to pay the court costs that to this point total RP, 3,319,000.

------ End: Decision of the National Court Denpasar --------------------------------------------

Considering, that at the request for appeal by Respondent (MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY) of the decision of the National Court Denpasar above, the decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal Denpasar with decision No 16/ Pdt/ 2006 PT.Dps. dated 20 February 2006;

Considering, that after this last decision was conveyed to MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY on 4 April 2006, that then MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY through his representative based upon a Letter of Power of Attorney dated 10 April 2006 advanced an oral request for appeal to this Supreme Court as recorded in the Document of Appeal No 119/ Pdt.G/ 2006/2005/ PN.Dps that was entered by the Clerk of the National Court Denpasar, this request then being followed by a Document of Appeal containing the reasoning of the case and received by the Clerk of the National Court Denpasar mentioned above on 24 April 2006;

That after this the Recipient of Appeal NI MADE JATI on 17 May 2006 was informed of the appeal to this court by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and responded with a reply to the appeal that was received by the Clerk of the National Court Denpasar on 30 May 2006;

Considering, that the request for review by the Supreme Court a quo and the reasons for it were conveyed to the opposing side in detail, and conveyed in the proper time and in the manner required by regulations, therefore the request for review is formally received for consideration;

Considering, that the arguments advanced by the MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY in the Document of Appeal above are in their essence as follows:

------ Quoted: Appeal to the Supreme Court by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY ---------

1. That the Decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar Bali has wrongfully confirmed the decision of the National Court Denpasar Bali dated 22 November 2005 Number 119/0Pdt.G/ 2005/ PN.Dps, by maintaining and confirming both in the Accusation and the Response to the Accusation in the Court of Appeal, has clearly caused a loss to the Appellant (MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY), because for the Appellant (MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY), based on the Marriage Certificate issued in the United States of America in 1985 together with the Bali custom and Hindu religious ceremony of 1994, the decision of the Court of Appeal did not weigh and did not examine carefully the essentials and the evidence of the Appellant in this matter as required by the declaration of the Supreme Court, to wit declaration No. 638 K/ sip/ 1969 dated 22 July 1970 “Decisions of the National Court and the Court of Appeals that are not adequately reasoned (onvoldoende gemotiveerd) must be cancelled”.

2. That the Court of Appeal Denpasar and the National Court Denpasar were in error in their judgment regarding the marriage between Plaintiff and the Respondent as evident in the legal reasoning in the decisions of the National Court Denpasar section 15 that states that: according to the essential facts of the accusation of the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Respondent as husband and wife there did occur a marriage in Br. Pengabetan Desa Kuta Kabupaten Badung according to the Marriage Certificate No 299/ 1996 issued by the Civil Records Office Kabupaten Dati II Badung dated 30 September 1996, and having two children named

• SEAN WAYAN DONNELLY born 1993 (male)

• BRENDEN SURYA DONNELLY born 1994 (male)

Because in fact NI MADE JATI in a systematic manipulated the evidence presented by NI MADE JATI in the hearing of the National Court Denpasar, and because of this MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY now reported to the authorities the National Police Denpasar with the suspicion of a criminal fraud according to Section 378 KUHP and criminal presentation of false documents according to Section 266 KUHP, that is the documents submitted in evidence No P-1 being the Certificate of Marriage No 299/1996 dated 30 September 1996, and this matter is now under investigation by the police.

3. That the Court of Appeal Denpasar yo National Court Denpasar have violated the Procedural Civil Law and have not applied the law as required in that their consideration of the law, as evidenced in the decision of the National Court Denpasar section 18 to wit “considering the from the details above that the registration in the local Civil Records Office regarding the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Respondent exceeded a time limit of 1 (one) year after the husband and wife returned to Indonesia, therefore the registration of the marriage between the Plaintiff and Respondent on 6 April 2005 at the Civil Records Office Denpasar is considered defective by law, such that therefore the marriage between the Plaintiff and Respondent that took place on 14 September 2005 is defective by law and does not contain the binding strength of law.”

4. That according to Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 Section 56 regarding Marriages in paragraph 10 mentioned above that marriages taking place outside Indonesia between two citizens of Indonesia or between a citizen of Indonesia and a foreign citizen is valid if carried out according to the laws in effect in the country where the marriage takes place and for the Indonesian citizen does not violate the laws of Indonesia, and further in paragraph 2 it is stated that within the space of 1(one) year after the husband and wife return to the territory of Indonesia the document proof of their marriage must be registered at the Civil Records Office where they reside.

5. That the marriage of MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI that took place outside Indonesia, that is in Los Angeles, Los Angeles Country, California on 14 September 1985, is valid because this marriage took place according to the laws of the country where the marriage occurred, and for the citizen of Indonesia did not violate the laws of Indonesia, as presented by evidence T-2 being the Marriage Certificate No 28637 dated 14 September 1985.

6. That with the passage beyond 1 (one) year when the document proof of the marriage between MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI was listed at the Civil Records Office Denpasar dated 6 April 2005, does not mean that the marriage between MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI that took place in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California on 14 September 1985 is defective by law and does not have the binding strength of law because, although more that 1 year had passed, however MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY was not negligent in listing the proof of marriage, that is on 6 April 2005, because according to Section 91 KUH Perdata line 3 it is stated “that regarding marriages that take place outside the country there cannot be considered to be knowledge of the marriage as long as the husband and wife remain negligent in the proof of marriage as required in Section 84.”

7. That the Court of Appeal Denpasar yo National Court Denpasar ignored the evidence T-3 which is the Certificate of Birth No 19362 002071 in the name of Sean Wayan DONNELLY born 17 March 1993 (male) and evidence T-4 which is the Certificate of Birth in the name of Brenden Surya DONNELLY born 17 September 1994 (male), that this evidence confirms that the MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI did carry out a marriage in the United States of America and then parented children as above. Also in the case of the witness presented by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY named Steven Donnelly, who testified that he had personal knowledge that between NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY there did occur a marriage in America according to the law of America and that from this marriage there were born two male children Sean Wayan Donnelly and Brenden Surya Donnelly.

8. That the Court of Appeal Denpasar yo National Court Denpasar did violate the law of marriage in declaring the Prenuptial Agreement that was made by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI as valid and therefore according to the judges there were no family assets, and did not regard the Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 Section 35 regarding Marriage (decision of National Court Denpasar page 20) because between husband and wife it is forbidden to make Prenuptial Agreement after the existence of a marriage, although in fact far before this that is on 14 September 1985 MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI already were married in America, such that the Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 Section 35 applies to MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI in which in paragraph 1 of this section it states that all assets of the marriage are assets in common.

9. That in the appeal, the Appellant discovered only from the decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar page 4 that attorneys or representatives of the Appellant (Austrindo Law Office) did not present any documents in the case, such that MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY then found new attorneys because MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY felt he had been caused a loss and harmed by the previous attorneys (Austrindo Law Office), the new attorneys or representatives being from Maharidzal & Partners Law Office. In connection with this and through his new attorneys MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY has requested to the Supreme Court of Indonesia to reconsider the facts and evidence and testimony of witness as here attached:

10. That with this MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY has conveyed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, that the decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar Bali has wrongly applied the Civil Code (UU) year 1974 regarding marriages.

11. That the decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar Bali dated 20 February 2006 No 19/ Pdt.G/ 2006/ PT.Dps. yo National Court Denpasar Bali dated 22 November 2005 No 119/ Pdt.G/ 2005/ PN.Dps particularly regarding divorce was not adequately considered because the consideration of National Court Denpasar only looked at documents without regard to evidence and testimony of witnesses of MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY, such that in this case the Court of Appeal Denpasar only confirmed the decision of the National Court Denpasar without adequate consideration.

12. That in the situation that the accusation of the Plaintiff / Respondent to Appeal is contradicted by the Respondent / Appellant, the National Court Denpasar must put the burden of proof on the Plaintiff / Respondent to Appeal and not upon the Respondent / Appellant as in the decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar dated 20 February 2006 No 16/ Pdt.G/ 2006/ Pt.Dps jo National Court Denpasar dated 22 November 2005 No. 119/ Pdt.G/ 2005/ PN.Dps.

13. That according to the Appellant the considerations of the National Court Denpasar are in contradiction to the Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 on Marriages Section 2 paragraph (1) such that the National Court Denpasar wrongly drew their conclusions in this case, with the reasoning as follows:

14. Regarding the law of marriages as presented by the Respondent to Appeal NI MADE JATI in Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta, Kecamatan Kuta, Kabupaten Badung that occurred on 30 September 1996, the statements were not correct, as what occurred is as follows:

14.1. That between NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY in 1996 in Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta, Kecamatan Kuta, Kabupaten Badung there did not occur any activity of any sort such as a marriage ceremony as claimed by the NI MADE JATI.

14.2. That MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY in 1997 at Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta, Kecamatan Kuta, Kabupaten Badung did take part in a tooth filing ceremony, and there was a marriage ceremony for the younger brother of NI MADE JATI named Made Diana.

14.3. That it is true that NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY were married in the United States of America in 1985 and also there did occur a Hindu religion and Bali custom ceremony in 1994 at Jalan Pengembak Gang III No 29 Sanur, Denpasar.

14.4. That NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY as the result of their marriage in 1985 have two children named

• Wayan Sean Donnelly, born 1993

• Brenden Surya Donnelly, born 1994.

14.5. That the regulations that determine the validity of marriages are Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 Section 2 paragraph (1) confirm as valid the Marriage Certificate registered in 1985 in the United States of America and listed in the Civil Records Office Denpasar according to the location of residence of NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY in the district of Denpasar, and further confirmed by the marriage ceremony according to Bali custom and Hindu religion which took place in 1994 at Jalan Pengembak Gang III No 29 Sanur, Denpasar, Bali.

14.6. That the possession by NI MADE JATI of a Certificate of Marriage issued by the Civil Records Office Denpasar Kabupaten Dati II Badung, No 299/1996 that should have been considered carefully before the Court of Appeal Denpasar confirmed the decision of the National Court Denpasar, and the Court of Appeal Denpasar should have considered and weighed the documents and evidence entered by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY, because MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY had already entered into evidence the marriage documents from the United States of America 1985 that was already listed at the Civil Records Office Denpasar, as well as evidence of the marriage ceremony according to Bali custom and Hindu religion year 1994, and therefore it is incumbent and proper to conclude that the Marriage Certificate year 1996 that is the possession of NI MADE JATI must be Cancelled By Law, because the marriage that is claimed by NI MADE JATI year 1996 was engineered through criminal means.

14.7. That in addition it is also incumbent on the National Court Denpasar that besides considering the arguments of NI MADE JATI about the status of the children, in which the National Court Denpasar only took into account the children as listed on the Family Registration Card without weighing the evidence of MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY that there was a marriage in 1985 in the USA and also a marriage according to Bali custom and Hindu religion in 1994, and also must take note of the two children that are the result of a valid marriage according to the Laws of Marriage in which the two children which are the result of this marriage also have Certificates of Birth and also are already listed at the Civil Records Office Denpasar with Reg No 17/ K.KDC/ 2005 in the name Brenden Surya Donnelly, and Reg No 18/ K.DKC/ 2005 in the name Sean Wayan Donnelly, and therefore it is appropriate that the decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar and National Court Denpasar be cancelled by law because the Court of Appeal Denpasar in its decision only gave regard to the previous decision of the National Court Denpasar.

14.8. That the actions of NI MADE JATI who is in possession of a document declaring that she is unmarried and the Certificate of Marriage issued by the Civil Records Office Denpasar No 299/1996 has been reported by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY to the authorities and this is now under criminal investigation with NI MADE JATI as a suspect in criminal fraud and false documents.

14.9. That the behavior of NI MADE JATI in frequently leaving the home without clear explanation of destination, frequently leaving the house at night, and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY discovered romantic photographs of NI MADE JATI with another man, and love letters between NI MADE JATI and another man (attached).

15. From the above considerations, it is clear that the Decision of the National Court Denpasar and the Decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar were grossly inadequate in their deliberations, and in this according to the principle of jurisprudence jo Decision of the Supreme Court 22 July 1970 No 638/ SIP/1969 must be cancelled.

16. That the Decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar wrongly applied the Civil Law and the Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 regarding marriages Section 2 paragraph (1) in effect because rendered a decision which is contradictory between the two.

17. That marriage according to Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 is not only to be considered as a legal act that gives rise to legal consequences, but that it is also a religious act, such that the validity of a marriage must also be based upon the religious law and the beliefs of each of the participants of a marriage.

18. That although MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY does not object to ending the marriage by divorce with NI MADE JATI, however MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY does object if the marriage that took place with NI MADE JATI in 1985 together with the marriage ceremony according to Bali custom and Hindu religion year 1994 is declared invalid, because the actual marriage between MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI did take place while fulfilling all conditions and beliefs and binding by religious law.

19. That in Civil Code (UU) No 1 year 1974 Section 2 paragraph (1) it is adequately explained the validity of marriage both according to religion as well as according to law.

20. That the Court of Appeal Denpasar has violated the basic law of marriages because the Court of Appeal Denpasar has granted the petitum of the Accusation with a decision that is unclear, that is it has wronged the Respondent by ruling him to lose his rights without consideration of the evidence of the Respondent / MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY

21. That the Decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar that grants the Accusation that is unclear in its reasoning as above, is in contradiction to the Decision of the Supreme Court dated 21 November 1970 No 492/ SIP/ 1970 (vide Summary Jurisprudence Supreme Court of Indonesia II, page 205 No 144 regarding actions which are unclear).

Based upon the objections of MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY, and in connection with the respectful request of MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY that the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia give a decision as follows:

1. Receive the request for appeal from MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY.

2. Cancel the Decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar dated 20 February 1660 No 16/ Pdt/ 2006/ PT.Dps and the Decision of the National Court Denpasar dated 22 November 2005 No 119/ Pdt.G/ 2005/ PN.Dps

3. Grant a ruling as follows:

• Reject in its entirety the Accusation of the Plaintiff / NI MADE JATI or at the least rule that the Accusation of the Plaintiff / NI MADE JATI cannot be accepted.

4. Decree by law that the marriage of MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI is ended by divorce based on the marriage on 1985 in California, USA.

5. Order NI MADE JATI to pay all court costs at all levels of the court.

------ End: Appeal to the Supreme Court by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY --------------

Considering, that independent of the reasons for the appeal to the Supreme Court, and without necessity for the Court to weigh the reasons for the appeal that were advanced by the Appellant, the Supreme Court finds that judex facti the law itself was wrongly applied because the lower court decisions did not adequately weigh the facts that there were two marriages and did not consider since when the actual marriage between NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY existed;

That based upon evidence T-2 we obtain the fact that the marriage between MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI occurred on 14 September 1985 in Los Angeles, USA and has been listed in the Civil Records Office Denpasar on 6 April 2005;

That the children born of the marriage, that being Sean Wayan Donnelly and Brenden Surya Donnelly born 1993 and 1994, already used the family name Donnelly based upon the marriage between NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY that occurred in Los Angeles on 14 September 1985;

That according to law, a marriage which takes place outside the country must be listed at the Civil Records Office within 1 (one) year after they return to Indonesia and a late listing is an administrative issue that does not invalidate the marriage which occurred in Los Angeles on 14 September 1985 because it did not conflict with marriage regulations either in USA or in Indonesia;

That supposing it be true that between MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI there did take place another marriage in Denpasar in 1996, this event is excessive and is not valid because there already existed a legal marriage beforehand which took place in Los Angeles on 14 September 1985, and from this marriage issued 2 (two) children, and that all used the family name “Donnelly”, and this marriage until 30 September 1996 was still in effect and was never declared ended by divorce;

That therefore, the marriage that took place in Banjar Pengabetan, Desa Kuta, Kec Kuta, Kab. Badung, quoted in Marriage Certificate No 299/1996 that was issued by the Civil Records Office Denpasar on 30 September 1996 together with the Prenuptial Agreement is cancelled by law with all its consequences;

That therefore the marriage which is valid is the marriage that took place in Los Angeles on 14 September 1985, and therefore the ending of this marriage by divorce in this case must be based on that marriage;

That the listing of a marriage is to be viewed as a legal requirement of an administrative nature, a requirement which was fulfilled by both parties with the listing of their marriage which occurred in Los Angeles on 14 September 1985 at the Civil Records Office Denpasar with Number 16/ K.DKC/ 2005 on 6 April 2005;

Considering, that based on the above considerations, therefore the accusation of divorce entered by the Respondent to the Appeal NI MADE JATI to the Supreme Court which is based on a marriage on 30 September 1996 in Denpasar has no basis and therefore must be declared rejected;

Considering, that because the primary request, that is the request for divorce, is rejected, all the other requests must also be declared rejected;

Considering, that in the Response to the Accusation MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY requests the court to declare a ruling as follows:

------ Quoted: Request to the Court in Response to Accusation by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN REPLY TO THE ACCUSATION

1. Receive and rule in favor of the Response to Accusation in total.

2. Rule that the marriage in Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta as quoted with the Certificate of Marriage No 299 / 1996 issued by the Civil Records Office Kab. Dati II Badung on 30 September 1996 and the Prenuptial Agreement is Cancelled By Law along with all its consequences.

3. Rule by law that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Respondent that took place in Los Angeles, California 14 September 1985 and registered in the Office of Records in Los Angeles 24 September 1985 and also registered in the Civil Records Office Denpasar 6 April 2005 is valid according to law and ended because of divorce.

4. Order the Clerk of the National Court Denpasar to send notice of divorce by the National Court Denpasar with the force of law to the Civil Records Office Denpasar.

5. Order by law that custody of the two children WAYAN SEAN DONNELLY and BRENDEN SURYA DONNELLY by given to the Respondent until the children reach legal age;

6. Order the Plaintiff to pay the costs of this case according to law.

OR

If the Court find otherwise, a fair decision (ex aequo et bono)

------ End: Request to the Court in Response to Accusation by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering, that in the request number 2, MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY requested that it be ruled by law that the marriage that took place in Banjar Pengabetan Desa Kuta, Kec. Kuta, Kab Badung with the quoted Certificate of Marriage no 99/1996 issued by the Civil Records Office Denpasar on 30 September 1996 after the Prenuptial Agreement be cancelled by law together with all consequences.

Considering, that in consequence of the legal reasoning of the accusation as above, together with evidence of the Respondent (T-2) which is a photocopy of the Certificate of Registry of Marriage dated 14 September 1985 issued in Los Angeles, USA, it is already declared that NI MADE JATI was married with MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY, a marriage which based upon the attached evidence Respondent (T-2) has also been listed at the Civil Records Office Denpasar on 6 April 2005;

That despite this, in the letter of accusation of divorce of NI MADE JATI advanced in its essentials an accusation against a marriage that occurred on 30 September 1996 (evidence P-1), the essence of which is denied by MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY;

That, because at the time there occurred a marriage at Banjar Pengabetan, Desa Kuta, Kab Badung on 30 September 1996, the marriage that had taken place previously in Los Angeles on 14 September 1985 was still in effect and it had not been declared that the prior marriage had already been declared legally ended, therefore the second marriage was excessive and must be declared cancelled by law;

Considering, that therefore the marriage between NI MADE JATI with MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY that occurred in Los Angeles, California on 14 September 1985 is valid under law;

Considering, that from the responses between NI MADE JATI with MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY it can be concluded that in the household there is conflict and that each now lives separate lives, that is that NI MADE JATI lives in Denpasar while MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and the children live in California, USA, so that the marriage can no longer possibly be preserved and must be declared ended by divorce;

Considering that based on the above reasoning the ending of the marriage between NI MADE JATI and MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY must be based upon the legal marriage that occurred in Los Angeles, California on 14 September 1985.

Considering that in the request number 5 of the counter-accusation, MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY requests that the children of the marriage between MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY and NI MADE JATI, that is 1) SEAN WAYAN DONNELLY born 17 March 1993 and 2) BRENDEN SURYA DONNELLY born 17 September 1994 that are still under age are declared under the custody of MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY;

Considering that the request that because the children are still under age that the custody be given to the mother until they are adults, that request must be declared rejected;

Considering that because the marriage between NI MADE JATI with MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY is declared ended by divorce, therefore there is reason to order the Clerk National Court Denpasar to send a copy of this order to the Clerk of the Civil Records Office Denpasar and one copy to the Clerk of the Marriage Records Office in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California USA;

Considering, that based upon the judgements above, there is adequate reason to grant the request to the Supreme Court by MICHAEL PATRIK DONNELLY and to cancel the decision of the Court of Appeal Denpasar no 16/ Pdt/ 2006/ PT Dps dated 20 February 2006 that confirmed the decision of the National Court Denpasar No 119/ Pdt.G/ 2005/ PN Dps dated 22 November 2005, and the Supreme Court rules further with the Summary decision as declared below;

Considering, that because NI MADE JATI, previously the Plaintif / Respondent to Appeal is on the losing side, therefore she is ruled by law to pay the cost of this case at all the court levels;

In regard to the sections of the Civil Code (UU) No 1 Year 1974, Government Regulation No 9 Year 1975 regarding implementation of Civil Code (UU) No 1 Year 1974, Civil Code (UU) No 4 Year 2004, Civil Code (UU) No 14 Year 1985 as amended and appended with Civil Code (UU) No 5 Year 2004 together with other regulations as they apply:

Ruling

Grant the Appeal to the Supreme Court of the Appellant: Michael Patrick Donnelly.

Cancel the Decision Dps No. 16/ Pdt/ 2006/ PT.Dps, dated 20 Feb 2006, which was in support of Decision PN. Dps No: 119/ Pdt/ 2005/ PN.Dps, dated 22 Nov 2005.

Ruling Of The Supreme Court

In the Original Accusation

Reject in its entirety the Accusation and Request of the Plaintiff (NI MADE JATI).

In the Response to the Accusation

1. Grant the Request of the Respondent to the Accusation (MICHAEL PATRIK DONNELLY) in portion.

2. Rule that the marriage that occurred between the Plaintiff and the Respondent in Banjar Pengabetan, Desa Kuta, Kabupaten Badung, with the quoted Marriage Document No 299/ 1996 issued by the Civil Records Office Kabupaten Badung on 30 September 1996 together with a premarital agreement is ruled cancelled by law.

3. Rule that the marriage which took place between the Plaintiff and the Respondent in Los Angeles, California, United States of America on 14 September 1985, and registered in the Marriage Records Office in Los Angeles California, United States of America on 24 September 1985, and also registered in the Civil Records Office Denpasar on 6 April 2005 is valid according to law and is hereby ended by divorce.

4. Rule that the Court Clerk Denpasar send a copy package of this Decision to the Clerk of the Civil Records Office in Denpasar and another copy package to the Clerk of the Civil Records Office in Los Angeles, California, United States of America.

In the Original Accusation and the Response to the Accusation

Order the Respondent to the Appeal to the Supreme Court / Plaintiff in the Accusation / Respondent to the Appeal NI MADE JATI to pay the case costs at all court levels that in this level of the Supreme Court totals Rp 500,000.

Thus is the decision in conference of the Supreme Court on Tuesday 10 April 2007 by PROF.DR HM. HAKIM NYAK PHA, SH, DEA, Chief Justice as appointed by the Supreme Court as Chairman, I MADE TARA, SH dan ANDAR PURBA, SH , Supreme Court Justices as Members, and announced in open public session today by the Chairman and the Members abovementioned and assisted by PRI PAMBUDI TEGUH, SH., MH. Substituting Clerk and not attended by the contesting parties;

Member Justices

Signature // I Made Tara, SH

Signature // Andar Purba, SH

Chairman

Signature // Prof DR. HM Hakim Nyak Pha, SH, DEA

Substituting Clerk

Signature // Pri Pambudi Teguh, SH, MH

Costs

1. Stamp…………….Rp 6,000

2. Printing …………. Rp 1,000

3. Administrative …....Rp 493,000

Total ………………….Rp 500,000

For Copy

Supreme Court Republic of Indonesia

Clerk Civil Division

Note I

Noted here that today TUESDAY, 15 January 2008 the Decision of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia dated 10 April 2007 number: 1428 K / Pdt/ 2006 has been communicated to MAHARIDZAL, SH, Attorney for MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY as the RESPONDENT / APPELLANT / APPELLANT TO THE SUPREME COURT .......................................................

CLERK

NATIONAL COURT DENPASAR

I MADE PARWATA SH

Photocopy Official Copy

Clerk

National Court Denpasar

I MADE PARWATA SH

MP 040035297

Note

Noted here that a certified photocopy of the Decision of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia number: 1428 K / Pdt/ 2006 has been given to MAHARIDZAL, SH, Attorney for MICHAEL PATRICK DONNELLY as the RESPONDENT / APPELLANT / APPELLANT TO THE SUPREME COURT today : Wednesday, 16 January 2008, with costs detailed as follows:

1. Stamp ….. Rp 6.000

2. Writing ….Rp 5,250

Total Rp 11,250