Hindu Ceremonies 1994 - Made Jati's Evidence to the Court

A Hindu ceremony did take place, but at our home in Sanur in 1994, not in Kuta in 1996 as Made claimed in her Accusation of Divorce, or Tabanan in 1996 as in the documents she used to obtain her Marriage Certificate in 1996.

Made and her family asked me to take part in the Hindu marriage ceremony as a reaffirmation of our 1985 California marriage. They did not tell me that they planned to use it to prepare new false marriage documents and cancel our California marriage.

Before the Hindu marriage ceremony was a Hindu Sudiwudani or baptism ceremony, which Made's family explained as necessary before the marriage. It took place in the morning, and the marriage ceremony in the afternoon.

Certificate of Sudiwudani, 25 May 1994, entered as evidence by Made Jati.

Of the photos below submitted in evidence by Made, photos 2, 4, 5, and 6 are of the Sudiwudani. Photos 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are of the marriage ceremony.

Photo 10 shows Sean in about 1996 or 1997 with a friend's daughter, apparently meant to show that Sean was 4 years old when the the marriage took place in 1996 (although of course it actually took place in 1994), and that he was following his mother in the Hindu religion.

Photo 12 shows Brenden in about 1995, again apparently meant to show that Brenden was already born in 1996 and that he was following his mother in the Hindu religion..

It only later became clear with the Accusation of Divorce in 2005 that Made was asserting that the Bali Hindu marriage in Kuta 1996—although it actually took place in Sanur 1994—cancelled the validity of the California marriage of 1985. The many photos, documents, and (perjured) witness testimony in the Divorce trial were necessary to establish the Sudiwudani beyond doubt because a Hindu ceremony is only valid if the participants are indeed Hindu.

Comparing the Sudiwudani and marriage photos it is clear that the two ceremonies took place in the same location on the same day, and according to the Piagam certificate, the date was 25 May 1994.

Comparing photos, however, is only useful if the client's attorney points out to the judges that they should compare photos, and then only if the judges care to compare photos.