Do you know why the ex-husband was deported from the USA?
Yes. See below.
"Giersch's American visa was revoked in April 2012,[15] after Rutherford's lawyer informed the State Department about issues pertaining to Giersch's businesses, which led the Department to conclude that they had sufficient evidence to deport him.[15] It has been reported that the allegations involved fraud[15] or an involvement in drugs and weapons dealing in South America, considered terrorism under the Victory Act.[16] Giersch consequently became unable to enter the United States, and took up residence in France and Monaco.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Rutherford
That is garbage that the Rutherford team has put out there to sway the public (and so it is dutifully reported) but it appears quite false based on the court's statement of decision linked above. In the statement of decision, the court explained that Rutherford's attorney tried to blackmail Geirsch into giving up cusotdy and visitation of his children, by threatening to contact the Visa board and say he lied on the stand at the hearing about having a a valid visa at a certain point when he in fact only had provisional approval. Giersch refused to sign. The attorney, with Rutherford watching, then called the Visa board, told whoever answered that Giersch had lied, had overstayed his visa, and was about to "kidnap" the children and should be arrested.
Daniel's Visa was revoked shortly after. There is no mention of any fraud, guns, drugs or any other nonsense in the court's statement and it cannot be backed up anywhere else but by what Rutherford had put out there.
(See page 21, lines 18-27, page 22, lines 1-14 of the pdf):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-xtA30nggE9B54A&bvm=bv.99804247,d.cGU&cad=rja
Please note that it is very easy for the Visa board to revoke a visa and very hard to get it reinstated.
Also note that Kelly was ordered to write a letter to the Visa board on Giersch's behalf to request that his visa be reinstated but she has failed to do so.
And the language in the court's decision about the call to the Visa board is quite telling:
"In November of 2011, his request to extend [his] visa for one year through April 2013 was approved. His Visa has since been revoked, and the most reasonable explanation is that this is the result of actions taken by Kelly’s attorney...At this juncture, there is probably no one in this case who would not turn the clock back to the day before Kelly’s attorney, Mr. Rich, entered the courtroom in this case. When Mr. Rich contacted the immigration authorities and then used immigration trouble as leverage to try to convince Daniel to sign a stipulation agreeing not to see his children, he did damage not only to Daniel, but to Kelly, if not more so to her."
Much more on page 23-24 of the decision.