United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Secretary of State Dr Condoleeza Rice et al
Petition for Relief under The Freedom of Information Act and others, various Writs of Mandamus and in the Matter of the Controversy Regarding a Minor Child Emily Rose Hindle and the International Treaty known as The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Plaintiff Karl Hindle No.
A Pro Se Applicant
5, Berwick Cottages, Terling Hall Road, Hatfield Peverel
Essex CM3 2EY UNITED KINGDOM
Defendants Secretary of State Dr Condoleeza Rice
Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty
Ambassador Robert Holmes Tuttle – US Embassy London UK
Former Ambassador William Stamps Farish – US Department of State
Charge d’Affaires Charles Furey – US Embassy London UK
John Brennan – US Embassy London UK
Rena Bitter – former Chief, NIV Section US Embassy London UK
William Muntean –US Embassy London UK
Maria Damour – Chief, NIV Section US Embassy London UK
John Ballif – US Department of State
Glen Keiser – US Department of State
Barbara Greig – US Central Authority, Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State
Unidentified Consular Officials – US Department of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Other Involved Parties
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Immigration Agent Wayne Baehre – US Department of Homeland Security situate in the State of Florida
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable John Tanner
Florida State Attorney’s Office – 7th Judicial Circuit
251 No Ridgewood Avenue
Parties and Jurisdiction
1. That Karl Ernest Hindle (“the petitioner”) is a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom being resident at 5, Berwick Cottages, Terling Hall Road, Hatfield Peverel in the county of Essex, England CM3 2EY UNITED KINGDOM.
2. That Sheila Kay Fuith nee Vernick (“the mother”) is a citizen of the United States and is resident in the United States at a residency believed to be 1828 Hickory Avenue, Panama City Florida.
3. That Emily Rose Hindle (“the child”) is a minor child born in the town of Maldon in the county of Essex, England, United Kingdom and is a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom having a date of birth of March 1st 2002 and is a minor. That the child is believed to be resident with the mother in the State of Florida, United States.
4. That there is a pending paternity action filed by the petitioner in connection with the child in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial District, In and For Volusia County Florida before the Honourable Judge John V Doyle styled:
5. Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Sheila Kay Fuith Case No.: 2003-12692-FDML
6. That Captain Alan Osowski et al, Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, DeBary are situate in the judicial district;
7. That Investigators Roberta Miranda and Richard Brown of Florida Department of Children & Families are situate in the judicial district;
8. That the Honorable John Tanner, Florida State Attorney for the 7th Judicial District is situate in the judicial district,
9. Venue is proper in this Honourable Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. s1391 (e) because the events giving rise to this matter have substantially occurred within the judicial district.
Claim for Relief
10. The petitioner and the mother met and engaged in a relationship in December 2000 in New York US and the mother did move to the United Kingdom and lived in the petitioner’s home in England, United Kingdom in March 2001.
11. The mother held herself out to the petitioner as unmarried, never married and having no children. The petitioner discovered after the relationship ended that the mother had deceived him about her marital state, being married at the time of the relationship commencing and having two minor daughters in Minnesota.
12. The mother advised the petitioner shortly after the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attack as having lost a niece in the tragedy. The petitioner has discovered that this also was untrue after the relationship ended.
13. The mother claimed variously to have been a victim of rape and child abuse to the petitioner. The petitioner verily believes that these allegations, some made against her own parents and family are also untrue.
14. On March 1st 2002, the minor child, Emily Rose Hindle (“the child”) was born in the town of Maldon in England out of wedlock, the petitioner and mother being engaged to be married.
15. At the age of 6 months, the child was diagnosed with an eye condition rendering her vision impaired and requiring treatment for a condition known as amblyopia. The child received regular treatment at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford England by a team of medical eye specialists headed by Dr TAG Bell, Head of Eye Department.
16. Without treatment it was considered the child would become permanently vision impaired in her right eye and probably blind.
17. On 7th January 2003, the mother did take the child and left the family home claiming to be a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the petitioner.
18. The mother engaged in a malicious campaign of false allegations of domestic violence and abuse at the hands of the petitioner, falsely claiming to be residing in a domestic violence shelter in the United Kingdom and concealing minor child’s whereabouts.
19. The petitioner has always maintained his innocence of the allegations of domestic violence.
20. In February 2003, the mother did attend the US Embassy, London and obtained without the fathers knowledge or consent a US passport for the minor child and removed the child from the UK to the United States on or around 19th February 2003.
21. The petitioner believes the US passport issued to the minor child was unlawfully issued as a consequence of either a domestic violence fraud or a signed consent fraud by the mother and by unidentified consular officials at the US Embassy London.
22. Petitioner believes said passport was issued to remove the child from the UK to evade the legal process in the UK and constitutes an international child abduction under the colour of law.
23. The mother commenced moving around the US engaging in nomadic behaviour and concealing the child from the petitioner. In the period February 2003 to August 2003, petitioner believes the child was moved through the States of Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia and Florida and moved at least a dozen times at various addresses and locations.
24. The mother denied that the child had a serious eye condition and claimed it was simply a “lazy eye” not requiring treatment. The child also received no medical attention for follow up paediatrics or vaccinations in the care of the mother during this time.
25. The petitioner verily believes that the mother now claims the child has been blind from birth and is untreatable which conflicts with her open court testimony and prior depositions and medical evidence.
26. The petitioner has on three occasions complained to the Department of Children & Families, DeLand regarding the child’s eye condition and has variously been ignored, threatened through his attorney that criminal charges would be filed against him for making false reports and that despite the condition being recognised as treatable, there is no neglect as the condition is not life threatening.
27. The petitioner verily believes that DCF investigations notes and interview records have been falsified and fabricated by Investigator Roberta Miranda and Investigator Richard Brown of DCF DeLand Florida and that DCF DeLand has failed to exercise proper professional standards with regard to the welfare and concerns for the child.
28. The petitioner verily believes that there has been no genuine effort to treat the child in the United States, medical examinations only being obtained by the mother due to the imminency of court hearings.
29. The petitioner verily believes that the child is now permanently vision impaired and will become permanently blinded in her affected eye if this situation is allowed to continue.
30. The father attempted to invoke the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) but was advised that under UK law, not being married to the mother and having no parental responsibility agreement with the mother he was not able to effect the return of the child under that convention but was able to initiate the convention for access, which the petitioner did in or around April 2003.
31. The petitioner’s extreme distress and anxiety at this time were increased by emails from the mother in March 2003 that the child was being given up to a family for her protection at an unknown location, with unknown parties and without explanation of why the child needed protection.
32. The petitioner did make numerous telephone calls to members of the mother’s family, and when the mother’s location was known, to the mother in his efforts to locate the child and establish her safety and welfare. These efforts have repeatedly been characterised by the mother and her proxies as variously stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour. The petitioner denies this but does stipulate that on rare occasions he has lost his composure particularly after discovering who was involved in “adopting” his child.
33. In April 2003, the petitioner with the assistance of certain members of the mother’s family did locate the couple who were unlawfully adopting the child.
34. The child was being adopted without any papers by Dale Merriam and his wife Shannon Bodin of Schofield Wisconsin. The petitioner knows this partly as a consequence of a telephone conversation with Leslie Merriam of Wausau, Wisconsin and this has subsequently been confirmed by third parties.
35. Leslie Merriam also claimed to be looking after the child and this has been confirmed by various third parties.
36. Leslie Merriam is a convicted child sex offender having been found guilty on three counts of second degree sexual assaults upon children in 1992, sentenced to one year in prison, five years probation and is a lifetime registrant on the Wisconsin Sex Offenders Register.
37. The petitioner did advise the mother to immediately recover the child from the couple and to telephone him in England that the child had been recovered and was safe. Upon not hearing from the mother the petitioner did make complaint to local law enforcement in Wisconsin, who upon visiting the mother found she denied any such placement or contact of the child with the paedophile or placement of the child with other persons and did claim to be a victim of harassment.
38. The police reports record that the mother and child had been removed from the UK due to an abusive relationship with the petitioner by the US Embassy London and Department of State and that this agency had made it a condition that the petitioner was not to know the whereabouts of the minor child
39. The petitioner believes Wisconsin law enforcement did not interview Leslie Merriam in this matter.
40. Other police reports at this time report similar claims and that the mother claimed the petitioner was not the father of the child.
41. The petitioner will testify that the placement of the child was in exchange for money.
42. The discovery of the placement of his child in the care of a convicted paedophile did cause the petitioner extreme distress and anxiety and to be fearful for the child. Such was the petitioner’s distress that the following day he did collapse with chest pains and was taken to Broomfield Hospital where he was diagnosed as having had an anxiety attack.
43. The conduct of the mother also gave concern to the British authorities and Mr Paul King of the Child Abduction Unit, Department of Constitutional Affairs of HM Government, London did write to Marathon County social services in Wisconsin requesting intercession. No response was received.
44. In March 2003, given the petitioners inability to invoke the Hague Convention for return of the child to the UK he did cause attorneys to be instructed to petition the court in Minnesota for primary residency of the child. The petitioner was advised by said attorneys that there was no jurisdiction in that State or in the United States by virtue of failure to satisfy residency requirements.
45. In April 2003, after the petitioner found the child was being placed up for an unlawful adoption and after locating child in Wisconsin, the petitioner did cause for attorneys in that State to petition court for primary residency of the child. The petitioner was once more frustrated as there was no jurisdiction due to lack of residency requirements and was advised that jurisdiction was in the UK.
46. The petitioner did petition Chelmsford County Court, Essex UK in June 2003 and the court did seize the matter accepting substituted service upon the mother who had once more disappeared. Substituted service being by certified mail to the last known addresses in the United Kingdom and the United States, the latter being her parents address in Wisconsin.
47. Parental responsibility was awarded to the petitioner by the English court on 14th August 2003.
48. On the same day the petitioner did contact the mothers family and advised that unless the mother and child did cease to be concealed and that the mother did agree to resolve the issues concerning the child, he would file a missing child report in Wisconsin acting upon the advice of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation who had agreed to consider taking action against the mother for child endangerment and medical neglect of the child’s eye condition.
49. The petitioner contacted the mothers family because he did not wish to cause a course of action to occur that may have resulted in the arrest of the mother.
50. Later that day the mother did contact the petitioner and agreed to travel from her location (which she would not disclose) to meet with the petitioner in Florida.
51. The parties travelled to Florida and stayed together with the petitioner’s brother and sister-in-law in New Smyrna Beach, Florida the petitioner not wishing to be alone with the mother given her history of false allegations.
52. The parties stayed at a condominium in New Smyrna Beach for a period of approximately ten days at the end of August, start of September 2003.
53. During this time the mother refused to disclose the home location of the child but claimed it was in the State of Virginia. The mother was given the petitioners parental responsibility order from the English court and was made aware of the proceedings in England.
54. During this visit the mother was evasive about the child’s home and her future plans and repeatedly refused to discuss child visitation and particularly the child’s medical condition, claiming the child was under the care of a doctor but refusing to disclose information. The petitioner did not believe the mother.
55. During this visit the mother did also contact New Smyrna Beach Police Department claiming to have been assaulted by the petitioner and wanted him arrested. The petitioner strenuously denied having done so, the parties having had an argument about the mothers conduct with the child. No action was taken by New Smyrna Beach Police Department.
56. The petitioner agreed to reconciliation and returned to the United Kingdom with his brother and sister-in-law leaving the mother and child to follow.
57. The mother and child returned voluntarily to the United Kingdom on 19th September 2003 whereupon, acting on information from the petitioner regarding the child and his concerns, the British police did remove the child from the mother and gave the child into his care. The British police confirmed the authenticity of his English court order granting parental responsibility with the Chelmsford County Court and did consult the English Central Authority, The Child Abduction Unit London before giving the child to the father.
58. The petitioner refused permission for the child to be removed from the United Kingdom which was his right under British law in accordance with his parental responsibility order. British immigration did refuse the mother entry to the UK which the petitioner did think was harsh and was not the intent of his actions, which he verily believes were taken in the interests of protecting the child.
59. It has subsequently been claimed that the petitioner did hold out his parental responsibility order as a custody order. This the petitioner did not do and if he had done so, the enquiries of British police on the 19th September 2003 would have revealed that – these enquiries did not do so.
60. The petitioner did immediately advise the US and UK authorities that the child was in his care and did notify the mothers family and all parties were made aware of the location of the child at the family home, then being 26 Brookmans Road, Stock, Essex England.
61. The petitioner did immediately take the child to the family doctor to catch up on vaccinations and referral back to Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford to recommence treatment for the child’s eye condition.
62. The petitioner did immediately commence proceedings for primary residency of the child in Chelmsford County Court, England which the petitioner believed held jurisdiction over the matter.
63. The proceedings were stayed by the High Court, London (the High Court being the equivalent of the US Supreme Court) as the mother had invoked the Hague Convention claiming Florida held jurisdiction over the matter.
64. The High Court ordered that the jurisdiction in the matter was Florida and that the petitioner had either wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained the child from the jurisdiction of Florida.
65. The petitioner believes that the High Court decision is tainted by the perjury of the mother who claimed not to be aware of the legal proceedings in the Chelmsford County Court in England.
66. The petitioner also believes that the judgement of the High Court is tainted by misrepresentations to British authorities by Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority, Department of State who held out that Florida held jurisdiction.
67. Article 31 of the Convention states that:
“In relation to a State which in matters of custody of children has two or more systems of law applicable in different territorial units –
a) any reference to habitual residence in that State shall be construed as referring to habitual residence in a territorial unit of that State;
b) any reference to the law of the State of habitual residence shall be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in that State where the child habitually resides.”
68. The nomadic behaviour of the mother precluded any settled intention for the purposes of establishing habitual residence in any territorial component of the United States.
69. The petitioner is now aware that he mother held a Wisconsin driving licence and banking facilities and was not resident or habitually resident in the State of Florida as claimed at that time.
70. The petitioner believes under Florida law, jurisdiction over a child may be exercised upon a child being resident in that State for six months, alternatively a filing of a child in imminent harm under the UCCJA or alternatively a jurisdictional vacuum exists into which the Floridian court may occupy.
71. None of these conditions was satisfied the mother testifying during her deposition in Florida and in open court that she had been in Florida for a few weeks.
72. There has been no filing of a child in imminent harm under the UCCJA.
73. There was no jurisdictional vacuum as Chelmsford County Court, England had properly seized the matter.
74. The petitioner believes the Hague Convention application was a fraud upon the British High Court and the ruling of wrongful removal or retention is an absurdity as Florida did not hold any jurisdiction at that time and nor did any State in the United States.
75. Nevertheless, the child was sent in the care of her mother to Florida on 5th October 2003 for hearings to take place in Florida to determine the child’s future subject to conditions set out in the order of Justice Sir Johnson notably to obtain medical treatment for the child’s eye condition.
76. The former Ambassador to the United Kingdom, William Farish despatched a cable to the US Department of State on or around 8th October 2003, claiming to be a summary of the ruling of the British High Court. The cable is highly derogatory towards the petitioner and is highly inaccurate. The cable was authored before the transcript of the High Court judgement was available and the petitioner believes it is more accurately described as a version of events as provided by the mother rather than a fair summary of the proceedings.
77. Upon entering Florida the mother did proceed to violate the High Court Hague Convention order and attempted to pass off a basic eye examination as evidence of obtaining medical treatment for the child.
78. The mother also filed a police report November 24th 2003 claiming harassment with Captain Alan Osowski, DeBary District Commander of Volusia County Sheriff’s Office.
79. The report is false and the petitioner believes was misreported by Captain Alan Osowski who claimed in his report to have logged and verified telephone calls to the mother’s cell phone. Upon checking telephone records in the UK the petitioner has discovered that some of the telephone numbers logged had been disconnected on 7th January 2003.
80. On 10th February 2005, Captain Alan Osowski was deposed and testified that the mother gave him the telephone numbers which conflicts with his police report. Captain Osowski further testified that he had not established the truth or falsity of the mothers allegations and those of her proxy, Dana Colston aka Dana Burtchell.
81. In and around November 2003, the petitioner was advised by British police that he was being investigated on allegations made by the mother and her proxies of harassment, stalking and use of his eldest daughter in the UK of making child pornography.
82. In January 2004 the father was advised by Detective Constable Gary Biddle of Chelmsford Police that no action was being taken against him the investigation had concluded that the mother was moving around and making false allegations to evade the legal process and deny the petitioner contact with the child.
83. The mother was also served with proceedings in relation to the child in November 2003 the father having engaged the services of an attorney, Mr David Ferguson of Woodard, Simpson and Ferguson, Ormond Beach Florida.
84. The petitioner contacted Mr Glyn Keiser, Chief of the US Central Authority, Department of State with his concerns for the child who had disappeared and was being concealed from the father and also attempted to invoke article 7 of the Hague Convention with regards to the obligation of the Department of State to ensure the protection of the child.
85. Mr Keiser did advise the petitioner that his visa waiver privileges had been revoked and he would need to apply to the US Embassy London for a visa to enter the United States for court ordered access and to attend court hearings in relation to the child. The father protested that this was obstructive and contrary to the provisions of the Hague Convention.
86. The petitioner now believes that the Department of State unlawfully revoked the petitioner’s visa waiver privileges, having no lawful authority to do so.
87. Hearings in Volusia County Court where scheduled to take place on 19th February 2004 and the father applied for a visa to travel and was interviewed at the US Embassy London.
88. His visa was refused on the grounds he was ineligible under s3A2 INA – that he was travelling to commit unlawful activity. The petitioner protested that he had been cleared of the allegations made against him by the mother that no action was being taken against him. The father also advised the US Embassy of the obligations of the United States under the Hague Convention to facilitate proceedings subsequent to a Hague Convention hearing and to facilitate resolution of child custody and access disputes.
89. The court hearing in Florida was continued to 13th April 2004 and the father reapplied for a visa which was issued but restricted on consideration of s3A2 INA to allow him entry into the United States for the purposes of attending court hearings only. The visa expired on 19th April 2004.
90. The petitioner entered the United States at Sanford Florida on 3rd April 2003 and attended a General Masters hearing which seized jurisdiction of the matter despite arguments of the mothers attorney, Theresa Anderson that the State of Florida did not hold jurisdiction. The proceedings were scheduled to continue in Volusia County Court.
91. The mother and her proxies commenced filing maliciously false police reports claiming attempted break-in at her home, stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour with VCSO DeBary.
92. The mother and her proxies also attempted to provoke the petitioner while being observed by a concealed officer of Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, DeBary and failed to provoke the petitioner.
93. On 8th April 2004 the petitioner attended the mother’s attorney’s offices to give a deposition and was served with papers ordering attendance at Volusia County Court to hear a domestic violence petition application made by the mother.
94. The mother denied access to the minor child until 16th April 2004 when petitioner’s attorney was contacted and offered access to the child the following day, 17th April 2004 and which was the petitioner’s date of departure.
95. The petitioner desiring contact with the child and on the advice of his attorney did contact Orlando Border Patrol to seek advice on how to extend his visa which the petitioner believed expired on 19th April 2004. The petitioner explained that his date of departure was 17th April 2004 to the officer but was advised that provided an extension to his visa was filed with INS and the letter was postmarked by midnight 19th April 2004 the petitioner would lawfully be entitled to remain in the United States pending processing of the application to extend the visa.
96. On 19th April 2004, the father did attend the offices of his attorney and complete an application to extend the visa and this was postal franked at said offices and posted by that office to INS Mesquite, Texas that same day.
97. The petitioner verily believes that the mother and her attorney, Theresa Anderson offered access to the child in the full knowledge that this would result in a technical violation of his visa. The petitioner believes the information regarding his visa was provided to the mother and her attorney by Barbara Greig of the US Department of State.
98. On 20th April 2004, the father did attend Volusia County Court and successfully defended himself against the mother’s graphic allegations of domestic violence, stalking, harassment and so forth producing photographic evidence to demonstrate the falsity of the mother’s claim she had been thrown through a window by the petitioner. The evidence demonstrated that the mother had smashed the windows herself causing her to harm herself.
99. The Honourable Judge John Doyle ruled that the proceedings and allegations were being made by the mother to gain advantage in the custody proceedings filed by the petitioner. (Case style: Sheila Kay Fuith-v-Karl Ernest Hindle 2004-10865 FMDL).
100. Subsequently a stipulated order was entered granting unsupervised access to the child for the petitioner.
101. During the petitioner’s time in Florida at this time he engaged in such activities as voluntary work on a habitat project in DeLand, attended Northland Church, attended the Citizens Police Academy run by Officer Rod Hancock and held on Thursday evenings at DeLand Police Department as well as rekindling bonds with the child.
102. The petitioner fully complied with all conditions regarding access with the child and was engaged in no unlawful or anti-social activities. One condition of access was the surrender of his passport to his attorney.
103. On May 28th 2004, the father attended the police station in DeLand to collect the child for his visitation. At approximately 7.45am the petitioner was approached by two men who identified themselves as immigration agents and the petitioner was arrested by Agent Wayne Baehre of the Department of Homeland Security on the grounds he was unlawfully in the United States.
104. The petitioner cooperated fully with the immigration agents but protested that he had applied for a visa extension in accordance with advice from Orlando Border Patrol. Agent Baehre requested to see the petitioner’s passport and the petitioner did advise he had been required to surrender it as a condition of access with the child. Agent Baehre replied “I know”.
105. Agent Baehre advised that unless the petitioner had a document upon his person that demonstrated he was lawfully within the United States he would be arrested. The petitioner did not have any such document upon his person.
106. Agent Baehre proceeded to arrest the petitioner who was foot shackled, handcuffed and belly chained and transported to Orange County Corrections Facility, Orlando.
107. During the transport to Orlando, the petitioner asked questions as to why he had been arrested and Agent Baehre did advise that it was on the orders of Washington DC. The petitioner did ask if Agent Baehre knew Glyn Keiser of the Department of State, and he replied he did not. The petitioner asked Agent Baehre if he was in contact with Barbara Greig of the Department of State and he replied he would not answer any further questions.
108. Agent Baehre then made a cell phone call to his office and stated that he had the subject in custody and had the papers arrived from Washington.
109. The petitioner was delivered to Orlando and held at Orange County Correctional Facility and processed. During processing and the taking of the petitioner’s fingerprints, the petitioner did read the handwritten notes in Agent Baehre’s file which stated that involved persons in the immigration matter included the mother, her attorney Theresa Anderson, Sheriff Johnson, Captain Alan Osowski and Lt Gillete of VCSO.
110. The petitioner would like to state clearly that despite this being the first occasion that the petitioner has been arrested in his life, he believes Agent Baehre and his colleague did behave professionally and courteously and in no way does the petitioner hold Agent Baehre responsible for his actions and waives any claim that may arise from this action against him or his colleague.
111. It is the petitioner’s sincerest wish that no disciplinary or other adverse action be taken against either of these two immigration officers and the petitioner shall not support any such action.
112. During his detention at Orange County Correctional Facility the petitioner was denied medical treatment for a condition he has suffered from as a result of injuries sustained to his back.
113. After three days without treatment a medical doctor was summoned who noted the petitioner has neurological damage affecting his left leg and he was provide with medication and pain relief.
114. During this time the petitioner was also denied by correctional officers food and drink as he could not leave his bunk without experiencing excruciating pain and was provided with food and drink by cell mates in the holding tank from their own rations.
115. The petitioner did at this time request access to the British Consul and invoked his rights under the Vienna Convention but was advised by correctional officers that this “only applies to prisoners of war”.
116. The petitioner was held in a holding tank and solitary confinement for approximately one week without recreational facilities, contact with his family or the opportunity to exercise and did not see daylight for all that time until being transferred into general population.
117. Upon being transferred to Bradenton Immigration Detention Facility, Bradenton the petitioner was advised that he had committed a technical violation of his visa – his visa states that it expired on 19th April 2004 (a Monday) but the date of departure (for which he had a plane ticket) was 17th April 2004 (a Saturday) – the petitioner was one working day late in filing the visa extension which should have been filed by midnight of Friday 16th April 2004.
118. The petitioner was further advised by his immigration attorney, Mr David Vedder that notwithstanding the highly unusual arrest by the immigration authorities that Washington DC had ordered the Government immigration attorneys that if the petitioner was granted release on bond or his own recognisance, the Government attorneys (Attorneys Grimm and Maingot, Bradenton Florida) had been ordered to appeal said release and the petitioner would be held in detention for a further six months pending the Governments appeal.
119. The petitioner has spoken with both Mr David Vedder, his board certified immigration attorney and Mr James Grimm, the attorney for the US Government in the removal proceedings and both have advised the petitioner that they have no knowledge of any other such case. The petitioner believes his treatment at the hands of US Immigration was unique.
120. During the proceedings it became clear that the petitioner had been arrested due to misrepresentations to US Immigration that the petitioner was a threat to the mother and his child and the numerous police reports filed with VCSO and elsewhere by the mother and her proxies where cited as evidence of this. The cable of former Ambassador Farish was also used, within which it was claimed the petitioner had been found not to be a credible witness – the High Court did not find this.
121. The immigration proceedings were held before His Honor Judge McHugh at Bradenton Immigration Court and the case is styled:
In the Matter of Hindle, Karl Case no. A97-134-162
122. The petitioner was further advised that as an alternative to six months incarceration pending Government appeal, he was being offered voluntary departure which he accepted and was escorted to Tampa Airport under safeguards, without his belongings and without money or his credit cards to a British Airways aircraft and departed the United States on or around 1st July 2004.
123. The petitioner believes that he was entrapped in a technical violation of his visa as a consequence of collusion between the mother, her former attorney, Theresa Anderson, Captain Alan Osowski VCSO and Barbara J Greig of the US Department of State who deliberately misrepresented the petitioner as a threat and a menace and used the offer of access to his child as a means to entrap him into overstaying past his date of intended departure.
124. The petitioner verily believes that Barbara Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State conducted an unlawful investigation into the petitioner having no lawful authority to do so and that this unlawful investigation was to selectively gather “evidence” to paint the petitioner in a derogatory light as a threat and a menace.
125. Such was the concern regarding the unique conduct of US Immigration that the British Consul Hugh Harding contacted US Immigration to express his concerns that the arrest had been arranged so as to prevent the father from pursuing his custody action in Florida.
126. At no time did any of the above advise US Immigration that all the issues and allegations being made against the petitioner had been heard and disposed of by Judge Doyle in Volusia County Court on 20th April 2004 and all had knowledge of the ruling.
127. Upon return to the United Kingdom, the petitioner did immediately reapply for a visa to return to the United States to continue the legal process and to continue enjoying court ordered access with the child.
128. On one occasion while attending the US Embassy London the petitioner was interviewed by William Muntean, a Consular Officer who upon refusing the petitioner a visa for court ordered access advised n words to the effect that:
129. “Court ordered access is a right you may choose to exercise or not and is not a court ordered obligation. A visa will only be issued for court ordered obligations.”
130. The petitioner did advise Mr Muntean of his UK and US court orders ordering access and was advised they did not count.
131. The petitioners wife, Yulia Hindle also did attend the US Embassy London at the same time and was denied a visa to travel to Florida for the purpose of giving her evidence in the paternity matter as she could not provide evidence of substantial connection to the United Kingdom.
132. Almost immediately upon the petitioners return to the UK, the mother did make further complaint to British police that the petitioner was continuously telephoning her making threatening and harassing telephone calls to her place of work. The mother also falsely claimed to British police that she was in possession of a restraining order against the petitioner ordering he have no contact with her.
133. The mother did also make representations by email to Barbara Greig of the US Department of State and law enforcement in the US and the UK, claiming harassment and describing the petitioner as an “animal” and “a mental” among other things. Barbara Greig did then disseminate this and other such representations to the US Embassy London and elsewhere within and without the US Department of State.
134. The petitioner did make a restricted number of telephone calls, which he recorded, attempting variously to establish contact with the child, enquire as to her medical condition and because of his concerns for the safety and welfare of the child as a series of vicious hurricanes affected Florida during the summer of 2004.
135. The petitioner also requested a private investigator visit the mothers address and confirm the child was safe and well and still residing at 50 Pine Hill Road DeBary. The private investigator did confirm that the mother and child had moved and their whereabouts were unknown.
136. The petitioner did make numerous efforts to report the child as missing with VCSO DeBary who refused to respond to the petitioner.
137. In November 2004, the father was contacted by Essex Police and advised of the investigation and interviewed. The petitioner made the British police aware of the ruling of Judge Doyle dismissing the mother’s petition for a domestic violence injunction against the father.
138. The findings of the seven month British police investigation into all of the allegations of the mother and her proxies was “No Offence” and that there was no evidence.
139. The British police did however make further enquiries of witnesses in the United States and the result of their enquiries and the evidence provided by the petitioner of the concerns for the child led to the child being filed with Interpol as a missing child.
140. Upon reviewing the evidence, Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s Missing Children Information Clearinghouse did classify the missing child as endangered.
141. VCSO DeBary did claim to British police that the petitioner had forged the FDLE Missing Child flyer to show the child was endangered and that the mother was in hiding because she was in fear of the petitioner despite the fact that petitioner lives and was in England throughout this period 4,000 miles away.
142. VCSO DeBary also refused to interview witnesses provided to them to rebut their conclusions and refused to acknowledge the findings of Judge Doyle in Volusia County Court.
143. The petitioner’s anxiety and distress was further increased by a witness advising the father that the mother was claiming the child was dying of a brain tumour.
144. The petitioner also contacted Mr Glyn Keiser, Chief of the US Central Authority at the Department of State with his concerns for the child and his concerns at the involvement of Barbara Greig in the matter of his arrest and deportation from the United States earlier that year.
145. Mr Keiser advised the petitioner:
146. “Mr Hindle your allegations are so vile I can only conclude they are the product of a vile diseased mind”
147. Mr Keiser further added that he felt the petitioner had a problem with his “equilibrium” and should seek “help”.
148. The petitioner is aware of other officers at the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State referring to the petitioner as “crazy” or “the crazy guy” and similar.
149. In January 2005 the petitioner did file Freedom of Information Act requests with the US Embassy London, US Department of State Washington DC – to date these requests have not been complied with, notably the petitioners request for the child’s passport application paperwork.
150. The petitioner entered the United States for court hearings in February 2005 at which the mother failed to appear for hearings and depositions.
151. The father returned to the United Kingdom shortly thereafter and continued efforts to locate the child utilising the National Center for Missing Children (NCMEC), Find the Kids, Team Amber and so forth.
152. Such was the concern for the child that the petitioners Member of Parliament, Simon Burns MP tabled a question in the British Parliament and did meet with representatives of the British Government.
153. Paul Sizeman, British Head of Consular Affairs was despatched to Washington DC in May 2005 and raised the issues concerning the child directly with Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty.
154. The father subsequently received a letter from John Ballif, then Director of the Office of Childrens Issues at the Department of State placing responsibility for the care and welfare of the child upon the state, county or municipal agencies where the child resided.
155. In September 2005, the petitioner was advised by his attorney in Florida that there had been a report of a sighting of the child.
156. Susan Rohol, Supervising Attorney of the International Section of the NCMEC advised that they were checking the report but refused to provide the petitioner with any information.
157. The petitioner discovered that the report emanated from Missouri but the NCMEC eventually confirmed that the mother had entered a police station and given an address which had been checked out and found to be false.
158. The petitioner now believes that Barbara Greig, who had full knowledge of the Florida proceedings and that the mother had absconded the State of Florida to evade the legal process in that State, caused the mother to be advised to simply appear at a police station and declare herself and the child as alive.
159. The mother has subsequently testified that at this time she was resident in the State of Kansas.
160. On 25th October 2005 the petitioner was awarded a temporary custody order and a pick-up order for the child was issued by Judge Doyle in Volusia County Court. The petitioner did immediately advise Barbara Greig and Susan Rohol of the NCMEC and emailed a copy of the pick-up order to them.
161. In December 2005, the father entered the United States and attended a hearing before Judge Doyle. The mother did not attend but an attorney, Ms Kim Bannister appeared on a limited basis for the mother having not met her client and whose services Ms Bannister advised had been arranged by Barbara Greig of the Department of State in the presence of the petitioner and his attorney, Mr David Ferguson.
162. Judge Doyle ruled that unless the mother attended court on 13th January 2006 he would issue a permanent custody to the petitioner.
163. The petitioner therefore remained in the United States having been given leave to remain for six months by US Immigration Atlanta, his port of entry.
164. As a consequence of remaining in the United States the petitioner was forced to give up his employment in the United Kingdom as a sales manager for a computer company.
165. The mother duly attended court on 13th January 2006 and claimed she had absconded from Florida due to her fear of the petitioner. Judge Doyle noted that the petitioner lived 4,000 miles away and there was no justifiable basis for her being in fear and found her guilty of criminal contempt of court.
166. Judge Doyle deferred sentencing as he did not wish to cause trauma to the child who had not had contact with the petitioner for a year and a half. Judge Doyle did admonish the mother, that no further police involvement was to take place and that the parties do attend a parenting class on 28th January 2006 and also ordered an independent medical examination for the child’s eye condition.
167. The petitioner entered upon a series of reunification visits with the child commencing 14th January 2006. The mother did on several occasions call the police claiming variously for help because the court would not help her, and to supervise the visitation which the petitioner did find intimidating and obstructive to reunification.
168. The parties attended parenting class on January 28th 2006, and in the afternoon a further visit with the child occurred at the McDonalds restaurant, International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona.
169. After this visit the mother did make a complaint to Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) that the petitioner had sexually molested the child in the bathroom.
170. The allegations were investigated by Daytona Beach Police Department and DCF and concluded that there was no molestation of the child and the mother had been coaching the child to make allegations against the petitioner.
171. Before Judge Doyle and in deposition, the mother has denied making these allegations. Judge Doyle dismissed the allegations against the petitioner and granted unsupervised visitation with the petitioner on alternate days with the child.
172. The petitioner believes the mother and her proxies have continuously perjured themselves under oath in open court and during deposition.
173. In May 2006 the father returned to the United Kingdom to be reunited with his family, and to deal with family matters and to raise further funds to continue the paternity action in Florida.
174. The mother has continued to violate Judge Doyle’s order for telephonic access with the child and continues to conceal the child from the petitioner.
175. The petitioner has complained in or around June 2006 to the Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of State regarding the concerns regarding the conduct of the officials involved in this matter. The concerns of the petitioner were simply relayed to Mary Conaway of the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State who has reiterated no wrong doing.
176. The petitioner has approached the US Department of Justice with his concerns in or around June 2006 and has been advised that that Department had been advised by the US Department of State that that Department had jurisdiction over this matter.
177. On 7th September 2006 the petitioner attended the US Embassy London for a visa interview to re-enter the United States for the purpose of court ordered visitation and to continue the paternity action which was about to be docketed for trial.
178. The petitioner was refused a visa for court ordered visitation under s3A2 INA and was advised by the consular official this was because he had harassed the “American citizen mother”. The petitioner did provide the Florida domestic violence court order dismissing the mother’s allegations, his Florida court order for court ordered access and other evidence demonstrating this was not true.
179. The consular official advised the petitioner that the orders had been “evaluated by attorneys in Washington DC” and the petitioner could not have a visa to enter the United States for court ordered access. The petitioner has made numerous applications and requests for court ordered access using both the Hague Convention order and the Florida court orders and has been denied on every occasion.
180. The petitioner then asked about a visa being issued for attendance at the forthcoming trial in Florida and was advised by the consular officer that this would “require administrative processing” and he would be notified of the results.
181. The visa for attendance at the court hearing has now been denied under s214(b) INA that the petitioner is attempting to emigrate to the United States.
182. The petitioner has repeatedly provided the US Embassy of evidence of his social, economic and familial ties to the United Kingdom where he has lived all of his life except for temporary absences during military service, work commitments and holidays.
183. The petitioner has four minor children in the United Kingdom and has always maintained a home and continues to do so in the United Kingdom. With the exception of the petitioner’s mother who resides in Canada, and the child who resides in the United States, all of the petitioner’s family are in the United Kingdom.
184. The petitioner verily believes that the conduct of the US Embassy London and the US Department of State in removing the minor child from the United Kingdom, filing a fraudulent application under the Hague Convention and manipulating visa issuance is a concerted effort to deny the petitioner his rights and those of the child in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Federal, State and International law.
The petitioner respectfully prays that the Honourable Court shall grant the following relief:
1. The US Embassy London be ordered to forthwith issue a visa to the petitioner to appear before the Honourable Court;
2. That the High Court order of 3rd October 2003 issued by Sir Justice Johnson under the Hague Convention be domesticated in the United States and be immediately quashed having been obtained by virtue of perjury and fraud;
3. the petitioner not being an attorney, and without the funds to obtain competent representation in this matter and the issues raised being of great importance to the standing of parents and children, foreign and domestic and to good relations between the United States and Hague Convention treaty partners, that this Honourable Court shall order competent representation for the petitioner at the expense of the US Department of State;
4. That the Department of State do comply with the Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the petitioner in January 2005 and that the date range for the request be extended to the date of the Honourable Court’s order and especially shall forthwith release the child’s passport application documentation;
5. That the petitioner being a man of good character, with no criminal record, never having been arrested except under the unique circumstances as described herein by US Immigration, having a high standard of education, having served his country honourably in The Parachute Regiment of the British Army, not having any drug or alcohol problem, not having any associations with terrorist or criminal organisations and having being found to be no threat by the Florida court having heard the evidence of the mothers allegations and her proxies and having that decision re-affirmed, having entered and departed the United States on numerous occasions over the last twenty years, being a loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, desiring not to be a permanent resident of any other nation except the United Kingdom and upon no objection from the Department of Homeland Security that the petitioner have his visa waiver privileges re-instated and if the Department of Homeland Security do object they attend before the Honourable Court and present their objections;
6. That by Writ of Mandamus, the US Department of State shall cease and desist all unlawful activity in relation to this matter and the petitioner indefinitely, and shall further comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention regarding the child and especially shall cease acting outside of official US Government policy and in violation of federal law in colluding with the mother and her proxies to give her advantage in the custody proceedings and the orders that will emanate from the Honourable Court in Volusia and elsewhere as may be in future;
7. That by a Writ of Mandamus, the Department of Justice do investigate the conduct of the officials of the US Department of State and especially the unlawful issuance of a US passport to the child to effect an international child abduction under colour of law, the assistance rendered to the mother to hide the child and evade the legal process throughout the United State and the conduct of Barbara J Greig, Glyn Keiser and John Ballif et al at the Office of Children’s Issues and others in the matter of collusion with the mother in a fraud on the British High Court, the obstruction of justice in Florida and the arrest of the petitioner and denial of access to the Florida court and the child;
8. That by Writ of Mandamus, the Florida State Attorney shall investigate the conduct of Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, especially the conduct of Captain Alan Osowski and also of the Department of Children & Families, DeLand and especially Investigators Roberta Miranda and Richard Brown;
9. That the consular official(s) at the US Embassy London who issued a US passport to the child be identified;
10. That the following federal officers having evidence directly relevant to the matter concerning the best interests of the child, be compelled to obey the subpoenas of the petitioners attorney and do attend Florida for the purpose of giving depositions and attending trial in the matter of Karl Ernest Hindle v Sheila Kay Fuith Case No.: 2003-12692-FDML before the Honourable Judge John V Doyle in Volusia County Court DeLand Florida now holding jurisdiction over the said matter and it being in the interests of justice and in the interests of the child that they shall do so:
i. Immigration Agent Wayne Baehre, Department of Homeland Security;
ii. Barbara J Greig, Department of State
iii. Glyn Keiser, Department of State
iv. John Ballif, Department of State
v. The unidentified consular official(s) who issued a passport to the child in London
11. That an injunction be placed upon the US Embassy London and US Consulates in the United Kingdom preventing the issuance of passports to minor children in the United Kingdom utilising the domestic violence exception provided by 22 CFR 51, the United Kingdom being a civilised nation with adequate domestic violence protection laws equal to those of the United States and being the place where such allegations are best investigated and determined and to prevent international child abductions by US parents under colour of law;
12. the mother and her proxies be ordered to cease and desist the filing of false police reports, making of false allegations against the petitioner throughout the United States;
13. that US law enforcement agencies wherever they may be situate shall unless otherwise ordered disclose the whereabouts of the minor child to the petitioner now and in future;
14. that the petitioner be granted permission to apply under this action for any further relief as from time to time may be necessary and add any further parties as defendants as events unfold; and
15. That the Honourable Court issue any other order and grants any further relief it deems fit and proper.
Signed: 26th September 2006
Karl Ernest Hindle