Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Application for Directions - The British High Court

In the High Court Principal Registry Reference:
The Strand, London

A controversy regarding the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Emily Rose Hindle (a minor) and her father, Karl Ernest Hindle (a British citizen) and the United States of America and the State of Florida

Application for Directions

1. Emily Rose Hindle, a minor child was born on 1st March 2002 in Maldon, Essex UK with a mother being, Sheila Kay Fuith a US citizen and Karl Ernest Hindle, a British citizen; all were resident in the UK and lived together; the mother and father were not married;
2. The parties met in New York in December 2000 however the mother concealed the fact that she was married with two minor children in Minnesota from the father and continued to do so after she moved to the UK to live with the father in February 2001;
3. The child was diagnosed at age 6 months with a medical condition rendering her blind in her right eye unless treated and treatment commenced at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford UK which involved patching of the eye for several hours each day together with regular weekly visits to the hospital;
4. 2. On 7th January 2003, the mother removed the child from the home and attended the US Embassy London claiming to be a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the father and without his knowledge or consent, a US passport was issued to the minor child who was removed to the United States;
5. Upon being removed to the United States on or around 23rd February 2003, the child was hidden with the assistance of US Department of State and US Embassy officials from the father amidst claims he was an abuser in order to evade the US legal process and conceal the child; to date the child has been moved and concealed in ten US States and moved over 60 times;
6. The mother unilaterally and without taking medical advice ceased treatment for the child’s blindness;
7. In March 2003 the child was placed up for an unlawful adoption arrangement known in the US as a “baby switch” for which the father will testify to his own certain knowledge involved payment to the mother;
8. The sale of the child placed her into the care and contact of Leslie Merriam, a convicted child sex offender in Wisconsin;
9. The father attempted to litigate in March 2003 in the state of Minnesota where the mother was traced to at that time however he was advised by US attorneys instructed that there was no jurisdiction in that state and that jurisdiction in their view lay in the UK;
10. The father subsequently attempted to litigate in the state of Wisconsin in April 2003 after the mother was traced there and again was advised by retained attorneys in Wisconsin that there was no jurisdiction in that state and that jurisdiction lay in the UK;
11. The father attempted to invoke the Hague Convention for the return of the child but was advised by the English Central Authority this was not possible due to lack of parental responsibility;
12. The father and the English Central Authority repeatedly requested the intercession of the US authorities to protect the child but were ignored;
13. The father has now obtained US police reports that state that the mother and child were removed from the UK by the US Embassy London and US Department of State, Washington DC on the grounds that the father was an abuser and was not to know where the child was in the United States;
14. The father applied for a parental responsibility order out of Chelmsford County Court and after substituted service this was granted to the father on 14th August 2003;
15. The mother agreed to produce the child in Florida in August 2003 after the father approached the US Federal Bureau of Investigation;
16. The father offered reconciliation to the mother if she returned to the UK with the child to which she agreed;
17. On 19th September 2003, upon arriving at Gatwick Airport the mother was denied entry to the UK on the grounds of a previous overstay; British police alerted to the issues concerning the child removed the child from the care of the mother and placed her in the care of the father who refused permission under his parental responsibility order for the child to be removed from the jurisdiction;
18. The father does not deny he engineered this state of affairs though refusal of the mother for entry to the UK was not requested nor his intent and this was harsh treatment; the intent was to ensure the safety and welfare of the child from the neglect and conduct of the mother;
19. Upon the child being placed in his care, the father notified US and UK authorities as well as the mother’s family in the United States and immediately filed in Chelmsford County Court for a residency order;
20. The County Court proceedings were stayed by the High Court as an application was filed under the Hague Convention claiming jurisdiction lay in the State of Florida on the grounds that the child had resided there for more than six months – the father can now demonstrate that this was a fraudulent claim on the part of the mother and the US Central Authority official who filed it, Barbara J Greig and that the mother was in the jurisdiction for less than 2 months;
21. The High Court was also advised that the US passport issued to the child had been lawfully issued by the US Embassy; the father can now show that the child was issued a US passport in violation of US passport law and as a consequence of a domestic violence fraud and/or a signed notarised consent fraud;
22. A Hague Convention hearing was held before Sir Justice Johnson who delivered his ruling on 3rd October 2003 and ordered the return of the child subject to medical treatment being rendered for her eye condition amongst other conditions including visitation;
23. The father can now show that the Hague Convention application and evidence provided by the US Central Authority represents a fraud on the High Court by Barbara Greig, the US Government and the mother;
24. Upon sending the child to the State of Florida the father filed in that State for relief;
25. In November 2003 the father was advised by the US Central Authority’s Glenn Keiser, that his visa waiver privileges had been revoked and he needed a visa from the US Embassy to travel to the US for court hearings; the father believes he can now demonstrate that the US Central Authority used the visa process to deny the father access to the child and to the US courts and did so in order to conceal the misconduct of its own officials;
26. The father applied for a visa for attendance at a hearing in January 2004 and this was refused by the US Embassy London on the recommendation of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority;
27. The father reapplied for a visa to travel for hearings in April 2004 and was issued with a restricted visa for a short visit and was further advised he could not have a visa for visitation with his child;
28. Upon entering the United States the father commenced the legal process and was served on behalf of the mother with domestic violence proceedings which required he stay in the US beyond his planned date of departure;
29. The father applied for a visa extension in accordance with instructions from US Immigration and remained to defend the domestic violence proceedings and gain access under the domestic process to the child;
30. The father successfully defended himself against the domestic violence proceedings and was successful in obtaining legal and actual access to the child;
31. On 28th May 2004 the father was arrested by US Immigration on the grounds that he had filed for an extension to his visa one working day late and the father understands that this is a unique application of the law by US Immigration officials;
32. The father can now show that his arrest was at the direct request of Barbara J Greig of the US Central Authority who did not agree with the findings of the US court and conspired with the mother to effectuate a technical violation of the visa by using access to the child on the fathers intended day of departure as a lure to keep him in the US and by the service of domestic violence proceedings to be heard after the original visa expired;
33. The father can now show that Barbara J Greig did perform an unlawful investigation claiming the father was a threat and a menace and did solicit and obtain falsified police reports filed by the mother and her proxies including Captain Alan Osowski of Volusia County Sherriff’s Office;
34. The father can show that Captain Alan Osowski falsified a police report he took in November 2003 claiming the father had telephoned the mother harassing her and logging telephone numbers calling her mobile cell phone despite some of these numbers being disconnected some 11 months previously;
35. The father can now show that a conspiracy to stop the legal proceedings in the UK and in the State of Florida together with denial of the father and child’s right of access and visitation has been in force since the child’s removal from the United Kingdom in February 2003 and in which the following are members are (but are not limited to):
a. Barbara J Greig – US Department of State, US Central Authority
b. Glen Keiser – US Department of State, formerly US Central Authority
c. Sheila Kay Fuith – mother;
d. Captain Alan Osowski – Volusia County Sherriff’s Office, Florida
e. Teresa Anderson – Attorney at Law, Florida
36. This conspiracy continues to this day;
37. Upon arrest by US Immigration the father was incarcerated and on the recommendation and representations of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority, no bond or release on recognizance was to be allowed as according to Ms Greig the father constituted an abduction threat contrary to the findings of the US judge who had seized the case;
38. The father was deported to the UK in July 2004;
39. The child subsequently disappeared and was classified as missing and endangered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement after British police filed the child as missing through Interpol ;
40. The British police were conducting a second criminal investigation into the father based on complaints of the mother and representations of Barbara Greig to the British and US law enforcement authorities;
41. The father was cleared of allegations of harassment and stalking by the British police but the investigating officers became concerned for the safety of the child as a result of their investigations resulting in a missing child report being filed;
42. The father was denied access to the US and the courts at this time on the grounds that he had harassed the US mother despite repeated findings of the US court and law enforcement to the contrary and the child being missing and classified as endangered;
43. The father was also advised by the US Embassy London on numerous occasions that he would never be allowed access to the US for court ordered visitation with the child on the grounds he had harassed the US citizen mother despite the findings of the US courts and law enforcement;
44. Enquiries by various British authorities report that the US Department of State was not barring access to the child by refusing the father visas to travel for access;
45. The father can now show that this is a lie on the part of the US Department of State based upon recommendations and misrepresentations of Barbara Greig and the US Central Authority and that this continues to this day;
46. The child was located and returned in January 2006 to the State of Florida after hiding the child in Kansas/Missouri;
47. The father can now demonstrate that the child was hidden from the father and the US court proceedings with the active involvement of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority;
48. The father can show that despite nine US and British eye doctors recommending treatment for the child, the US court and Floridian authorities have refused treatment for the child;
49. The child is now permanently blinded in the right eye as treatment needed to be administered and concluded by age 3 (the child is now 6);
50. It has been 5 years since the child was sent to the jurisdiction of Florida and there is still no ruling as to a final determination of the child’s future;
51. The child and father have been kept apart for more than two years and the Floridian court refuses to enforce any visitation order in defiance of the laws of that State;
52. The father believes he can now demonstrate a fraud on the High Court by US Government officials, an international child abduction of a child situate in the UK by misconduct of US Government officials in violation of the Hague Convention and other rights accruing to the father and child;
53. The father believes he can now demonstrate that the State of Florida does not satisfy the prerequisites for children to be sent to that jurisdiction under the Hague Convention, to wit:
a. The State of Florida fails to provide courts that will be prompt and effective in the rendering of court orders for the interest of a child;
b. The State of Florida fails to provide courts that will be prompt and effective in the enforcement of existing orders for the interest of the child; and
c. The State of Florida does not provide a standard of child protection at least the equivalent as that which a child would enjoy in the United Kingdom.

Proposed Relief in Broad Terms

The father believes that the following relief in broad terms should be sought:
i. An order quashing the Hague Convention ruling of Sir Justice Johnson on the grounds of fraud, perjury and bad faith conduct of the mother and Barbara Greig et al;
ii. Imposition of controls upon the US Central Authority by the High Court such that a Hague Convention application and supporting evidence is subject to independent corroboration before the matter is heard;
iii. That a requirement for a jurisdictional ruling by a US judge of the jurisdiction from which a child is alleged to have been wrongfully removed or retained be imposed on US applicants under the Hague Convention before the matter is heard;
iv. That the State of Florida be suspended from the Hague Convention in those cases where a medical condition requiring medical intervention exist and that the child(ren) subject to the application be retained in the United Kingdom for the pendency of medical treatment;
v. That for those cases were a child is to be sent to the State of Florida, only a named Federal Judge shall be allowed to hear the case and one who is versed in the Hague Convention and understands the obligations placed on the United States in respect of the child and the British parent being sent to that jurisdiction and that no child shall be released to the jurisdiction until said Federal Judge has seized the case;
vi. That an investigation is launched by a competent authority selected by the Honourable Court into the removal of Emily Rose Hindle and the issues raised by the father regarding perjury and misrepresentations by the mother, Barbara Greig and other US government officials to the British authorities and High Court and the abuse and neglect of the child, the father and international law as a consequence;
vii. That an injunction be issued to prevent any further removal of children from the jurisdiction of England and Wales on the grounds of domestic violence by the US Embassy and Consulates; and
viii. Any other relief that the Honourable Court deems fit.


Relief Requested at the is Time -

The applicant respectfully prays for the following immediate relief:

1. That legal representation be appointed for the father;
2. That the court direct the applicant as to the form and filing of the matter;
3. That the court direct the applicant as to service on other parties and the nature of service and giving notice of the proceedings to other interested parties such as the State of Florida and the United States of America; and
4. Any other directions are issued as the Honourable Court deems necessary and fit.

Signed:.................................................. Dated:.........................
Karl Ernest Hindle
5 Berwick Cottages
Terling Hall Road
Hatfield Peverel Essex CM3 2EY

No comments: