Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Angelina Jolie and Melissa Hawach

Melissa Hawach recovers Cedar & Hannah from Lebanon


Melissa Hawach recently recovered her two daughters from the Lebanon after a three continent battle to get them home to Canada from her estranged husband, Joseph Hawach.

Melissa and her daughters




This case started last year when Joseph Hawach took the two girls for a vacation to Australia but they ended up in the Lebanon with Mr Hawach and his mother.

After locating Cedar and Hannah in the Lebanon, Melisa Hawach reunited with the children at a school playground and eventually returned to Canada after a two month cat and mouse chase to evade Joseph and his supporters through Jordan and Syria..

Two "helpers", Brian Corrigan and David Pemberton, private security specialists currently languish in a Lebanese jail for "assisting" in this matter though the charges against them have recently been downgraded and the Lebanese court apparently now accepts Melissa has custody over the children.

Lebanon is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which makes it at the same time more difficult to pursue a resolution through the legal process but easier if you go the so called "self-help" route. Joseph, a dual Lebanese/Australian citizen has outstanding charges pending in Canada for international child kidnapping and custodial interference.

Joseph Hawach and his mother Gladys




In the style of Betty Mahmoudi, who managed to recover her daughters from Iran and the tale was turned into a film "Not without my Daughters" starring Sally Fields, movie offers are flooding in for the movie rights.

Hollywood heavyweight, Angelina Jolie has or is in the process of bidding for the film rights after the story broke in an Australian newspaper.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this and it is noteworthy that this case has so speedily been resolved without the Hague Convention - I think I can safely speculate that if the Hague Convention had been in situ, then this matter would still be dragging on to the detriment of Cedar and Hannah.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

International Child Abduction and Domestic Violence

Causes of International Child Abductions



I read this this morning in my google alerts:

"
MOTHERS are responsible for seven out of 10 international parental child abductions, an Australian study has found. And the most common reason for the abduction is flight from an abusive relationship.
"


My first reaction was "hello, mens rights at it again" but the article comes from Australia and the study is that of the International Social Science Australia entitled "Learning From The Links Between Domestic Violence And International Parental Child Abduction".

Now I haven't read the paper so I cannot comment on the conclusions but I do believe it will be a fair assumption to say that 70% of the respondents CLAIM domestic violence exists rather than it ACTUALLY being shown to exist - a much smaller proportion will have justifiable domestic violence as an element of the motivation to abduct than in fact.

The issue of domestic violence and international child abductions is difficult to navigate - one jurisdiction/party's justifiable flight from harm is anothers international child abduction.

The Hague Convention deals with issues such as domestic violence through Article 13(b) which allows a presiding judge to exercise discretion (note discretion not requires) to refuse to allow a return of a child that has been wrongfully removed from a country of habitual residence in those circumstances where there is a grave risk of physical and psychological harm to the child which is "intolerable".

By intolerable, consider this analogy that I was given by David Thelen of The Committee for Missing Children - you hold your outstretched palm above a candle, as you slowly bring your hand down you feel the heat of the flame but that is tolerable, as you bring your hand closer it starts to be painful until your hand is so close to the flame that you are actually burning - that is intolerable.

In this instance, The Hague Convention actually should result in the return of children whose mothers claim to be victims of domestic violence as this would for the most part not satisify the extremely high mark of "intolerable". I read a case last year where a mother fleeing from Venezuela after a hit man had been hired to kill her satisfied the test and though she had internationally abducted the children involved they were not returned due to the danger.

In Sheila Kay Fuith-v-Karl Ernest Hindle re ERH (a minor) I argued that Emily Rose should not be sent to Florida on the basis that the adoption attempt/sale of Emily, placing Emily into the care of a convicted child sex offender and medical neglect for her eye condition represented a an intolerable situation for the purposes of Art 13(b) of The Hague Convention. It was rejected as not satisfying the test.

Domestic violence features in the vast majority of international child abduction cases almost as a matter of course, what needs to impressed is that domestic violence only of the highest viciousness is regarded as a justification for international child abduction and by that it means the threat must be against the children and not the mother.

Clearly there is some way to go with the Hague Convention, but the debate that is raging particularly in America, on article 13(b) and interests of the child creeping into the otherwise summary proceedings to return a child, are likely to taint Hague Convention proceedings with procrastination and dogmatic complications on top of those implicit with the international dimension.

Generally, the vast majority of domestic violence allegations, founded or not, are not a proper justification for international child abduction - international child abduction is child abuse not child protection.


Friday, March 02, 2007

Robert Skelton - Father searching for his child taken from Florida

International Child Abduction - My Alter Ego in Florida







Reported in the Daytona Beach Journal - click here for the article



I'll be contacting Robert as I may be able to help him in finding his child but I think that the mirror nature of our cases serves to underlie the difficulties that he is going to face in finding his child, getting access or return of the child to Florida - not because of the allegations of domestic violence and so on, these unfortunately are par for the course.

Robert is going to face tremendous difficulties because he is simply an American and one from Florida at that and he will have to deal with the appallingly bad reputation that has been created by US officials in positions of responsibility that have failed to protect children in the past - in Washington DC and in Florida as well as on your doorstep in DeLand and DeBary.

Emily (my daughter) was taken 4 years ago with the assistance of the US Department of State based on claims I was domestically violent and they also made it a condition I was not to know where Emily was in the US (I have been repeatedly cleared of these claims by the courts and investigations)

2 months after being taken, Emily was put up for sale in WI and into the care of a convicted pedophile.

Emily was born with an eye defect which would render her permanently blind if untreated - she has received no medical treatment in the US and is now permanently blinded despite numerous British and US doctors advising treatment.

Emily has been moved about 40 times through 10 states in the US and was even missing and classified as endangered at one point.

VCSO Captain Osowski has falsified police reports while my PI observed the mother playing patsy with one of his Deputies in order to convince US Immigration I was a threat and a menace to the mother and my child, and was assisted in this by State Department officials in Washington DC who asked for my arrest in 2004 to stop court hearings in DeLand.

Even with a federal court order ordering my attendance in FL in connection with federal proceedings against the US Department of State - I am barred from entering the US for court ordered visitation with Emily (she was 5 yesterday) or from coming to court.

As for DCF....I have files and recordings that show they falsified their files, tapes of them telling me my daughter being given to a pedophile was a protective custody arrangement and that though Emily was treatable for her blindness this is not medical neglect as it is not life threatening.

What is upsetting is that this behaviour has been seen so many many times with European children and parents in the US and that it is causing a backlash - Robert will probably find his child and I will help him, but is he likely to get the child back, depends - and I have dozens of cases where perfectly good US parents lose their children because of poor official behaviour creating a terrible reputation for Americans that they simply do not deserve.

Emily and I will probably never see each other again no matter what Judge Doyle in DeLand rules if he ever has the chance to hear the case.

No Happy Birthday for Emily

"Ms Fuith Does Not Wish to Hinder Mr Hindle from wishing Emily a Happy Birthday"


Emily was 5 years old on March 1st, last Thursday - I went through my lawyer to see if we could speak to Emily to wish her a happy birthday and the response came back as follows from Ms Kim Bannister of Legal Services of Central Florida in Daytona FL attorneys for Sheila Fuith, which was emailed to me and I have cut and pasted verbatim:


"Karl: I’m going to type out Kim Banister’s response to our request for telephonic contact today:


It is unfortunate that Mr. Hindle has waited until the last minute to ask to speak to Emily for her birthday today. Ms. Fuith had already made plans for this evenings birthday celebration and will not be back at the house until late. Please provide us with alternative dates and times as Ms. Fuith does not want to hinder Mr. Hindle from wishing Emily a happy birthday.


In the future, advanced notice would probably result in a more favorable outcome for Mr. Hindle for any holiday/birthday telephone visitation requests outside of the agreed upon schedule, as Ms. Fuith does make plans for these special days.

I look forward to hearing from you soon on this matter."


Max and I did call, but we just got the answer machine - I wonder if Emily will get her presents from us this time around or will they end up "missing" like the Christmas gifts and cards we sent ?

Simply shameful Kim Bannister, I think you're a good attorney and just doing your job, but I wonder if you act like this with your child ?

To date Emily has had 5 birthdays and 5 Christmas' - we have only had contact for one of each very special occassion while there is no communication with Sheila at all - just a dark horibble nothing for no reason except to be cruel, vicious, vindictive no matter that it hurts an innocent child.

I came across a quote yesterday it goes something like this:

"Love leaves it's mark, Hate leaves it's mark but we choose ourselves which mark we decide to leave."

I love you Emily Rose and I always will.

Happy Birthday from all of us.

Daddy

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Happy Birthday Emily !

Happy Birthday Emily Rose


Last night Max and I spoke with Emily - she was excited with her news "Dad, do you know what day it is tomorrow? It's my BIRTHDAY !"

Emily is 5 years old today - another birthday that we will not be allowed to share with her nor her with us - but we love you darling, all of us, we love you very, very much.

Hopefully today, we will be able to speak to her on her birthday but I have to wait on the lawyers seeing if Sheila (Emily's mother) will agree.


International Child Abduction legitimised by Nebraska Bill and violates The Hague Convention

,
US Nebraska Law Sanctions International Child Abduction


A new law passed in Nebraska authorises the seizure of jurisdiction to that state from a non-US country (in this case Canada) and was promulgated and signed into law in order to block court ordered visitation to a Canadian father.

The US mother of the child has alleged physical abuse and sexual molestation of the child by the father during visitation, however there have been no criminal filings and to date, no evidence except the mothers say so as far as I can see.

State Senator DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln, Nebraska sponsored Bill 341 and it was signed into law by Governor Dave Heineman a week or so ago after passing the State Legislator 48-0.

The Canadian courts hold jurisdiction and continue to order visitation but Nebraska by this law has seized jurisdiction and is holding hearings on the allegations while blocking visitation.

International treaties such as The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and virtually every state in the US (including Nebraska) have laws that state a court where the child was living when custody proceedings are filed retains jurisdiction and only in "extraordinary" circumstances can measures be taken by courts outside that country.

This appears to be yet another violation of The Hague Convention on The Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction by the US, who seem to take a buffet approach to the treaty and enforce only those aspects of it that they wish to but ignore their obligations in others - typically when it benefits an abducting US parent in the United States.

In this instance a Nebraskan judge has blocked the father from visitation pending a hearing on an emergency basis and now the US will assume jurisdiction over the child after the abuse hearings are complete in complete violation of the international treaties and the US UCCJEA.

Whatever the merit of the allegations against the father, it is only in exceptional circumstances that jurisdiction of the original court can be usurped by a foreign court - in this instance there is nothing extraordinary, indeed the Nebraskan court is acting on an "emergency" basis. This is unjust US State sanctioned abduction and abrogation of an international treaty that appears to have been railroaded through the Nebraskan Senate.

I find this very disturbing, perhaps it is time for a revamp of the Hague Convention so it says it applies only when the US says so and not to their own - I wonder if the federal system will intervene in this particular matter, that will be very interesting as will the reaction of the Canadians.

When will the US learn that this type of behaviour makes it much more difficult for the hundreds of US parents coming to foreign countries asking for children to be returned - after all an American judge does not hear these cases but a foreign one.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Karl Hindle-v-US Secretary of State Dr Condoleeza Rice et al - Update on the Federal Action

Hindle-v-Rice Federal action developments



In October 2006, His Honor Judge Gregory Presnell ordered that the parties shall meet in the Middle District of Florida to hold a Case Management Report meeting in the Federal action brought (case number: 06:6cv1527)said meeting to take place within 60 days of the order.

I sent my court order together with my passport and a covering letter requesting a visa to enter the US for the purpose of meeting with the US Attorney General in Orlando to handle the CMR and start getting to grips with the federal legal process. The request was addressed to Maria Damour, Chief of the Non-Immigrant Visa section at the US Embassy London, UK.

It promptly came back with a curt refusal to process a visa without being interviewed, so I contacted the US Embassy visa appointment line but they would not give me an interview date and I was to call again in January 2007.

I explained I had a federal court order and a judge had ordered this meeting and I was directed to send an email with the information and a code in the subject header to the US Embassy.

I received no reply.

I contacted the US Embassy again in January 2007 and again was told I could not be interviewed and I had to send an email duplicating the information I had sent in November 2006. I did this and addressed it to Maria Damour and contacted her assistant at the US Embassy London and advised her of the federal order and the need to travel to Florida as ordered by Judge Presnell.

I have received no reply from Ms Maria Damour.

Maria Damour is also a defendant in the Federal action Hindle-v-Rice.

Make of that what you will.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Louise Campbell refused Legal Aid - Fred Jackson given Legal Aid - what is going on !

My previous post on who foots the bill in international child abduction asked the question which the British taxpayer ought to know.

Louise Campbell, has a child Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana abducted to Pakistan - that this was an abduction is a finding of fact by the court in Pakistan and in Scotland -it had to be as a consequence of the UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol, a simplified version of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which Pakistan has not acceded to.

Louise Campbell has "acquiesced" in the abduction - in plain English, she's given up - because she is potless.

No money = No lawyer, no airfare, no accomodation, NO JUSTICE !

How much has the British taxpayer contributed to her effort to recover an abducted child ?

Answer: £0.00

So here we are with a British/Pakistani child abducted from the UK to Pakistan and we pay £0.00 - and Louise Campbell cannot carry on the legal process to have Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana returned to her country of habitual residence for her future to be determined - that is, a Scottish court to decide on whether Louise Campbell or Sajed Rana should have primary residency of Molly/Misbah.

Now riddle me this - an American, Fred Jackson abducted two Scottish boys to Texas, I can say this because it is a finding of fact by Judge Lopez in Texas, US. The children have been returned to Scotland in the care of their mother, Angela Jackson under the Hague Convention for proceedings to take place as to who should be the primary residential parent, access, child support and so on.

Fred Jackson is an international child abductor according to the US court.

Fred has a Scottish solicitor representing him in the custody proceedings in Scotland.

Who is paying for his lawyer ?

The British taxpayer through the Legal Aid fund that has issued and extended a Legal Aid certificate. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ !

So we will not pay for a British parent to recover their child but we will pay for a foreign abductor of two British children to come here.

Someone please explain in ethical and moral terms the logic or fairness in this situation because The Secretary of the President at the Royal Courts of Justice cannot:


Dear Mr Hindle

Given the differences in funding mechanisms (for example in England and Wales some people would be eligible for legal aid, others would not) in different countries. I am unable to assist you any further in this subject.

Miss Sam Sprague

Private Secretary to the
President of Family Division
and Head of Family Justice


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: karlhindle@aol.com [mailto:karlhindle@aol.com]
Sent: 25 January 2007 14:58
To: Sprague, Sam
Cc: stevesmithpress@btinternet.com; gail.cameron@the-sun.co.uk
Subject: Re: UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol & Legal Costs Query



Dear Miss Sprague,

My apologies for referring to you as "Mr", I'm sure that must occur often in correspondence exchanges.

You are designated as the contact in the UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol information and I shall be grateful for an answer.

The questions relating to the cost incurred by non-UK taxpayers abroad cannot be answered by the Legal Services Commission as I am sure you are aware.

I look forward to receiving answers to my queries.

Yours sincerely

s/Karl Hindle

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam.Sprague@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
To: karlhindle@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 2.49PM
Subject: FW: UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol & Legal Costs Query

Dear Mr Hindle

As all the points raised in your email message relate to legal costs and therefore the spending of public funds, your enquiry is best directed to the Legal Services Commission at:

85 Gray’s inn Road
London
WC1X 8TX

0207 759 0000

Miss Sam Sprague
Private Secretary to the
President of Family Division
and Head of Family Justice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: karlhindle@aol.com [mailto:karlhindle@aol.com]
Sent: 25 January 2007 01:55
To: Sam.Sprague@courtservice.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: stevesmithpress@btinternet.com; gail.cameron@the-sun.co.uk
Subject: UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol & Legal Costs Query



24th January 2007


Mr S Sprague

The Family Division Lawyer,
President's Chambers,
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
London WC2A 2LL



Dear Mr Sprague,

International Child Abduction Legal Costs

With regards to the operation of the UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol (the "Protocol") would you be so kind to answer the following two questions:

1. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained under the Protocol in Pakistan, will the left behind British parents' legal costs in utilising the Protocol be met by the Pakistani taxpayer ?

2. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained under the Protocol in the UK, will the left behind Pakistani parents' legal costs in utilising the Protocol be met by the British taxpayer ?

With regards to The Hague Covention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("The Hague Convention") would you be so kind as to answer the following two questions:

1. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained from the US under The Hague Convention in the United Kingdom, will the left behind US parents' legal costs in utilising The Hague Convention be met by the British taxpayer ?

2. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained from the UK under The Hague Convention in the United States, will the left behind UK parents legal costs in utilising The Hague Convention be met by the US taxpayer ?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Karl Hindle

PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Who foots the bill in an international child abduction ?

In 2003 there was a Hague Convention hearing regarding my daughter Emily that took place in London - my American ex-partner who had already removed Emily from the UK was provided with a solicitor and barrister at the cost of the British taxpayer - a condition of The Hague Convention BUT British parents using The Hague Convention in the United States have to pay their own costs - why ?

In the light of the refusal by the Legal Aid Board to fund Louise Campbell's legal fight for Molly/Misbah to be returned to Scotland for proceedings to determine her future, is the Pakistani taxpayer paying her legal bills and if the reverse was true, say Misbah wanted to come to Scotland and become Molly, would the British taxpayer pick up the legal bill for the Pakistani parent ?

I wrote the letter below to Sam Sprague at the Royal Courts of Justice to find out and emailed it today.


24th January 2007

Mr S Sprague
The Family Division Lawyer,
President's Chambers,
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
London WC2A 2LL

Dear Mr Sprague,

International Child Abduction Legal Costs

With regards to the operation of the UK/Pakistan Judicial Protocol (the "Protocol") would you be so kind to answer the following two questions:

1. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained under the Protocol in Pakistan, will the left behind British parents' legal costs in utilising the Protocol be met by the Pakistani taxpayer ?

2. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained under the Protocol in the UK, will the left behind Pakistani parents' legal costs in utilising the Protocol be met by the British taxpayer ?

With regards to The Hague Covention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ("The Hague Convention") would you be so kind as to answer the following two questions:

1. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained from the US under The Hague Convention in the United Kingdom, will the left behind US parents' legal costs in utilising The Hague Convention be met by the British taxpayer ?

2. If a child is wrongfully removed or retained from the UK under The Hague Convention in the United States, will the left behind UK parents legal costs in utilising The Hague Convention be met by the US taxpayer ?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Karl Hindle

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana

I received a comment to my last post on Renfrewshire Social Services and I replied to it, however I think the writer, called Angela (but not the same Angela Jackson) wrote such an informed and humane comment that I am moved to make it a post together with my response.

Whoever you are Angela, contact me please and thank you for taking the time to write:

"Angela Jackson and Louise Campbell deserve equal compassion and help, and for the same reasons. Both lost their children to bullying scofflaws.

Both were denied the help they so desperately needed, whether it be Legal Aid or help from Social Services.It is unfair, however to try to portray Angela as somehow stronger and braver than Louise, as your post implies.

It is now known that Louise had no choice in her decision to drop her custody case as she was denied Legal Aid, and is left with a hefty legal bill to pay in Pakistan. Remember too, that she was up against not only Sajad Rana, but her three older children, who were unspeakably cruel towards their mother in public, and her main crime in their eyes seemed to be that she was no longer a Muslim. Sajad Rana and his (influenced) offspring have been grinding this poor soul down for years, not just the past six months.

These women deserved all the help and support our public services could throw at them, and the sheer apathy shown towards them and the fate of these kids, UK nationals, is a disgrace.
11:23 AM"

Emily's Dad said...
Angela - I agree with you entirely, I am not in any shape or form attempting to portray Louise as weaker nor Angela as stronger, the effect on parents who are left behind is devastating in a way that only those who experience it can truly understand.

One point I do make however, is that the trauma for fathers is exactly the same as for a mother - there is no difference. Parents who are placed in this situation need help and support and this matter is of such low priority that it is not available to British parents whose children are taken abroad.You obviously know a great deal regarding Louise Campbell and her personal situation with her ex-husband, and I would like to help.

Kindly contact me at KarlHindle@aol.com."

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Renfrewshire Social Services & Frederick & Angela Jackson

This is a little off the wall but I thought I should hello to all my new visitors at Renfrewshire Social Services in Scotland.

I reported in November last year the recovery of two children from the United States by their Scottish mother, Angela Jackson after a three year search and legal fight. Unlike Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana's mother, Ms Jackson managed to deal with the emotional trauma of having your children taken and though it has taken it's physical and emotional toil on Angela, she never gave in.

So what I am going to report now causes me a great deal of personal disturbance about how the United Kingdom handles international child abduction cases.

I do hope that you find what you are looking for, however I understand as you are conducting such a very intensive investigation using my site that perhaps you will also be acting as diligently and energetically in obtaining the criminal and arrest records of Mr Frederick "Boom Boom" Jackson together with the US Social Services records concerning his two sons while they were abducted to the United States by him.

I'm particularly concerned at the claims that one of the children attempted suicide in the US, while Mr Jackson has a history of domestic violence - and yes, I am perfectly aware of the level of false allegations that are made in such cases but I understand that they come from his stepdaughter (now fortunately also back in Scotland).

I also have first hand evidence to provide in the matter of Jackson-v-Jackson, including testimony with regards to Mr Jackson's efforts to extort monies from his ex wife while in the US using the children.

I will also be testifying to the threats issued against myself and family by Mr Frederick "Boom Boom" Jackson of Mansfield Port, Texas.

It would appear that Sir Humphrey Appleby was entirely correct in his assertion that social services expand in response to the problems they create.

So why Renfrewshire Social Services has denied Ms Jackson and her sons the support they so desperately required while violating and acting in contempt of a Hague Convention order issued by Judge Migdalia Lopez demonstrates that here in the UK we have much progress to make in international child abduction matters.

The Hague Convention order is binding on the United Kingdom (and Scotland is still part of the Union) while the court order states very clearly that the children be given into the care of Ms Jackson, returned to Scotland and that this order shall remain in force until cancelled or modified by a Scottish court.

Allowing Boom Boom Jackson contact with his sons is right and proper, but now denying contact with Ms Jackson is inhumane and quite beggars belief. Ms Jackson and the children have been through an extraordinary ordeal, one which Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana's mother could not endure for 6 months yet Angela Jackson has fought for over 4 years and against outstanding odds managed to recover two abducted children, and the response of Renfrewshire Social Services...........shameful.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !


For Emily we wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year darling
All our love from Daddy, Max & Dizzy xxx



Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Louis Nout

Three years ago, I found myself in DeLand Florida in my efforts to resolve the issues surrounding Emily.

I found there a sleepy town halfway between Orlando and Daytona, and many people who took me in and gave me friendship, good company and a reason to visit again and again - DeLand has become my second home.

Louis was the grouchy general manager of my "local" - The Brickhouse on Woodland Boulevard - he taught me how to play dice for "Hoops", made excellent food and split my sides with his dry wit.

I cried when one of the "regulars" emailed me with the horrible news that Loius had been shot and killed by a scumbag, Joseph Vincent Attardo of Deltona, who had discharged a weapon into a crowd and the shot hit Louis in the chest.




Stray bullet kills DeLand restaurateur; suspect charged

Police: Shooting victim not target

Slain cafe worker loved area

Community Outraged Over Shooting Death

Joseph Vincent Attardo charged with manslaughter



Louis Nout

Funeral service for Louis Nout, 39, West Rich Avenue, DeLand, who died Sat., Nov. 25, 2006, at Florida Hospital DeLand, will be 10 a.m. Mon., Dec. 4, at St. Peter's Catholic Church with the Rev. Tom Connery officiating. Burial will be at DeLand Memorial Gardens. Calling hours are from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. Sunday at Lankford Funeral Home, 220 E. New York Ave. Mr. Nout was born in Holland and came here in 1996 from the Florida Keys. He was a member of Mainstreet DeLand Association, and helped with the Dutton House Restoration. He attended St. Peter's Catholic Church, where he helped with Octoberfest. He also helped with the DeLand Fall Festival of the Arts. Survivors include two brothers and one sister, all of Holland, and many dear friends in DeLand. Memorial donations suggested to The Louis Nout Fund, c/o Mainstreet Community Bank, 204 S. Woodland Blvd., DeLand, FL 32720. Lankford Funeral Home, DeLand, is in charge of arrangements.

The stinking cowardly piece of excrement that shot Louis is now out on bail within 48 hours of taking Louis' life.


Sunday, November 12, 2006

Convicted Paedophile Testifies to Attempted Adoption of Emily by her mother





1 STATE OF FLORIDA
2 CIRCUIT COURT - 7th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
3 VOLUSIA COUNTY
4 ---------------------------------------------
5 KARL ERNEST HINDLE,
6 Petitioner,
7 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF:
-VS- LESLIE D. MERRIAM
8 CASE NO. 2003-12692-FMDL
9 SHEILA KAY FUITH,
10 Respondent.
11 ---------------------------------------------
12 Videotaped deposition examination
13 of LESLIE D. MERRIAM, taken at the instance of the
14 Plaintiff, under and pursuant to the applicable
15 Florida Statutes and the acts amendatory thereof
16 and supplementary thereto, pursuant to Notice upon
17 the parties, before Christine J. Willette,
18 Registered Professional Reporter, a Notary Public
19 in and for the State of Wisconsin, at the offices
20 of Davczyk & Varline, LLC, 2100 Stewart Avenue,
21 Suite 230, Wausau, Wisconsin, on the 11th day of
22 October 2006, commencing at 3:50 p.m. and ending
23 at 4:31 p.m.
24
25
2
1
2 A P P E A R A N C E S
3
4 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
KATHLEEN E. GRANT, Esq.
5 Davczyk & Varline, LLC
2100 Stewart Avenue
6 Suite 230
P.O. Box 1192
7 Wausau, WI 54402-1192
8 and
9 (By Telephone)
DAVID L. FERGUSON, Esq.
10 Woodard, Simpson & Ferguson
P.O. Box 2818
11 Ormond Beach, FL 32175
12
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
13 (By Telephone)
KIM BANISTER, Esq.
14 128A Orange Avenue
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
15
16 ALSO APPEARING BY TELEPHONE:
Karl Ernest Hindle
17
18 The original transcript of the deposition of
19 LESLIE D. MERRIAM was filed with Attorney Grant.
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 I N D E X P A G E
2
3
E X A M I N A T I O N
4 PAGE
5
LESLIE D. MERRIAM
6
EXAMINATION BY MS. GRANT ............... 5
7
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS. GRANT ....... 33
8
EXAMINATION BY MR. FERGUSON ............ 35
9
---------------------------------------
10
E X H I B I T S
11
12 (There were no exhibits marked during the
proceedings)
13
---------------------------------------
14
O B J E C T I O N S
15
16 NONE
17 ---------------------------------------
18 P R O D U C T I O N R E Q U E S T S
19 PAGE LINE
20 BY MR. FERGUSON ..................... 6 3
21 Social Security Number of the witness
22
23
24
25
4
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2
3 LESLIE D. MERRIAM, after having
4 been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
5 as follows:
6
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
8
9 MS. GRANT: Mr. Ferguson, would you
10 care to read the caption for us?
11 MR. FERGUSON: Yes. My name is
12 David Ferguson representing Karl Hindle. This is
13 the case Karl Earnest Hindle, petitioner, versus
14 Sheila Kay Fuith, Respondent, pending in the
15 Circuit Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for
16 Volusia County, Florida. Case number
17 2003-12692-FDML (sic), Division IV.
18 MS. GRANT: Thank you.
19 The other appearances today would
20 be Kathleen E. Grant, a member of the bar of
21 Wisconsin, conducting the deposition here in
22 Wausau, Marathon County, Wisconsin. And Kim
23 Banister, an attorney who is appearing, also by
24 telephone, from Datyona Beach Florida. Kim?
25 MS. BANISTER: Yes, that is
5
1 correct.
2 MS. GRANT: Ms. Fuith is not
3 appearing personally. And Mr. Hindle is not
4 appearing, but is listening and will not speak.
5 We're here today to take the
6 deposition of Leslie Merriam.
7
8
9 EXAMINATION BY MS. GRANT:
10 Q. Mr. Merriam?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You're appearing here voluntarily, at our
13 request; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Can you, for the record, and for the
16 court reporter, state your full name, including
17 your middle name, and spell your last name for us,
18 sir?
19 A. Leslie Dale Merriam, M-e-r-r-i-a-m.
20 Q. Can you tell me your date and place of
21 birth, sir?
22 A. 11-18-52, Wausau.
23 Q. And your Social Security number?
24 A. That, I don't know offhand.
25 Q. Okay.
6
1 MS. GRANT: David, does the court
2 in Florida need that?
3 MR. FERGUSON: It would be helpful
4 if it could be provided at a later date to us.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 BY MS. GRANT:
7 Q. Okay. We'll take care of that.
8 Can you tell me your present
9 address, sir?
10 A. E, as in Easton, 12935 County Highway Z,
11 as in Zebra, Wausau, 54403.
12 Q. How long have you lived there, sir?
13 A. Thirty-three years.
14 Q. Are you married?
15 A. Yes, I am.
16 Q. To whom?
17 A. Arlene.
18 Q. How long have you been married to Arlene?
19 A. It will be 33 years in October.
20 Q. Do you have children?
21 A. Three boys.
22 Q. And their names?
23 A. Danny Ray, Dale Lyle, and David Patrick.
24 Q. Are they all grown?
25 A. Yes, they are. They're all married.
7
1 Q. Do any of them live at home with you?
2 A. No, they don't.
3 Q. Your son, Dale, he's married?
4 A. Yes, he is.
5 Q. To whom?
6 A. Shannon.
7 Q. Do you know Shannon's maiden name?
8 A. Bodeen (ph).
9 Q. Can you spell that for me?
10 A. No, I can't.
11 Q. Okay. Phonetically, B-o-d-e-e-n, Bodeen?
12 A. If that's the way it is, I guess.
13 Q. Okay. How long have Shannon and Dale
14 been married, roughly?
15 A. Four years, I think.
16 Q. Before we went on the record and on
17 video, we briefly discussed the mechanics of a
18 deposition together, you and I, didn't we?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And do you understand that the court
21 reporter is taking down everything we say in the
22 question and answer format; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And that we're going to try to wait until
25 one another is finished speaking before the other
8
1 of us says anything. True?
2 A. True.
3 Q. And we've agreed that if you don't
4 understand one of my questions, you'll tell me so
5 and I'll try to rephrase it so that I'm sure that
6 if you're answering, it means you've understood
7 me?
8 A. True.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Where are you employed currently,
11 Mr. Merriam?
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. And where?
14 A. Graphic Packaging.
15 Q. How long have you been with Graphic
16 Packaging?
17 A. A little over six years.
18 Q. Did you attend schools here in Wausau,
19 Wisconsin?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Do you have any education after high
22 school?
23 A. Well, a couple years at the tech for farm
24 courses.
25 Q. Okay. What's your job title and what do
9
1 you do, basically, at Graphic Packaging?
2 A. Well, right now, working roll tray.
3 Q. Okay. We're here today to gather
4 information for a Florida case between Karl Hindle
5 and Sheila Fuith. That's your understanding;
6 correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And do you know Sheila?
9 A. Very, very little.
10 Q. Can you tell me how you know her?
11 A. Through my daughter-in-law's mother.
12 Q. Through your daughter --
13 A. Shannon's mother.
14 Q. Okay. And who is Shannon's mother?
15 A. Kathy Bodeen.
16 Q. So Shannon Bodeen Merriam's mother is
17 Kathy Bodeen?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And you know Sheila through Kathy?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And what is the relationship between
22 Kathy and Sheila?
23 A. Sisters.
24 Q. All right. When did you come to know
25 Sheila?
10
1 A. About four years ago, I met her once or
2 twice.
3 Q. Would you recognize her if we pointed
4 her -- if you saw her on the street?
5 A. No, I would not.
6 Q. And what was the occasion of your meeting
7 her.
8 (Phone beeps).
9 MS. GRANT: Did we lose someone?
10 MS. BANISTER: No, no. We're fine.
11 I'm sorry. I hit a button accidentally.
12 MS. GRANT: Okay.
13 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question,
14 please.
15 MS. GRANT: Where was I? I
16 think the question --
17 (Requested portion of the testimony
18 read back).
19 BY MS. GRANT:
20 Q. Sheila.
21 A. Mainly, because of her -- of her infant
22 daughter.
23 Q. Whose infant daughter?
24 A. Sheila's infant daughter, and by Kathy's.
25 Q. Okay. And who was Sheila's infant
11
1 daughter?
2 A. I don't remember her name right now.
3 Q. Emily?
4 A. Emily.
5 Q. Okay. And does that refresh your
6 recollection?
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. When we first talked, you did remember
9 her name, didn't you?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. So you came to meet Sheila because of
12 Emily; is that your --
13 A. Well, mainly because my kids were
14 watching -- Dale and Shannon were watching Emily.
15 Q. And when you say they were watching
16 Emily, when were they watching Emily? Like
17 baby-sitting for Emily?
18 A. Well, I don't know if they were -- they
19 were kind of baby-sitting and they were -- I don't
20 know, really, the whole story, what -- but -- what
21 was going on.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I know that they did try to adopt her,
24 and that's all I do know.
25 Q. Okay. So this would be Shannon, who's
12
1 married to Dale; correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. So Shannon and Dale, it's your
4 understanding, were anticipating or trying to
5 adopt Emily; is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And do you know whose idea this was?
8 A. I thought Sheila's.
9 Q. Do you have any idea why Sheila would
10 want Dale and Shannon to adopt Emily?
11 A. Mainly because she couldn't take care of
12 her.
13 Q. Who couldn't? Sheila?
14 A. Sheila couldn't.
15 Q. How come?
16 A. I don't really know the whole story
17 behind that.
18 Q. Uh-huh.
19 A. That's -- all I got was bits and pieces
20 of it.
21 Q. Can you remember any of it for me?
22 A. Well, like I said, it was just a little
23 bit that they told me, and I wasn't going to get
24 involved in it.
25 Q. All right. Was Sheila and -- a single
13
1 mother, to your knowledge, at that time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where was Sheila living at that time?
4 A. I think with Kathy, her sister.
5 Q. All right. And she had Emily with her?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you recall where Sheila and Emily had
8 been prior to them coming to live with Kathy?
9 A. The last I knew, she was in England.
10 Q. Okay. And did you know of her when she
11 was in England?
12 A. No, I did not.
13 Q. So you didn't know anything about Sheila
14 or Emily until they came back here to Wisconsin?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Okay. When you saw Emily, did you see
17 her at Kathy's house, or at Dale's house, or at
18 your house, or --
19 A. Well, more at Dale's house.
20 Q. Okay. And what was the occasion of your
21 seeing Emily at Dale's house?
22 A. Just visiting Dale and Shannon.
23 Q. All right. So Emily was there at that
24 time?
25 A. Yes.
14
1 Q. Was Emily living there, to your
2 knowledge?
3 A. I think so.
4 Q. All right. Where does Dale work?
5 A. GPI.
6 Q. And did he work there at the time that he
7 and Shannon had Emily with them?
8 A. Yes, he did.
9 Q. Where does Shannon work?
10 A. She works for a lawyer up at U.S. Bank.
11 I don't know the name of the lawyers.
12 Q. Perhaps Piehler & Strande?
13 A. It's possible.
14 Q. Okay. Has she worked -- do you -- was
15 she working there at the time that Emily was with
16 her?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you happen to know what arrangements
19 were made for Emily's care during the day, for
20 example, when Dale and Sheila were working?
21 A. Dale and Shannon?
22 Q. Excuse me. Dale and Shannon.
23 A. I think Sheila or Kathy watched her.
24 Q. All right. And where would that have
25 been, if you know?
15
1 A. By Kathy's.
2 Q. All right. So Shannon or Dale would have
3 dropped Emily off at Shannon's mom's house on
4 their way to work, perhaps?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Did you ever take care of Emily?
7 A. No, I have not.
8 Q. So your contacts with Emily would have
9 been while you were visiting your son and
10 daughter-in-law?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. All right. Prior to meeting Sheila, when
13 she returned from England, do you know anything
14 about her or her history with her family?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. Have you heard anything from either Kathy
17 Bodeen or Dale and Shannon about her?
18 A. Yes, I heard it.
19 Q. Can you --
20 A. Would I repeat it? No.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. Because I won't.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Personal reasons.
25 Q. Personal reasons. Would this have been
16
1 information that would have been part of, say,
2 family discussions about Sheila?
3 A. I think so.
4 Q. And would it have to do with, perhaps,
5 the reasons why Sheila might be wanting to place
6 Emily for adoption?
7 A. That, I couldn't say.
8 Q. All right. Who would have more
9 information about Sheila?
10 A. I think -- I think her family would.
11 Q. All right. Other than Kathy Bodeen, do
12 you know of any other members of her family?
13 A. Just Shannon's grandpa and grandma; I've
14 met them a few times, which would be Kathy's
15 mother.
16 Q. And Sheila's mother --
17 A. Right.
18 Q. -- and dad?
19 And you've met them a few times,
20 you said?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. And would that be at Dale and Shannon's
23 house?
24 A. Or at Kathy's.
25 Q. Okay. Are your contacts with this family
17
1 purely family contacts?
2 A. Yeah, I would say; but very seldom.
3 Q. Okay. Holidays and such?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. Okay. Obviously, you see your own son
6 and daughter-in-law more often. Would that be
7 accurate?
8 A. Oh, yes.
9 Q. Okay. When Emily was with Shannon and
10 Dale, how often did you see her?
11 A. Two, maybe three times.
12 Q. Uh-huh. And how was she as a child? How
13 did she seem to you?
14 A. Like a child. Like a baby.
15 Q. All right. Did -- was she talking and
16 walking at that time?
17 A. No.
18 Q. All right. Was she -- did she seem happy
19 and outgoing, or quiet and withdrawn? How did she
20 seem?
21 A. I thought she was happy.
22 Q. Okay. Did she seem talkative, in a baby
23 kind of way?
24 A. Well, yeah, I imagine. I imagine it was.
25 Q. Okay. And did you interact with her the
18
1 way you would interact with another grandchild?
2 For example, if Dale and Shannon have children,
3 did you interact with Emily as you would with
4 them?
5 A. No, I didn't.
6 Q. How come?
7 A. Because I just didn't.
8 Q. All right. You say that it was your
9 understanding that Shannon and Dale were going to
10 adopt Emily; is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And who told you that or how -- how did
13 you come to understand that?
14 A. I think Dale and Shannon kind of
15 mentioned it.
16 Q. Did they talk to you about it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did they ask your advice, whether you
19 thought it would be a good idea or not?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you know if they consulted with any
22 attorneys or -- with respect to initiating
23 adoption action?
24 A. Not to my knowledge.
25 Q. All right. Do you know whether or not
19
1 they, for example, paid the necessary deposit to
2 have a home study done of their home or a study of
3 Emily -- of Emily's background, anything like
4 that?
5 A. No, I don't know.
6 Q. So you don't know how formally they were
7 pursuing this adoption?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Do you know whether it was going to be a
10 legal and formal adoption, or a more informal,
11 within-the-family placement?
12 A. I thought it would have been formal.
13 Q. Okay. And did they discuss any of those
14 formalities with you?
15 A. Nope.
16 Q. So this was just your --
17 A. Just -- just what I had kind of heard.
18 Q. Okay. So it was your understanding that
19 they were going to pursue a formal adoption
20 through the courts here in Wisconsin?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you have any idea why that did not
23 proceed?
24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. Okay. At some point, however, the
20
1 adoption plans fell through or ceased? Or what
2 happened there?
3 A. Well, I think they just kind of ceased,
4 because of all the harassment we were getting from
5 Karl at the time.
6 Q. Okay. So it was your understanding that
7 Karl objected to any sort of adoption of Emily?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know, after Emily -- well,
10 strike that.
11 At some point, I take it that Emily
12 no longer was living with Dale and Shannon.
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Do you know where Emily went after she
15 was living with Dale and Shannon?
16 A. All I heard, at one point, that Kath --
17 that -- excuse me, that Sheila was in Florida.
18 And that was the last I heard about it.
19 Q. And it was your understanding that Emily
20 was with Sheila?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know anything about
23 Sheila's previous history before she went to
24 England or before she knew Karl?
25 A. No, I don't.
21
1 Q. Have you heard any family stories about
2 that?
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. Will you repeat those for me, please?
5 A. No, I won't.
6 Q. Kind of give us the gist of it.
7 A. The only thing that I kind of heard is
8 that she left her husband and kids. That's all I
9 know.
10 Q. Okay. And by that, you're meaning,
11 obviously, someone other than Karl?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And kids other than Emily?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. All right. So it was your understanding
16 that before Karl, she had a husband and other
17 children?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Do you know if that was in the United
20 States, or in England?
21 A. United States.
22 Q. And I'm assuming that you know that
23 because Kathy Bodeen knew that?
24 A. Well, Dale or Shannon had said something.
25 Q. Okay. All right. So if I wanted to know
22
1 more about that, I should be speaking to whom, do
2 you think?
3 A. Her fam -- her family.
4 Q. Okay. All right. When you met Sheila on
5 the one or two occasions that you had occasion to
6 meet her, how did she seem to you?
7 A. The little bit I talked to her, I really
8 can't give you an opinion on her.
9 Q. All right. Did it seem odd to you that a
10 mother would be suggesting placing her child out
11 for adoption?
12 A. To a point, yes.
13 Q. Did you draw any conclusions about that?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you form any opinions or have any
16 ideas about that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you ask your son or daughter-in-law
19 if they had any ideas about why she would be
20 placing Emily with them?
21 A. Not really.
22 Q. Did they think it would be good for them
23 and for Emily?
24 A. We all kind of thought it would be good
25 for them and Emily.
23
1 Q. How come?
2 A. Because that way, she'd have a stable
3 home and that.
4 Q. Emily would?
5 A. Emily would.
6 Q. Opposed to the sort of home that she had
7 or the sort of upbringing she'd had so far with
8 Sheila?
9 A. Well, if you're on the move all the time,
10 it's kind of hard to -- to get to know anybody.
11 Q. Okay. At that time, Dale and Shannon had
12 been married for some time, had they?
13 A. I think about a year.
14 Q. Okay. And have they adopted children
15 since?
16 A. No, they haven't.
17 Q. And have they had a child --
18 A. They had lost -- they had lost a son.
19 Q. And when was that?
20 A. The baby had died on November 18.
21 Q. Of?
22 A. Last year.
23 Q. 2005?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So almost a year ago?
24
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Okay. That was obviously after they had
3 Emily?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Do you have any understanding about
6 Sheila's contact with, for example, her former
7 family, the husband and children here in the
8 United States?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Do you have any information about
11 Sheila's contact or continuing relationship with
12 Mr. Hindle, with Karl?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. Do you have any information about the
15 whereabouts of Emily between the time that she was
16 here in Wisconsin with Dale and Shannon, and when
17 she was in Florida?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. Do you have any information about
20 Sheila's education or occupational status?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Do you know if she was working when she
23 lived here in Wisconsin?
24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. Do you know how she supported herself and
25
1 Emily?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. But it's your understanding she was
4 living with her sister, Kathy?
5 A. For a short time.
6 Q. All right. Currently -- you and I talked
7 before the deposition, and it's your understanding
8 that Dale and Shannon have just recently moved; is
9 that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And you don't know the exact address, do
12 you?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. But we've agreed that we're going to call
15 Dale or Shannon and learn the address, haven't we?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And can you tell us, for the record,
18 where they're living now? Not the address, but
19 where.
20 A. On the southeast corner of Our Savior's
21 church across the road.
22 Q. Uh-huh.
23 A. And that's over by Eagle's Landing.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MS. GRANT: And for the record, and
26
1 for Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Banister, we will obtain
2 that address for you and I -- I will supply it.
3 MS. BANISTER: Thank you.
4 BY MS. GRANT:
5 Q. Is it your understanding that Kathy
6 Bodeen was, for lack of a better word, the
7 go-between in the adoption of Emily between, say,
8 Sheila and Dale and Shannon?
9 A. That, I don't know.
10 Q. All right. But it's your understanding
11 that an adoption would have progressed and taken
12 place, but for Karl's interference? Is that
13 basically your understanding?
14 A. True.
15 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether there
16 were any financial arrangements with respect to
17 Dale and Shannon caring for Emily?
18 A. No, I -- I do not know.
19 Q. Is it possible that Sheila was, for
20 example, paying Dale and Shannon to, I don't know,
21 baby-sit or care for Emily while she was here?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. But your understanding, and it's your
24 clear understanding, that Emily was living with
25 Dale and Shannon because Dale and Shannon were
27
1 anticipating adopting her?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And it was your understanding that this
4 would be a long-term adoption placement?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Not merely a short-term baby-sitting or
7 care-giving placement?
8 A. No.
9 Q. How did it affect Dale and Shannon when
10 the adoption fell through?
11 A. I think emotionally.
12 Q. Was it hard for them?
13 A. Yes, because they had bought a lot of
14 stuff; car seats and everything else, just to take
15 care of her.
16 Q. All right. And those were purchases that
17 they made?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Did you and your wife make any purchases
20 for Emily?
21 A. No, we didn't.
22 Q. Okay. If Dale and Shannon had adopted
23 Emily, obviously, you would have?
24 A. Yes, we would have.
25 Q. Did Emily ever visit with you and your
28
1 wife in your home?
2 A. Not that I remember.
3 Q. All right. And I think I've asked you
4 this. Did you ever care for Emily, either at Dale
5 and Shannon's, or Kathy's, or in your home, or
6 anyplace else?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 Q. Okay. Obviously, our meeting here today
9 is for all of the attorneys, myself included, to
10 understand as much as we can about the situation
11 with Emily during the time that she was here in
12 Wisconsin. Is there any other information that
13 perhaps I haven't covered or asked you, that you
14 can share with us about Emily and Sheila's
15 situation when they were here, when you knew of
16 them?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. Are you aware whether Kathy and
19 Sheila's parents, Shannon's grandparents, whether
20 they were aware of the adoption?
21 A. That, I can't say. I have no idea.
22 Q. Okay. But Kathy obviously was?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Dale and Shannon were?
25 A. Correct.
29
1 Q. Were there any other members of your
2 extended family that interacted with Emily while
3 she was living with Dale and Shannon?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. How about the other -- how about
6 your other sons and their wives?
7 A. Not that I recall.
8 Q. Okay. They may have, you just weren't
9 present?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. All right. Can you tell me, your other
12 son's -- tell me their names again. Danny?
13 A. And David.
14 Q. And David. Do they both live in the
15 Wausau area?
16 A. Yes, they do.
17 Q. Do you know their addresses?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. But you can get for me if I need them?
20 A. Probably.
21 Q. Okay. Were they both married at the time
22 that Emily was living with Dale and Shannon?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Was either of them married at that time?
25 A. I think David was.
30
1 Q. Okay. And his wife's name?
2 A. Cindy.
3 Q. Okay. And you think Danny wasn't?
4 A. Danny, I know, wasn't.
5 Q. Okay. And his wife's name now?
6 A. He's divorced.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Before Sheila and
8 Emily arrived in Wisconsin from England, as far as
9 you know, did you know anything about them through
10 Kathy Bodeen?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And do you know anything about Sheila's
13 other sisters or brothers?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. Okay. Is there anyone else that you know
16 of, or that you could suggest, other than the
17 people we've already discussed, who would have any
18 information with respect to Sheila and Emily
19 during the period of time that Sheila and Emily
20 were living here in our area?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 MS. GRANT: Okay. Mr. Ferguson and
23 Ms. Banister, have -- I'll -- I'll pass the
24 witness at this time.
25 (Busy signal on phone).
31
1 MS. GRANT: Oh-oh.
2 MR. FERGUSON: We just went -- we
3 just went blank.
4 MS. GRANT: David?
5 MR. FERGUSON: Hello?
6 MS. GRANT: Hello.
7 MR. FERGUSON: I think we may have
8 lost Kim.
9 MS. GRANT: Can you still hear us?
10 MR. FERGUSON: I can hear you. Can
11 you hear me?
12 MS. GRANT: Yes, we can hear you,
13 and we are staying on the record, so that you
14 know. I am now describing for the record the fact
15 that the court reporter and I looked at each other
16 with a strange look on our face, because we are
17 now hearing some sort of a busy signal tone.
18 Correct?
19 MR. FERGUSON: Me, too, which leads
20 me to believe we may have just lost Kim Banister.
21 MS. GRANT: Okay. Shall we go off
22 the record until we reconnect?
23 MR. FERGUSON: Go off the record
24 and try to get them -- get her back.
25 MS. GRANT: All right. Please note
32
1 the time, and we'll go off the record.
2 (Discussion held off the record
3 from 4:20 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.)
4 MR. FERGUSON: Hello?
5 MS. GRANT: Hello.
6 MR. FERGUSON: Is this Kathleen?
7 MS. GRANT: Yes, it is.
8 MR. FERGUSON: Let's see if we can
9 get Kim.
10 (Dial tone on telephone).
11 MS. GRANT: Note for the record
12 that we were disconnected.
13 (4:24 p.m.)
14 (Discussion held off the record).
15 (4:26 p.m.)
16 MR. FERGUSON: All right?
17 MS. GRANT: Okay. We're back on
18 the record.
19 While we were off the record, Mr.
20 Merriam did, indeed, find his Social Security
21 card, and he's going to read his Social Security
22 number into the record for us.
23 MR. FERGUSON: Okay.
24 THE WITNESS: It's 396-62-0386.
25 MS. GRANT: Thank you.
33
1 Also, while we were off the record,
2 I inquired of Mr. Merriam his concerns about
3 repeating any of the gists of conversations he
4 might have heard with respect to Sheila or her
5 background or, oh, I don't know, any mental or
6 emotional issues surrounding Sheila; and he said
7 his concern had to do with hearsay. But, he has
8 agreed to tell us the gist of conversations he
9 heard.
10
11
12 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS.
13 GRANT:
14 Q. So, Mr. Merriam, earlier, I had asked you
15 whether you had heard anything, for example, about
16 Sheila's background, and you indicated you didn't
17 want to repeat those conversations. Do you recall
18 my questions?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Would you please repeat for us the sorts
21 of things or what you heard about Sheila or her
22 background?
23 A. Like I said, it's just hearsay. And it's
24 just that she left her husband and kids.
25 Q. Okay. And do you remember whom you heard
34
1 those sorts of comments from?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. It would have been, obviously, her sister
4 or your family?
5 A. My son or his wife, yes.
6 Q. Okay. And was it that sort of activity
7 on Sheila's part that led them to believe it would
8 be better for Emily to be with Dale and Shannon?
9 A. I think so.
10 Q. Okay. Did you ever hear any other
11 discussions by Kathy or any other people that you
12 know with respect to, for example, any mental or
13 emotional issues concerning Sheila?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Do you know whether Sheila ever
16 discussed her plans for Emily or for her life with
17 Emily, other than adoption by Dale and Shannon?
18 A. Not that I know of.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MS. GRANT: Well, I think we were
21 at this point when we got cut off, but as I was
22 saying, I -- I will pass the witness, if either
23 Mr. Ferguson or Mr. -- or Ms. Banister, excuse me,
24 has any questions at this time.
25 MS. BANISTER: I don't have any
35
1 questions at this time.
2 MR. FERGUSON: Yeah, I've just got
3 a couple of things, really more in clarification
4 than anything else.
5
6
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. FERGUSON:
8 Q. Did -- and this is David Ferguson, once
9 again.
10 Mr. Merriam, did you have any
11 direct conversations with Sheila Fuith with regard
12 to the plans for adoption?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. You did not speak directly to her?
15 A. No, I did not.
16 Q. Okay. And were you aware of any physical
17 conditions that plagued Emily?
18 A. No, I do not.
19 Q. Were you aware of any eye conditions that
20 she suffered from?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. And are you absolutely certain
23 that you never baby-sat?
24 A. I'm a hundred percent sure.
25 Q. Okay. Do you remember ever speaking to
36
1 myself or any investigators on the phone, and
2 talking about the fact that you had baby-sat once
3 or twice?
4 A. No.
5 Q. You don't remember that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Have you ever been
8 convicted of any crimes --
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. -- which are felonies? What crimes are
11 those?
12 A. Sex offender.
13 Q. Okay. What was the sex offense?
14 A. What? Repeat the question.
15 Q. What was the offense?
16 A. I think third.
17 Q. Pardon?
18 A. I think it was third --
19 Q. Okay. When did it -- when did it -- when
20 did the offense occur?
21 A. '90, '92, somewhere around there.
22 Q. And in what county and state?
23 A. Marathon County, State of Wisconsin.
24 Q. Were you convicted?
25 A. Yes, I was.
37
1 Q. Are you under any legal restriction from
2 having contact with children?
3 A. No, I am not.
4 Q. Okay. Do you know why Sheila Fuith left
5 the Wisconsin area?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. On how many occasions did you see Ms.
8 Fuith?
9 A. Maybe once or twice.
10 Q. Okay. On how many occasions did you see
11 the child, Emily?
12 A. I don't know; two, three. I don't
13 remember.
14 Q. Okay. Did you --
15 MR. FERGUSON: I don't think I have
16 anything further.
17 MS. GRANT: Ms. Banister?
18 MS. BANISTER: No, I think I'm --
19 I'm fine.
20 MS. GRANT: Okay. I have no
21 further questions, either.
22 And with that, we will conclude the
23 deposition and go off the record.
24 MR. FERGUSON: Okay. And one --
25 one thing, for the record, here in Florida.
38
1 MS. GRANT: All right.
2 MR. FERGUSON: The witness does
3 have the right to read the deposition, if it is
4 typed up, for accuracy, or he can waive that
5 right.
6 MS. GRANT: Do you understand that,
7 Mr. Merriam? In -- it's the same in Wisconsin.
8 People who give their deposition can receive the
9 transcript of it, the question and answer format,
10 read it, and if there are any corrections that you
11 wish to make, you may make them.
12 Would you like to read that
13 deposition transcript for correctness, or do you
14 waive that reading?
15 THE WITNESS: No. I'd like to have
16 it.
17 MS. GRANT: Okay. I can facilitate
18 that, Mr. Ferguson.
19 MR. FERGUSON: Okay. Very good.
20 MS. GRANT: All right.
21 MR. FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr.
22 Merriam.
23 MS. BANISTER: Yes. Thanks.
24 MS. GRANT: And I thank you, too.
25 We'll be off the record now.
39
1 (Deposition concluded at 4:31 p.m.)
2 * * * * * *
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
1 CERTIFICATION PAGE
2
3
I, CHRISTINE J. WILLETTE,
4 Registered Professional Reporter, Notary Public in
and for the State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify:
5
That prior to being examined, the
6 witness named in the foregoing deposition, LESLIE
D. MERRIAM was by me duly sworn to testify the
7 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 That said deposition was taken
before me at the time, date and place set forth;
9 and I hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true
and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so
10 taken and thereafter reduced to computerized
transcription under my direction and supervision.
11
I further certify that I am neither
12 counsel for nor related to any party to said
action, nor in any way interested in the outcome
13 thereof; and that I have no contract with the
parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in
14 the action that affects or has a substantial
tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me
15 to relinquish control of an original deposition
transcript before it is certified and delivered to
16 the custodial attorney, or that requires me to
provide any service not made available to all
17 parties to the action.
18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
19 subscribed my name this 4th day of November, 2006.
20
21
____________________________________
22 Christine J. Willette, RPR
Notary Public - State of Wisconsin
23
24 My Commission Expires August 23, 2009
25
41
1 STATE OF WISCONSIN )
2 ) ss.
3 MARATHON COUNTY )
4
5
6 Before signing said deposition transcript,
7 I have read over the same, and corrections,
8 if any, having been noted and attached
9 thereto, the same is now a true and
10 correct transcript of my testimony.
11
12
13
14
15
16 -----------------------------
17 LESLIE D. MERRIAM, Deponent
18
19
20
21 Dated this ________day of ______________, 2006,
22
23 ____________________, Wisconsin.


Thursday, November 02, 2006

Emily has been located


In response to a federal subpoena Panama City PD have provided Emily's location and confirmed it - why they simply could not have done that the first time around is beyond me

The extract from the police report is attached - Emily's mother is claiming telephone harassment yet again while there is a FL court order allowing telephone contact twice weekly !