Visitation January 2009

Here we go again!

I'm back in the US trying to arrange visitation with Emily's mother but again this is problematical as she won't respond to letters, emails through her attorney nor telephone messages on her answering machine.

I'll be heading down south this weekend and hopefully something will happen but other than turning up and trying to find where Emily and her mom are at this is nothing more than making the effort.

No point in getting down in the mouth about it because there is some "good" news too.

Judge Doyle has been moved out of the family court and we have a new judge, His Honor Judge Rowe.  

Meanwhile, the appeal carries on and a formal complaint has been filed with the Judicial Qualifications Commission regarding the failures to protect Emily from the medical neglect that has rendered her blind in the right eye.

For the serious readers (and insomniacs) amongst you here is the text of the complaint:

Judicial Qualifications Commission 
1110 Thomasville Road 
Tallahassee, FL 32303 

28^th January 2009

Dear Sirs,

Judge John V Doyle – Volusia County Circuit Court, DeLand

I am a party in a family law case involving a minor child Emily Rose Hindle (Case Ref: 2003 12692 FMDL and now subject to appeal in the 5^th District Case Ref: 2008 50451 APFD).

After discussing this case with Congressman Mica’s offices, I write to formally complain of the conduct of Judge John V Doyle in Volusia County Circuit Court, DeLand.

The child was born in the United Kingdom and removed to the United States by her US mother in February 2003.

The child was concealed in several US states until the English court ceased jurisdiction over the child and issued a parental responsibility order to myself.

Mother voluntary returned child to the UK whereupon the British police removed child from mother and gave her to father.  The mother had attempted an unofficial adoption of the child in Wisconsin, placing her with strangers and also into the care and contact of a convicted child sex offender, Leslie Merriam while also denying the child medical treatment for an eye condition rendering her blind in one of her eyes.

The mother invoked the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 and claimed to have been resident for at least six months in the state of Florida.  In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the British court accepted the mother’s representations and sent her and the child to the state of Florida in October 2003 with orders for the child and her protection issued under this international law; notably dealing with the medical issue and ordering treatment for the little girl.

Sir Justice Johnson, a High Court judge sitting in London stated:

“It is inconceivable to me that an American court will not enforce this order for medical treatment.”

I filed proceedings in Florida in November 2003 and despite visa difficulties created by the mother and her attorney in Florida claiming domestic violence and sexual abuse of children (subsequently disposed of in favor of the father) I was able to enter the US and attend Florida court hearings in April 2004.

At this time, it became apparent to Judge Doyle (the presiding judge) that the mother had not been in the state of Florida for six months as she had claimed in the British court but in fact had been in the state for approximately six weeks.

Nevertheless, Judge Doyle claimed jurisdiction and has continued to claim jurisdiction on the basis of the mother being resident in the state for 6 months prior to filing of proceedings which His Honor is and has been aware, was untruthful. Jurisdiction in Florida was claimed to exist as at 19^th September 2003 in London – in any event the mother did not reside in the state until around July/August 2003 per her answer to the initial petition.

Complaint One: Judge Doyle has unlawfully retained the child in the state of Florida and unlawfully exercised jurisdiction in this matter and conspired with the mother in a fraud on the British High Court after the fact.

The initial Florida filing was in November 2003.

Hague Convention requirements state that the receiving court will be “prompt and effective” in issuing and enforcing orders in the interests of the child.

I understand Florida state guidelines for disputed custody disputes are 6 months.

A final judgment was rendered by Judge Doyle in October 2008 some 5 years after initial filing of the case.

Judge Doyle has been extremely slow and dilatory in his management and handling of the case which has directly harmed the child i.e. blindness and loss of relationship with father.

The child was 1 year old when she was sent for hearings in Florida in 2003.  The child was sent with an order for medical treatment to be provided for her eye condition; the condition is amblyopia and required treatment prior to reaching age 3 years or the condition would become permanent.

Nine British and US doctors have recommended treatment and it has been ordered by the British High Court under international law – the child requiring treatment before reaching age 3.

Judge Doyle has repeatedly dodged and evaded the issue of the child’s medical neglect and refused to allow her to return to the UK for medical treatment which she qualified for as of right under the UK socialized medical system but then remained silent on treatment for the child in the United States; effectively allowing the child to become permanently blinded in her right eye and in defiance of international law enacted and acceded to by the Congress of the United States.

Judge Doyle in open court on May 23^rd 2008 stated:

“We don’t do the Hague Convention here, we are provincials!”

At a prior hearing in May 2005, Judge Doyle after hearing that the treatment required was simple patching of the child’s eyes stated words to the effect that:

“A patch? A patch? That does not seem important to me.”

Judge Doyle refused to review the medical reports of several British and US doctors regarding the treatment for the condition.

The child is now permanently blinded in her right eye and has received several examinations in Florida but no medical treatment for the condition and no enforcement of the order for her protection.

Further, the mother absconded with the child out of state in January 2005 and the child was subsequently classed as “Missing and Endangered” by FDLE and registered with the National Center in Washington DC as well as Interpol.  Despite this, Judge Doyle repeatedly evaded issuing a pick up order and change of custody for over a year – something the father believes would not have occurred if he had been an American father instead of British.

Complaint Two: Judge Doyle has willfully ignored the order of a superior court (the British Supreme Court) acting under international law binding on the United States for an order for the protection of the child resulting in the child becoming permanently harmed i.e. blind in the right eye.  It should be noted Judge Doyle has remained silent on the medical neglect and eye condition, even in the final judgement.  Case law exists where a child neglected to the extent of blindness in an eye resulted in termination of parental rights and further demonstrates the bias and prejudicial conduct of Judge Doyle.

On another occasion in February/March 2006; the mother accused the father of serious sexual assault of the child shortly after being found guilty of criminal contempt of court for absconding with the child out of state but withheld punishment.  This was the second such instance by the mother against the father, earlier having accused him of making child pornography with his children in the UK (both sets of allegations were found by law enforcement to be false allegations made by the mother).

My attorney attempted to enter into evidence before Judge Doyle, the mother’s handwritten statement of complaint regarding the sexual abuse allegations along with reports of the Child Protection Team comprised of Carol Polzella of the FL State Attorney’s office which concluded the child (then aged 3) was being coached by the mother, however, Judge Doyle refused to allow my attorney to enter it and made him sit down.  Immediately prior to the commencement of the hearing, judge Doyle removed the DCF investigator who attended the hearings that day and was available to give evidence in the matter. Judge Doyle then went on to accept the mother’s denial that she had made the sexual abuse allegations and continued to refuse to sanction the mother for her conduct.

Further, at final hearing held in DeLand on 23^rd May 2008, the mother produced discovery which was obviously incomplete and my attorney requested a continuance and also because some of the evidentiary materials collected over the five years or so of this matter were still in transit from the UK.

Judge Doyle refused the continuance and threatened to invoke a rule that I was coming to court with unclean hands.  He further went on to chastise my attorney and I, stating that amongst other things I had violated the laws of the United States (to wit the Hague Convention proceedings in London) and I “..should spend some time in jail to straighten him [me] out!”.

Judge Doyle further went on to state that my attorney had only the day for the whole case to be heard, that he was ruling that day and that if we did not present our case and leave sufficient time for the mother to present her side His Honor would automatically rule in favor of the mother.

Five years of depositions, tape recordings, witness statements, medical evidence, child support payments, the efforts of international law enforcement and the British government and many other matters were unable to be presented to Judge Doyle who in many instances, would simply not entertain the notion of hearing them.

In any event, His Honor did not rule on the day of trial because His Honor was unable to stop the presentation of papers from the mother and her attorney to the US government requesting denial of entry to the United States for court hearings and court ordered visitation and also for the successful request for the arrest and deportation of the father in May 2004 – at this point Judge Doyle reversed himself and refused to rule on the day as he stated he would do.

A ruling did not appear until October 2008 which completely ignored the evidence of neglect and abuse of the child, the level of false allegations and complaints raised by the mother (over 200 police complaints and 5 major police investigations by British and US law enforcement, two of which were for serious sexual assaults on my children); the appalling record of non-compliance by the mother with British and Floridian court orders and the ruling gave primary care to mother with another visitation order to father.

Further, this child was missing and endangered for two years after mother absconded out of state.  The father had voluntarily paid child support when he had knowledge of where the mother and/or the child were at (the two had not always been together per depositions) – judge Doyle ignored and refused to look at child support payments including those the mother had testified in deposition to receiving.  The judge also made no account of the fact that the child had been missing and endangered for two years, now for the time spent in immigration detention at the hands of the mother and her attorney, nor for the extended periods of time he has had to be present in the state of Florida and legally not allowed to work due to immigration law.  Judge Doyle issued a blanket back-order for support for 5 years and assessed some $30,000 in arrearages with no allowance for any of the above and no hearing of the matter.

The trial was described after the event as “The most bizarre hearing I’ve ever seen.” according to the attorney for the mother, Ms Kim Bannister.  My attorney, Mr David Ferguson, considers the judge to have been wholly unfair and feels Judge Doyle had made his mind up years ago and will not change it no matter what is presented in evidence.

The final order is now subject to an appeal in the 5^th District Court of Appeal while the mother continues to refuse to comply with orders of the court for visitation and contact.

Complaint Three: Judge Doyle has demonstrated a consistently prejudiced, biased and dogmatic approach which has no regard for the fair application of the law and has caused harm directly to the child and to myself.  Florida factors for determining primary residency have been completely ignored, the mother clearly losing on all of the factors excepting length of time the child has been in her care and that only because of her willful contempt of court orders which continues to this day – the child and I have not had visitation, despite court orders, since May 2006 and there has been nor do I expect, any enforcement from Judge Doyle or the court.

Complaint Four: Examination of the court docket will indicate numerous hearings and continuances.  Judge Doyle has made no allowance for the limited time I have been allowed to stay in the United States due to the visa issues created by an officer of his court and the mother nor for the urgency with which the proceedings should have been treated.  I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Judge Doyle deliberately slowed the proceedings down in an effort to stop the proceedings from coming to full trial and to deny relief for the child.

Complaint Five: the costs of these proceedings and this international game of “cat and mouse” have been extortionately high – the father has expended in excess of $450,000 – in large measure due to the extremely slow pace of the trial judge.

Summary

This is a summary of almost 6 years of shameful and shambolic conduct by Judge Doyle in Volusia County Circuit Court.

A child blind in one of her eyes for the sake of a 50 cent eye patch for a few hours a day before she reached the age of three.

A child and father who had a deeply loving bond, separated at a formative and most important time of the child’s life and left unprotected against the determined and evil efforts of one parent to destroy the loving bonds between them including the coaching of the child in making sexual abuse allegations against the father and which has been left unpunished and ignored by the court.

That the Floridian judge has behaved dishonestly and dishonorably in retaining a child who only landed in Florida by virtue of a fraud on the British High Court.

An egregious and embarrassing example of what the international community under the Hague Convention can expect for children sent for hearings to determine their future in the State of Florida – a set of “provincials” who “do not do” international law because, as in the words of Judge Doyle, he would rather, “Have a good nights’ sleep and a bowel movement!”.

I sincerely request an investigation is conducted into the conduct of Judge John V Doyle.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

A Rainy Day in Georgia

We travelled up from Florida through the cotton fields and misty lakes of Alabama and on into Georgia and the rain soaked wasteland of Atlanta.  

Emily should have been at the Winn-Dixie on Beck and 23rd in Panama City at 10.00am but Sheila did not show nor was there any contact yet we drove over 800 miles to get there from Richmond, Virginia.

So far this week we have covered over 2,500 miles and by the time the trip is finished it will be over 3,000 but no Emily at the end of it.

I'm holed up in a motel in Georgia after meeting with Dave Thelen from the Committee for Missing Children last night; I'd spoken with him many times on the telephone over the years but this was the first opportunity to sit down with him and share that beer we had been promising each other for four years.

His grandchildren were staying at the house and his eldest grand-daughter and I played Wii bowling and true to form I showed absolutely no mercy; yes I know you're very cute but I have been well trained by my eldest daughter in the UK and trust me, 6 year olds cannot be shown any mercy nor trace of weakness!

Playing with this beautiful little girl, she reminded me constantly of what Emily and I were missing; they are the same age, the same colour of hair and I have no doubt, the same infectious laugh and demeanour that all little girls have and especially in the eyes of their fathers.  

I have very mixed feelings; depressed because Emily and I were not allowed to see each other and yet, I also believe this is the start of another road to demonstrating why Sheila should not be allowed to have primary residency of Emily.

No sooner had I arrived in Panama City than Sheila and her sister, Debbie Martin commenced calling the police claiming threats and harassment.  Patsy and I actually went into the police station in order to collect any police reports that had already been filed; several had been filed dating back over a year and less than a day despite this being my first visit to Panama City and as luck would have it, there was Sheila's car in the lot because she was in the station filing yet another.

I'm going to kidnap Emily, I'm violent, I will abuse Emily and on and on and on ad nauseum this goes.

The police are powerless; court orders have less value than the used toilet tissue flushed down the bowl each morning and the calendar continues to count down the erosion and destruction of one of the two most important relationships Emily can have in her childhood; a relationship with her mom and with her dad.

I'm all out of emotion, it's time to just become ice inside and not feel the pain or distress; it won't help Emily and it won't get me to where I intend to be; playing with a rumbunctious little cheeky-faced girl who squeals when she gets a strike on the Wii.

Meanwhile, Georgia needs the rain because it will hide my tears if I give in to my feelings.

North Carolina en route to Florida

It's early Thanksgiving morning on a frosty, chill mountain in North Carolina; as cold as I feel inside while the emotion strives to make itself felt causing the occasional but momentary loss of self-control.  I'm on the very edge of being able to see Emily again though how many times have I been in this position only to be disappointed?

This is my third trip to America this year.

I have a rest stop halfway between Virginia and Florida as I drive down to the Pan Handle for the second time hoping to see Emily for the first time in far too long.

My first trip was brief; a couple of days to visit school and unblock the hanky panky with the administrator whose justification for not allowing information on Emily's education was, "Your old orders were out of date."

A ridiculous excuse particularly as court orders do not have a "Sell By" date.

Though previously advised of my visit. my presence was clearly unexpected. Never have I seen someone act so much like a guilty puppy next to a pile of poo as the administrator; clearly she has been wrong footed by Sheila with the tales of woe other staff members advised they had been told of; there was material in the school file, which I believe has been filletted, and most of all there was a name that should not have been in it: Barbara Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State.

It is obvious Sheila has been up to her old tricks again both with school and the local police; while in Panama City there was a flurry of activity with the local police flooded by complaints from Sheila that I was going to abuse Emily and was harassing her.  The school file contained material from the Salvation Army domestic violence shelter in Panama City and Patsy commented on this, "Why is she staying in a shelter in Panama City when you're in the UK?".

All I can reply is, "It's what Sheila does; she treats them like hotels."

Patsy and I discussed the sheer cost of all of this; how much taxpayer money has been spent on protecting "poor" Sheila; the cost is enormous in terms of man hours spent by the various agencies involved.  As Patsy observed, "Typical of the States, Sheila will get everything for nothing while she behaves like a criminal and we have to pay taxes to foot her bill!" 

Sheila has learned nothing from this; court orders mean nothing and while Judge Doyle acts as part of her legal team, why should she change her behaviour; more pertinently, while so many agencies, such as Bay County Schools, refuse to comply with court orders why should she.

While visiting Panama City police station to collect police reports Sheila has filed, we noticed her car in the lot; I enquired and yes she was in the station and a Sergeant came out to see me in the foyer.  I've noticed that the Panama City PD are not so motivated by Sheila's, "I'm a victim!" performance as Captain Oswoski and Volusia County Sheriffs Office, and I watched a bravura example of pragmatic and practical policing as I sat across a table from Sheila and arranged a 10am pick of Emily for Friday morning.  

I won't name the police officer as much as I'd like to, however, he did a sterling job.  Thank you!

Panama City PD are in a spot they do not deserve; not least they must be wondering who the heck this English guy is dropping in on their patch.  I detect from their behaviour a degree of unsureness; the court orders are clear, "black and white" according to one officer, but is it a civil matter and none of our business?

My position is straight forward; if Sheila does not comply with Judge Doyle's order for visitation I will complain to them for criminal interference in visitation - if they don't accept this I file in Federal court because this is a criminal violation.  If Sheila or her proxies file anymore complaints against me, Panama City PD will have a choice of arrest and charge me, and then I will file in Federal court or, if they agree the complaint is unfounded, they must charge Sheila and her proxies filing the nonsense or again, I will sue Panama City PD for not taking action in respect of continuing criminal behaviour.

I was told by a good lawyer some time ago that an honourable man asks once and once only for satisfaction; if unsatisfied you go to court and seek satisfaction there; my regret is Volusia County Sheriff and Captain Osowski are not on the receiving end of this; dishonest, dishonourable and deserving of serious sanction but bad guys do get away with bad behaviour from time to time.

Panama City PD will get the message and the penny will drop; I'm not going to put up with this nonsense any longer and a federal subpoena works wonders while demonstrating that for all the discretion exercised at county level together with the attendent abuses, the United States is still a country under law.

Filing for Appeal

After all the hanky panky and the initial shock of receiving Judge Doyle's final ruling, which I expected but nevertheless it still has had an impact on me, I am now filing for appeal.

At last I'm going to get another judge to look at this mess and we'll see if that is going to result in a change in attitude towards Emily and my request for relief.   Still, after 3 months in America this year, there has been no visitation with Emily and no telephonic contact since May but her school have acceded to the orders and agree I am to be allowed information on Emily's schooling - Sheila had told them I had been ordered to have no contact - yet another make believe lie.

I've had some emails and calls from friends, family and others following the case asking what I'm going to do next.  

The answer is simply to proceed with the legal process and appeal but unlike 5 years of obfuscation in trial court, the appeal court seems to act extremely quickly so my energies are now focused on the working as hard as possible, getting as much money together as possible and working out the appeal process and as they say in Floridian parts, "Git 'r' Dun!"

As ever, if at first you don't succeed, try again.

Cheque Book Journalism

While I was in the US on my last trip, an ex-girlfriend, ticked off at me, decided to try to see if a quick buck could be made out of the situation with Emily.

Email Here

Some of you may recall Angela Jackson, a Scottish mother who had two children abducted to Texas and finally recovered them to the UK only for the children to return to dad where they now live.

A reporter, Steve Smith covered the story and saw an opportunity to capitalise on the situation with Emily and my private life.

Email here

Steve Smith offered money for a "kiss and tell" story through Angela Jackson and asked for photographs and so on to be obtained.

My ex-girlfriend, Deana Brown obliged and stole photographs and papers from my home to which she had access while I was away.

In the meantime, my family, my current girlfriend and professional contacts as well as myself have been bombarded with harrsassing phone calls, emails of the vilest kind and a host of allegations of fraud, domestic violence, alcoholism and so on and why the hell are Barbara Greig and Dr Jill Jones-Soderman involved?

The photo of the unfortunate woman above was sent by Jackson et al claiming to be an old girlfriend of mine and this is what I did to her - except I don't know her and the photo has been traced to a domestic violence website here

I am sick of it.

A journalist, Steve Smith, offering money in an attempt to fabricate a story where none exists.

A former girlfriend, Deana Brown, who is ticked off because I have moved on.

A mother, Angela Jackson, who was helped to get her kids back and thinks she is hard done by because she lost her custody battle in Scotland and feels everyone should be miserable as well.

I am sick of the efforts to involve my ex wife and my children in the UK by these three.

I am sick of the threats to contact my girlfriend's employer with "information" on me.

I am sick of the dishonesty and deceit while a "real" story - how a little girl can be torn from her family, sent to a foreign country to go blind, to be placed up for sale/adoption and placed into the care of a peadophile, to go missing and be endangered, to be treated so horribly is not newsworthy while "boy meets girl, boy dumps girl, boy meets new girl" is such hot stuff.

I am sick to my stomach with how low people can descend for money. 

Judge Doyle's Ruling

I have spoken with my attorney and the ruling is that Emily stays with her mother, I get visitation and a $29,000 child support bill.

Visitation has been ordered back in 2004 however Emily and I last saw each other in May 2006 so you can make your own mind up as to what that is worth.

Everything else that Sheila has pulled is "in the past".

At times like this, life can really strike you as being horrid but, and it is a BIG BUT, I personally believe that every single day I am above ground and sucking down oxygen is a good day.

Now I have to move forward with an appeal and at least we have this out of Judge Doyle's hands.

Just remember, all of you who are in a position where you can't see your kids or you feel a sense of grievance at how you have been treated, this is all temporary, you pick yourself up and move forward because you love your kids and not because you feel you have been kicked in the balls while lying down - just remember why you are doing this and it is not for you.

I'm doing this for Emily which is why I'll get up again and go forward.

No-one in their right mind would do any of this for themselves.

Day of Reckoning - Final Ruling from Judge Doyle

My attorney filed a proposed final judgement with the court on Tuesday granting primary residency to me due to application of the factors under Floridian law.

On Tuesday, 6th October 2008, Judge Doyle signed a final order but the twist in the tail is....

We don't know what he ruled!

Apparently we have to wait on the mail to see what the decision is so as you may imagine, I am through chewing my fingernails off, have worked through my hands and approaching my elbows.

We just have to wait and see what Judge Doyle has done.

Guest Authors

I've been blogging with this for a few years now and I have felt I am becoming stale.  It's not that I have nothing to say, just that there is nothing I think worth saying that is new at the moment.

Not wishing to stop this blog appealing to the readership and following it has attracted, I thought it would be a good idea to let others have their say too so with that in mind, I have invited several other mums and dads to write their own stories and those of their kids, some of whom are still missing and some have been found.

I'm throwing the "Emily Rose Hindle" blog open; at the end of the day this has never been my story, it has been hers and it's time other kids had their stories heard too.

Keep an eye out for the first postings and welcome Sara Suliman, Scott MacFarlane and Josef Cannon.

If you are a parent or child involved in international child abduction - please contact me if you are interested in using this blog in making your voice heard.

hindle.karl@gmail.com

Home Again - Dr Jill Jones-Soderman and Rumours of my Demise are Unfounded

It's been awhile since I posted, mainly due to personal commitments and to everyone who has been sending emails asking of me, thank you but as you can read, I'm very much alive and kicking.

There are a couple of things that have very recently developed in my life; one is that I have met someone who I care for very deeply, in fact, I love her and I intend to do the honourable thing if my intended is brainless enough to have me.  

As far as I'm concerned that's happy news.

Many of you are aware that I have been very keen to form Frozenheart.  This is something very dear to my heart and I am passionate about it.  Unfortunately, I cannot continue as things are, not least as I have become exceptionally concerned with the motives of a prime mover, Dr Jill Jones-Soderman who I have come to believe is less concerned with the terrible situation parents and children find themselves in and far more concerned with enriching herself personally.

I am not going to say more at this time as things are not quite "sub judice", but I expect this is a likely direction.

At this time, I am not going forward with Frozenheart until matters with Dr Jones-Soderman are resolved.  My primary concern is that money that may be donated goes to where it is needed and not into someone else's pocket and Dr Jones refuses to release the incorporation paperwork for Frozenheart.

Finally, I did not get to see Emily this trip as there is no contact with her mother, Sheila Fuith.  I did manage to straighten out school in Panama City, FL who were refusing to release information on Emily or indeed whether she was attending school this year.  As for Judge Doyle, we'll just have to see what happens as my attorney is filing a proposed order for His Honor to sign and we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed.

More to follow but maybe not for a while.

Karl

"Mr Hindle I am issuing you with a visa."

Phew!

I received a telephone call from "Jerry" of the US Embassy visa line at 5.50pm - would I be able to go into the US Embassy tomorrow morning at 8.00am for a visa interview?

Errrrrr ...actually no, I have children, school run and so on - I could make between 10 and 11 if that works?

It sure did and I turned up at the US Embassy London after a frantic evening of printing DS-156 forms, supporting documents and where the heck did I put my passport?

A brief visit this one - and at the end of a short interview I was told I could have a two year multiple entry visa and the "criminal" s3A2 designation was being removed from my file.

Now I have to wait for the passport to be returned in a week or so and see if this time they really do mean it.

OK - let's see; now we get to really deal with the meat in this bag of snakes - like why has Judge Doyle refused to hear this case on the factors and actively worked in favour of Emily's mum and not in the interest of Emily Rose?

Amongst other things.

Provincial or not - Judge Doyle should explain why Emily Rose has been allowed to go blind for the sake of a 50 cent eye patch at the very least when a High Court order under the Hague Convention was issued for little Emily to get medical treatment as a condition of being sent to Florida in the first instance.

My lawyers/civil rights people in New York think a judicial complaint in on the judge at the very least.

We shall see but now for the most important aspect of all of this - there is nothing standing between Emily and I having visitation except Emily's mum, the willingness of Judge Doyle to enforce it and the Atlantic Ocean.

The latter can be dealt with easily.

US Embassy Visa Shennannigans Take 4

Well what a surprise!

Awoke bleary eyed this morning after a very late night with an interview with Michael Shannon and myself on an Australian radio show regarding international child abduction.

The good news was before the interview; Jill Jones-Soderman gave me a call to let me know that the US Embassy, London would see me on 2nd October for an interview for the multiple entry visa and I could now request that the matter be expedited as advised by Mary Pacheco of the Office of Childrens Issues at the State Department in a recent email:

I called the Visa line today to request expediting the interview and visa process - guess what?

No record of the interview being made by Jill.

I was told to email the US Consul at the London Embassy and still request an expedited visa - it just got bounced back from the Embassy as deleted and unread even though the codes have been inserted as requested in the subject header.

Deep breath and stay cool Karl!

ciu36X Ref: HINDLE KE : Multiple Entry Visa Application & Interview
Karl Hindle
to londonconsular, GORSKYJH, PachecoMA, Kathleen, newmarkb, jean.carrero

show details 12:03 (23 minutes ago)

Dear Consul,

An appointment was made on my behalf by Jill Jones-Soderman using the US visa telephone number.

The appointment was made for 2nd October however on contacting the UK visa line they have found no record of the appointment being made.

I have contacted the UK visa line to request the interview and visa process for a multiple entry visitor visa be expedited as His Honor Judge John V Doyle hearing a custody matter concerning a minor child, Emily Rose Hindle in Volusia County, Florida is awaiting the issuance (or not) of a multiple entry visa before issuing his ruling in this matter and in accordance with instructions received from Mary Pacheco of the Office of Childrens Issues, Department of State.

I have been advised by Mary Pacheco you are aware of the issues surrounding this case so I shall not repeat them here.

Kindly advise by return.

Yours

s/Karl Hindle


Your e-mail was deleted without being read

from London, Consular
to Karl Hindle
date 8 July 2008 12:03
subject Your e-mail was deleted without being read
mailed-by state.gov

hide details 12:03 (25 minutes ago)

THIS IS AN AUTOMATED REPLY. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL.

Your e-mail was deleted without being read.


"Appointment to apply for a Multiple Entry Visa

from Pacheco, Martha A
to hindle.karl@googlemail.com
cc "Gorsky, Jeffrey H"
date 27 June 2008 15:41
subject Appointment to apply for a Multiple Entry Visa
mailed-by state.gov

hide details 27 Jun (11 days ago)

Dear Mr. Hindle,

With reference to your e-mail of Tuesday, June 24 to Kathleen Ruckman and Jeffrey Gorsky, you have to work directly with the Consular Section in London for a visa appointment. The Consular Section in London is aware of your concerns, as well as the conversation with Judge Doyle that you mentioned. Please know, however that the wait time for a nonimmigrant visa appointment is currently 44 days. The lengthy wait time is a result of increased demand for visa services during the summer months and is not likely to change significantly in the next few weeks. Other applicants who deem their needs urgent are also asking for expedited service, and the Consular Section cannot accommodate all requests. While the Consular Section is aware informally of your interest in securing an expedited appointment, like other applicants, you must submit a formal request. When the Consular Section receives it, it will consider your needs among the dozens of others it has received at the same time. People with urgent medical needs or who are rushing to the funeral or bedside of an ill relative take priority over other requests.

The first step in making the formal request is to book an appointment, even if it is for a date further out than you would like. When you book the appointment, ask the operator for instructions on how to submit the formal request. This is necessary because the procedures involve a frequently changing code, and if you do not have the proper code your request will not be seen in a timely fashion.

It appears you already have this information but for your convenience, non-immigrant visa applicants may obtain appointments for visa application interviews in the U.S. Embassy’s Consular Section in London by following instructions on their website: http://london.usembassy.gov

Click on the tab that says “Visas to the U.S.”

Click on Applying for a Visa, then click on scheduling an interview, and you will find instructions on calling the Embassy’s Operator Assisted Information Service. According to the website, callers from within the United States who wish to obtain information on, or schedule an appointment for a nonimmigrant visa interview, should dial 1-866-382-3589.

Sincerely,

Martha A. Pacheco

Abduction Unit Chief
Office of Children's Issues
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Tel: (202) 736-9130
Fax: (202) 736-9132
E-mail: PachecoMA@state.gov"

Emily Rose Hindle - Cliff Notes

Blindness for the sake of a 50 cent eye patch


Leslie Merriam - Convicted Child Sex Offender


Leslie Merriam Deposition - Testifies to Sheila Kay Fuith's efforts to adopt Emily Rose


Emily Rose - Missing and Endangered

Barbara Greig - US Department of State's Office of Childrens Issues has Emily's Dad Arrested and Deported



Official Denial by State Department of Involvement in Arrest

Deposition of Leslie Merriam - Child Sex Offender & Emily Rose's Prospective "Grandfather"

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.

Application for Directions - The British High Court

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

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.




 

PRAYER:


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

The Reagan Wing - Barbara Grieg, US State Department, facilitates International Child Abduction

June 20, 2008 by Doug Parris

From Teri Stoddard:

For the original article follow the link here.

Karl Hindle has been working tirelessly for five years and spent more than four hundred thousand dollars investigating his daughter’s illegal abduction to the U.S. What he has uncovered is deplorable. The paper trail shows the United States government is in the business of illegal baby snatching and harboring criminals.

Emily would not have suffered the loss of her father for the last five years, or the vision in her right eye, if it weren’t for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA.) And people like Barbara Grieg of the U.S. State Department who see it as an excuse for misandry and a license for lawlessness.



Hindle, a U.K. citizen met and fell in love with American Sheila Fuith while in New York. When she moved to the U.K. in 2001 she hadn’t mentioned the husband and daughters she’d abandoned. Emily was born in the U.K. on March 1, 2002. At 5-months-old Emily was diagnosed with esotropia caused by amblyopia. She needed patching therapy, a patch worn a few hours each day, or she would lose sight in her right eye.

In February 2003 Fuith decided to leave Hindle and return to the U.S. She knew he would object to her taking Emily, so she did what many women in her position have done. She accused him of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children. Thanks to VAWA, she needed only to speak the words.

Fuith was taken in by a battered women’s shelter, and given free legal aid by the U.S. government. With no evidence and no due process, Barbara Grieg authorized the illegal abduction. The U.S. Embassy in London issued a passport for Emily without her father’s signature as required by law. The forged signature was not notarized, and had the wrong date.

After arriving in the U.S. Fuith stopped Emily’s therapy. She then tried to give Emily away in a “baby switch.” She placed Emily with the family of Leslie Merriam, a three time convicted pedophile in Wisconsin. Karl learned of this and contacted local law enforcement.

Fuith needed only to claim Karl was harassing her, and the baby switch wasn’t investigated. A call to Grieg confirmed that Hindle was “dangerous.” Captain Alan Osowski never looked at Fuith’s phone when she told him numbers from “harassing calls from Hindle.” But he wrote he had in his report.

This was just the beginning of Hindle’s harrowing five-year journey to protect his daughter. Fuith has moved Emily dozens of times through several different states. She’s filed over 100 false police reports. And Hindle has received death threats.

Two police investigations in the UK and three in the U.S. cleared Hindle of all allegations. Fuith was found guilty of coaching Emily and making false allegations. Hindle was given court-ordered reunification with Emily.

Hindle said, “Emily met her elder brother (Max) and sister (Elizabeth) for the first time in almost 3 years…as we walked into the resort hotel, Emily asked me ‘Is this my family ?‘“



They enjoyed these visits, evidenced by these photographs, until Fuith made another false allegation and disappeared. Emily was then listed as missing and endangered.

Knowing all of this, Grieg didn’t just harbor Fuith all these years. She interfered whenever Hindle needed a visa to attend custody hearings, arranged his improper arrest, imprisonment and deportation by the immigration department, and tried to set him up to be arrested for violence. She had officers hiding in bushes while her cronies harassed Hindle. And all the while, during her many lawless and reprehensible actions, she allowed Emily to go blind.



Fuith is still enjoying VAWA-funded legal representation. Recently there was a conference call between Fuith, Hindle, their attorneys and the State Department. During the call Fuith recanted every allegation she has made against Hindle. Even hearing this, the State Department refused to budge. The reason? The allegations the mother has made.

Sheila Fuith is clearly guilty, yet has not received any punishment. Karl Hindle is completely innocent, yet has not been able to see Emily or get custody. Now the State Department wants to send him back to London to apply for a new visa.

Hindle said recently, “I’ve been here for 5 weeks, yet Emily and I have not seen each other. The judge will not enforce his orders, and the mother maintains visitation must take place in Panama City, 350 miles away. Emily and I last saw each other on May 28th, 2006!” Hindle is now on his way back to the UK without seeing Emily.

–
Shared Parenting Works supports United Civil Rights Councils of America, Fathers4Justice/Families4Justice, N.A.Non.Custodial.Moms, 2008 DC Rally, Children Need Both Parents, Cycling4Children, SUPPORT? System Down, R.A.D.A.R, N.C.Free.Men and all other egalitarians worldwide working together for children, families, truth, justice and equality.

“I am convinced that the world is not a mere bog in which men and women trample themselves and die. Something magnificent is taking place here amidst the cruelties and tragedies, and the supreme challenge to intelligence is that of making the noblest and best in our curious heritage prevail.” — C.A. Beard

******************************************

If you’d like to send a Letter or make a phone call to to Barbara Grieg, here is her contact info:

Barbara Grieg US Central Authority, US Department of State2201 C Street, N.W. SA-29, 4th FloorWASHINGTON, DC 20520-2818United States of AmericaDirect Tel: 202-736-9142 Email: greigbj@state.gov

US Embassy Visa Shennannigans Take 3

Jeff Gorsky of the Department of State advised Judge Doyle in their telephone conference that for a 10 year multpile entry visa to be issued I would have to return to the UK and apply for one at the US Embassy London and they will then consider it.

The last couple of days, Jill Jones-Soderman and I have been trying to get an appointment to be interviewed for the visa at the US Embassy London.

The State Department advise that they will not give me an interview appointment date until

NOVEMBER 2008

Here is an email I received back from Kathy Ruckman, Deputy Director of the Office of Childrens Issues at the State Department and inheritor of Barbara Greig's mess:

"Ruckman, Kathleen S to me
show details 19 Jun (2 days ago) Reply


Mr. Hindle -
I am afraid that this wait for an appointment is typical for an embassy such as ours in London, which has an extremely high volume of visa applications. That said, if you have an urgent reason to travel back to the U.S., you will be granted an expedited appointment, as you were for your most recent visit.
Have you returned to London? How were your visits with Emily? Do you have photos?
Best, Kathy"

and my response:

"Karl Hindle to Kathleen,
show details 15:57 (21 hours ago) Reply


Dear Kathy,

I have returned to London.

There was no visitation with Emily.

Judge Doyle is waiting on the issuance of a 10 year multiple entry visa (or not) before delivering his ruling as has been discussed with your Mr Gorsky.

The delay is not acceptable under the circumstances; I understand you have been advised of Judge Doyle's findings of fact regarding the mother and Barbara together with the recantation of all of the allegations by the mother.

At this point the ball is in the State Department's court as to whether it is going to get with the program or continue irregardless of Judge Doyle.

Regards

Karl"


Note, that is for an interview so they will consider the visa, not a date to actually give me a visa.

It appears that despite Judge Doyle's direct intervention with the State Department they are still playing silly sods.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting on Judge Doyle's ruling - please just give me the order Judge - then it can be appealed and my New York apeal attorneys are all set to get started on it.

As I said to someone I feel an especial affinity for yesterday - keep putting one foot in front of the other it's all a game to these people.

Back in the UK

Arrived back home in London yesterday and got home a little after 5pm GMT having snored most of the flight home.

Jen, my fellow passenger must have been a saint with Hindle blowing zzz's and if you are reading this now, I hope you and hubby are having a great time in old London afer what was for both of us one heck of a camping trip at JFK!

It's Sunday dinner with the sprogs here and being regaled with Father's Day cards and pressies and I can say I'm happy to be home and back with the children I can care about, not least because they really care about me and the look on their faces and tears in their eyes cannot be faked.

I'm a lucky man to have these children.

Tomorrow it is time to start working on getting further down the road with this mess.

Exhausted as I feel, there is nothing on this earth that will stop me from going forward and ending this shambolic, dishonourable mess created by the US Department of State and Sheila.

Today is Father's Day and I am Emily's Dad - knowing my little girl is somewhere out there and despite all the crap she has been put through by incompetent and/or criminal US officials who are more concerned about covering their dishonest butts than they are about protecting Americans is not sufficient to motivate me to continue.

Because I love Emily Rose and she loves me is all the motivation I need to go forward and I will.

Never quit, never give in, go forward with steel in your spine but love in your heart