Sunday, February 11, 2007

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

Hindle-v-Rice Federal action developments



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

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

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

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

I received no reply.

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

I have received no reply from Ms Maria Damour.

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

Make of that what you will.

Friday, January 26, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: £0.00

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

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

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

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

Who is paying for his lawyer ?

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

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

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


Dear Mr Hindle

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

Miss Sam Sprague

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


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

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



Dear Miss Sprague,

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

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

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

I look forward to receiving answers to my queries.

Yours sincerely

s/Karl Hindle

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

Dear Mr Hindle

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

85 Gray’s inn Road
London
WC1X 8TX

0207 759 0000

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

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

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



24th January 2007


Mr S Sprague

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



Dear Mr Sprague,

International Child Abduction Legal Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Karl Hindle

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

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

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

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

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


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Who foots the bill in an international child abduction ?

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

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

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


24th January 2007

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

Dear Mr Sprague,

International Child Abduction Legal Costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Karl Hindle

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Molly Campbell/Misbah Rana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kindly contact me at KarlHindle@aol.com."

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Renfrewshire Social Services & Frederick & Angela Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, December 18, 2006

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !


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



Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Louis Nout

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

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

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

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




Stray bullet kills DeLand restaurateur; suspect charged

Police: Shooting victim not target

Slain cafe worker loved area

Community Outraged Over Shooting Death

Joseph Vincent Attardo charged with manslaughter



Louis Nout

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

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


Sunday, November 12, 2006

Convicted Paedophile Testifies to Attempted Adoption of Emily by her mother





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


Thursday, November 02, 2006

Emily has been located


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

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

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Karl Ernest Hindle -v- Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice et al

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida


___________________________

Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Secretary of State Dr Condoleeza Rice et al



Petition for Relief under The Freedom of Information Act and others, various Writs of Mandamus and in the Matter of the Controversy Regarding a Minor Child Emily Rose Hindle and the International Treaty known as The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction



Plaintiff Karl Hindle No.
A Pro Se Applicant

OF

5, Berwick Cottages, Terling Hall Road, Hatfield Peverel
Essex CM3 2EY UNITED KINGDOM

Defendants Secretary of State Dr Condoleeza Rice
Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty
Ambassador Robert Holmes Tuttle – US Embassy London UK
Former Ambassador William Stamps Farish – US Department of State
Charge d’Affaires Charles Furey – US Embassy London UK
John Brennan – US Embassy London UK
Rena Bitter – former Chief, NIV Section US Embassy London UK
William Muntean –US Embassy London UK
Maria Damour – Chief, NIV Section US Embassy London UK
John Ballif – US Department of State
Glen Keiser – US Department of State
Barbara Greig – US Central Authority, Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State
Unidentified Consular Officials – US Department of State

OF

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520








Other Involved Parties

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Immigration Agent Wayne Baehre – US Department of Homeland Security situate in the State of Florida
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528

AND

US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

AND

The Honorable John Tanner
Florida State Attorney’s Office – 7th Judicial Circuit
251 No Ridgewood Avenue
Daytona Beach
Florida 32114-7505




Parties and Jurisdiction

1. That Karl Ernest Hindle (“the petitioner”) is a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom being resident at 5, Berwick Cottages, Terling Hall Road, Hatfield Peverel in the county of Essex, England CM3 2EY UNITED KINGDOM.

2. That Sheila Kay Fuith nee Vernick (“the mother”) is a citizen of the United States and is resident in the United States at a residency believed to be 1828 Hickory Avenue, Panama City Florida.

3. That Emily Rose Hindle (“the child”) is a minor child born in the town of Maldon in the county of Essex, England, United Kingdom and is a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom having a date of birth of March 1st 2002 and is a minor. That the child is believed to be resident with the mother in the State of Florida, United States.

4. That there is a pending paternity action filed by the petitioner in connection with the child in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial District, In and For Volusia County Florida before the Honourable Judge John V Doyle styled:

5. Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Sheila Kay Fuith Case No.: 2003-12692-FDML

6. That Captain Alan Osowski et al, Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, DeBary are situate in the judicial district;

7. That Investigators Roberta Miranda and Richard Brown of Florida Department of Children & Families are situate in the judicial district;

8. That the Honorable John Tanner, Florida State Attorney for the 7th Judicial District is situate in the judicial district,

9. Venue is proper in this Honourable Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. s1391 (e) because the events giving rise to this matter have substantially occurred within the judicial district.

Claim for Relief

10. The petitioner and the mother met and engaged in a relationship in December 2000 in New York US and the mother did move to the United Kingdom and lived in the petitioner’s home in England, United Kingdom in March 2001.

11. The mother held herself out to the petitioner as unmarried, never married and having no children. The petitioner discovered after the relationship ended that the mother had deceived him about her marital state, being married at the time of the relationship commencing and having two minor daughters in Minnesota.

12. The mother advised the petitioner shortly after the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist attack as having lost a niece in the tragedy. The petitioner has discovered that this also was untrue after the relationship ended.

13. The mother claimed variously to have been a victim of rape and child abuse to the petitioner. The petitioner verily believes that these allegations, some made against her own parents and family are also untrue.

14. On March 1st 2002, the minor child, Emily Rose Hindle (“the child”) was born in the town of Maldon in England out of wedlock, the petitioner and mother being engaged to be married.

15. At the age of 6 months, the child was diagnosed with an eye condition rendering her vision impaired and requiring treatment for a condition known as amblyopia. The child received regular treatment at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford England by a team of medical eye specialists headed by Dr TAG Bell, Head of Eye Department.

16. Without treatment it was considered the child would become permanently vision impaired in her right eye and probably blind.

17. On 7th January 2003, the mother did take the child and left the family home claiming to be a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the petitioner.

18. The mother engaged in a malicious campaign of false allegations of domestic violence and abuse at the hands of the petitioner, falsely claiming to be residing in a domestic violence shelter in the United Kingdom and concealing minor child’s whereabouts.

19. The petitioner has always maintained his innocence of the allegations of domestic violence.

20. In February 2003, the mother did attend the US Embassy, London and obtained without the fathers knowledge or consent a US passport for the minor child and removed the child from the UK to the United States on or around 19th February 2003.

21. The petitioner believes the US passport issued to the minor child was unlawfully issued as a consequence of either a domestic violence fraud or a signed consent fraud by the mother and by unidentified consular officials at the US Embassy London.

22. Petitioner believes said passport was issued to remove the child from the UK to evade the legal process in the UK and constitutes an international child abduction under the colour of law.

23. The mother commenced moving around the US engaging in nomadic behaviour and concealing the child from the petitioner. In the period February 2003 to August 2003, petitioner believes the child was moved through the States of Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia and Florida and moved at least a dozen times at various addresses and locations.

24. The mother denied that the child had a serious eye condition and claimed it was simply a “lazy eye” not requiring treatment. The child also received no medical attention for follow up paediatrics or vaccinations in the care of the mother during this time.

25. The petitioner verily believes that the mother now claims the child has been blind from birth and is untreatable which conflicts with her open court testimony and prior depositions and medical evidence.

26. The petitioner has on three occasions complained to the Department of Children & Families, DeLand regarding the child’s eye condition and has variously been ignored, threatened through his attorney that criminal charges would be filed against him for making false reports and that despite the condition being recognised as treatable, there is no neglect as the condition is not life threatening.

27. The petitioner verily believes that DCF investigations notes and interview records have been falsified and fabricated by Investigator Roberta Miranda and Investigator Richard Brown of DCF DeLand Florida and that DCF DeLand has failed to exercise proper professional standards with regard to the welfare and concerns for the child.

28. The petitioner verily believes that there has been no genuine effort to treat the child in the United States, medical examinations only being obtained by the mother due to the imminency of court hearings.

29. The petitioner verily believes that the child is now permanently vision impaired and will become permanently blinded in her affected eye if this situation is allowed to continue.

30. The father attempted to invoke the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) but was advised that under UK law, not being married to the mother and having no parental responsibility agreement with the mother he was not able to effect the return of the child under that convention but was able to initiate the convention for access, which the petitioner did in or around April 2003.

31. The petitioner’s extreme distress and anxiety at this time were increased by emails from the mother in March 2003 that the child was being given up to a family for her protection at an unknown location, with unknown parties and without explanation of why the child needed protection.

32. The petitioner did make numerous telephone calls to members of the mother’s family, and when the mother’s location was known, to the mother in his efforts to locate the child and establish her safety and welfare. These efforts have repeatedly been characterised by the mother and her proxies as variously stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour. The petitioner denies this but does stipulate that on rare occasions he has lost his composure particularly after discovering who was involved in “adopting” his child.

33. In April 2003, the petitioner with the assistance of certain members of the mother’s family did locate the couple who were unlawfully adopting the child.

34. The child was being adopted without any papers by Dale Merriam and his wife Shannon Bodin of Schofield Wisconsin. The petitioner knows this partly as a consequence of a telephone conversation with Leslie Merriam of Wausau, Wisconsin and this has subsequently been confirmed by third parties.

35. Leslie Merriam also claimed to be looking after the child and this has been confirmed by various third parties.

36. Leslie Merriam is a convicted child sex offender having been found guilty on three counts of second degree sexual assaults upon children in 1992, sentenced to one year in prison, five years probation and is a lifetime registrant on the Wisconsin Sex Offenders Register.

37. The petitioner did advise the mother to immediately recover the child from the couple and to telephone him in England that the child had been recovered and was safe. Upon not hearing from the mother the petitioner did make complaint to local law enforcement in Wisconsin, who upon visiting the mother found she denied any such placement or contact of the child with the paedophile or placement of the child with other persons and did claim to be a victim of harassment.

38. The police reports record that the mother and child had been removed from the UK due to an abusive relationship with the petitioner by the US Embassy London and Department of State and that this agency had made it a condition that the petitioner was not to know the whereabouts of the minor child

39. The petitioner believes Wisconsin law enforcement did not interview Leslie Merriam in this matter.

40. Other police reports at this time report similar claims and that the mother claimed the petitioner was not the father of the child.

41. The petitioner will testify that the placement of the child was in exchange for money.

42. The discovery of the placement of his child in the care of a convicted paedophile did cause the petitioner extreme distress and anxiety and to be fearful for the child. Such was the petitioner’s distress that the following day he did collapse with chest pains and was taken to Broomfield Hospital where he was diagnosed as having had an anxiety attack.

43. The conduct of the mother also gave concern to the British authorities and Mr Paul King of the Child Abduction Unit, Department of Constitutional Affairs of HM Government, London did write to Marathon County social services in Wisconsin requesting intercession. No response was received.


44. In March 2003, given the petitioners inability to invoke the Hague Convention for return of the child to the UK he did cause attorneys to be instructed to petition the court in Minnesota for primary residency of the child. The petitioner was advised by said attorneys that there was no jurisdiction in that State or in the United States by virtue of failure to satisfy residency requirements.

45. In April 2003, after the petitioner found the child was being placed up for an unlawful adoption and after locating child in Wisconsin, the petitioner did cause for attorneys in that State to petition court for primary residency of the child. The petitioner was once more frustrated as there was no jurisdiction due to lack of residency requirements and was advised that jurisdiction was in the UK.

46. The petitioner did petition Chelmsford County Court, Essex UK in June 2003 and the court did seize the matter accepting substituted service upon the mother who had once more disappeared. Substituted service being by certified mail to the last known addresses in the United Kingdom and the United States, the latter being her parents address in Wisconsin.

47. Parental responsibility was awarded to the petitioner by the English court on 14th August 2003.

48. On the same day the petitioner did contact the mothers family and advised that unless the mother and child did cease to be concealed and that the mother did agree to resolve the issues concerning the child, he would file a missing child report in Wisconsin acting upon the advice of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation who had agreed to consider taking action against the mother for child endangerment and medical neglect of the child’s eye condition.

49. The petitioner contacted the mothers family because he did not wish to cause a course of action to occur that may have resulted in the arrest of the mother.

50. Later that day the mother did contact the petitioner and agreed to travel from her location (which she would not disclose) to meet with the petitioner in Florida.

51. The parties travelled to Florida and stayed together with the petitioner’s brother and sister-in-law in New Smyrna Beach, Florida the petitioner not wishing to be alone with the mother given her history of false allegations.

52. The parties stayed at a condominium in New Smyrna Beach for a period of approximately ten days at the end of August, start of September 2003.

53. During this time the mother refused to disclose the home location of the child but claimed it was in the State of Virginia. The mother was given the petitioners parental responsibility order from the English court and was made aware of the proceedings in England.

54. During this visit the mother was evasive about the child’s home and her future plans and repeatedly refused to discuss child visitation and particularly the child’s medical condition, claiming the child was under the care of a doctor but refusing to disclose information. The petitioner did not believe the mother.

55. During this visit the mother did also contact New Smyrna Beach Police Department claiming to have been assaulted by the petitioner and wanted him arrested. The petitioner strenuously denied having done so, the parties having had an argument about the mothers conduct with the child. No action was taken by New Smyrna Beach Police Department.

56. The petitioner agreed to reconciliation and returned to the United Kingdom with his brother and sister-in-law leaving the mother and child to follow.

57. The mother and child returned voluntarily to the United Kingdom on 19th September 2003 whereupon, acting on information from the petitioner regarding the child and his concerns, the British police did remove the child from the mother and gave the child into his care. The British police confirmed the authenticity of his English court order granting parental responsibility with the Chelmsford County Court and did consult the English Central Authority, The Child Abduction Unit London before giving the child to the father.

58. The petitioner refused permission for the child to be removed from the United Kingdom which was his right under British law in accordance with his parental responsibility order. British immigration did refuse the mother entry to the UK which the petitioner did think was harsh and was not the intent of his actions, which he verily believes were taken in the interests of protecting the child.

59. It has subsequently been claimed that the petitioner did hold out his parental responsibility order as a custody order. This the petitioner did not do and if he had done so, the enquiries of British police on the 19th September 2003 would have revealed that – these enquiries did not do so.

60. The petitioner did immediately advise the US and UK authorities that the child was in his care and did notify the mothers family and all parties were made aware of the location of the child at the family home, then being 26 Brookmans Road, Stock, Essex England.

61. The petitioner did immediately take the child to the family doctor to catch up on vaccinations and referral back to Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford to recommence treatment for the child’s eye condition.

62. The petitioner did immediately commence proceedings for primary residency of the child in Chelmsford County Court, England which the petitioner believed held jurisdiction over the matter.

63. The proceedings were stayed by the High Court, London (the High Court being the equivalent of the US Supreme Court) as the mother had invoked the Hague Convention claiming Florida held jurisdiction over the matter.

64. The High Court ordered that the jurisdiction in the matter was Florida and that the petitioner had either wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained the child from the jurisdiction of Florida.

65. The petitioner believes that the High Court decision is tainted by the perjury of the mother who claimed not to be aware of the legal proceedings in the Chelmsford County Court in England.

66. The petitioner also believes that the judgement of the High Court is tainted by misrepresentations to British authorities by Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority, Department of State who held out that Florida held jurisdiction.


67. Article 31 of the Convention states that:
“In relation to a State which in matters of custody of children has two or more systems of law applicable in different territorial units –
a) any reference to habitual residence in that State shall be construed as referring to habitual residence in a territorial unit of that State;
b) any reference to the law of the State of habitual residence shall be construed as referring to the law of the territorial unit in that State where the child habitually resides.”

68. The nomadic behaviour of the mother precluded any settled intention for the purposes of establishing habitual residence in any territorial component of the United States.

69. The petitioner is now aware that he mother held a Wisconsin driving licence and banking facilities and was not resident or habitually resident in the State of Florida as claimed at that time.

70. The petitioner believes under Florida law, jurisdiction over a child may be exercised upon a child being resident in that State for six months, alternatively a filing of a child in imminent harm under the UCCJA or alternatively a jurisdictional vacuum exists into which the Floridian court may occupy.

71. None of these conditions was satisfied the mother testifying during her deposition in Florida and in open court that she had been in Florida for a few weeks.

72. There has been no filing of a child in imminent harm under the UCCJA.

73. There was no jurisdictional vacuum as Chelmsford County Court, England had properly seized the matter.

74. The petitioner believes the Hague Convention application was a fraud upon the British High Court and the ruling of wrongful removal or retention is an absurdity as Florida did not hold any jurisdiction at that time and nor did any State in the United States.

75. Nevertheless, the child was sent in the care of her mother to Florida on 5th October 2003 for hearings to take place in Florida to determine the child’s future subject to conditions set out in the order of Justice Sir Johnson notably to obtain medical treatment for the child’s eye condition.

76. The former Ambassador to the United Kingdom, William Farish despatched a cable to the US Department of State on or around 8th October 2003, claiming to be a summary of the ruling of the British High Court. The cable is highly derogatory towards the petitioner and is highly inaccurate. The cable was authored before the transcript of the High Court judgement was available and the petitioner believes it is more accurately described as a version of events as provided by the mother rather than a fair summary of the proceedings.

77. Upon entering Florida the mother did proceed to violate the High Court Hague Convention order and attempted to pass off a basic eye examination as evidence of obtaining medical treatment for the child.

78. The mother also filed a police report November 24th 2003 claiming harassment with Captain Alan Osowski, DeBary District Commander of Volusia County Sheriff’s Office.

79. The report is false and the petitioner believes was misreported by Captain Alan Osowski who claimed in his report to have logged and verified telephone calls to the mother’s cell phone. Upon checking telephone records in the UK the petitioner has discovered that some of the telephone numbers logged had been disconnected on 7th January 2003.

80. On 10th February 2005, Captain Alan Osowski was deposed and testified that the mother gave him the telephone numbers which conflicts with his police report. Captain Osowski further testified that he had not established the truth or falsity of the mothers allegations and those of her proxy, Dana Colston aka Dana Burtchell.

81. In and around November 2003, the petitioner was advised by British police that he was being investigated on allegations made by the mother and her proxies of harassment, stalking and use of his eldest daughter in the UK of making child pornography.

82. In January 2004 the father was advised by Detective Constable Gary Biddle of Chelmsford Police that no action was being taken against him the investigation had concluded that the mother was moving around and making false allegations to evade the legal process and deny the petitioner contact with the child.

83. The mother was also served with proceedings in relation to the child in November 2003 the father having engaged the services of an attorney, Mr David Ferguson of Woodard, Simpson and Ferguson, Ormond Beach Florida.

84. The petitioner contacted Mr Glyn Keiser, Chief of the US Central Authority, Department of State with his concerns for the child who had disappeared and was being concealed from the father and also attempted to invoke article 7 of the Hague Convention with regards to the obligation of the Department of State to ensure the protection of the child.

85. Mr Keiser did advise the petitioner that his visa waiver privileges had been revoked and he would need to apply to the US Embassy London for a visa to enter the United States for court ordered access and to attend court hearings in relation to the child. The father protested that this was obstructive and contrary to the provisions of the Hague Convention.

86. The petitioner now believes that the Department of State unlawfully revoked the petitioner’s visa waiver privileges, having no lawful authority to do so.

87. Hearings in Volusia County Court where scheduled to take place on 19th February 2004 and the father applied for a visa to travel and was interviewed at the US Embassy London.

88. His visa was refused on the grounds he was ineligible under s3A2 INA – that he was travelling to commit unlawful activity. The petitioner protested that he had been cleared of the allegations made against him by the mother that no action was being taken against him. The father also advised the US Embassy of the obligations of the United States under the Hague Convention to facilitate proceedings subsequent to a Hague Convention hearing and to facilitate resolution of child custody and access disputes.

89. The court hearing in Florida was continued to 13th April 2004 and the father reapplied for a visa which was issued but restricted on consideration of s3A2 INA to allow him entry into the United States for the purposes of attending court hearings only. The visa expired on 19th April 2004.

90. The petitioner entered the United States at Sanford Florida on 3rd April 2003 and attended a General Masters hearing which seized jurisdiction of the matter despite arguments of the mothers attorney, Theresa Anderson that the State of Florida did not hold jurisdiction. The proceedings were scheduled to continue in Volusia County Court.

91. The mother and her proxies commenced filing maliciously false police reports claiming attempted break-in at her home, stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour with VCSO DeBary.

92. The mother and her proxies also attempted to provoke the petitioner while being observed by a concealed officer of Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, DeBary and failed to provoke the petitioner.

93. On 8th April 2004 the petitioner attended the mother’s attorney’s offices to give a deposition and was served with papers ordering attendance at Volusia County Court to hear a domestic violence petition application made by the mother.

94. The mother denied access to the minor child until 16th April 2004 when petitioner’s attorney was contacted and offered access to the child the following day, 17th April 2004 and which was the petitioner’s date of departure.

95. The petitioner desiring contact with the child and on the advice of his attorney did contact Orlando Border Patrol to seek advice on how to extend his visa which the petitioner believed expired on 19th April 2004. The petitioner explained that his date of departure was 17th April 2004 to the officer but was advised that provided an extension to his visa was filed with INS and the letter was postmarked by midnight 19th April 2004 the petitioner would lawfully be entitled to remain in the United States pending processing of the application to extend the visa.

96. On 19th April 2004, the father did attend the offices of his attorney and complete an application to extend the visa and this was postal franked at said offices and posted by that office to INS Mesquite, Texas that same day.

97. The petitioner verily believes that the mother and her attorney, Theresa Anderson offered access to the child in the full knowledge that this would result in a technical violation of his visa. The petitioner believes the information regarding his visa was provided to the mother and her attorney by Barbara Greig of the US Department of State.

98. On 20th April 2004, the father did attend Volusia County Court and successfully defended himself against the mother’s graphic allegations of domestic violence, stalking, harassment and so forth producing photographic evidence to demonstrate the falsity of the mother’s claim she had been thrown through a window by the petitioner. The evidence demonstrated that the mother had smashed the windows herself causing her to harm herself.

99. The Honourable Judge John Doyle ruled that the proceedings and allegations were being made by the mother to gain advantage in the custody proceedings filed by the petitioner. (Case style: Sheila Kay Fuith-v-Karl Ernest Hindle 2004-10865 FMDL).

100. Subsequently a stipulated order was entered granting unsupervised access to the child for the petitioner.

101. During the petitioner’s time in Florida at this time he engaged in such activities as voluntary work on a habitat project in DeLand, attended Northland Church, attended the Citizens Police Academy run by Officer Rod Hancock and held on Thursday evenings at DeLand Police Department as well as rekindling bonds with the child.

102. The petitioner fully complied with all conditions regarding access with the child and was engaged in no unlawful or anti-social activities. One condition of access was the surrender of his passport to his attorney.

103. On May 28th 2004, the father attended the police station in DeLand to collect the child for his visitation. At approximately 7.45am the petitioner was approached by two men who identified themselves as immigration agents and the petitioner was arrested by Agent Wayne Baehre of the Department of Homeland Security on the grounds he was unlawfully in the United States.

104. The petitioner cooperated fully with the immigration agents but protested that he had applied for a visa extension in accordance with advice from Orlando Border Patrol. Agent Baehre requested to see the petitioner’s passport and the petitioner did advise he had been required to surrender it as a condition of access with the child. Agent Baehre replied “I know”.

105. Agent Baehre advised that unless the petitioner had a document upon his person that demonstrated he was lawfully within the United States he would be arrested. The petitioner did not have any such document upon his person.

106. Agent Baehre proceeded to arrest the petitioner who was foot shackled, handcuffed and belly chained and transported to Orange County Corrections Facility, Orlando.

107. During the transport to Orlando, the petitioner asked questions as to why he had been arrested and Agent Baehre did advise that it was on the orders of Washington DC. The petitioner did ask if Agent Baehre knew Glyn Keiser of the Department of State, and he replied he did not. The petitioner asked Agent Baehre if he was in contact with Barbara Greig of the Department of State and he replied he would not answer any further questions.

108. Agent Baehre then made a cell phone call to his office and stated that he had the subject in custody and had the papers arrived from Washington.

109. The petitioner was delivered to Orlando and held at Orange County Correctional Facility and processed. During processing and the taking of the petitioner’s fingerprints, the petitioner did read the handwritten notes in Agent Baehre’s file which stated that involved persons in the immigration matter included the mother, her attorney Theresa Anderson, Sheriff Johnson, Captain Alan Osowski and Lt Gillete of VCSO.

110. The petitioner would like to state clearly that despite this being the first occasion that the petitioner has been arrested in his life, he believes Agent Baehre and his colleague did behave professionally and courteously and in no way does the petitioner hold Agent Baehre responsible for his actions and waives any claim that may arise from this action against him or his colleague.

111. It is the petitioner’s sincerest wish that no disciplinary or other adverse action be taken against either of these two immigration officers and the petitioner shall not support any such action.

112. During his detention at Orange County Correctional Facility the petitioner was denied medical treatment for a condition he has suffered from as a result of injuries sustained to his back.

113. After three days without treatment a medical doctor was summoned who noted the petitioner has neurological damage affecting his left leg and he was provide with medication and pain relief.

114. During this time the petitioner was also denied by correctional officers food and drink as he could not leave his bunk without experiencing excruciating pain and was provided with food and drink by cell mates in the holding tank from their own rations.

115. The petitioner did at this time request access to the British Consul and invoked his rights under the Vienna Convention but was advised by correctional officers that this “only applies to prisoners of war”.

116. The petitioner was held in a holding tank and solitary confinement for approximately one week without recreational facilities, contact with his family or the opportunity to exercise and did not see daylight for all that time until being transferred into general population.

117. Upon being transferred to Bradenton Immigration Detention Facility, Bradenton the petitioner was advised that he had committed a technical violation of his visa – his visa states that it expired on 19th April 2004 (a Monday) but the date of departure (for which he had a plane ticket) was 17th April 2004 (a Saturday) – the petitioner was one working day late in filing the visa extension which should have been filed by midnight of Friday 16th April 2004.

118. The petitioner was further advised by his immigration attorney, Mr David Vedder that notwithstanding the highly unusual arrest by the immigration authorities that Washington DC had ordered the Government immigration attorneys that if the petitioner was granted release on bond or his own recognisance, the Government attorneys (Attorneys Grimm and Maingot, Bradenton Florida) had been ordered to appeal said release and the petitioner would be held in detention for a further six months pending the Governments appeal.

119. The petitioner has spoken with both Mr David Vedder, his board certified immigration attorney and Mr James Grimm, the attorney for the US Government in the removal proceedings and both have advised the petitioner that they have no knowledge of any other such case. The petitioner believes his treatment at the hands of US Immigration was unique.

120. During the proceedings it became clear that the petitioner had been arrested due to misrepresentations to US Immigration that the petitioner was a threat to the mother and his child and the numerous police reports filed with VCSO and elsewhere by the mother and her proxies where cited as evidence of this. The cable of former Ambassador Farish was also used, within which it was claimed the petitioner had been found not to be a credible witness – the High Court did not find this.

121. The immigration proceedings were held before His Honor Judge McHugh at Bradenton Immigration Court and the case is styled:

In the Matter of Hindle, Karl Case no. A97-134-162

122. The petitioner was further advised that as an alternative to six months incarceration pending Government appeal, he was being offered voluntary departure which he accepted and was escorted to Tampa Airport under safeguards, without his belongings and without money or his credit cards to a British Airways aircraft and departed the United States on or around 1st July 2004.

123. The petitioner believes that he was entrapped in a technical violation of his visa as a consequence of collusion between the mother, her former attorney, Theresa Anderson, Captain Alan Osowski VCSO and Barbara J Greig of the US Department of State who deliberately misrepresented the petitioner as a threat and a menace and used the offer of access to his child as a means to entrap him into overstaying past his date of intended departure.

124. The petitioner verily believes that Barbara Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State conducted an unlawful investigation into the petitioner having no lawful authority to do so and that this unlawful investigation was to selectively gather “evidence” to paint the petitioner in a derogatory light as a threat and a menace.

125. Such was the concern regarding the unique conduct of US Immigration that the British Consul Hugh Harding contacted US Immigration to express his concerns that the arrest had been arranged so as to prevent the father from pursuing his custody action in Florida.

126. At no time did any of the above advise US Immigration that all the issues and allegations being made against the petitioner had been heard and disposed of by Judge Doyle in Volusia County Court on 20th April 2004 and all had knowledge of the ruling.

127. Upon return to the United Kingdom, the petitioner did immediately reapply for a visa to return to the United States to continue the legal process and to continue enjoying court ordered access with the child.

128. On one occasion while attending the US Embassy London the petitioner was interviewed by William Muntean, a Consular Officer who upon refusing the petitioner a visa for court ordered access advised n words to the effect that:

129. “Court ordered access is a right you may choose to exercise or not and is not a court ordered obligation. A visa will only be issued for court ordered obligations.”

130. The petitioner did advise Mr Muntean of his UK and US court orders ordering access and was advised they did not count.

131. The petitioners wife, Yulia Hindle also did attend the US Embassy London at the same time and was denied a visa to travel to Florida for the purpose of giving her evidence in the paternity matter as she could not provide evidence of substantial connection to the United Kingdom.

132. Almost immediately upon the petitioners return to the UK, the mother did make further complaint to British police that the petitioner was continuously telephoning her making threatening and harassing telephone calls to her place of work. The mother also falsely claimed to British police that she was in possession of a restraining order against the petitioner ordering he have no contact with her.

133. The mother did also make representations by email to Barbara Greig of the US Department of State and law enforcement in the US and the UK, claiming harassment and describing the petitioner as an “animal” and “a mental” among other things. Barbara Greig did then disseminate this and other such representations to the US Embassy London and elsewhere within and without the US Department of State.

134. The petitioner did make a restricted number of telephone calls, which he recorded, attempting variously to establish contact with the child, enquire as to her medical condition and because of his concerns for the safety and welfare of the child as a series of vicious hurricanes affected Florida during the summer of 2004.

135. The petitioner also requested a private investigator visit the mothers address and confirm the child was safe and well and still residing at 50 Pine Hill Road DeBary. The private investigator did confirm that the mother and child had moved and their whereabouts were unknown.

136. The petitioner did make numerous efforts to report the child as missing with VCSO DeBary who refused to respond to the petitioner.

137. In November 2004, the father was contacted by Essex Police and advised of the investigation and interviewed. The petitioner made the British police aware of the ruling of Judge Doyle dismissing the mother’s petition for a domestic violence injunction against the father.

138. The findings of the seven month British police investigation into all of the allegations of the mother and her proxies was “No Offence” and that there was no evidence.

139. The British police did however make further enquiries of witnesses in the United States and the result of their enquiries and the evidence provided by the petitioner of the concerns for the child led to the child being filed with Interpol as a missing child.

140. Upon reviewing the evidence, Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s Missing Children Information Clearinghouse did classify the missing child as endangered.

141. VCSO DeBary did claim to British police that the petitioner had forged the FDLE Missing Child flyer to show the child was endangered and that the mother was in hiding because she was in fear of the petitioner despite the fact that petitioner lives and was in England throughout this period 4,000 miles away.

142. VCSO DeBary also refused to interview witnesses provided to them to rebut their conclusions and refused to acknowledge the findings of Judge Doyle in Volusia County Court.

143. The petitioner’s anxiety and distress was further increased by a witness advising the father that the mother was claiming the child was dying of a brain tumour.

144. The petitioner also contacted Mr Glyn Keiser, Chief of the US Central Authority at the Department of State with his concerns for the child and his concerns at the involvement of Barbara Greig in the matter of his arrest and deportation from the United States earlier that year.

145. Mr Keiser advised the petitioner:

146. “Mr Hindle your allegations are so vile I can only conclude they are the product of a vile diseased mind”

147. Mr Keiser further added that he felt the petitioner had a problem with his “equilibrium” and should seek “help”.

148. The petitioner is aware of other officers at the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State referring to the petitioner as “crazy” or “the crazy guy” and similar.

149. In January 2005 the petitioner did file Freedom of Information Act requests with the US Embassy London, US Department of State Washington DC – to date these requests have not been complied with, notably the petitioners request for the child’s passport application paperwork.

150. The petitioner entered the United States for court hearings in February 2005 at which the mother failed to appear for hearings and depositions.

151. The father returned to the United Kingdom shortly thereafter and continued efforts to locate the child utilising the National Center for Missing Children (NCMEC), Find the Kids, Team Amber and so forth.

152. Such was the concern for the child that the petitioners Member of Parliament, Simon Burns MP tabled a question in the British Parliament and did meet with representatives of the British Government.

153. Paul Sizeman, British Head of Consular Affairs was despatched to Washington DC in May 2005 and raised the issues concerning the child directly with Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty.

154. The father subsequently received a letter from John Ballif, then Director of the Office of Childrens Issues at the Department of State placing responsibility for the care and welfare of the child upon the state, county or municipal agencies where the child resided.

155. In September 2005, the petitioner was advised by his attorney in Florida that there had been a report of a sighting of the child.

156. Susan Rohol, Supervising Attorney of the International Section of the NCMEC advised that they were checking the report but refused to provide the petitioner with any information.

157. The petitioner discovered that the report emanated from Missouri but the NCMEC eventually confirmed that the mother had entered a police station and given an address which had been checked out and found to be false.

158. The petitioner now believes that Barbara Greig, who had full knowledge of the Florida proceedings and that the mother had absconded the State of Florida to evade the legal process in that State, caused the mother to be advised to simply appear at a police station and declare herself and the child as alive.

159. The mother has subsequently testified that at this time she was resident in the State of Kansas.

160. On 25th October 2005 the petitioner was awarded a temporary custody order and a pick-up order for the child was issued by Judge Doyle in Volusia County Court. The petitioner did immediately advise Barbara Greig and Susan Rohol of the NCMEC and emailed a copy of the pick-up order to them.

161. In December 2005, the father entered the United States and attended a hearing before Judge Doyle. The mother did not attend but an attorney, Ms Kim Bannister appeared on a limited basis for the mother having not met her client and whose services Ms Bannister advised had been arranged by Barbara Greig of the Department of State in the presence of the petitioner and his attorney, Mr David Ferguson.

162. Judge Doyle ruled that unless the mother attended court on 13th January 2006 he would issue a permanent custody to the petitioner.

163. The petitioner therefore remained in the United States having been given leave to remain for six months by US Immigration Atlanta, his port of entry.

164. As a consequence of remaining in the United States the petitioner was forced to give up his employment in the United Kingdom as a sales manager for a computer company.

165. The mother duly attended court on 13th January 2006 and claimed she had absconded from Florida due to her fear of the petitioner. Judge Doyle noted that the petitioner lived 4,000 miles away and there was no justifiable basis for her being in fear and found her guilty of criminal contempt of court.

166. Judge Doyle deferred sentencing as he did not wish to cause trauma to the child who had not had contact with the petitioner for a year and a half. Judge Doyle did admonish the mother, that no further police involvement was to take place and that the parties do attend a parenting class on 28th January 2006 and also ordered an independent medical examination for the child’s eye condition.

167. The petitioner entered upon a series of reunification visits with the child commencing 14th January 2006. The mother did on several occasions call the police claiming variously for help because the court would not help her, and to supervise the visitation which the petitioner did find intimidating and obstructive to reunification.

168. The parties attended parenting class on January 28th 2006, and in the afternoon a further visit with the child occurred at the McDonalds restaurant, International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona.

169. After this visit the mother did make a complaint to Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) that the petitioner had sexually molested the child in the bathroom.

170. The allegations were investigated by Daytona Beach Police Department and DCF and concluded that there was no molestation of the child and the mother had been coaching the child to make allegations against the petitioner.

171. Before Judge Doyle and in deposition, the mother has denied making these allegations. Judge Doyle dismissed the allegations against the petitioner and granted unsupervised visitation with the petitioner on alternate days with the child.

172. The petitioner believes the mother and her proxies have continuously perjured themselves under oath in open court and during deposition.

173. In May 2006 the father returned to the United Kingdom to be reunited with his family, and to deal with family matters and to raise further funds to continue the paternity action in Florida.

174. The mother has continued to violate Judge Doyle’s order for telephonic access with the child and continues to conceal the child from the petitioner.

175. The petitioner has complained in or around June 2006 to the Office of the Inspector General of the US Department of State regarding the concerns regarding the conduct of the officials involved in this matter. The concerns of the petitioner were simply relayed to Mary Conaway of the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State who has reiterated no wrong doing.

176. The petitioner has approached the US Department of Justice with his concerns in or around June 2006 and has been advised that that Department had been advised by the US Department of State that that Department had jurisdiction over this matter.

177. On 7th September 2006 the petitioner attended the US Embassy London for a visa interview to re-enter the United States for the purpose of court ordered visitation and to continue the paternity action which was about to be docketed for trial.

178. The petitioner was refused a visa for court ordered visitation under s3A2 INA and was advised by the consular official this was because he had harassed the “American citizen mother”. The petitioner did provide the Florida domestic violence court order dismissing the mother’s allegations, his Florida court order for court ordered access and other evidence demonstrating this was not true.

179. The consular official advised the petitioner that the orders had been “evaluated by attorneys in Washington DC” and the petitioner could not have a visa to enter the United States for court ordered access. The petitioner has made numerous applications and requests for court ordered access using both the Hague Convention order and the Florida court orders and has been denied on every occasion.

180. The petitioner then asked about a visa being issued for attendance at the forthcoming trial in Florida and was advised by the consular officer that this would “require administrative processing” and he would be notified of the results.

181. The visa for attendance at the court hearing has now been denied under s214(b) INA that the petitioner is attempting to emigrate to the United States.

182. The petitioner has repeatedly provided the US Embassy of evidence of his social, economic and familial ties to the United Kingdom where he has lived all of his life except for temporary absences during military service, work commitments and holidays.

183. The petitioner has four minor children in the United Kingdom and has always maintained a home and continues to do so in the United Kingdom. With the exception of the petitioner’s mother who resides in Canada, and the child who resides in the United States, all of the petitioner’s family are in the United Kingdom.

184. The petitioner verily believes that the conduct of the US Embassy London and the US Department of State in removing the minor child from the United Kingdom, filing a fraudulent application under the Hague Convention and manipulating visa issuance is a concerted effort to deny the petitioner his rights and those of the child in violation of the Constitution of the United States, Federal, State and International law.


Prayer

The petitioner respectfully prays that the Honourable Court shall grant the following relief:

1. The US Embassy London be ordered to forthwith issue a visa to the petitioner to appear before the Honourable Court;
2. That the High Court order of 3rd October 2003 issued by Sir Justice Johnson under the Hague Convention be domesticated in the United States and be immediately quashed having been obtained by virtue of perjury and fraud;
3. the petitioner not being an attorney, and without the funds to obtain competent representation in this matter and the issues raised being of great importance to the standing of parents and children, foreign and domestic and to good relations between the United States and Hague Convention treaty partners, that this Honourable Court shall order competent representation for the petitioner at the expense of the US Department of State;
4. That the Department of State do comply with the Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the petitioner in January 2005 and that the date range for the request be extended to the date of the Honourable Court’s order and especially shall forthwith release the child’s passport application documentation;
5. That the petitioner being a man of good character, with no criminal record, never having been arrested except under the unique circumstances as described herein by US Immigration, having a high standard of education, having served his country honourably in The Parachute Regiment of the British Army, not having any drug or alcohol problem, not having any associations with terrorist or criminal organisations and having being found to be no threat by the Florida court having heard the evidence of the mothers allegations and her proxies and having that decision re-affirmed, having entered and departed the United States on numerous occasions over the last twenty years, being a loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, desiring not to be a permanent resident of any other nation except the United Kingdom and upon no objection from the Department of Homeland Security that the petitioner have his visa waiver privileges re-instated and if the Department of Homeland Security do object they attend before the Honourable Court and present their objections;
6. That by Writ of Mandamus, the US Department of State shall cease and desist all unlawful activity in relation to this matter and the petitioner indefinitely, and shall further comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention regarding the child and especially shall cease acting outside of official US Government policy and in violation of federal law in colluding with the mother and her proxies to give her advantage in the custody proceedings and the orders that will emanate from the Honourable Court in Volusia and elsewhere as may be in future;
7. That by a Writ of Mandamus, the Department of Justice do investigate the conduct of the officials of the US Department of State and especially the unlawful issuance of a US passport to the child to effect an international child abduction under colour of law, the assistance rendered to the mother to hide the child and evade the legal process throughout the United State and the conduct of Barbara J Greig, Glyn Keiser and John Ballif et al at the Office of Children’s Issues and others in the matter of collusion with the mother in a fraud on the British High Court, the obstruction of justice in Florida and the arrest of the petitioner and denial of access to the Florida court and the child;
8. That by Writ of Mandamus, the Florida State Attorney shall investigate the conduct of Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, especially the conduct of Captain Alan Osowski and also of the Department of Children & Families, DeLand and especially Investigators Roberta Miranda and Richard Brown;
9. That the consular official(s) at the US Embassy London who issued a US passport to the child be identified;
10. That the following federal officers having evidence directly relevant to the matter concerning the best interests of the child, be compelled to obey the subpoenas of the petitioners attorney and do attend Florida for the purpose of giving depositions and attending trial in the matter of Karl Ernest Hindle v Sheila Kay Fuith Case No.: 2003-12692-FDML before the Honourable Judge John V Doyle in Volusia County Court DeLand Florida now holding jurisdiction over the said matter and it being in the interests of justice and in the interests of the child that they shall do so:

i. Immigration Agent Wayne Baehre, Department of Homeland Security;
ii. Barbara J Greig, Department of State
iii. Glyn Keiser, Department of State
iv. John Ballif, Department of State
v. The unidentified consular official(s) who issued a passport to the child in London
11. That an injunction be placed upon the US Embassy London and US Consulates in the United Kingdom preventing the issuance of passports to minor children in the United Kingdom utilising the domestic violence exception provided by 22 CFR 51, the United Kingdom being a civilised nation with adequate domestic violence protection laws equal to those of the United States and being the place where such allegations are best investigated and determined and to prevent international child abductions by US parents under colour of law;
12. the mother and her proxies be ordered to cease and desist the filing of false police reports, making of false allegations against the petitioner throughout the United States;
13. that US law enforcement agencies wherever they may be situate shall unless otherwise ordered disclose the whereabouts of the minor child to the petitioner now and in future;
14. that the petitioner be granted permission to apply under this action for any further relief as from time to time may be necessary and add any further parties as defendants as events unfold; and
15. That the Honourable Court issue any other order and grants any further relief it deems fit and proper.












Signed: 26th September 2006

Karl Ernest Hindle