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
Louise+Campbell Molly+Campbell Misbah+Rana Angela+Jackson Fred+Jackson International+Child+Abduction
Friday, January 26, 2007
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
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."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)