Phew!
I received a telephone call from "Jerry" of the US Embassy visa line at 5.50pm - would I be able to go into the US Embassy tomorrow morning at 8.00am for a visa interview?
Errrrrr ...actually no, I have children, school run and so on - I could make between 10 and 11 if that works?
It sure did and I turned up at the US Embassy London after a frantic evening of printing DS-156 forms, supporting documents and where the heck did I put my passport?
A brief visit this one - and at the end of a short interview I was told I could have a two year multiple entry visa and the "criminal" s3A2 designation was being removed from my file.
Now I have to wait for the passport to be returned in a week or so and see if this time they really do mean it.
OK - let's see; now we get to really deal with the meat in this bag of snakes - like why has Judge Doyle refused to hear this case on the factors and actively worked in favour of Emily's mum and not in the interest of Emily Rose?
Amongst other things.
Provincial or not - Judge Doyle should explain why Emily Rose has been allowed to go blind for the sake of a 50 cent eye patch at the very least when a High Court order under the Hague Convention was issued for little Emily to get medical treatment as a condition of being sent to Florida in the first instance.
My lawyers/civil rights people in New York think a judicial complaint in on the judge at the very least.
We shall see but now for the most important aspect of all of this - there is nothing standing between Emily and I having visitation except Emily's mum, the willingness of Judge Doyle to enforce it and the Atlantic Ocean.
The latter can be dealt with easily.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
US Embassy Visa Shennannigans Take 4
Well what a surprise!
Awoke bleary eyed this morning after a very late night with an interview with Michael Shannon and myself on an Australian radio show regarding international child abduction.
The good news was before the interview; Jill Jones-Soderman gave me a call to let me know that the US Embassy, London would see me on 2nd October for an interview for the multiple entry visa and I could now request that the matter be expedited as advised by Mary Pacheco of the Office of Childrens Issues at the State Department in a recent email:
I called the Visa line today to request expediting the interview and visa process - guess what?
No record of the interview being made by Jill.
I was told to email the US Consul at the London Embassy and still request an expedited visa - it just got bounced back from the Embassy as deleted and unread even though the codes have been inserted as requested in the subject header.
Deep breath and stay cool Karl!
ciu36X Ref: HINDLE KE : Multiple Entry Visa Application & Interview
Karl Hindle
to londonconsular, GORSKYJH, PachecoMA, Kathleen, newmarkb, jean.carrero
show details 12:03 (23 minutes ago)
Dear Consul,
An appointment was made on my behalf by Jill Jones-Soderman using the US visa telephone number.
The appointment was made for 2nd October however on contacting the UK visa line they have found no record of the appointment being made.
I have contacted the UK visa line to request the interview and visa process for a multiple entry visitor visa be expedited as His Honor Judge John V Doyle hearing a custody matter concerning a minor child, Emily Rose Hindle in Volusia County, Florida is awaiting the issuance (or not) of a multiple entry visa before issuing his ruling in this matter and in accordance with instructions received from Mary Pacheco of the Office of Childrens Issues, Department of State.
I have been advised by Mary Pacheco you are aware of the issues surrounding this case so I shall not repeat them here.
Kindly advise by return.
Yours
s/Karl Hindle
Your e-mail was deleted without being read
from London, Consular
to Karl Hindle
date 8 July 2008 12:03
subject Your e-mail was deleted without being read
mailed-by state.gov
hide details 12:03 (25 minutes ago)
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED REPLY. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL.
Your e-mail was deleted without being read.
"Appointment to apply for a Multiple Entry Visa
from Pacheco, Martha A
to hindle.karl@googlemail.com
cc "Gorsky, Jeffrey H"
date 27 June 2008 15:41
subject Appointment to apply for a Multiple Entry Visa
mailed-by state.gov
hide details 27 Jun (11 days ago)
Dear Mr. Hindle,
With reference to your e-mail of Tuesday, June 24 to Kathleen Ruckman and Jeffrey Gorsky, you have to work directly with the Consular Section in London for a visa appointment. The Consular Section in London is aware of your concerns, as well as the conversation with Judge Doyle that you mentioned. Please know, however that the wait time for a nonimmigrant visa appointment is currently 44 days. The lengthy wait time is a result of increased demand for visa services during the summer months and is not likely to change significantly in the next few weeks. Other applicants who deem their needs urgent are also asking for expedited service, and the Consular Section cannot accommodate all requests. While the Consular Section is aware informally of your interest in securing an expedited appointment, like other applicants, you must submit a formal request. When the Consular Section receives it, it will consider your needs among the dozens of others it has received at the same time. People with urgent medical needs or who are rushing to the funeral or bedside of an ill relative take priority over other requests.
The first step in making the formal request is to book an appointment, even if it is for a date further out than you would like. When you book the appointment, ask the operator for instructions on how to submit the formal request. This is necessary because the procedures involve a frequently changing code, and if you do not have the proper code your request will not be seen in a timely fashion.
It appears you already have this information but for your convenience, non-immigrant visa applicants may obtain appointments for visa application interviews in the U.S. Embassy’s Consular Section in London by following instructions on their website: http://london.usembassy.gov
Click on the tab that says “Visas to the U.S.”
Click on Applying for a Visa, then click on scheduling an interview, and you will find instructions on calling the Embassy’s Operator Assisted Information Service. According to the website, callers from within the United States who wish to obtain information on, or schedule an appointment for a nonimmigrant visa interview, should dial 1-866-382-3589.
Sincerely,
Martha A. Pacheco
Abduction Unit Chief
Office of Children's Issues
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Tel: (202) 736-9130
Fax: (202) 736-9132
E-mail: PachecoMA@state.gov"
Awoke bleary eyed this morning after a very late night with an interview with Michael Shannon and myself on an Australian radio show regarding international child abduction.
The good news was before the interview; Jill Jones-Soderman gave me a call to let me know that the US Embassy, London would see me on 2nd October for an interview for the multiple entry visa and I could now request that the matter be expedited as advised by Mary Pacheco of the Office of Childrens Issues at the State Department in a recent email:
I called the Visa line today to request expediting the interview and visa process - guess what?
No record of the interview being made by Jill.
I was told to email the US Consul at the London Embassy and still request an expedited visa - it just got bounced back from the Embassy as deleted and unread even though the codes have been inserted as requested in the subject header.
Deep breath and stay cool Karl!
ciu36X Ref: HINDLE KE : Multiple Entry Visa Application & Interview
Karl Hindle
to londonconsular, GORSKYJH, PachecoMA, Kathleen, newmarkb, jean.carrero
show details 12:03 (23 minutes ago)
Dear Consul,
An appointment was made on my behalf by Jill Jones-Soderman using the US visa telephone number.
The appointment was made for 2nd October however on contacting the UK visa line they have found no record of the appointment being made.
I have contacted the UK visa line to request the interview and visa process for a multiple entry visitor visa be expedited as His Honor Judge John V Doyle hearing a custody matter concerning a minor child, Emily Rose Hindle in Volusia County, Florida is awaiting the issuance (or not) of a multiple entry visa before issuing his ruling in this matter and in accordance with instructions received from Mary Pacheco of the Office of Childrens Issues, Department of State.
I have been advised by Mary Pacheco you are aware of the issues surrounding this case so I shall not repeat them here.
Kindly advise by return.
Yours
s/Karl Hindle
Your e-mail was deleted without being read
from London, Consular
to Karl Hindle
date 8 July 2008 12:03
subject Your e-mail was deleted without being read
mailed-by state.gov
hide details 12:03 (25 minutes ago)
THIS IS AN AUTOMATED REPLY. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL.
Your e-mail was deleted without being read.
"Appointment to apply for a Multiple Entry Visa
from Pacheco, Martha A
to hindle.karl@googlemail.com
cc "Gorsky, Jeffrey H"
date 27 June 2008 15:41
subject Appointment to apply for a Multiple Entry Visa
mailed-by state.gov
hide details 27 Jun (11 days ago)
Dear Mr. Hindle,
With reference to your e-mail of Tuesday, June 24 to Kathleen Ruckman and Jeffrey Gorsky, you have to work directly with the Consular Section in London for a visa appointment. The Consular Section in London is aware of your concerns, as well as the conversation with Judge Doyle that you mentioned. Please know, however that the wait time for a nonimmigrant visa appointment is currently 44 days. The lengthy wait time is a result of increased demand for visa services during the summer months and is not likely to change significantly in the next few weeks. Other applicants who deem their needs urgent are also asking for expedited service, and the Consular Section cannot accommodate all requests. While the Consular Section is aware informally of your interest in securing an expedited appointment, like other applicants, you must submit a formal request. When the Consular Section receives it, it will consider your needs among the dozens of others it has received at the same time. People with urgent medical needs or who are rushing to the funeral or bedside of an ill relative take priority over other requests.
The first step in making the formal request is to book an appointment, even if it is for a date further out than you would like. When you book the appointment, ask the operator for instructions on how to submit the formal request. This is necessary because the procedures involve a frequently changing code, and if you do not have the proper code your request will not be seen in a timely fashion.
It appears you already have this information but for your convenience, non-immigrant visa applicants may obtain appointments for visa application interviews in the U.S. Embassy’s Consular Section in London by following instructions on their website: http://london.usembassy.gov
Click on the tab that says “Visas to the U.S.”
Click on Applying for a Visa, then click on scheduling an interview, and you will find instructions on calling the Embassy’s Operator Assisted Information Service. According to the website, callers from within the United States who wish to obtain information on, or schedule an appointment for a nonimmigrant visa interview, should dial 1-866-382-3589.
Sincerely,
Martha A. Pacheco
Abduction Unit Chief
Office of Children's Issues
Bureau of Consular Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Tel: (202) 736-9130
Fax: (202) 736-9132
E-mail: PachecoMA@state.gov"
Emily Rose Hindle - Cliff Notes
Barbara Greig - US Department of State's Office of Childrens Issues has Emily's Dad Arrested and Deported
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Deposition of Leslie Merriam - Child Sex Offender & Emily Rose's Prospective "Grandfather"
STATE OF FLORIDA
2 CIRCUIT COURT - 7th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
3 VOLUSIA COUNTY
4 ---------------------------------------------
5 KARL ERNEST HINDLE,
6 Petitioner,
7 VIDEO DEPOSITION OF:
-VS- LESLIE D. MERRIAM
8 CASE NO. 2003-12692-FMDL
9 SHEILA KAY FUITH,
10 Respondent.
11 ---------------------------------------------
12 Videotaped deposition examination
13 of LESLIE D. MERRIAM, taken at the instance of the
14 Plaintiff, under and pursuant to the applicable
15 Florida Statutes and the acts amendatory thereof
16 and supplementary thereto, pursuant to Notice upon
17 the parties, before Christine J. Willette,
18 Registered Professional Reporter, a Notary Public
19 in and for the State of Wisconsin, at the offices
20 of Davczyk & Varline, LLC, 2100 Stewart Avenue,
21 Suite 230, Wausau, Wisconsin, on the 11th day of
22 October 2006, commencing at 3:50 p.m. and ending
23 at 4:31 p.m.
24
25
2
1
2 A P P E A R A N C E S
3
4 APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
KATHLEEN E. GRANT, Esq.
5 Davczyk & Varline, LLC
2100 Stewart Avenue
6 Suite 230
P.O. Box 1192
7 Wausau, WI 54402-1192
8 and
9 (By Telephone)
DAVID L. FERGUSON, Esq.
10 Woodard, Simpson & Ferguson
P.O. Box 2818
11 Ormond Beach, FL 32175
12
APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
13 (By Telephone)
KIM BANISTER, Esq.
14 128A Orange Avenue
Daytona Beach, FL 32114
15
16 ALSO APPEARING BY TELEPHONE:
Karl Ernest Hindle
17
18 The original transcript of the deposition of
19 LESLIE D. MERRIAM was filed with Attorney Grant.
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 I N D E X P A G E
2
3
E X A M I N A T I O N
4 PAGE
5
LESLIE D. MERRIAM
6
EXAMINATION BY MS. GRANT ............... 5
7
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS. GRANT ....... 33
8
EXAMINATION BY MR. FERGUSON ............ 35
9
---------------------------------------
10
E X H I B I T S
11
12 (There were no exhibits marked during the
proceedings)
13
---------------------------------------
14
O B J E C T I O N S
15
16 NONE
17 ---------------------------------------
18 P R O D U C T I O N R E Q U E S T S
19 PAGE LINE
20 BY MR. FERGUSON ..................... 6 3
21 Social Security Number of the witness
22
23
24
25
4
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2
3 LESLIE D. MERRIAM, after having
4 been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
5 as follows:
6
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
8
9 MS. GRANT: Mr. Ferguson, would you
10 care to read the caption for us?
11 MR. FERGUSON: Yes. My name is
12 David Ferguson representing Karl Hindle. This is
13 the case Karl Earnest Hindle, petitioner, versus
14 Sheila Kay Fuith, Respondent, pending in the
15 Circuit Court, 7th Judicial Circuit in and for
16 Volusia County, Florida. Case number
17 2003-12692-FDML (sic), Division IV.
18 MS. GRANT: Thank you.
19 The other appearances today would
20 be Kathleen E. Grant, a member of the bar of
21 Wisconsin, conducting the deposition here in
22 Wausau, Marathon County, Wisconsin. And Kim
23 Banister, an attorney who is appearing, also by
24 telephone, from Datyona Beach Florida. Kim?
25 MS. BANISTER: Yes, that is
5
1 correct.
2 MS. GRANT: Ms. Fuith is not
3 appearing personally. And Mr. Hindle is not
4 appearing, but is listening and will not speak.
5 We're here today to take the
6 deposition of Leslie Merriam.
7
8
9 EXAMINATION BY MS. GRANT:
10 Q. Mr. Merriam?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You're appearing here voluntarily, at our
13 request; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Can you, for the record, and for the
16 court reporter, state your full name, including
17 your middle name, and spell your last name for us,
18 sir?
19 A. Leslie Dale Merriam, M-e-r-r-i-a-m.
20 Q. Can you tell me your date and place of
21 birth, sir?
22 A. 11-18-52, Wausau.
23 Q. And your Social Security number?
24 A. That, I don't know offhand.
25 Q. Okay.
6
1 MS. GRANT: David, does the court
2 in Florida need that?
3 MR. FERGUSON: It would be helpful
4 if it could be provided at a later date to us.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 BY MS. GRANT:
7 Q. Okay. We'll take care of that.
8 Can you tell me your present
9 address, sir?
10 A. E, as in Easton, 12935 County Highway Z,
11 as in Zebra, Wausau, 54403.
12 Q. How long have you lived there, sir?
13 A. Thirty-three years.
14 Q. Are you married?
15 A. Yes, I am.
16 Q. To whom?
17 A. Arlene.
18 Q. How long have you been married to Arlene?
19 A. It will be 33 years in October.
20 Q. Do you have children?
21 A. Three boys.
22 Q. And their names?
23 A. Danny Ray, Dale Lyle, and David Patrick.
24 Q. Are they all grown?
25 A. Yes, they are. They're all married.
7
1 Q. Do any of them live at home with you?
2 A. No, they don't.
3 Q. Your son, Dale, he's married?
4 A. Yes, he is.
5 Q. To whom?
6 A. Shannon.
7 Q. Do you know Shannon's maiden name?
8 A. Bodeen (ph).
9 Q. Can you spell that for me?
10 A. No, I can't.
11 Q. Okay. Phonetically, B-o-d-e-e-n, Bodeen?
12 A. If that's the way it is, I guess.
13 Q. Okay. How long have Shannon and Dale
14 been married, roughly?
15 A. Four years, I think.
16 Q. Before we went on the record and on
17 video, we briefly discussed the mechanics of a
18 deposition together, you and I, didn't we?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And do you understand that the court
21 reporter is taking down everything we say in the
22 question and answer format; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And that we're going to try to wait until
25 one another is finished speaking before the other
8
1 of us says anything. True?
2 A. True.
3 Q. And we've agreed that if you don't
4 understand one of my questions, you'll tell me so
5 and I'll try to rephrase it so that I'm sure that
6 if you're answering, it means you've understood
7 me?
8 A. True.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 Where are you employed currently,
11 Mr. Merriam?
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. And where?
14 A. Graphic Packaging.
15 Q. How long have you been with Graphic
16 Packaging?
17 A. A little over six years.
18 Q. Did you attend schools here in Wausau,
19 Wisconsin?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Do you have any education after high
22 school?
23 A. Well, a couple years at the tech for farm
24 courses.
25 Q. Okay. What's your job title and what do
9
1 you do, basically, at Graphic Packaging?
2 A. Well, right now, working roll tray.
3 Q. Okay. We're here today to gather
4 information for a Florida case between Karl Hindle
5 and Sheila Fuith. That's your understanding;
6 correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And do you know Sheila?
9 A. Very, very little.
10 Q. Can you tell me how you know her?
11 A. Through my daughter-in-law's mother.
12 Q. Through your daughter --
13 A. Shannon's mother.
14 Q. Okay. And who is Shannon's mother?
15 A. Kathy Bodeen.
16 Q. So Shannon Bodeen Merriam's mother is
17 Kathy Bodeen?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And you know Sheila through Kathy?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And what is the relationship between
22 Kathy and Sheila?
23 A. Sisters.
24 Q. All right. When did you come to know
25 Sheila?
10
1 A. About four years ago, I met her once or
2 twice.
3 Q. Would you recognize her if we pointed
4 her -- if you saw her on the street?
5 A. No, I would not.
6 Q. And what was the occasion of your meeting
7 her.
8 (Phone beeps).
9 MS. GRANT: Did we lose someone?
10 MS. BANISTER: No, no. We're fine.
11 I'm sorry. I hit a button accidentally.
12 MS. GRANT: Okay.
13 THE WITNESS: Repeat the question,
14 please.
15 MS. GRANT: Where was I? I
16 think the question --
17 (Requested portion of the testimony
18 read back).
19 BY MS. GRANT:
20 Q. Sheila.
21 A. Mainly, because of her -- of her infant
22 daughter.
23 Q. Whose infant daughter?
24 A. Sheila's infant daughter, and by Kathy's.
25 Q. Okay. And who was Sheila's infant
11
1 daughter?
2 A. I don't remember her name right now.
3 Q. Emily?
4 A. Emily.
5 Q. Okay. And does that refresh your
6 recollection?
7 A. Yes, it does.
8 Q. When we first talked, you did remember
9 her name, didn't you?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. So you came to meet Sheila because of
12 Emily; is that your --
13 A. Well, mainly because my kids were
14 watching -- Dale and Shannon were watching Emily.
15 Q. And when you say they were watching
16 Emily, when were they watching Emily? Like
17 baby-sitting for Emily?
18 A. Well, I don't know if they were -- they
19 were kind of baby-sitting and they were -- I don't
20 know, really, the whole story, what -- but -- what
21 was going on.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I know that they did try to adopt her,
24 and that's all I do know.
25 Q. Okay. So this would be Shannon, who's
12
1 married to Dale; correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. So Shannon and Dale, it's your
4 understanding, were anticipating or trying to
5 adopt Emily; is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And do you know whose idea this was?
8 A. I thought Sheila's.
9 Q. Do you have any idea why Sheila would
10 want Dale and Shannon to adopt Emily?
11 A. Mainly because she couldn't take care of
12 her.
13 Q. Who couldn't? Sheila?
14 A. Sheila couldn't.
15 Q. How come?
16 A. I don't really know the whole story
17 behind that.
18 Q. Uh-huh.
19 A. That's -- all I got was bits and pieces
20 of it.
21 Q. Can you remember any of it for me?
22 A. Well, like I said, it was just a little
23 bit that they told me, and I wasn't going to get
24 involved in it.
25 Q. All right. Was Sheila and -- a single
13
1 mother, to your knowledge, at that time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where was Sheila living at that time?
4 A. I think with Kathy, her sister.
5 Q. All right. And she had Emily with her?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you recall where Sheila and Emily had
8 been prior to them coming to live with Kathy?
9 A. The last I knew, she was in England.
10 Q. Okay. And did you know of her when she
11 was in England?
12 A. No, I did not.
13 Q. So you didn't know anything about Sheila
14 or Emily until they came back here to Wisconsin?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Okay. When you saw Emily, did you see
17 her at Kathy's house, or at Dale's house, or at
18 your house, or --
19 A. Well, more at Dale's house.
20 Q. Okay. And what was the occasion of your
21 seeing Emily at Dale's house?
22 A. Just visiting Dale and Shannon.
23 Q. All right. So Emily was there at that
24 time?
25 A. Yes.
14
1 Q. Was Emily living there, to your
2 knowledge?
3 A. I think so.
4 Q. All right. Where does Dale work?
5 A. GPI.
6 Q. And did he work there at the time that he
7 and Shannon had Emily with them?
8 A. Yes, he did.
9 Q. Where does Shannon work?
10 A. She works for a lawyer up at U.S. Bank.
11 I don't know the name of the lawyers.
12 Q. Perhaps Piehler & Strande?
13 A. It's possible.
14 Q. Okay. Has she worked -- do you -- was
15 she working there at the time that Emily was with
16 her?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you happen to know what arrangements
19 were made for Emily's care during the day, for
20 example, when Dale and Sheila were working?
21 A. Dale and Shannon?
22 Q. Excuse me. Dale and Shannon.
23 A. I think Sheila or Kathy watched her.
24 Q. All right. And where would that have
25 been, if you know?
15
1 A. By Kathy's.
2 Q. All right. So Shannon or Dale would have
3 dropped Emily off at Shannon's mom's house on
4 their way to work, perhaps?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Did you ever take care of Emily?
7 A. No, I have not.
8 Q. So your contacts with Emily would have
9 been while you were visiting your son and
10 daughter-in-law?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. All right. Prior to meeting Sheila, when
13 she returned from England, do you know anything
14 about her or her history with her family?
15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. Have you heard anything from either Kathy
17 Bodeen or Dale and Shannon about her?
18 A. Yes, I heard it.
19 Q. Can you --
20 A. Would I repeat it? No.
21 Q. Why not?
22 A. Because I won't.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Personal reasons.
25 Q. Personal reasons. Would this have been
16
1 information that would have been part of, say,
2 family discussions about Sheila?
3 A. I think so.
4 Q. And would it have to do with, perhaps,
5 the reasons why Sheila might be wanting to place
6 Emily for adoption?
7 A. That, I couldn't say.
8 Q. All right. Who would have more
9 information about Sheila?
10 A. I think -- I think her family would.
11 Q. All right. Other than Kathy Bodeen, do
12 you know of any other members of her family?
13 A. Just Shannon's grandpa and grandma; I've
14 met them a few times, which would be Kathy's
15 mother.
16 Q. And Sheila's mother --
17 A. Right.
18 Q. -- and dad?
19 And you've met them a few times,
20 you said?
21 A. Yes, I have.
22 Q. And would that be at Dale and Shannon's
23 house?
24 A. Or at Kathy's.
25 Q. Okay. Are your contacts with this family
17
1 purely family contacts?
2 A. Yeah, I would say; but very seldom.
3 Q. Okay. Holidays and such?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. Okay. Obviously, you see your own son
6 and daughter-in-law more often. Would that be
7 accurate?
8 A. Oh, yes.
9 Q. Okay. When Emily was with Shannon and
10 Dale, how often did you see her?
11 A. Two, maybe three times.
12 Q. Uh-huh. And how was she as a child? How
13 did she seem to you?
14 A. Like a child. Like a baby.
15 Q. All right. Did -- was she talking and
16 walking at that time?
17 A. No.
18 Q. All right. Was she -- did she seem happy
19 and outgoing, or quiet and withdrawn? How did she
20 seem?
21 A. I thought she was happy.
22 Q. Okay. Did she seem talkative, in a baby
23 kind of way?
24 A. Well, yeah, I imagine. I imagine it was.
25 Q. Okay. And did you interact with her the
18
1 way you would interact with another grandchild?
2 For example, if Dale and Shannon have children,
3 did you interact with Emily as you would with
4 them?
5 A. No, I didn't.
6 Q. How come?
7 A. Because I just didn't.
8 Q. All right. You say that it was your
9 understanding that Shannon and Dale were going to
10 adopt Emily; is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And who told you that or how -- how did
13 you come to understand that?
14 A. I think Dale and Shannon kind of
15 mentioned it.
16 Q. Did they talk to you about it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did they ask your advice, whether you
19 thought it would be a good idea or not?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Do you know if they consulted with any
22 attorneys or -- with respect to initiating
23 adoption action?
24 A. Not to my knowledge.
25 Q. All right. Do you know whether or not
19
1 they, for example, paid the necessary deposit to
2 have a home study done of their home or a study of
3 Emily -- of Emily's background, anything like
4 that?
5 A. No, I don't know.
6 Q. So you don't know how formally they were
7 pursuing this adoption?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Do you know whether it was going to be a
10 legal and formal adoption, or a more informal,
11 within-the-family placement?
12 A. I thought it would have been formal.
13 Q. Okay. And did they discuss any of those
14 formalities with you?
15 A. Nope.
16 Q. So this was just your --
17 A. Just -- just what I had kind of heard.
18 Q. Okay. So it was your understanding that
19 they were going to pursue a formal adoption
20 through the courts here in Wisconsin?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you have any idea why that did not
23 proceed?
24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. Okay. At some point, however, the
20
1 adoption plans fell through or ceased? Or what
2 happened there?
3 A. Well, I think they just kind of ceased,
4 because of all the harassment we were getting from
5 Karl at the time.
6 Q. Okay. So it was your understanding that
7 Karl objected to any sort of adoption of Emily?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Okay. Do you know, after Emily -- well,
10 strike that.
11 At some point, I take it that Emily
12 no longer was living with Dale and Shannon.
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Do you know where Emily went after she
15 was living with Dale and Shannon?
16 A. All I heard, at one point, that Kath --
17 that -- excuse me, that Sheila was in Florida.
18 And that was the last I heard about it.
19 Q. And it was your understanding that Emily
20 was with Sheila?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. Do you know anything about
23 Sheila's previous history before she went to
24 England or before she knew Karl?
25 A. No, I don't.
21
1 Q. Have you heard any family stories about
2 that?
3 A. Yes, I have.
4 Q. Will you repeat those for me, please?
5 A. No, I won't.
6 Q. Kind of give us the gist of it.
7 A. The only thing that I kind of heard is
8 that she left her husband and kids. That's all I
9 know.
10 Q. Okay. And by that, you're meaning,
11 obviously, someone other than Karl?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And kids other than Emily?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. All right. So it was your understanding
16 that before Karl, she had a husband and other
17 children?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Do you know if that was in the United
20 States, or in England?
21 A. United States.
22 Q. And I'm assuming that you know that
23 because Kathy Bodeen knew that?
24 A. Well, Dale or Shannon had said something.
25 Q. Okay. All right. So if I wanted to know
22
1 more about that, I should be speaking to whom, do
2 you think?
3 A. Her fam -- her family.
4 Q. Okay. All right. When you met Sheila on
5 the one or two occasions that you had occasion to
6 meet her, how did she seem to you?
7 A. The little bit I talked to her, I really
8 can't give you an opinion on her.
9 Q. All right. Did it seem odd to you that a
10 mother would be suggesting placing her child out
11 for adoption?
12 A. To a point, yes.
13 Q. Did you draw any conclusions about that?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Did you form any opinions or have any
16 ideas about that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you ask your son or daughter-in-law
19 if they had any ideas about why she would be
20 placing Emily with them?
21 A. Not really.
22 Q. Did they think it would be good for them
23 and for Emily?
24 A. We all kind of thought it would be good
25 for them and Emily.
23
1 Q. How come?
2 A. Because that way, she'd have a stable
3 home and that.
4 Q. Emily would?
5 A. Emily would.
6 Q. Opposed to the sort of home that she had
7 or the sort of upbringing she'd had so far with
8 Sheila?
9 A. Well, if you're on the move all the time,
10 it's kind of hard to -- to get to know anybody.
11 Q. Okay. At that time, Dale and Shannon had
12 been married for some time, had they?
13 A. I think about a year.
14 Q. Okay. And have they adopted children
15 since?
16 A. No, they haven't.
17 Q. And have they had a child --
18 A. They had lost -- they had lost a son.
19 Q. And when was that?
20 A. The baby had died on November 18.
21 Q. Of?
22 A. Last year.
23 Q. 2005?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So almost a year ago?
24
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Okay. That was obviously after they had
3 Emily?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Do you have any understanding about
6 Sheila's contact with, for example, her former
7 family, the husband and children here in the
8 United States?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Do you have any information about
11 Sheila's contact or continuing relationship with
12 Mr. Hindle, with Karl?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. Do you have any information about the
15 whereabouts of Emily between the time that she was
16 here in Wisconsin with Dale and Shannon, and when
17 she was in Florida?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. Do you have any information about
20 Sheila's education or occupational status?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Do you know if she was working when she
23 lived here in Wisconsin?
24 A. No, I don't.
25 Q. Do you know how she supported herself and
25
1 Emily?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. But it's your understanding she was
4 living with her sister, Kathy?
5 A. For a short time.
6 Q. All right. Currently -- you and I talked
7 before the deposition, and it's your understanding
8 that Dale and Shannon have just recently moved; is
9 that correct?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And you don't know the exact address, do
12 you?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. But we've agreed that we're going to call
15 Dale or Shannon and learn the address, haven't we?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And can you tell us, for the record,
18 where they're living now? Not the address, but
19 where.
20 A. On the southeast corner of Our Savior's
21 church across the road.
22 Q. Uh-huh.
23 A. And that's over by Eagle's Landing.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MS. GRANT: And for the record, and
26
1 for Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Banister, we will obtain
2 that address for you and I -- I will supply it.
3 MS. BANISTER: Thank you.
4 BY MS. GRANT:
5 Q. Is it your understanding that Kathy
6 Bodeen was, for lack of a better word, the
7 go-between in the adoption of Emily between, say,
8 Sheila and Dale and Shannon?
9 A. That, I don't know.
10 Q. All right. But it's your understanding
11 that an adoption would have progressed and taken
12 place, but for Karl's interference? Is that
13 basically your understanding?
14 A. True.
15 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether there
16 were any financial arrangements with respect to
17 Dale and Shannon caring for Emily?
18 A. No, I -- I do not know.
19 Q. Is it possible that Sheila was, for
20 example, paying Dale and Shannon to, I don't know,
21 baby-sit or care for Emily while she was here?
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. But your understanding, and it's your
24 clear understanding, that Emily was living with
25 Dale and Shannon because Dale and Shannon were
27
1 anticipating adopting her?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And it was your understanding that this
4 would be a long-term adoption placement?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Not merely a short-term baby-sitting or
7 care-giving placement?
8 A. No.
9 Q. How did it affect Dale and Shannon when
10 the adoption fell through?
11 A. I think emotionally.
12 Q. Was it hard for them?
13 A. Yes, because they had bought a lot of
14 stuff; car seats and everything else, just to take
15 care of her.
16 Q. All right. And those were purchases that
17 they made?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Did you and your wife make any purchases
20 for Emily?
21 A. No, we didn't.
22 Q. Okay. If Dale and Shannon had adopted
23 Emily, obviously, you would have?
24 A. Yes, we would have.
25 Q. Did Emily ever visit with you and your
28
1 wife in your home?
2 A. Not that I remember.
3 Q. All right. And I think I've asked you
4 this. Did you ever care for Emily, either at Dale
5 and Shannon's, or Kathy's, or in your home, or
6 anyplace else?
7 A. No, I did not.
8 Q. Okay. Obviously, our meeting here today
9 is for all of the attorneys, myself included, to
10 understand as much as we can about the situation
11 with Emily during the time that she was here in
12 Wisconsin. Is there any other information that
13 perhaps I haven't covered or asked you, that you
14 can share with us about Emily and Sheila's
15 situation when they were here, when you knew of
16 them?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. Are you aware whether Kathy and
19 Sheila's parents, Shannon's grandparents, whether
20 they were aware of the adoption?
21 A. That, I can't say. I have no idea.
22 Q. Okay. But Kathy obviously was?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Dale and Shannon were?
25 A. Correct.
29
1 Q. Were there any other members of your
2 extended family that interacted with Emily while
3 she was living with Dale and Shannon?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Okay. How about the other -- how about
6 your other sons and their wives?
7 A. Not that I recall.
8 Q. Okay. They may have, you just weren't
9 present?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. All right. Can you tell me, your other
12 son's -- tell me their names again. Danny?
13 A. And David.
14 Q. And David. Do they both live in the
15 Wausau area?
16 A. Yes, they do.
17 Q. Do you know their addresses?
18 A. No, I don't.
19 Q. But you can get for me if I need them?
20 A. Probably.
21 Q. Okay. Were they both married at the time
22 that Emily was living with Dale and Shannon?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Was either of them married at that time?
25 A. I think David was.
30
1 Q. Okay. And his wife's name?
2 A. Cindy.
3 Q. Okay. And you think Danny wasn't?
4 A. Danny, I know, wasn't.
5 Q. Okay. And his wife's name now?
6 A. He's divorced.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Before Sheila and
8 Emily arrived in Wisconsin from England, as far as
9 you know, did you know anything about them through
10 Kathy Bodeen?
11 A. No.
12 Q. And do you know anything about Sheila's
13 other sisters or brothers?
14 A. No, I don't.
15 Q. Okay. Is there anyone else that you know
16 of, or that you could suggest, other than the
17 people we've already discussed, who would have any
18 information with respect to Sheila and Emily
19 during the period of time that Sheila and Emily
20 were living here in our area?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 MS. GRANT: Okay. Mr. Ferguson and
23 Ms. Banister, have -- I'll -- I'll pass the
24 witness at this time.
25 (Busy signal on phone).
31
1 MS. GRANT: Oh-oh.
2 MR. FERGUSON: We just went -- we
3 just went blank.
4 MS. GRANT: David?
5 MR. FERGUSON: Hello?
6 MS. GRANT: Hello.
7 MR. FERGUSON: I think we may have
8 lost Kim.
9 MS. GRANT: Can you still hear us?
10 MR. FERGUSON: I can hear you. Can
11 you hear me?
12 MS. GRANT: Yes, we can hear you,
13 and we are staying on the record, so that you
14 know. I am now describing for the record the fact
15 that the court reporter and I looked at each other
16 with a strange look on our face, because we are
17 now hearing some sort of a busy signal tone.
18 Correct?
19 MR. FERGUSON: Me, too, which leads
20 me to believe we may have just lost Kim Banister.
21 MS. GRANT: Okay. Shall we go off
22 the record until we reconnect?
23 MR. FERGUSON: Go off the record
24 and try to get them -- get her back.
25 MS. GRANT: All right. Please note
32
1 the time, and we'll go off the record.
2 (Discussion held off the record
3 from 4:20 p.m. to 4:23 p.m.)
4 MR. FERGUSON: Hello?
5 MS. GRANT: Hello.
6 MR. FERGUSON: Is this Kathleen?
7 MS. GRANT: Yes, it is.
8 MR. FERGUSON: Let's see if we can
9 get Kim.
10 (Dial tone on telephone).
11 MS. GRANT: Note for the record
12 that we were disconnected.
13 (4:24 p.m.)
14 (Discussion held off the record).
15 (4:26 p.m.)
16 MR. FERGUSON: All right?
17 MS. GRANT: Okay. We're back on
18 the record.
19 While we were off the record, Mr.
20 Merriam did, indeed, find his Social Security
21 card, and he's going to read his Social Security
22 number into the record for us.
23 MR. FERGUSON: Okay.
24 THE WITNESS: It's 396-62-0386.
25 MS. GRANT: Thank you.
33
1 Also, while we were off the record,
2 I inquired of Mr. Merriam his concerns about
3 repeating any of the gists of conversations he
4 might have heard with respect to Sheila or her
5 background or, oh, I don't know, any mental or
6 emotional issues surrounding Sheila; and he said
7 his concern had to do with hearsay. But, he has
8 agreed to tell us the gist of conversations he
9 heard.
10
11
12 FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MS.
13 GRANT:
14 Q. So, Mr. Merriam, earlier, I had asked you
15 whether you had heard anything, for example, about
16 Sheila's background, and you indicated you didn't
17 want to repeat those conversations. Do you recall
18 my questions?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Would you please repeat for us the sorts
21 of things or what you heard about Sheila or her
22 background?
23 A. Like I said, it's just hearsay. And it's
24 just that she left her husband and kids.
25 Q. Okay. And do you remember whom you heard
34
1 those sorts of comments from?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. It would have been, obviously, her sister
4 or your family?
5 A. My son or his wife, yes.
6 Q. Okay. And was it that sort of activity
7 on Sheila's part that led them to believe it would
8 be better for Emily to be with Dale and Shannon?
9 A. I think so.
10 Q. Okay. Did you ever hear any other
11 discussions by Kathy or any other people that you
12 know with respect to, for example, any mental or
13 emotional issues concerning Sheila?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. Do you know whether Sheila ever
16 discussed her plans for Emily or for her life with
17 Emily, other than adoption by Dale and Shannon?
18 A. Not that I know of.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MS. GRANT: Well, I think we were
21 at this point when we got cut off, but as I was
22 saying, I -- I will pass the witness, if either
23 Mr. Ferguson or Mr. -- or Ms. Banister, excuse me,
24 has any questions at this time.
25 MS. BANISTER: I don't have any
35
1 questions at this time.
2 MR. FERGUSON: Yeah, I've just got
3 a couple of things, really more in clarification
4 than anything else.
5
6
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. FERGUSON:
8 Q. Did -- and this is David Ferguson, once
9 again.
10 Mr. Merriam, did you have any
11 direct conversations with Sheila Fuith with regard
12 to the plans for adoption?
13 A. No, I did not.
14 Q. You did not speak directly to her?
15 A. No, I did not.
16 Q. Okay. And were you aware of any physical
17 conditions that plagued Emily?
18 A. No, I do not.
19 Q. Were you aware of any eye conditions that
20 she suffered from?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Okay. And are you absolutely certain
23 that you never baby-sat?
24 A. I'm a hundred percent sure.
25 Q. Okay. Do you remember ever speaking to
36
1 myself or any investigators on the phone, and
2 talking about the fact that you had baby-sat once
3 or twice?
4 A. No.
5 Q. You don't remember that?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay. All right. Have you ever been
8 convicted of any crimes --
9 A. Yes, I have.
10 Q. -- which are felonies? What crimes are
11 those?
12 A. Sex offender.
13 Q. Okay. What was the sex offense?
14 A. What? Repeat the question.
15 Q. What was the offense?
16 A. I think third.
17 Q. Pardon?
18 A. I think it was third --
19 Q. Okay. When did it -- when did it -- when
20 did the offense occur?
21 A. '90, '92, somewhere around there.
22 Q. And in what county and state?
23 A. Marathon County, State of Wisconsin.
24 Q. Were you convicted?
25 A. Yes, I was.
37
1 Q. Are you under any legal restriction from
2 having contact with children?
3 A. No, I am not.
4 Q. Okay. Do you know why Sheila Fuith left
5 the Wisconsin area?
6 A. No, I don't.
7 Q. On how many occasions did you see Ms.
8 Fuith?
9 A. Maybe once or twice.
10 Q. Okay. On how many occasions did you see
11 the child, Emily?
12 A. I don't know; two, three. I don't
13 remember.
14 Q. Okay. Did you --
15 MR. FERGUSON: I don't think I have
16 anything further.
17 MS. GRANT: Ms. Banister?
18 MS. BANISTER: No, I think I'm --
19 I'm fine.
20 MS. GRANT: Okay. I have no
21 further questions, either.
22 And with that, we will conclude the
23 deposition and go off the record.
24 MR. FERGUSON: Okay. And one --
25 one thing, for the record, here in Florida.
38
1 MS. GRANT: All right.
2 MR. FERGUSON: The witness does
3 have the right to read the deposition, if it is
4 typed up, for accuracy, or he can waive that
5 right.
6 MS. GRANT: Do you understand that,
7 Mr. Merriam? In -- it's the same in Wisconsin.
8 People who give their deposition can receive the
9 transcript of it, the question and answer format,
10 read it, and if there are any corrections that you
11 wish to make, you may make them.
12 Would you like to read that
13 deposition transcript for correctness, or do you
14 waive that reading?
15 THE WITNESS: No. I'd like to have
16 it.
17 MS. GRANT: Okay. I can facilitate
18 that, Mr. Ferguson.
19 MR. FERGUSON: Okay. Very good.
20 MS. GRANT: All right.
21 MR. FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr.
22 Merriam.
23 MS. BANISTER: Yes. Thanks.
24 MS. GRANT: And I thank you, too.
25 We'll be off the record now.
39
1 (Deposition concluded at 4:31 p.m.)
2 * * * * * *
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
1 CERTIFICATION PAGE
2
3
I, CHRISTINE J. WILLETTE,
4 Registered Professional Reporter, Notary Public in
and for the State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify:
5
That prior to being examined, the
6 witness named in the foregoing deposition, LESLIE
D. MERRIAM was by me duly sworn to testify the
7 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 That said deposition was taken
before me at the time, date and place set forth;
9 and I hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true
and correct transcript of my shorthand notes so
10 taken and thereafter reduced to computerized
transcription under my direction and supervision.
11
I further certify that I am neither
12 counsel for nor related to any party to said
action, nor in any way interested in the outcome
13 thereof; and that I have no contract with the
parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in
14 the action that affects or has a substantial
tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me
15 to relinquish control of an original deposition
transcript before it is certified and delivered to
16 the custodial attorney, or that requires me to
provide any service not made available to all
17 parties to the action.
18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
19 subscribed my name this 4th day of November, 2006.
20
21
____________________________________
22 Christine J. Willette, RPR
Notary Public - State of Wisconsin
23
24 My Commission Expires August 23, 2009
25
41
1 STATE OF WISCONSIN )
2 ) ss.
3 MARATHON COUNTY )
4
5
6 Before signing said deposition transcript,
7 I have read over the same, and corrections,
8 if any, having been noted and attached
9 thereto, the same is now a true and
10 correct transcript of my testimony.
11
12
13
14
15
16 -----------------------------
17 LESLIE D. MERRIAM, Deponent
18
19
20
21 Dated this ________day of ______________, 2006,
22
23 ____________________, Wisconsin.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Application for Directions - The British High Court
In the High Court Principal Registry Reference:
The Strand, London
Date:
Application for Directions
1. Emily Rose Hindle, a minor child was born on 1st March 2002 in Maldon, Essex UK with a mother being, Sheila Kay Fuith a US citizen and Karl Ernest Hindle, a British citizen; all were resident in the UK and lived together; the mother and father were not married;
2. The parties met in New York in December 2000 however the mother concealed the fact that she was married with two minor children in Minnesota from the father and continued to do so after she moved to the UK to live with the father in February 2001;
3. The child was diagnosed at age 6 months with a medical condition rendering her blind in her right eye unless treated and treatment commenced at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford UK which involved patching of the eye for several hours each day together with regular weekly visits to the hospital;
4. 2. On 7th January 2003, the mother removed the child from the home and attended the US Embassy London claiming to be a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the father and without his knowledge or consent, a US passport was issued to the minor child who was removed to the United States;
5. Upon being removed to the United States on or around 23rd February 2003, the child was hidden with the assistance of US Department of State and US Embassy officials from the father amidst claims he was an abuser in order to evade the US legal process and conceal the child; to date the child has been moved and concealed in ten US States and moved over 60 times;
6. The mother unilaterally and without taking medical advice ceased treatment for the child’s blindness;
7. In March 2003 the child was placed up for an unlawful adoption arrangement known in the US as a “baby switch” for which the father will testify to his own certain knowledge involved payment to the mother;
8. The sale of the child placed her into the care and contact of Leslie Merriam, a convicted child sex offender in Wisconsin;
9. The father attempted to litigate in March 2003 in the state of Minnesota where the mother was traced to at that time however he was advised by US attorneys instructed that there was no jurisdiction in that state and that jurisdiction in their view lay in the UK;
10. The father subsequently attempted to litigate in the state of Wisconsin in April 2003 after the mother was traced there and again was advised by retained attorneys in Wisconsin that there was no jurisdiction in that state and that jurisdiction lay in the UK;
11. The father attempted to invoke the Hague Convention for the return of the child but was advised by the English Central Authority this was not possible due to lack of parental responsibility;
12. The father and the English Central Authority repeatedly requested the intercession of the US authorities to protect the child but were ignored;
13. The father has now obtained US police reports that state that the mother and child were removed from the UK by the US Embassy London and US Department of State, Washington DC on the grounds that the father was an abuser and was not to know where the child was in the United States;
14. The father applied for a parental responsibility order out of Chelmsford County Court and after substituted service this was granted to the father on 14th August 2003;
15. The mother agreed to produce the child in Florida in August 2003 after the father approached the US Federal Bureau of Investigation;
16. The father offered reconciliation to the mother if she returned to the UK with the child to which she agreed;
17. On 19th September 2003, upon arriving at Gatwick Airport the mother was denied entry to the UK on the grounds of a previous overstay; British police alerted to the issues concerning the child removed the child from the care of the mother and placed her in the care of the father who refused permission under his parental responsibility order for the child to be removed from the jurisdiction;
18. The father does not deny he engineered this state of affairs though refusal of the mother for entry to the UK was not requested nor his intent and this was harsh treatment; the intent was to ensure the safety and welfare of the child from the neglect and conduct of the mother;
19. Upon the child being placed in his care, the father notified US and UK authorities as well as the mother’s family in the United States and immediately filed in Chelmsford County Court for a residency order;
20. The County Court proceedings were stayed by the High Court as an application was filed under the Hague Convention claiming jurisdiction lay in the State of Florida on the grounds that the child had resided there for more than six months – the father can now demonstrate that this was a fraudulent claim on the part of the mother and the US Central Authority official who filed it, Barbara J Greig and that the mother was in the jurisdiction for less than 2 months;
21. The High Court was also advised that the US passport issued to the child had been lawfully issued by the US Embassy; the father can now show that the child was issued a US passport in violation of US passport law and as a consequence of a domestic violence fraud and/or a signed notarised consent fraud;
22. A Hague Convention hearing was held before Sir Justice Johnson who delivered his ruling on 3rd October 2003 and ordered the return of the child subject to medical treatment being rendered for her eye condition amongst other conditions including visitation;
23. The father can now show that the Hague Convention application and evidence provided by the US Central Authority represents a fraud on the High Court by Barbara Greig, the US Government and the mother;
24. Upon sending the child to the State of Florida the father filed in that State for relief;
25. In November 2003 the father was advised by the US Central Authority’s Glenn Keiser, that his visa waiver privileges had been revoked and he needed a visa from the US Embassy to travel to the US for court hearings; the father believes he can now demonstrate that the US Central Authority used the visa process to deny the father access to the child and to the US courts and did so in order to conceal the misconduct of its own officials;
26. The father applied for a visa for attendance at a hearing in January 2004 and this was refused by the US Embassy London on the recommendation of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority;
27. The father reapplied for a visa to travel for hearings in April 2004 and was issued with a restricted visa for a short visit and was further advised he could not have a visa for visitation with his child;
28. Upon entering the United States the father commenced the legal process and was served on behalf of the mother with domestic violence proceedings which required he stay in the US beyond his planned date of departure;
29. The father applied for a visa extension in accordance with instructions from US Immigration and remained to defend the domestic violence proceedings and gain access under the domestic process to the child;
30. The father successfully defended himself against the domestic violence proceedings and was successful in obtaining legal and actual access to the child;
31. On 28th May 2004 the father was arrested by US Immigration on the grounds that he had filed for an extension to his visa one working day late and the father understands that this is a unique application of the law by US Immigration officials;
32. The father can now show that his arrest was at the direct request of Barbara J Greig of the US Central Authority who did not agree with the findings of the US court and conspired with the mother to effectuate a technical violation of the visa by using access to the child on the fathers intended day of departure as a lure to keep him in the US and by the service of domestic violence proceedings to be heard after the original visa expired;
33. The father can now show that Barbara J Greig did perform an unlawful investigation claiming the father was a threat and a menace and did solicit and obtain falsified police reports filed by the mother and her proxies including Captain Alan Osowski of Volusia County Sherriff’s Office;
34. The father can show that Captain Alan Osowski falsified a police report he took in November 2003 claiming the father had telephoned the mother harassing her and logging telephone numbers calling her mobile cell phone despite some of these numbers being disconnected some 11 months previously;
35. The father can now show that a conspiracy to stop the legal proceedings in the UK and in the State of Florida together with denial of the father and child’s right of access and visitation has been in force since the child’s removal from the United Kingdom in February 2003 and in which the following are members are (but are not limited to):
a. Barbara J Greig – US Department of State, US Central Authority
b. Glen Keiser – US Department of State, formerly US Central Authority
c. Sheila Kay Fuith – mother;
d. Captain Alan Osowski – Volusia County Sherriff’s Office, Florida
e. Teresa Anderson – Attorney at Law, Florida
36. This conspiracy continues to this day;
37. Upon arrest by US Immigration the father was incarcerated and on the recommendation and representations of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority, no bond or release on recognizance was to be allowed as according to Ms Greig the father constituted an abduction threat contrary to the findings of the US judge who had seized the case;
38. The father was deported to the UK in July 2004;
39. The child subsequently disappeared and was classified as missing and endangered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement after British police filed the child as missing through Interpol ;
40. The British police were conducting a second criminal investigation into the father based on complaints of the mother and representations of Barbara Greig to the British and US law enforcement authorities;
41. The father was cleared of allegations of harassment and stalking by the British police but the investigating officers became concerned for the safety of the child as a result of their investigations resulting in a missing child report being filed;
42. The father was denied access to the US and the courts at this time on the grounds that he had harassed the US mother despite repeated findings of the US court and law enforcement to the contrary and the child being missing and classified as endangered;
43. The father was also advised by the US Embassy London on numerous occasions that he would never be allowed access to the US for court ordered visitation with the child on the grounds he had harassed the US citizen mother despite the findings of the US courts and law enforcement;
44. Enquiries by various British authorities report that the US Department of State was not barring access to the child by refusing the father visas to travel for access;
45. The father can now show that this is a lie on the part of the US Department of State based upon recommendations and misrepresentations of Barbara Greig and the US Central Authority and that this continues to this day;
46. The child was located and returned in January 2006 to the State of Florida after hiding the child in Kansas/Missouri;
47. The father can now demonstrate that the child was hidden from the father and the US court proceedings with the active involvement of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority;
48. The father can show that despite nine US and British eye doctors recommending treatment for the child, the US court and Floridian authorities have refused treatment for the child;
49. The child is now permanently blinded in the right eye as treatment needed to be administered and concluded by age 3 (the child is now 6);
50. It has been 5 years since the child was sent to the jurisdiction of Florida and there is still no ruling as to a final determination of the child’s future;
51. The child and father have been kept apart for more than two years and the Floridian court refuses to enforce any visitation order in defiance of the laws of that State;
52. The father believes he can now demonstrate a fraud on the High Court by US Government officials, an international child abduction of a child situate in the UK by misconduct of US Government officials in violation of the Hague Convention and other rights accruing to the father and child;
53. The father believes he can now demonstrate that the State of Florida does not satisfy the prerequisites for children to be sent to that jurisdiction under the Hague Convention, to wit:
a. The State of Florida fails to provide courts that will be prompt and effective in the rendering of court orders for the interest of a child;
b. The State of Florida fails to provide courts that will be prompt and effective in the enforcement of existing orders for the interest of the child; and
c. The State of Florida does not provide a standard of child protection at least the equivalent as that which a child would enjoy in the United Kingdom.
Proposed Relief in Broad Terms
The father believes that the following relief in broad terms should be sought:
i. An order quashing the Hague Convention ruling of Sir Justice Johnson on the grounds of fraud, perjury and bad faith conduct of the mother and Barbara Greig et al;
ii. Imposition of controls upon the US Central Authority by the High Court such that a Hague Convention application and supporting evidence is subject to independent corroboration before the matter is heard;
iii. That a requirement for a jurisdictional ruling by a US judge of the jurisdiction from which a child is alleged to have been wrongfully removed or retained be imposed on US applicants under the Hague Convention before the matter is heard;
iv. That the State of Florida be suspended from the Hague Convention in those cases where a medical condition requiring medical intervention exist and that the child(ren) subject to the application be retained in the United Kingdom for the pendency of medical treatment;
v. That for those cases were a child is to be sent to the State of Florida, only a named Federal Judge shall be allowed to hear the case and one who is versed in the Hague Convention and understands the obligations placed on the United States in respect of the child and the British parent being sent to that jurisdiction and that no child shall be released to the jurisdiction until said Federal Judge has seized the case;
vi. That an investigation is launched by a competent authority selected by the Honourable Court into the removal of Emily Rose Hindle and the issues raised by the father regarding perjury and misrepresentations by the mother, Barbara Greig and other US government officials to the British authorities and High Court and the abuse and neglect of the child, the father and international law as a consequence;
vii. That an injunction be issued to prevent any further removal of children from the jurisdiction of England and Wales on the grounds of domestic violence by the US Embassy and Consulates; and
viii. Any other relief that the Honourable Court deems fit.
PRAYER:
Relief Requested at the is Time -
The applicant respectfully prays for the following immediate relief:
1. That legal representation be appointed for the father;
2. That the court direct the applicant as to the form and filing of the matter;
3. That the court direct the applicant as to service on other parties and the nature of service and giving notice of the proceedings to other interested parties such as the State of Florida and the United States of America; and
4. Any other directions are issued as the Honourable Court deems necessary and fit.
Signed:.................................................. Dated:.........................
Karl Ernest Hindle
5 Berwick Cottages
Terling Hall Road
Hatfield Peverel Essex CM3 2EY
The Strand, London
Date:
A controversy regarding the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980, Human Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Emily Rose Hindle (a minor) and her father, Karl Ernest Hindle (a British citizen) and the United States of America and the State of Florida
Application for Directions
1. Emily Rose Hindle, a minor child was born on 1st March 2002 in Maldon, Essex UK with a mother being, Sheila Kay Fuith a US citizen and Karl Ernest Hindle, a British citizen; all were resident in the UK and lived together; the mother and father were not married;
2. The parties met in New York in December 2000 however the mother concealed the fact that she was married with two minor children in Minnesota from the father and continued to do so after she moved to the UK to live with the father in February 2001;
3. The child was diagnosed at age 6 months with a medical condition rendering her blind in her right eye unless treated and treatment commenced at Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford UK which involved patching of the eye for several hours each day together with regular weekly visits to the hospital;
4. 2. On 7th January 2003, the mother removed the child from the home and attended the US Embassy London claiming to be a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the father and without his knowledge or consent, a US passport was issued to the minor child who was removed to the United States;
5. Upon being removed to the United States on or around 23rd February 2003, the child was hidden with the assistance of US Department of State and US Embassy officials from the father amidst claims he was an abuser in order to evade the US legal process and conceal the child; to date the child has been moved and concealed in ten US States and moved over 60 times;
6. The mother unilaterally and without taking medical advice ceased treatment for the child’s blindness;
7. In March 2003 the child was placed up for an unlawful adoption arrangement known in the US as a “baby switch” for which the father will testify to his own certain knowledge involved payment to the mother;
8. The sale of the child placed her into the care and contact of Leslie Merriam, a convicted child sex offender in Wisconsin;
9. The father attempted to litigate in March 2003 in the state of Minnesota where the mother was traced to at that time however he was advised by US attorneys instructed that there was no jurisdiction in that state and that jurisdiction in their view lay in the UK;
10. The father subsequently attempted to litigate in the state of Wisconsin in April 2003 after the mother was traced there and again was advised by retained attorneys in Wisconsin that there was no jurisdiction in that state and that jurisdiction lay in the UK;
11. The father attempted to invoke the Hague Convention for the return of the child but was advised by the English Central Authority this was not possible due to lack of parental responsibility;
12. The father and the English Central Authority repeatedly requested the intercession of the US authorities to protect the child but were ignored;
13. The father has now obtained US police reports that state that the mother and child were removed from the UK by the US Embassy London and US Department of State, Washington DC on the grounds that the father was an abuser and was not to know where the child was in the United States;
14. The father applied for a parental responsibility order out of Chelmsford County Court and after substituted service this was granted to the father on 14th August 2003;
15. The mother agreed to produce the child in Florida in August 2003 after the father approached the US Federal Bureau of Investigation;
16. The father offered reconciliation to the mother if she returned to the UK with the child to which she agreed;
17. On 19th September 2003, upon arriving at Gatwick Airport the mother was denied entry to the UK on the grounds of a previous overstay; British police alerted to the issues concerning the child removed the child from the care of the mother and placed her in the care of the father who refused permission under his parental responsibility order for the child to be removed from the jurisdiction;
18. The father does not deny he engineered this state of affairs though refusal of the mother for entry to the UK was not requested nor his intent and this was harsh treatment; the intent was to ensure the safety and welfare of the child from the neglect and conduct of the mother;
19. Upon the child being placed in his care, the father notified US and UK authorities as well as the mother’s family in the United States and immediately filed in Chelmsford County Court for a residency order;
20. The County Court proceedings were stayed by the High Court as an application was filed under the Hague Convention claiming jurisdiction lay in the State of Florida on the grounds that the child had resided there for more than six months – the father can now demonstrate that this was a fraudulent claim on the part of the mother and the US Central Authority official who filed it, Barbara J Greig and that the mother was in the jurisdiction for less than 2 months;
21. The High Court was also advised that the US passport issued to the child had been lawfully issued by the US Embassy; the father can now show that the child was issued a US passport in violation of US passport law and as a consequence of a domestic violence fraud and/or a signed notarised consent fraud;
22. A Hague Convention hearing was held before Sir Justice Johnson who delivered his ruling on 3rd October 2003 and ordered the return of the child subject to medical treatment being rendered for her eye condition amongst other conditions including visitation;
23. The father can now show that the Hague Convention application and evidence provided by the US Central Authority represents a fraud on the High Court by Barbara Greig, the US Government and the mother;
24. Upon sending the child to the State of Florida the father filed in that State for relief;
25. In November 2003 the father was advised by the US Central Authority’s Glenn Keiser, that his visa waiver privileges had been revoked and he needed a visa from the US Embassy to travel to the US for court hearings; the father believes he can now demonstrate that the US Central Authority used the visa process to deny the father access to the child and to the US courts and did so in order to conceal the misconduct of its own officials;
26. The father applied for a visa for attendance at a hearing in January 2004 and this was refused by the US Embassy London on the recommendation of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority;
27. The father reapplied for a visa to travel for hearings in April 2004 and was issued with a restricted visa for a short visit and was further advised he could not have a visa for visitation with his child;
28. Upon entering the United States the father commenced the legal process and was served on behalf of the mother with domestic violence proceedings which required he stay in the US beyond his planned date of departure;
29. The father applied for a visa extension in accordance with instructions from US Immigration and remained to defend the domestic violence proceedings and gain access under the domestic process to the child;
30. The father successfully defended himself against the domestic violence proceedings and was successful in obtaining legal and actual access to the child;
31. On 28th May 2004 the father was arrested by US Immigration on the grounds that he had filed for an extension to his visa one working day late and the father understands that this is a unique application of the law by US Immigration officials;
32. The father can now show that his arrest was at the direct request of Barbara J Greig of the US Central Authority who did not agree with the findings of the US court and conspired with the mother to effectuate a technical violation of the visa by using access to the child on the fathers intended day of departure as a lure to keep him in the US and by the service of domestic violence proceedings to be heard after the original visa expired;
33. The father can now show that Barbara J Greig did perform an unlawful investigation claiming the father was a threat and a menace and did solicit and obtain falsified police reports filed by the mother and her proxies including Captain Alan Osowski of Volusia County Sherriff’s Office;
34. The father can show that Captain Alan Osowski falsified a police report he took in November 2003 claiming the father had telephoned the mother harassing her and logging telephone numbers calling her mobile cell phone despite some of these numbers being disconnected some 11 months previously;
35. The father can now show that a conspiracy to stop the legal proceedings in the UK and in the State of Florida together with denial of the father and child’s right of access and visitation has been in force since the child’s removal from the United Kingdom in February 2003 and in which the following are members are (but are not limited to):
a. Barbara J Greig – US Department of State, US Central Authority
b. Glen Keiser – US Department of State, formerly US Central Authority
c. Sheila Kay Fuith – mother;
d. Captain Alan Osowski – Volusia County Sherriff’s Office, Florida
e. Teresa Anderson – Attorney at Law, Florida
36. This conspiracy continues to this day;
37. Upon arrest by US Immigration the father was incarcerated and on the recommendation and representations of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority, no bond or release on recognizance was to be allowed as according to Ms Greig the father constituted an abduction threat contrary to the findings of the US judge who had seized the case;
38. The father was deported to the UK in July 2004;
39. The child subsequently disappeared and was classified as missing and endangered by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement after British police filed the child as missing through Interpol ;
40. The British police were conducting a second criminal investigation into the father based on complaints of the mother and representations of Barbara Greig to the British and US law enforcement authorities;
41. The father was cleared of allegations of harassment and stalking by the British police but the investigating officers became concerned for the safety of the child as a result of their investigations resulting in a missing child report being filed;
42. The father was denied access to the US and the courts at this time on the grounds that he had harassed the US mother despite repeated findings of the US court and law enforcement to the contrary and the child being missing and classified as endangered;
43. The father was also advised by the US Embassy London on numerous occasions that he would never be allowed access to the US for court ordered visitation with the child on the grounds he had harassed the US citizen mother despite the findings of the US courts and law enforcement;
44. Enquiries by various British authorities report that the US Department of State was not barring access to the child by refusing the father visas to travel for access;
45. The father can now show that this is a lie on the part of the US Department of State based upon recommendations and misrepresentations of Barbara Greig and the US Central Authority and that this continues to this day;
46. The child was located and returned in January 2006 to the State of Florida after hiding the child in Kansas/Missouri;
47. The father can now demonstrate that the child was hidden from the father and the US court proceedings with the active involvement of Barbara Greig of the US Central Authority;
48. The father can show that despite nine US and British eye doctors recommending treatment for the child, the US court and Floridian authorities have refused treatment for the child;
49. The child is now permanently blinded in the right eye as treatment needed to be administered and concluded by age 3 (the child is now 6);
50. It has been 5 years since the child was sent to the jurisdiction of Florida and there is still no ruling as to a final determination of the child’s future;
51. The child and father have been kept apart for more than two years and the Floridian court refuses to enforce any visitation order in defiance of the laws of that State;
52. The father believes he can now demonstrate a fraud on the High Court by US Government officials, an international child abduction of a child situate in the UK by misconduct of US Government officials in violation of the Hague Convention and other rights accruing to the father and child;
53. The father believes he can now demonstrate that the State of Florida does not satisfy the prerequisites for children to be sent to that jurisdiction under the Hague Convention, to wit:
a. The State of Florida fails to provide courts that will be prompt and effective in the rendering of court orders for the interest of a child;
b. The State of Florida fails to provide courts that will be prompt and effective in the enforcement of existing orders for the interest of the child; and
c. The State of Florida does not provide a standard of child protection at least the equivalent as that which a child would enjoy in the United Kingdom.
Proposed Relief in Broad Terms
The father believes that the following relief in broad terms should be sought:
i. An order quashing the Hague Convention ruling of Sir Justice Johnson on the grounds of fraud, perjury and bad faith conduct of the mother and Barbara Greig et al;
ii. Imposition of controls upon the US Central Authority by the High Court such that a Hague Convention application and supporting evidence is subject to independent corroboration before the matter is heard;
iii. That a requirement for a jurisdictional ruling by a US judge of the jurisdiction from which a child is alleged to have been wrongfully removed or retained be imposed on US applicants under the Hague Convention before the matter is heard;
iv. That the State of Florida be suspended from the Hague Convention in those cases where a medical condition requiring medical intervention exist and that the child(ren) subject to the application be retained in the United Kingdom for the pendency of medical treatment;
v. That for those cases were a child is to be sent to the State of Florida, only a named Federal Judge shall be allowed to hear the case and one who is versed in the Hague Convention and understands the obligations placed on the United States in respect of the child and the British parent being sent to that jurisdiction and that no child shall be released to the jurisdiction until said Federal Judge has seized the case;
vi. That an investigation is launched by a competent authority selected by the Honourable Court into the removal of Emily Rose Hindle and the issues raised by the father regarding perjury and misrepresentations by the mother, Barbara Greig and other US government officials to the British authorities and High Court and the abuse and neglect of the child, the father and international law as a consequence;
vii. That an injunction be issued to prevent any further removal of children from the jurisdiction of England and Wales on the grounds of domestic violence by the US Embassy and Consulates; and
viii. Any other relief that the Honourable Court deems fit.
PRAYER:
Relief Requested at the is Time -
The applicant respectfully prays for the following immediate relief:
1. That legal representation be appointed for the father;
2. That the court direct the applicant as to the form and filing of the matter;
3. That the court direct the applicant as to service on other parties and the nature of service and giving notice of the proceedings to other interested parties such as the State of Florida and the United States of America; and
4. Any other directions are issued as the Honourable Court deems necessary and fit.
Signed:.................................................. Dated:.........................
Karl Ernest Hindle
5 Berwick Cottages
Terling Hall Road
Hatfield Peverel Essex CM3 2EY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)