States District Court
District of Florida
Ernest Hindle-v-Secretary of State Dr Condoleeza Rice et al
Petition for Relief under
The Freedom of Information Act and others, various Writs of Mandamus
and in the Matter of the Controversy Regarding a Minor Child Emily
Rose Hindle and the International Treaty known as The Hague
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
A Pro Se Applicant
Berwick Cottages, Terling Hall Road, Hatfield Peverel
Essex CM3 2EY UNITED KINGDOM
Defendants Secretary of
State Dr Condoleeza Rice
Assistant Secretary of State Maura Harty
Ambassador Robert Holmes
Tuttle – US Embassy London UK
Former Ambassador William
Stamps Farish – US Department of State
Charge d’Affaires Charles Furey – US Embassy London UK
John Brennan – US Embassy London UK
Rena Bitter – former Chief, NIV Section US Embassy London UK
William Muntean –US Embassy
Maria Damour – Chief, NIV
Section US Embassy London UK
John Ballif – US Department of State
Glen Keiser – US Department of State
Barbara Greig – US Central
Authority, Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State
Unidentified Consular Officials – US Department of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Other Involved Parties
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff
Immigration Agent Wayne
Baehre – US Department of Homeland Security situate in the State of
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C. 20528
US Attorney General
U.S. Department of
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
The Honorable John Tanner
Florida State Attorney’s
Office – 7th Judicial Circuit
251 No Ridgewood Avenue
Parties and Jurisdiction
That Karl Ernest Hindle (“the
petitioner”) is a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom being
resident at 5, Berwick Cottages, Terling Hall Road, Hatfield Peverel
in the county of Essex, England CM3 2EY UNITED KINGDOM.
That Sheila Kay Fuith nee
Vernick (“the mother”) is a citizen of the United States and is
resident in the United States at a residency believed to be 1828
Hickory Avenue, Panama City Florida.
That Emily Rose Hindle (“the
child”) is a minor child born in the town of Maldon in the county of
Essex, England, United Kingdom and is a dual citizen of the United
States and the United Kingdom having a date of birth of March 1st
2002 and is a minor. That the child is believed to be resident with
the mother in the State of Florida, United States.
That there is a pending
paternity action filed by the petitioner in connection with the
child in the Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial District, In and For
Volusia County Florida before the Honourable Judge John V Doyle
Karl Ernest Hindle-v-Sheila
Kay Fuith Case No.: 2003-12692-FDML
That Captain Alan Osowski et
al, Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, DeBary are situate in the
That Investigators Roberta
Miranda and Richard Brown of Florida Department of Children &
Families are situate in the judicial district;
That the Honorable John
Tanner, Florida State Attorney for the 7th Judicial
District is situate in the judicial district,
Venue is proper in this
Honourable Court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. s1391 (e) because
the events giving rise to this matter have substantially occurred
within the judicial district.
Claim for Relief
The petitioner and the mother
met and engaged in a relationship in December 2000 in New York US
and the mother did move to the United Kingdom and lived in the
petitioner’s home in England, United Kingdom in March 2001.
The mother held herself out to
the petitioner as unmarried, never married and having no children.
The petitioner discovered after the relationship ended that the
mother had deceived him about her marital state, being married at
the time of the relationship commencing and having two minor
daughters in Minnesota.
The mother advised the
petitioner shortly after the 9/11 World Trade Center terrorist
attack as having lost a niece in the tragedy. The petitioner has
discovered that this also was untrue after the relationship ended.
The mother claimed variously
to have been a victim of rape and child abuse to the petitioner.
The petitioner verily believes that these allegations, some made
against her own parents and family are also untrue.
On March 1st 2002,
the minor child, Emily Rose Hindle (“the child”) was born in the
town of Maldon in England out of wedlock, the petitioner and mother
being engaged to be married.
At the age of 6 months, the
child was diagnosed with an eye condition rendering her vision
impaired and requiring treatment for a condition known as
amblyopia. The child received regular treatment at Broomfield
Hospital, Chelmsford England by a team of medical eye specialists
headed by Dr TAG Bell, Head of Eye Department.
Without treatment it was
considered the child would become permanently vision impaired in her
right eye and probably blind.
On 7th January
2003, the mother did take the child and left the family home
claiming to be a victim of domestic violence at the hands of the
The mother engaged in a
malicious campaign of false allegations of domestic violence and
abuse at the hands of the petitioner, falsely claiming to be
residing in a domestic violence shelter in the United Kingdom and
concealing minor child’s whereabouts.
The petitioner has always
maintained his innocence of the allegations of domestic violence.
In February 2003, the mother
did attend the US Embassy, London and obtained without the fathers
knowledge or consent a US passport for the minor child and removed
the child from the UK to the United States on or around 19th
The petitioner believes the US
passport issued to the minor child was unlawfully issued as a
consequence of either a domestic violence fraud or a signed consent
fraud by the mother and by unidentified consular officials at the US
Petitioner believes said
passport was issued to remove the child from the UK to evade the
legal process in the UK and constitutes an international child
abduction under the colour of law.
The mother commenced moving
around the US engaging in nomadic behaviour and concealing the child
from the petitioner. In the period February 2003 to August 2003,
petitioner believes the child was moved through the States of
Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Virginia and Florida and moved at
least a dozen times at various addresses and locations.
The mother denied that the
child had a serious eye condition and claimed it was simply a “lazy
eye” not requiring treatment. The child also received no medical
attention for follow up paediatrics or vaccinations in the care of
the mother during this time.
The petitioner verily believes
that the mother now claims the child has been blind from birth and
is untreatable which conflicts with her open court testimony and
prior depositions and medical evidence.
The petitioner has on three
occasions complained to the Department of Children & Families,
DeLand regarding the child’s eye condition and has variously been
ignored, threatened through his attorney that criminal charges would
be filed against him for making false reports and that despite the
condition being recognised as treatable, there is no neglect as the
condition is not life threatening.
The petitioner verily believes
that DCF investigations notes and interview records have been
falsified and fabricated by Investigator Roberta Miranda and
Investigator Richard Brown of DCF DeLand Florida and that DCF DeLand
has failed to exercise proper professional standards with regard to
the welfare and concerns for the child.
The petitioner verily believes
that there has been no genuine effort to treat the child in the
United States, medical examinations only being obtained by the
mother due to the imminency of court hearings.
The petitioner verily believes
that the child is now permanently vision impaired and will become
permanently blinded in her affected eye if this situation is allowed
The father attempted to invoke
the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) but was advised that under UK
law, not being married to the mother and having no parental
responsibility agreement with the mother he was not able to effect
the return of the child under that convention but was able to
initiate the convention for access, which the petitioner did in or
around April 2003.
The petitioner’s extreme
distress and anxiety at this time were increased by emails from the
mother in March 2003 that the child was being given up to a family
for her protection at an unknown location, with unknown parties and
without explanation of why the child needed protection.
The petitioner did make
numerous telephone calls to members of the mother’s family, and when
the mother’s location was known, to the mother in his efforts to
locate the child and establish her safety and welfare. These
efforts have repeatedly been characterised by the mother and her
proxies as variously stalking, harassment and threatening
behaviour. The petitioner denies this but does stipulate that on
rare occasions he has lost his composure particularly after
discovering who was involved in “adopting” his child.
In April 2003, the petitioner
with the assistance of certain members of the mother’s family did
locate the couple who were unlawfully adopting the child.
The child was being adopted
without any papers by Dale Merriam and his wife Shannon Bodin of
Schofield Wisconsin. The petitioner knows this partly as a
consequence of a telephone conversation with Leslie Merriam of
Wausau, Wisconsin and this has subsequently been confirmed by third
Leslie Merriam also claimed to
be looking after the child and this has been confirmed by various
Leslie Merriam is a convicted
child sex offender having been found guilty on three counts of
second degree sexual assaults upon children in 1992, sentenced to
one year in prison, five years probation and is a lifetime
registrant on the Wisconsin Sex Offenders Register.
The petitioner did advise the
mother to immediately recover the child from the couple and to
telephone him in England that the child had been recovered and was
safe. Upon not hearing from the mother the petitioner did make
complaint to local law enforcement in Wisconsin, who upon visiting
the mother found she denied any such placement or contact of the
child with the paedophile or placement of the child with other
persons and did claim to be a victim of harassment.
The police reports record that
the mother and child had been removed from the UK due to an abusive
relationship with the petitioner by the US Embassy London and
Department of State and that this agency had made it a condition
that the petitioner was not to know the whereabouts of the minor
The petitioner believes
Wisconsin law enforcement did not interview Leslie Merriam in this
Other police reports at this
time report similar claims and that the mother claimed the
petitioner was not the father of the child.
The petitioner will testify
that the placement of the child was in exchange for money.
The discovery of the placement
of his child in the care of a convicted paedophile did cause the
petitioner extreme distress and anxiety and to be fearful for the
child. Such was the petitioner’s distress that the following day he
did collapse with chest pains and was taken to Broomfield Hospital
where he was diagnosed as having had an anxiety attack.
The conduct of the mother also
gave concern to the British authorities and Mr Paul King of the
Child Abduction Unit, Department of Constitutional Affairs of HM
Government, London did write to Marathon County social services in
Wisconsin requesting intercession. No response was received.
In March 2003, given the
petitioners inability to invoke the Hague Convention for return of
the child to the UK he did cause attorneys to be instructed to
petition the court in Minnesota for primary residency of the child.
The petitioner was advised by said attorneys that there was no
jurisdiction in that State or in the United States by virtue of
failure to satisfy residency requirements.
In April 2003, after the
petitioner found the child was being placed up for an unlawful
adoption and after locating child in Wisconsin, the petitioner did
cause for attorneys in that State to petition court for primary
residency of the child. The petitioner was once more frustrated as
there was no jurisdiction due to lack of residency requirements and
was advised that jurisdiction was in the UK.
The petitioner did petition
Chelmsford County Court, Essex UK in June 2003 and the court did
seize the matter accepting substituted service upon the mother who
had once more disappeared. Substituted service being by certified
mail to the last known addresses in the United Kingdom and the
United States, the latter being her parents address in Wisconsin.
Parental responsibility was
awarded to the petitioner by the English court on 14th
On the same day the petitioner
did contact the mothers family and advised that unless the mother
and child did cease to be concealed and that the mother did agree to
resolve the issues concerning the child, he would file a missing
child report in Wisconsin acting upon the advice of the US Federal
Bureau of Investigation who had agreed to consider taking action
against the mother for child endangerment and medical neglect of the
child’s eye condition.
The petitioner contacted the
mothers family because he did not wish to cause a course of action
to occur that may have resulted in the arrest of the mother.
Later that day the mother did
contact the petitioner and agreed to travel from her location (which
she would not disclose) to meet with the petitioner in Florida.
The parties travelled to
Florida and stayed together with the petitioner’s brother and
sister-in-law in New Smyrna Beach, Florida the petitioner not
wishing to be alone with the mother given her history of false
The parties stayed at a
condominium in New Smyrna Beach for a period of approximately ten
days at the end of August, start of September 2003.
During this time the mother
refused to disclose the home location of the child but claimed it
was in the State of Virginia. The mother was given the petitioners
parental responsibility order from the English court and was made
aware of the proceedings in England.
During this visit the mother
was evasive about the child’s home and her future plans and
repeatedly refused to discuss child visitation and particularly the
child’s medical condition, claiming the child was under the care of
a doctor but refusing to disclose information. The petitioner did
not believe the mother.
During this visit the mother
did also contact New Smyrna Beach Police Department claiming to have
been assaulted by the petitioner and wanted him arrested. The
petitioner strenuously denied having done so, the parties having had
an argument about the mothers conduct with the child. No action was
taken by New Smyrna Beach Police Department.
The petitioner agreed to
reconciliation and returned to the United Kingdom with his brother
and sister-in-law leaving the mother and child to follow.
The mother and child returned
voluntarily to the United Kingdom on 19th September 2003
whereupon, acting on information from the petitioner regarding the
child and his concerns, the British police did remove the child from
the mother and gave the child into his care. The British police
confirmed the authenticity of his English court order granting
parental responsibility with the Chelmsford County Court and did
consult the English Central Authority, The Child Abduction Unit
London before giving the child to the father.
The petitioner refused
permission for the child to be removed from the United Kingdom which
was his right under British law in accordance with his parental
responsibility order. British immigration did refuse the mother
entry to the UK which the petitioner did think was harsh and was not
the intent of his actions, which he verily believes were taken in
the interests of protecting the child.
It has subsequently been
claimed that the petitioner did hold out his parental responsibility
order as a custody order. This the petitioner did not do and if he
had done so, the enquiries of British police on the 19th
September 2003 would have revealed that – these enquiries did not do
The petitioner did immediately
advise the US and UK authorities that the child was in his care and
did notify the mothers family and all parties were made aware of the
location of the child at the family home, then being 26 Brookmans
Road, Stock, Essex England.
The petitioner did immediately
take the child to the family doctor to catch up on vaccinations and
referral back to Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford to recommence
treatment for the child’s eye condition.
The petitioner did immediately
commence proceedings for primary residency of the child in
Chelmsford County Court, England which the petitioner believed held
jurisdiction over the matter.
The proceedings were stayed by
the High Court, London (the High Court being the equivalent of the
US Supreme Court) as the mother had invoked the Hague Convention
claiming Florida held jurisdiction over the matter.
The High Court ordered that
the jurisdiction in the matter was Florida and that the petitioner
had either wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained the child from
the jurisdiction of Florida.
The petitioner believes that
the High Court decision is tainted by the perjury of the mother who
claimed not to be aware of the legal proceedings in the Chelmsford
County Court in England.
The petitioner also believes
that the judgement of the High Court is tainted by
misrepresentations to British authorities by Barbara Greig of the US
Central Authority, Department of State who held out that Florida
Article 31 of the Convention states that:
“In relation to a State which
in matters of custody of children has two or more systems of law
applicable in different territorial units –
any reference to habitual residence in
that State shall be construed as referring to habitual residence in
a territorial unit of that State;
any reference to the law of the State of
habitual residence shall be construed as referring to the law of the
territorial unit in that State where the child habitually resides.”
The nomadic behaviour of the
mother precluded any settled intention for the purposes of
establishing habitual residence in any territorial component of the
The petitioner is now aware
that he mother held a Wisconsin driving licence and banking
facilities and was not resident or habitually resident in the State
of Florida as claimed at that time.
The petitioner believes under
Florida law, jurisdiction over a child may be exercised upon a child
being resident in that State for six months, alternatively a filing
of a child in imminent harm under the UCCJA or alternatively a
jurisdictional vacuum exists into which the Floridian court may
None of these conditions was
satisfied the mother testifying during her deposition in Florida and
in open court that she had been in Florida for a few weeks.
There has been no filing of a
child in imminent harm under the UCCJA.
There was no jurisdictional
vacuum as Chelmsford County Court, England had properly seized the
The petitioner believes the
Hague Convention application was a fraud upon the British High Court
and the ruling of wrongful removal or retention is an absurdity as
Florida did not hold any jurisdiction at that time and nor did any
State in the United States.
Nevertheless, the child was
sent in the care of her mother to Florida on 5th October
2003 for hearings to take place in Florida to determine the child’s
future subject to conditions set out in the order of Justice Sir
Johnson notably to obtain medical treatment for the child’s eye
The former Ambassador to the
United Kingdom, William Farish despatched a cable to the US
Department of State on or around 8th October 2003,
claiming to be a summary of the ruling of the British High Court.
The cable is highly derogatory towards the petitioner and is highly
inaccurate. The cable was authored before the transcript of the
High Court judgement was available and the petitioner believes it is
more accurately described as a version of events as provided by the
mother rather than a fair summary of the proceedings.
Upon entering Florida the
mother did proceed to violate the High Court Hague Convention order
and attempted to pass off a basic eye examination as evidence of
obtaining medical treatment for the child.
The mother also filed a police
report November 24th 2003 claiming harassment with
Captain Alan Osowski, DeBary District Commander of Volusia County
The report is false and the
petitioner believes was misreported by Captain Alan Osowski who
claimed in his report to have logged and verified telephone calls to
the mother’s cell phone. Upon checking telephone records in the UK
the petitioner has discovered that some of the telephone numbers
logged had been disconnected on 7th January 2003.
On 10th February
2005, Captain Alan Osowski was deposed and testified that the mother
gave him the telephone numbers which conflicts with his police
report. Captain Osowski further testified that he had not
established the truth or falsity of the mothers allegations and
those of her proxy, Dana Colston aka Dana Burtchell.
In and around November 2003,
the petitioner was advised by British police that he was being
investigated on allegations made by the mother and her proxies of
harassment, stalking and use of his eldest daughter in the UK of
making child pornography.
In January 2004 the father was
advised by Detective Constable Gary Biddle of Chelmsford Police that
no action was being taken against him the investigation had
concluded that the mother was moving around and making false
allegations to evade the legal process and deny the petitioner
contact with the child.
The mother was also served
with proceedings in relation to the child in November 2003 the
father having engaged the services of an attorney, Mr David Ferguson
of Woodard, Simpson and Ferguson, Ormond Beach Florida.
The petitioner contacted Mr
Glyn Keiser, Chief of the US Central Authority, Department of State
with his concerns for the child who had disappeared and was being
concealed from the father and also attempted to invoke article 7 of
the Hague Convention with regards to the obligation of the
Department of State to ensure the protection of the child.
Mr Keiser did advise the
petitioner that his visa waiver privileges had been revoked and he
would need to apply to the US Embassy London for a visa to enter the
United States for court ordered access and to attend court hearings
in relation to the child. The father protested that this was
obstructive and contrary to the provisions of the Hague Convention.
The petitioner now believes
that the Department of State unlawfully revoked the petitioner’s
visa waiver privileges, having no lawful authority to do so.
Hearings in Volusia County
Court where scheduled to take place on 19th February 2004
and the father applied for a visa to travel and was interviewed at
the US Embassy London.
His visa was refused on the
grounds he was ineligible under s3A2 INA – that he was travelling to
commit unlawful activity. The petitioner protested that he had been
cleared of the allegations made against him by the mother that no
action was being taken against him. The father also advised the US
Embassy of the obligations of the United States under the Hague
Convention to facilitate proceedings subsequent to a Hague
Convention hearing and to facilitate resolution of child custody and
The court hearing in Florida
was continued to 13th April 2004 and the father reapplied
for a visa which was issued but restricted on consideration of s3A2
INA to allow him entry into the United States for the purposes of
attending court hearings only. The visa expired on 19th
The petitioner entered the
United States at Sanford Florida on 3rd April 2003 and
attended a General Masters hearing which seized jurisdiction of the
matter despite arguments of the mothers attorney, Theresa Anderson
that the State of Florida did not hold jurisdiction. The
proceedings were scheduled to continue in Volusia County Court.
The mother and her proxies
commenced filing maliciously false police reports claiming attempted
break-in at her home, stalking, harassment and threatening behaviour
with VCSO DeBary.
The mother and her proxies
also attempted to provoke the petitioner while being observed by a
concealed officer of Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, DeBary and
failed to provoke the petitioner.
On 8th April 2004
the petitioner attended the mother’s attorney’s offices to give a
deposition and was served with papers ordering attendance at Volusia
County Court to hear a domestic violence petition application made
by the mother.
The mother denied access to
the minor child until 16th April 2004 when petitioner’s
attorney was contacted and offered access to the child the following
day, 17th April 2004 and which was the petitioner’s date
The petitioner desiring
contact with the child and on the advice of his attorney did contact
Orlando Border Patrol to seek advice on how to extend his visa which
the petitioner believed expired on 19th April 2004. The
petitioner explained that his date of departure was 17th
April 2004 to the officer but was advised that provided an extension
to his visa was filed with INS and the letter was postmarked by
midnight 19th April 2004 the petitioner would lawfully be
entitled to remain in the United States pending processing of the
application to extend the visa.
On 19th April 2004,
the father did attend the offices of his attorney and complete an
application to extend the visa and this was postal franked at said
offices and posted by that office to INS Mesquite, Texas that same
The petitioner verily believes
that the mother and her attorney, Theresa Anderson offered access to
the child in the full knowledge that this would result in a
technical violation of his visa. The petitioner believes the
information regarding his visa was provided to the mother and her
attorney by Barbara Greig of the US Department of State.
On 20th April 2004,
the father did attend Volusia County Court and successfully defended
himself against the mother’s graphic allegations of domestic
violence, stalking, harassment and so forth producing photographic
evidence to demonstrate the falsity of the mother’s claim she had
been thrown through a window by the petitioner. The evidence
demonstrated that the mother had smashed the windows herself causing
her to harm herself.
The Honourable Judge John
Doyle ruled that the proceedings and allegations were being made by
the mother to gain advantage in the custody proceedings filed by the
petitioner. (Case style: Sheila Kay Fuith-v-Karl Ernest Hindle
Subsequently a stipulated
order was entered granting unsupervised access to the child for the
During the petitioner’s time
in Florida at this time he engaged in such activities as voluntary
work on a habitat project in DeLand, attended Northland Church,
attended the Citizens Police Academy run by Officer Rod Hancock and
held on Thursday evenings at DeLand Police Department as well as
rekindling bonds with the child.
The petitioner fully complied
with all conditions regarding access with the child and was engaged
in no unlawful or anti-social activities. One condition of access
was the surrender of his passport to his attorney.
On May 28th 2004,
the father attended the police station in DeLand to collect the
child for his visitation. At approximately 7.45am the petitioner
was approached by two men who identified themselves as immigration
agents and the petitioner was arrested by Agent Wayne Baehre of the
Department of Homeland Security on the grounds he was unlawfully in
the United States.
The petitioner cooperated
fully with the immigration agents but protested that he had applied
for a visa extension in accordance with advice from Orlando Border
Patrol. Agent Baehre requested to see the petitioner’s passport and
the petitioner did advise he had been required to surrender it as a
condition of access with the child. Agent Baehre replied “I know”.
Agent Baehre advised that
unless the petitioner had a document upon his person that
demonstrated he was lawfully within the United States he would be
arrested. The petitioner did not have any such document upon his
Agent Baehre proceeded to
arrest the petitioner who was foot shackled, handcuffed and belly
chained and transported to Orange County Corrections Facility,
During the transport to
Orlando, the petitioner asked questions as to why he had been
arrested and Agent Baehre did advise that it was on the orders of
Washington DC. The petitioner did ask if Agent Baehre knew Glyn
Keiser of the Department of State, and he replied he did not. The
petitioner asked Agent Baehre if he was in contact with Barbara
Greig of the Department of State and he replied he would not answer
any further questions.
Agent Baehre then made a cell
phone call to his office and stated that he had the subject in
custody and had the papers arrived from Washington.
The petitioner was delivered
to Orlando and held at Orange County Correctional Facility and
processed. During processing and the taking of the petitioner’s
fingerprints, the petitioner did read the handwritten notes in Agent
Baehre’s file which stated that involved persons in the immigration
matter included the mother, her attorney Theresa Anderson, Sheriff
Johnson, Captain Alan Osowski and Lt Gillete of VCSO.
The petitioner would like to
state clearly that despite this being the first occasion that the
petitioner has been arrested in his life, he believes Agent Baehre
and his colleague did behave professionally and courteously and in
now way does the petitioner hold Agent Baehre responsible for his
actions and waives any claim that may arise from this action against
him or his colleague.
It is the petitioners
sincerest wish that no disciplinary or other adverse action be taken
against either of these two immigration officers and the petitioner
shall not support any such action.
During his detention at Orange
County Correctional Facility the petitioner was denied medical
treatment for a condition he has suffered from as a result of
injuries sustained to his back.
After three days without
treatment a medical doctor was summoned who noted the petitioner has
neurological damage affecting his left leg and he was provide with
medication and pain relief.
During this time the
petitioner was also denied by correctional officers food and drink
as he could not leave his bunk without experiencing excruciating
pain and was provided with food and drink by cell mates in the
holding tank from their own rations.
The petitioner did at this
time request access to the British Consul and invoked his rights
under the Vienna Convention but was advised by correctional officers
that this “only applies to prisoners of war”.
The petitioner was held in a
holding tank and solitary confinement for approximately one week
without recreational facilities, contact with his family or the
opportunity to exercise and did not see daylight for all that time
until being transferred into general population.
Upon being transferred to
Bradenton Immigration Detention Facility, Bradenton the petitioner
was advised that he had committed a technical violation of his visa
– his visa states that it expired on 19th April 2004 (a
Monday) but the date of departure (for which he had a plane ticket)
was 17th April 2004 (a Saturday) – the petitioner was one
working day late in filing the visa extension which should have been
filed by midnight of Friday 16th April 2004.
The petitioner was further
advised by his immigration attorney, Mr David Vedder that
notwithstanding the highly unusual arrest by the immigration
authorities that Washington DC had ordered the Government
immigration attorneys that if the petitioner was granted release on
bond or his own recognisance, the Government attorneys (Attorneys
Grimm and Maingot, Bradenton Florida) had been ordered to appeal
said release and the petitioner would be held in detention for a
further six months pending the Governments appeal.
The petitioner has spoken with
both Mr David Vedder, his board certified immigration attorney and
Mr James Grimm, the attorney for the US Government in the removal
proceedings and both have advised the petitioner that they have no
knowledge of any other such case. The petitioner believes his
treatment at the hands of US Immigration was unique.
During the proceedings it
became clear that the petitioner had been arrested due to
misrepresentations to US Immigration that the petitioner was a
threat to the mother and his child and the numerous police reports
filed with VCSO and elsewhere by the mother and her proxies where
cited as evidence of this. The cable of former Ambassador Farish
was also used, within which it was claimed the petitioner had been
found not to be a credible witness – the High Court did not find
The immigration proceedings
were held before His Honor Judge McHugh at Bradenton Immigration
Court and the case is styled:
In the Matter of Hindle, Karl
Case no. A97-134-162
The petitioner was further
advised that as an alternative to six months incarceration pending
Government appeal, he was being offered voluntary departure which he
accepted and was escorted to Tampa Airport under safeguards, without
his belongings and without money or his credit cards to a British
Airways aircraft and departed the United States on or around 1st
The petitioner believes that
he was entrapped in a technical violation of his visa as a
consequence of collusion between the mother, her former attorney,
Theresa Anderson, Captain Alan Osowski VCSO and Barbara J Greig of
the US Department of State who deliberately misrepresented the
petitioner as a threat and a menace and used the offer of access to
his child as a means to entrap him into overstaying past his date of
The petitioner verily believes
that Barbara Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department
of State conducted an unlawful investigation into the petitioner
having no lawful authority to do so and that this unlawful
investigation was to selectively gather “evidence” to paint the
petitioner in a derogatory light as a threat and a menace.
Such was the concern regarding
the unique conduct of US Immigration that the British Consul Hugh
Harding contacted US Immigration to express his concerns that the
arrest had been arranged so as to prevent the father from pursuing
his custody action in Florida.
At no time did any of the
above advise US Immigration that all the issues and allegations
being made against the petitioner had been heard and disposed of by
Judge Doyle in Volusia County Court on 20th April 2004
and all had knowledge of the ruling.
Upon return to the United
Kingdom, the petitioner did immediately reapply for a visa to return
to the United States to continue the legal process and to continue
enjoying court ordered access with the child.
On one occasion while
attending the US Embassy London the petitioner was interviewed by
William Muntean, a Consular Officer who upon refusing the petitioner
a visa for court ordered access advised n words to the effect that:
“Court ordered access is a
right you may choose to exercise or not and is not a court ordered
obligation. A visa will only be issued for court ordered
The petitioner did advise Mr
Muntean of his UK and US court orders ordering access and was
advised they did not count.
The petitioners wife, Yulia
Hindle also did attend the US Embassy London at the same time and
was denied a visa to travel to Florida for the purpose of giving her
evidence in the paternity matter as she could not provide evidence
of substantial connection to the United Kingdom.
Almost immediately upon the
petitioners return to the UK, the mother did make further complaint
to British police that the petitioner was continuously telephoning
her making threatening and harassing telephone calls to her place of
work. The mother also falsely claimed to British police that she
was in possession of a restraining order against the petitioner
ordering he have no contact with her.
The mother did also make
representations by email to Barbara Greig of the US Department of
State and law enforcement in the US and the UK, claiming harassment
and describing the petitioner as an “animal” and “a mental” among
other things. Barbara Greig did then disseminate this and other
such representations to the US Embassy London and elsewhere within
and without the US Department of State.
The petitioner did make a
restricted number of telephone calls, which he recorded, attempting
variously to establish contact with the child, enquire as to her
medical condition and because of his concerns for the safety and
welfare of the child as a series of vicious hurricanes affected
Florida during the summer of 2004.
The petitioner also requested
a private investigator visit the mothers address and confirm the
child was safe and well and still residing at 50 Pine Hill Road
DeBary. The private investigator did confirm that the mother and
child had moved and their whereabouts were unknown.
The petitioner did make
numerous efforts to report the child as missing with VCSO DeBary who
refused to respond to the petitioner.
In November 2004, the father
was contacted by Essex Police and advised of the investigation and
interviewed. The petitioner made the British police aware of the
ruling of Judge Doyle dismissing the mother’s petition for a
domestic violence injunction against the father.
The findings of the seven
month British police investigation into all of the allegations of
the mother and her proxies was “No Offence” and that there was no
The British police did however
make further enquiries of witnesses in the United States and the
result of their enquiries and the evidence provided by the
petitioner of the concerns for the child led to the child being
filed with Interpol as a missing child.
Upon reviewing the evidence,
Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s Missing Children Information
Clearinghouse did classify the missing child as endangered.
VCSO DeBary did claim to
British police that the petitioner had forged the FDLE Missing Child
flyer to show the child was endangered and that the mother was in
hiding because she was in fear of the petitioner despite the fact
that petitioner lives and was in England throughout this period
4,000 miles away.
VCSO DeBary also refused to
interview witnesses provided to them to rebut their conclusions and
refused to acknowledge the findings of Judge Doyle in Volusia County
The petitioner’s anxiety and
distress was further increased by a witness advising the father that
the mother was claiming the child was dying of a brain tumour.
The petitioner also contacted
Mr Glyn Keiser, Chief of the US Central Authority at the Department
of State with his concerns for the child and his concerns at the
involvement of Barbara Greig in the matter of his arrest and
deportation from the United States earlier that year.
Mr Keiser advised the
“Mr Hindle your allegations
are so vile I can only conclude they are the product of a vile
Mr Keiser further added that
he felt the petitioner had a problem with his “equilibrium” and
should seek “help”.
The petitioner is aware of
other officers at the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of
State referring to the petitioner as “crazy” or “the crazy guy” and
In January 2005 the petitioner
did file Freedom of Information Act requests with the US Embassy
London, US Department of State Washington DC – to date these
requests have not been complied with, notably the petitioners
request for the child’s passport application paperwork.
The petitioner entered the
United States for court hearings in February 2005 at which the
mother failed to appear for hearings and depositions.
The father returned to the
United Kingdom shortly thereafter and continued efforts to locate
the child utilising the National Center for Missing Children
(NCMEC), Find the Kids, Team Amber and so forth.
Such was the concern for the
child that the petitioners Member of Parliament, Simon Burns MP
tabled a question in the British Parliament and did meet with
representatives of the British Government.
Paul Sizeman, British Head of
Consular Affairs was despatched to Washington DC in May 2005 and
raised the issues concerning the child directly with Assistant
Secretary of State Maura Harty.
The father subsequently
received a letter from John Ballif, then Director of the Office of
Childrens Issues at the Department of State placing responsibility
for the care and welfare of the child upon the state, county or
municipal agencies where the child resided.
In September 2005, the
petitioner was advised by his attorney in Florida that there had
been a report of a sighting of the child.
Susan Rohol, Supervising
Attorney of the International Section of the NCMEC advised that they
were checking the report but refused to provide the petitioner with
The petitioner discovered that
the report emanated from Missouri but the NCMEC eventually confirmed
that the mother had entered a police station and given an address
which had been checked out and found to be false.
The petitioner now believes
that Barbara Greig, who had full knowledge of the Florida
proceedings and that the mother had absconded the State of Florida
to evade the legal process in that State, caused the mother to be
advised to simply appear at a police station and declare herself and
the child as alive.
The mother has subsequently
testified that at this time she was resident in the State of Kansas.
On 25th October
2005 the petitioner was awarded a temporary custody order and a
pick-up order for the child was issued by Judge Doyle in Volusia
County Court. The petitioner did immediately advise Barbara Greig
and Susan Rohol of the NCMEC and emailed a copy of the pick-up order
In December 2005, the father
entered the United States and attended a hearing before Judge
Doyle. The mother did not attend but an attorney, Ms Kim Bannister
appeared on a limited basis for the mother having not met her client
and whose services Ms Bannister advised had been arranged by Barbara
Greig of the Department of State in the presence of the petitioner
and his attorney, Mr David Ferguson.
Judge Doyle ruled that unless
the mother attended court on 13th January 2006 he would
issue a permanent custody to the petitioner.
The petitioner therefore
remained in the United States having been given leave to remain for
six months by US Immigration Atlanta, his port of entry.
As a consequence of remaining
in the United States the petitioner was forced to give up his
employment in the United Kingdom as a sales manager for a computer
The mother duly attended court
on 13th January 2006 and claimed she had absconded from
Florida due to her fear of the petitioner. Judge Doyle noted that
the petitioner lived 4,000 miles away and there was no justifiable
basis for her being in fear and found her guilty of criminal
contempt of court.
Judge Doyle deferred
sentencing as he did not wish to cause trauma to the child who had
not had contact with the petitioner for a year and a half. Judge
Doyle did admonish the mother, that no further police involvement
was to take place and that the parties do attend a parenting class
on 28th January 2006 and also ordered an independent
medical examination for the child’s eye condition.
The petitioner entered upon a
series of reunification visits with the child commencing 14th
January 2006. the mother did on several occasions call the police
claiming variously for help because the court would not help her,
and to supervise the visitation which the petitioner did find
intimidating and obstructive to reunification.
The parties attended parenting
class on January 28th 2006, and in the afternoon a
further visit with the child occurred at the McDonalds restaurant,
International Speedway Boulevard, Daytona.
After this visit the mother
did make a complaint to Florida Department of Children and Families
(DCF) that the petitioner had sexually molested the child in the
The allegations were
investigated by Daytona Beach Police Department and DCF and
concluded that there was no molestation of the child and the mother
had been coaching the child to make allegations against the
Before Judge Doyle and in
deposition, the mother has denied making these allegations. Judge
Doyle dismissed the allegations against the petitioner and granted
unsupervised visitation with the petitioner on alternate days with
The petitioner believes the
mother and her proxies have continuously perjured themselves under
oath in open court and during deposition.
In May 2006 the father
returned to the United Kingdom to be reunited with his family, and
to deal with family matters and to raise further funds to continue
the paternity action in Florida.
The mother has continued to
violate Judge Doyle’s order for telephonic access with the child and
continues to conceal the child from the petitioner.
The petitioner has complained
in or around June 2006 to the Office of the Inspector General of the
US Department of State regarding the concerns regarding the conduct
of the officials involved in this matter. The concerns of the
petitioner were simply relayed to Mary Conaway of the Office of
Childrens Issues, US Department of State who has reiterated no wrong
The petitioner has approached
the US Department of Justice with his concerns in or around June
2006 and has been advised that that Department had been advised by
the US Department of State that that Department had jurisdiction
over this matter.
On 7th September
2006 the petitioner attended the US Embassy London for a visa
interview to re-enter the United States for the purpose of court
ordered visitation and to continue the paternity action which was
about to be docketed for trial.
The petitioner was refused a
visa for court ordered visitation under s3A2 INA and was advised by
the consular official this was because he had harassed the “American
citizen mother”. The petitioner did provide the Florida domestic
violence court order dismissing the mothers allegations, his Florida
court order for court ordered access and other evidence
demonstrating this was not true.
The consular official advised
the petitioner that the orders had been “evaluated by attorneys in
Washington DC” and the petitioner could not have a visa to enter the
United States for court ordered access. The petitioner has made
numerous applications and requests for court ordered access using
both the Hague Convention order and the Florida court orders and has
been denied on every occasion.
The petitioner then asked
about a visa being issued for attendance at the forthcoming trial in
Florida and was advised by the consular officer that this would
“require administrative processing” and he would be notified of the
The visa for attendance at the
court hearing has now been denied under s214(b) INA that the
petitioner is attempting to emigrate to the United States.
The petitioner has repeatedly
provided the US Embassy of evidence of his social, economic and
familial ties to the United Kingdom where he has lived all of his
life except for temporary absences during military service, work
commitments and holidays.
The petitioner has four minor
children in the United Kingdom and has always maintained a home and
continues to do so in the United Kingdom. With the exception of the
petitioner’s mother who resides in Canada, and the child who resides
in the United States, all of the petitioners family are in the
The petitioner verily believes
that the conduct of the US Embassy London and the US Department of
State in removing the minor child from the United Kingdom, filing a
fraudulent application under the Hague Convention and manipulating
visa issuance is a concerted effort to deny the petitioner his
rights and those of the child in violation of the Constitution of
the United States, Federal, State and International law.
The petitioner respectfully
prays that the Honourable Court shall grant the following relief:
The US Embassy London be
ordered to forthwith issue a visa to the petitioner to appear before
the Honourable Court;
That the High Court order of 3rd
October 2003 issued by Sir Justice Johnson under the Hague
Convention be domesticated in the United States and be immediately
quashed having been obtained by virtue of perjury and fraud;
the petitioner not being an
attorney, and without the funds to obtain competent representation
in this matter and the issues raised being of great importance to
the standing of parents and children, foreign and domestic and to
good relations between the United States and Hague Convention treaty
partners, that this Honourable Court shall order competent
representation for the petitioner at the expense of the US
Department of State;
That the Department of State
do comply with the Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the
petitioner in January 2005 and that the date range for the request
be extended to the date of the Honourable Court’s order and
especially shall forthwith release the child’s passport application
That the petitioner being a
man of good character, with no criminal record, never having been
arrested except under the unique circumstances as described herein
by US Immigration, having a high standard of education, having
served his country honourably in The Parachute Regiment of the
British Army, not having any drug or alcohol problem, not having any
associations with terrorist or criminal organisations and having
being found to be no threat by the Florida court having heard the
evidence of the mothers allegations and her proxies and having that
decision re-affirmed, having entered and departed the United States
on numerous occasions over the last twenty years, being a loyal
subject of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom,
desiring not to be a permanent resident of any other nation except
the United Kingdom and upon no objection from the Department of
Homeland Security that the petitioner have his visa waiver
privileges re-instated and if the Department of Homeland Security do
object they attend before the Honourable Court and present their
That by Writ of Mandamus, the US Department of
State shall cease and desist all unlawful activity in relation to
this matter and the petitioner indefinitely, and shall further
comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention regarding the
child and especially shall cease acting outside of official US
Government policy and in violation of federal law in colluding with
the mother and her proxies to give her advantage in the custody
proceedings and the orders that will emanate from the Honourable
Court in Volusia and elsewhere as may be in future;
That by a Writ of Mandamus,
the Department of Justice do investigate the conduct of the
officials of the US Department of State and especially the unlawful
issuance of a US passport to the child to effect an international
child abduction under colour of law, the assistance rendered to the
mother to hide the child and evade the legal process throughout the
United State and the conduct of Barbara J Greig, Glyn Keiser and
John Ballif et al at the Office of Children’s Issues and others in
the matter of collusion with the mother in a fraud on the British
High Court, the obstruction of justice in Florida and the arrest of
the petitioner and denial of access to the Florida court and the
That by Writ of Mandamus, the
Florida State Attorney shall investigate the conduct of Volusia
County Sheriff’s Office, especially the conduct of Captain Alan
Osowski and also of the Department of Children & Families, DeLand
and especially Investigators Roberta Miranda and Richard Brown;
That the consular official(s)
at the US Embassy London who issued a US passport to the child be
That the following federal
officers having evidence directly relevant to the matter concerning
the best interests of the child, be compelled to obey the subpoenas
of the petitioners attorney and do attend Florida for the purpose of
giving depositions and attending trial in the matter of Karl Ernest
Hindle v Sheila Kay Fuith Case No.: 2003-12692-FDML before the
Honourable Judge John V Doyle in Volusia County Court DeLand Florida
now holding jurisdiction over the said matter and it being in the
interests of justice and in the interests of the child that they
shall do so:
Immigration Agent Wayne Baehre, Department of
Barbara J Greig, Department of State
Glyn Keiser, Department of State
John Ballif, Department of State
The unidentified consular official(s) who
issued a passport to the child in London
That an injunction be placed
upon the US Embassy London and US Consulates in the United Kingdom
preventing the issuance of passports to minor children in the United
Kingdom utilising the domestic violence exception provided by 22 CFR
51, the United Kingdom being a civilised nation with adequate
domestic violence protection laws equal to those of the United
States and being the place where such allegations are best
investigated and determined and to prevent international child
abductions by US parents under colour of law; and
the mother and her proxies be
ordered to cease and desist the filing of false police reports,
making of false allegations against the petitioner throughout the
that US law enforcement
agencies wherever they may be situate shall unless otherwise ordered
disclose the whereabouts of the minor child to the petitioner now
and in future;
that the petitioner be granted
permission to apply under this action for any further relief as from
time to time may be necessary and add any further parties as
defendants as events unfold; and
That the Honourable Court
issue any other order and grants any further relief it deems fit and
Signed: 26th September
5 Berwick Cottages
Terling Hall Road
Essex CM3 2EY
Tel: 011 44 1245 381086 - home