Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010  (Read 17782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SageDad

  • Father of Sage
  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • HagueAbductions.com
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2010, 02:19:58 AM »
You know, I support HR 3240 and all but the real issue here is gender equality. The world will never be perfect, but the best way to stop most of these cases here on this site is by passing something like Title 9 for men regarding parenting issues. This needs to give men the right to sue women who make false abuse claims against them and any government official or agency that acts with undue haste on an abuse allegation. Criminal charges need to be filed against women who make proven false abuse clams. Men should also be able to sue in class action litigation a government agency, including a court system, for gender discrimination if they can show that it acts in a consistently bias manner against male parents. Joint legal and physical custody has to be mandatory in all cases and only awarded to one parent if physical abuse can be proven by one parent against the other. Until this happens, none of this will change. I actually think HR 3240 might make things worse for men. I think some countries will attempt to increase their compliance rate by coming down even harder on men and still letting women off the hook. I know someone will come at me with cases of men who abduct, but the fact of the matter is that this is a gender issue and the problems that exist in international disputes are exactly the same that exist in domestic custody cases, just with a twist. A parent can create parental alienation just as well without leaving the country.

Without a doubt gender politics plays a role.  There's been a concerted effort by certain groups to sell the idea that the Hague Convention was never intended to be used against custodial mother's and encouraging grave risk determinations based on the sex of the abductor.  There are just some who want equality in all things except the ones that benefit women.  Sexism is sexism no matter how much intellectually dishonest ideologues couch their bias in pseudoscience and supposition.   It's not ok to take my son because of my gender.  It's true that the demographic of stereotypical international abductors has changed.  In the 70's it was non-custodial father's more often than not.  Today, 2/3 of international abductor's are women, the vast majority of whom taking children from 1st world countries into the 3rd world never to be seen again.
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi

Offline tenorplus

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2010, 04:07:45 PM »
Who can we write to/make calls to about the negligence of this Judge. How long does the child have before she is permanently blind. What an embarrassment to our country!

why is the court not addressing this for what it is? "unilateral removal"....?? too embarrassing that they unwittingly facilitated an abduction?

prayers for a successful federal intervention!!
I think this case is quite clear and we [all] need to put whatever pressure we can on the FL courts, governor, state senators and reps (State and Federal levels)... and yes, INVOKE THE HAGUE!! This international law applies to the USA as well as all other signatory nations (and really all of them). The Federal appeals might be a next step - but this has to stop. We cannot have it simply "our way." This is the life of a child. Is there anyone in FL that can provide names, addresses, emails for everyone we need to contact?? PLEASE - let's help this little girl (and her father). To make this right is to set an example for the rest of the 'civilized' world!!!

Offline luvthelake

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2010, 10:21:51 PM »
Isn't Emily in Panama City Beach Florida?

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #18 on: April 28, 2010, 07:06:14 AM »
Isn't Emily in Panama City Beach Florida?

Yes - I had a letter from mom's attorney confirming she is still there.

I also spoke with an attorney who is looking at taking the case pro bono (I've been representing myself pro se through the appeal) - I'll know by the start of next week if they are taking the case.

Karl
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

Offline luvthelake

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2010, 09:20:03 AM »
I thought so, I was in Panama City a couple of weeks ago and thought about you and Emily. Panama City is a huge tourist city, maybe some how bring attention to that city for harboring abducted children, I would  think they would not want the bad press. Maybe somehow schedule a public protest right in the beginning of the summer season. I do not know how to help ya, but would be willing to help.

Offline UD_student

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 551
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2010, 10:14:03 AM »
I also spoke with an attorney who is looking at taking the case pro bono (I've been representing myself pro se through the appeal) - I'll know by the start of next week if they are taking the case.

I sincerely hope the attorney is able to take the case as I couldn't fathom trying to untangle US laws as you have been doing during the appeals process. Perhaps it would also lend some credence that some attorney found your case so off track they were willing to take it on pro-bono?

Offline sue

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3053
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2010, 05:21:09 PM »
Do you at least get to talk to your daughter?

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2010, 05:36:53 PM »
No I don't - every time I have tried I have had complaints filed against me for harassment, even with the court orders.  I just got a stalking prosecution dismissed with prejudice in January this year - they prosecuted me for stalking the mom and her new husband amidst claims I was following them and hanging around their home in FL - there was even a warrant out for my arrest.  The prosecution was dropped when they realized I was in Virginia and the UK when this was happening.

That is the 6th major investigation/prosecution I have been through and there are over 300 police complaints filed by Sheila and her proxies against me.

I'll post separately on this.
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

Offline sue

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3053
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2010, 10:16:21 AM »
No I don't - every time I have tried I have had complaints filed against me for harassment, even with the court orders.  I just got a stalking prosecution dismissed with prejudice in January this year - they prosecuted me for stalking the mom and her new husband amidst claims I was following them and hanging around their home in FL - there was even a warrant out for my arrest.  The prosecution was dropped when they realized I was in Virginia and the UK when this was happening.

That is the 6th major investigation/prosecution I have been through and there are over 300 police complaints filed by Sheila and her proxies against me.

I'll post separately on this.

It's court ordered that you can talk to your daughter and yet this mother and step father won't allow it?  How can they get away with this?  I don't get this at all, you can't do that.

JonathanR

  • Guest
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2010, 11:58:24 AM »
No I don't - every time I have tried I have had complaints filed against me for harassment, even with the court orders.  I just got a stalking prosecution dismissed with prejudice in January this year - they prosecuted me for stalking the mom and her new husband amidst claims I was following them and hanging around their home in FL - there was even a warrant out for my arrest.  The prosecution was dropped when they realized I was in Virginia and the UK when this was happening.

That is the 6th major investigation/prosecution I have been through and there are over 300 police complaints filed by Sheila and her proxies against me.

I'll post separately on this.


You'd think they (the courts) would have grabbed a clue by now!! What's the next move?

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2010, 01:23:55 PM »
They get away with it because (a) I am not American, and (b) Judge Doyle stated, "In this County, we're provincials.  We don't do the Hague Convention."

My next step is up in the air - waiting on a lawyer who may be taking the case on pro bono before I proceed - as you will see from the Appellate ruling, I am pro se and representing myself at the moment in all of this.
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

JonathanR

  • Guest
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2010, 01:39:33 PM »
They get away with it because (a) I am not American, and (b) Judge Doyle stated, "In this County, we're provincials.  We don't do the Hague Convention."

My next step is up in the air - waiting on a lawyer who may be taking the case on pro bono before I proceed - as you will see from the Appellate ruling, I am pro se and representing myself at the moment in all of this.

Ummmm, what?!! Have I missed something? The U.S. is not a Hague signatory?
Who did this judge have to bump off to get appointed?!!!!  :confused:

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2010, 01:45:52 PM »
They get away with it because (a) I am not American, and (b) Judge Doyle stated, "In this County, we're provincials.  We don't do the Hague Convention."

My next step is up in the air - waiting on a lawyer who may be taking the case on pro bono before I proceed - as you will see from the Appellate ruling, I am pro se and representing myself at the moment in all of this.

Ummmm, what?!! Have I missed something? The U.S. is not a Hague signatory?
Who did this judge have to bump off to get appointed?!!!!  :confused:

Judge Doyle was compelled to resign this March amidst controversy:
http://impeachjudgedoyle.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/judge-doyle-removed-from-court-rotation-breaking-news/
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith

Offline tweinstein

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2010, 02:47:21 PM »
They get away with it because (a) I am not American, and (b) Judge Doyle stated, "In this County, we're provincials.  We don't do the Hague Convention."

My next step is up in the air - waiting on a lawyer who may be taking the case on pro bono before I proceed - as you will see from the Appellate ruling, I am pro se and representing myself at the moment in all of this.
Why not contact the people listed at the bottom of the article I posted earlier this week.

http://bringseanhome.org/forums/index.php/topic,3127.0.html

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Appellate Ruling in 23 April 2010
« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2010, 03:18:22 PM »
They get away with it because (a) I am not American, and (b) Judge Doyle stated, "In this County, we're provincials.  We don't do the Hague Convention."

My next step is up in the air - waiting on a lawyer who may be taking the case on pro bono before I proceed - as you will see from the Appellate ruling, I am pro se and representing myself at the moment in all of this.
Why not contact the people listed at the bottom of the article I posted earlier this week.

http://bringseanhome.org/forums/index.php/topic,3127.0.html

Tim!  I have done - Brett Barfield is the attorney dealing with this - I am waiting to hear whether they will take the case or not - keep fingers crossed please :)
Emily's Dad - Karl Hindle
karl4work@gmail.com
http://emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
‘Who gives a damn about the credit?’ Do what is right and the chips fall into place.” Congressman Chris Smith