Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: If You Think Bureaucratic Gymnastics is the Sole Domain of OCI ... you're Wrong!  (Read 866 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
I'm publishing a recent email thread I have had with the British Central Authority in the wake of the FL Appellate ruling.

Emily was removed in February 2003 by her mother and the US Embassy, London - claiming I was domestically violent.

I tried to litigate in MN and WI through March/April 2003 but was told to go back to England and file - I did so and in August 2003, the English court granted me parental responsibility.  Emily was returned by her mother in September 2003 to the UK after I went to the FBI and told her family what was happening regarding warrants for Sheila's arrest amidst the pedophile/medical neglect issues.

Emily was removed from her mother by the British police and given to me at the airport and Sheila was denied entry to the UK - harsh but I didn't really care about her at that time just Emily.

In September 2003, Barbara Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues filed a Hague Convention application with the British authorities claiming Emily had been abducted from Florida and that FL held jurisdiction - the recent FL Appellate ruling states clearly that they did not, nor did any other state in the US.

Now the British authorities are being asked to explain why this fraudulent Hague application was not picked up - so here you are:

Hindle - Florida Appellate Ruling                   Inbox      X                  
Reply
   from   Karl Hindle <karl4work@googlemail.com>
to   "Wood, Matt (OSPT)" <matt.wood@offsol.gsi.gov.uk>
cc   newmarkb@parliament.uk
date   27 April 2010 08:06
subject   Hindle - Florida Appellate Ruling
mailed-by   googlemail.com
hide details 27 Apr
Dear Mr Wood,

I have received a ruling from the Floridian Appellate Court - a copy is attached.

The ruling reverses several aspects of the trial court judgment, however it states

"On the date that the paternity action was commenced in this case, Florida was not
the “home state” of the child because the child had not lived in Florida for six consecutive
months prior to the commencement of the paternity action in November 2003. §
61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, no other state had jurisdiction since the mother and
the child had lived in several states in the six months prior to their arrival in Florida and the
commencement of the paternity action. § 61.514(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2003)...." (emphasis added)

In other words Emily was sent to a new jurisdiction by the British authorities.

Are you now prepared to file a Hague Convention application on my behalf given the US court ruled that there was NO jurisdiction anywhere in America?

Yours,

s/Karl Hindle
   5D08-3850.op.pdf
21K   View   Download 
 Reply
 Reply to all
 Forward
Reply
Wood, Matt (OSPT) to me
show details 10:59 (21 hours ago)
Dear Mr Hindle, it must be about a year since we last corresponded?
 
 
I have read the attached ruling.  Further on in the same paragraph from your quotation it also says
 
"However, no other state had jurisdiction since the mother and

the child had lived in several states in the six months prior to their arrival in Florida and the

commencement of the paternity action. § 61.514(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). As a result,

because no court of any other state would have had jurisdiction under section 61.514, the

Florida trial court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination."

 
I cannot see how this ruling impacts in any way on the English High Court's order from October 2003 to return Emily back to the USA under the Convention.  It seems to me to be saying that Florida are entitled to declare they have jurisdiction.
 
The question as to whether I am prepared to file a Hague case on your behalf is, as it always has been, not the issue.  As you know there is nothing to stop you from filing a Hague case in the USA under Article 29.  I do not see that this ruling means that you now have a case for return under the Convention.  A new Hague return application based on this ruling would be argued in the US court and so I would be seeking a professional legal opinion from a US attorney as to whether this now opens the door to a Hague return case.
 
However, I think it will be incredibly hard to argue that Emily's habitual residence is not the USA bearing in mind the length of time she has been there and the fact that the US Courts have ruled they have jurisdiction regarding custody, child support and contact.
 
I am sorry Mr Hindle but there is nothing I can do for you.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Matt Wood
International Child Abduction and Contact Unit
Central Authority for England and Wales
1980 Hague Convention and Revised Brussels II Regulation
81 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1DD
DX 0012 London Chancery Lane
Tel: 00 44 (0)2079117045
Fax: 00 44 (0)2079117248
www.officialsolicitor.gov.uk

 
 
From: Karl Hindle [mailto:karl4work@googlemail.com]
Sent: 27 April 2010 13:06
To: Wood, Matt (OSPT)
Cc: newmarkb@parliament.uk
Subject: Hindle - Florida Appellate Ruling

- Hide quoted text -
Dear Mr Wood,

I have received a ruling from the Floridian Appellate Court - a copy is attached.

The ruling reverses several aspects of the trial court judgment, however it states

"On the date that the paternity action was commenced in this case, Florida was not
the “home state” of the child because the child had not lived in Florida for six consecutive
months prior to the commencement of the paternity action in November 2003. §
61.503(7), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, no other state had jurisdiction since the mother and
the child had lived in several states in the six months prior to their arrival in Florida and the
commencement of the paternity action. § 61.514(1)(a)-(b), Fla. Stat. (2003)...." (emphasis added)

In other words Emily was sent to a new jurisdiction by the British authorities.

Are you now prepared to file a Hague Convention application on my behalf given the US court ruled that there was NO jurisdiction anywhere in America?

Yours,

s/Karl Hindle

This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation’s IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

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

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

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

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
 Reply
 Forward
Reply
Karl Hindle to martin, Matt, newmarkb
show details 14:14 (18 hours ago)
Mr Wood,

You analysis is incorrect because the Appellate ruling states FL can claim jurisdiction AFTER THE FACT - in London, we and you were advised specifically by the US Central Authority (by Barbara Greig to be precise) that Florida DID have jurisdiction - this was obviously false.  The Appellate ruling is notable in its silence on the Hague Convention and that England had previously exercised jurisdcition - orders being overturned by teh High Court precisely because the US authorities claimed Florida had jurisdiction when it did not.

The Hague Convention does not exist to send children to a new jurisdiction - in this instance, there was no jurisdiction at the time of the British Hague Convention ruling in Florida or anywhere else in the United States per the Floridian Appeal Court.

Further, it is not for the English Central Authority to speculate on the outcome of a Hague decision in the US courts as you do.  For years your offices have obstructed, rather than assisted in my efforts to obtain relief in respect of Emily - perhaps fuelled by the fact that you did process a US application which falsely claimed jurisdiction when it did not exist, and a British child was sent to America as a consequence, with severe repercussions for her including being allowed to go blind in her eye and for me to be arrested and incarcerated at the request of Ms Greig in violation of the Convention.

At what point does the British Government step in to assist its citizens - presumably not while your offices have anything to do with this and not while your offices are too averse to upsetting your discredited American counterparts at the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State?

Karl Hindle
- Show quoted text -
 Reply
 Reply to all
 Forward
Reply
Wood, Matt (OSPT) to me
show details 05:34 (2 hours ago)
Dear Mr Hindle,
 
The Hague Convention did not return Emily to a new jurisdiction as you describe below.  The High Court returned Emily to America because that was the country her mother had previously relocated with to Emily.  She relocated within the bounds of English law as she was the only person who held parental responsibility for Emily pursuant to the Children Act 1989 as it read at that time.
 
You have been assisted by this office.  As you were not able to file an application for a return under the Hague Convention we filed an article 21 application for contact with Emily on your behalf.  I also assisted you, along with Kathy Ruckman at the US State Department, to obtain an emergency meeting at the US Embassy in London so you could get a visa in order to travel to the US to continue with your ongoing custody case.
 
I am sorry that the US Courts have not ruled in your favour regarding custody but I am afraid that I cannot do anything about that.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Matt Wood
 
 

From: Karl Hindle [mailto:karl4work@googlemail.com]
Sent: 13 May 2010 19:15
To: Wood, Matt (OSPT)
Cc: newmarkb@parliament.uk; martin boyle
Subject: Re: Hindle - Florida Appellate Ruling

- Show quoted text -
 Reply
 Forward
Reply
Karl Hindle to Matt, newmarkb, martin
show details 07:20 (1 hour ago)
Dear Mr Wood,

The FL Appellate ruling is absolutely clear - there was NO jurisdiction in Florida nor anywhere else in the United States at the time of filing the custody case in November 2003.

The Hague application filed by the US authorities on behalf of the mother claimed that there was jurisdiction in Florida - that was undeniably a false claim and yet you still deny this.

It was not within the bounds of English law for the US authorities and the mother to lie in order to get the result they desired.

The visa issues I experienced, my arrest at the hands of the US authorities and the subsequent concealment of Emily in America to evade the legal process were all at the hands of the mother and Barbara Greig - the same US State Department official who filed the Hague application which falsely claimed Florida held jurisdiction.  You have had the evidence of this, including Greig's faxed request for my arrest, for years.

Your offices have maintained this fiction of assisting me for years when the evidence has been continuously provided to you that things have not been as they should have been - now I have a US Appellate ruling which has also looked at the Hague issue and it has ruled - there was NO jurisdiction in Florida or the United States - so why did my child get sent to that new jurisdiction and why are you still claiming that there was jurisdiction in America at the time of the Hague hearing in London when the American court has clearly ruled there was NOT!

Yours,

Karl Hindle
- Show quoted text -
 Reply
 Reply to all
 Forward
Reply
Karl Hindle to Matt, newmarkb, martin
show details 08:08 (18 minutes ago)
Dear Mr Wood,

I also wish to correct another of your statements - that I had no parental responsibility.

I did hold parental responsibility issued by Judge Hallett in Chelmsford County Court in August 2003, and after US courts declined to exercise jurisdiction in Minnesota and Wisconsin directing me back to England to file in the matter.  The English parental responsibility order was overturned by the High Court because it could not have had jurisdiction to issue the order if Florida held it as per the false Hague application filed by the State Department. 

Of course, Florida did NOT hold jurisdiction according to the American Appellate Court in its recent ruling.

It is silly mistakes like this which have resulted in my child being sent to a new country - to be allowed to go blind for the sake of a 50 cent eyepatch - at what point do the British authorities step in to protect British citizens in these situations?  I fear the answer is "Never!". 

Nevertheless, the question still remains - why did the British authorities process this false Hague application in the first instance?

Yours,

Karl Hindle
- Show quoted text -
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