Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court  (Read 23772 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jara

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
  • The Love of My Life
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #15 on: October 26, 2010, 05:54:06 PM »
An excellent step in the right direction  :cool:
Thanks so Much!
Jara and Theo

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2010, 03:18:22 PM »
After being told by the mother's attorney she was no longer acting for her client, I received a package from her today.

The attorney, Kim Banister has ignored the US Supreme Court filing and has filed a motion for child support in the lower court in DeLand, Florida.

I filed a motion to dismiss on a limited basis today:


                  IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTH
                  JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, N AND FOR
                  VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA

                  Case No.:   2003 12692 FMDL
                  Division:   04

IN RE: The Matter of
KARL ERNEST HINDLE,
   Petitioner,
And
SHEILA KAY SWINDELL,
f/k/a SHEILA KAY FUITH,
   Respondent,
________________________ ________/
LIMITED APPEARANCE OF FATHER TO FILE
MOTION TO DISMISS RESPONDENT’S MOTION OF NOV. 2nd, 2010

   COMES NOW the father, KARL E. HINDLE, on a limited appearance basis, with a motion to dismiss the mother’s motion of November 2nd, 2010.
   This matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States and is pending response from the mother (case # 10-479).  The mother’s attorney is aware of this fact, due to service of documents upon her offices which have been acknowledged, and upon her client.
   This court, respectfully and accordingly, has no jurisdiction to hear this matter and the father moves, with limited appearance, for summary dismissal forthwith.
Respectfully submitted on this 4th day of November, 2010.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
   I HEREBY CERTIFY, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was provided to C.Kim Banister, Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Inc, 128 Orange Avenue, Suite 100, Daytona Beach, FL 32114-4310 via U.S. Mail on this 4th day of November, 2010.

               ________________________ ______
               Karl E. Hindle, pro se
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: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2010, 11:25:21 AM »
What is she trying to do? 

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2010, 06:10:25 PM »
The motion is asking the lower court to reinstate the child support that the appellate court rejected - that is on the face of it.

The real reason I believe is to get me to appear before the Lower Court so they can say I have now acquiesced in the jurisdiction of Florida after the Appellate court ruled there was no jurisdiction in the US (but then went on to keep Emily anyway) - this is one of the subjects of the SCOTUS appeal.
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: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2010, 06:56:45 PM »
Why did she say she was not representing the mother any longer?  Was this to avoid being served? 

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2010, 07:41:26 PM »
I don't know - I understand my ex lost her job so she now qualifies for the legal services lawyer again (whether she "lost" her job or quit deliberately is debatable, the last job she had before this, she was terminated for assaulting a co-worker).
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 Bree

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2010, 12:38:41 AM »
Karl - I don't know where your ex worked, but I do know that there was a HUGE layoff in Panama City in the past couple of weeks.  It affected several people I know.  Of course, that was one company and was directly affected because of the governments new healthcare program.
"Every parent who has a child and they tuck him in at night, or her in at night, and they wish the best and only the best and they will always protect the child and do whatever they can, but most of the time they don't have to prove it. I'm in the proving grounds, to myself and to my child.  I have to get him home and I will do whatever I have to. I'll never stop to save him."  --David Goldman

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2010, 08:03:26 AM »
At the Bay County Juvenile detention Center is where she last worked.
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: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2010, 03:30:21 PM »
Gee, I wonder who's in her back pocket?  It's all making sense now, she's had some help with her lies and keeping your daughter from you...very disturbing.

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2010, 03:31:25 PM »
Just received a notice in the mail: Sheila now has a pro bono lawyer representing her, a Jessie Harrell who is an acquaintance of her regular attorney, Kim Banister.

No opposition brief to my writ of certiorari is being submitted - it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will now hear the case or not.

Just goes to show how many free lawyers and tax-payer funded attorneys you can get if you "lose" your job.
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 tenorplus

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2010, 03:57:13 PM »
Karl - my/our thoughts and prayers are still very much with and for you. This latest is yet another load of nonsense and delaying tactics. You have our complete support in this matter... wish I/we could do a lot more. It is time the Supreme Court stood up and was counted with the truth in this matter and any other related child abduction cases that may exist in the USA. THUMBS UP - to BSH Foundation for all their unending and tireless work!!!!

Hang in there Karl - keep in touch!!!

Offline sue

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3053
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2010, 07:43:25 AM »
Do you have any idea how long before they decide on whether they will hear the case?

Offline KarlHindle

  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2010, 10:38:24 AM »
nope - it took 5 years for a final ruling from the court of first instance, 2 years in appeals in Florida...next time anyone moans about how slow it is overseas, just take a look at this case!
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 Bree

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1100
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2010, 03:03:11 PM »
Just received a notice in the mail: Sheila now has a pro bono lawyer representing her, a Jessie Harrell who is an acquaintance of her regular attorney, Kim Banister.

No opposition brief to my writ of certiorari is being submitted - it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will now hear the case or not.

Just goes to show how many free lawyers and tax-payer funded attorneys you can get if you "lose" your job.

Kim Banister works for Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida in Daytona Beach as an Appellate Attorney:
http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/5621CD72D1B4B6F505256DCD006833CE?OpenDocument

ETA:  According to this list of staff, Kim Banister must no longer work there (I don't see her on the list)...perhaps the reason for her no longer representing your ex?

Jessie Harrell works for Creed & Gowdy (an Appellate Law Firm) in Jacksonville, FL:
http://www.appellate-firm.com/JHarrell.php

http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/1132FE543CCD967185256AE100460224?OpenDocument


How does one who claims indigent status get an attorney (albeit pro-bono) that is 4 hours away?  
« Last Edit: November 13, 2010, 03:07:52 PM by Bree »
"Every parent who has a child and they tuck him in at night, or her in at night, and they wish the best and only the best and they will always protect the child and do whatever they can, but most of the time they don't have to prove it. I'm in the proving grounds, to myself and to my child.  I have to get him home and I will do whatever I have to. I'll never stop to save him."  --David Goldman

Offline SageDad

  • Father of Sage
  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • HagueAbductions.com
Re: Hindle-v-Fuith US Supreme Court
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2010, 04:51:13 PM »
Just received a notice in the mail: Sheila now has a pro bono lawyer representing her, a Jessie Harrell who is an acquaintance of her regular attorney, Kim Banister.

No opposition brief to my writ of certiorari is being submitted - it's up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will now hear the case or not.

Just goes to show how many free lawyers and tax-payer funded attorneys you can get if you "lose" your job.

Kim Banister works for Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida in Daytona Beach as an Appellate Attorney:
http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/5621CD72D1B4B6F505256DCD006833CE?OpenDocument

ETA:  According to this list of staff, Kim Banister must no longer work there (I don't see her on the list)...perhaps the reason for her no longer representing your ex?

Jessie Harrell works for Creed & Gowdy (an Appellate Law Firm) in Jacksonville, FL:
http://www.appellate-firm.com/JHarrell.php

http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/0/1132FE543CCD967185256AE100460224?OpenDocument


How does one who claims indigent status get an attorney (albeit pro-bono) that is 4 hours away?  


It's good politics to represent "poor defenseless mothers" against "abusive fathers" pro-bono.  Pretty rare that a mother claiming victim status in dispute with the father won't get free legal representation.  I wouldn't be surprised if Emily's abductor has never spent a penny on her lawyers.
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi