hillary clinton ignored abduction case

20120402_ComplaintAgainstScharf_CovertoClintonFINAL.doc

Carol Nye-Wilson P .O . Box 711419

Moun ta in V iew, HI 9677 Cell: 808/968-7423

Email: [email protected]

April 2, 2012

Via USPS (7007 1490 0001 5398 9830) Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520

Catherine Connell McSherry American Citizen Services 24 Grosvenor Square London, WIA 2LQ

Re: James A. Scharf

Cases: Nye-Wilson, et al, v. United States Department Of Education, Northern CA, 11cv05678 PSG Chapel v. United States Department Of Education, Northern CA, 11-04344 PSG Chapel v. United States Department Of Education, Northern CA, 08cv04982 RGS Nye-Wilson v. United States Department Of Education, Margaret Spellings and Does 1 – 20, Hawaii District

Court, 08cv00498 Federal Torts Claims Act case: to be filed

Dear Secretary Clinton and Ms. McSherry: My name is Carol Nye-Wilson. I am nearly 72-years-old, and my family desperately needs your help. As a way to provide background for you to understand what is needed, I have included my complaint regarding the recent litigation misconduct by Assistant United States Attorney, James A. Scharf, on behalf of the nation regarding FOIA requests currently sought by my son, my husband, and me that are part of a tort action to follow. I have also included my recent letter to President Obama for background. I have also included background information and communications between my son, Randy, and the London embassy concerning his son Joel Tristan Allister Chapel, an abused three-year-old American child. All of these issues tie together and have become increasingly complex to resolve. As one mother to another and as one woman to another, you know there are times when we have to deal with difficult situations involving family members that require us to stand up for what is right. I am not chained to the sink, barefoot, illiterate, or need a man to do my thinking for me. I have done many things in life, including, I have successfully graduated from college while married with children. I paid for my own college tuition with money I had worked for myself. I bought my own car, and I earned two lifetime teaching credentials. As an exceptional woman in our country, you know the demands and pressures life, family and work take. This case has now reached the level of State Department involvement due to parental alienation impacting the life of little Joel Chapel by people who don’t understand American “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” that we hold dear. This case is impacted by diplomatic, judicial, and executive decisions for justice. My former daughter-in-law (Susan Allister Chapel) retained my grandson—Randy’s little son— in England, under the claim that she was not allowed to reenter America. That is not correct. The letter by Catherine Connell McSherry is inaccurate, and I provide clarifying facts herein. Susan never had a visa to the U.S., but Randy had a marriage visa in the UK that was converted from a student visa when he married Susan. Susan and Randy traveled back and forth between the UK, and the U.S. since their wedding on April 5, 2008, as his case against Western Seminary continued. Susan returned to the UK for short periods of time, and then she returned back to America for 90 days at a time. Randy stayed in the UK for short periods of time and then he returned to the U.S. They lived together as husband and wife, and as Joel’s parents together in Boulder Creek, California for much of their married life prior to Susan starting her divorce proceedings in December 2010. Randy opposed the divorce.

Secretary Clinton Re: James A. Scharf, Federal Torts Claims Act, FOIAs Pages 2 of 2


By letter in December 2010, Susan noted through her attorney that she wanted Randy and Joel to maintain a relationship, even through she was divorcing him. However, weeks after that letter was sent, she proceeded through the legal process to omit Randy from Joel’s life. Susan stated in a final email to Randy, she intends to keep Joel from Randy until Joel is an adult. Susan’s father, Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough, discouraged Randy in an email from taking any legal action to seek to retain Randy’s father-son relationship with Joel. Prior to that in 2009, after Joel was born in the UK, Susan and her mother, Dr. Janice Allister, as a medical doctor, told the attending physician that Joel and Susan would be immigrating to the United States which the attending physician documented in Joel’s medical records. Even though that immigration process was not completed, Joel was happy in the U.S., making friends, attending social groups, and even going on vacations with Randy, Susan, and other families. (see photos below and Susan’s blog)

In Tahoe, CA in 2009

at play time

the ubiquitous feeding photo

Prior to their marital breakdown in 2010, Randy, Susan, and Joel had to deal with academic fraud and destruction by Western Seminary and their counsel who worked with two accreditation agencies to undermine two civil cases, the quality of education for two masters degrees, and Randy’s and my complaints filed to the U.S. Department of Education. (See the Scharf complaint and communications with President Obama). The issues of this case have now reached federal court and are part of a Federal Torts Claims Act case yet to be filed. Randy and I refuse to be forced to accept “education for cover up” of fraud by religious hypocrites, by corrupt accreditors, and by dysfunctional government agencies that condoned it. According to Susan’s position, it is wrong of Randy (and me) to expose corruption and fight for justice for our lives – Susan used the words “obsessive absorption” and “morbid affect” to describe her claims against Randy in her divorce action, because Susan, her British family and Solicitor do not understand American values for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Susan’s divorce papers demanded Randy’s social security after less than two years of marriage, amidst other outrageous demands, and the Court denied all of them.

Susan and her family are British. Her brother John is a curate in the Church of England in Macclesfield, while Susan’s father is the Bishop of Peterborough. They don’t know or understand American values for freedom and justice, our customs, idioms, politics, or history, etc. This point betrayed by John Allister, himself, who while he has a 1st in Physics from Cambridge and a 1st at Oxford in theology, maintains that our founding fathers were of a form of “Christian” deists. As clearly noted, by the 5th congress in the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."1 Thus, the context of the Allisters’ perspective results from incorrect information regarding America, and how Americans strive for freedom and justice, etc.

In early 2010, Randy was finishing up his case while Susan was with Joel in the UK. Susan, Randy, and Joel routinely communicated several times every day over Skype, and Susan even blogged about it that “Joel loves talking to his Daddy over Skype.”

1 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif. Of note, the Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to separate themselves from a God to King to people rule. While the Declaration is not a governing document, it mentions "Nature's God" and "Divine Providence"-- that's the language of Deism, not Christianity.



Times when Joel was in the UK and they spoke over Skype However, on May 10, 2010, an unjust award was made in Randy’s case that violated Federal and State laws, decisional cases and public policies – due to the dysfunctional AAEU government agency that rubber stamped two accreditation agencies with no authority to judge settlement agreements—unsupported by any state or federal statute or decisional case and against numerous court decisions and laws. Randy became suicidal in the summer of 2010 and disappeared—subsequent to their marital break down and Susan and her parents began their divorce plans. When Susan did not get money from Randy’s lawsuit, she turned against Randy, and she ended the marriage by taking Joel and whatever valuables she could take or demand through the court. Originally, Susan claimed she was unable to enter America and was blocked by San Francisco boarder guards in 2009, due to her repeated trips back and forth.2 Then she blamed Randy in her divorce documents. Susan could have come to America with Joel on an emergency visa or she could have returned to America on a 90-day visiting visa in 2010. Susan didn’t return. Instead, Susan left Randy to die in 2010. The UK Court did not buy her arguments. Susan’s family is employed by the Church in England. Susan lives with Joel and her parents in the Palace at Peterborough. Their harsh and demeaning statements about Susan’s marriage with Randy – “the marriage is dead” occurred shortly after the unjust award that we now know was supported by the government to cover up its own negligence. Destructive criticisms by Susan’s brother, John, and her father, Donald Allister (Bishop of Peterborough) pushed the destruction of Susan’s and Randy’s marriage, and isolated Susan and Joel from Randy in 2010. Susan initially objected—but she eventually succumbed to their pressure. There was a relief between Susan and Randy in October/ November 2010, but ultimately, Susan divorced Randy and her British Solicitor announced that intent just before Christmas 2010 knowing Randy was ill because of all the fighting and the issues with Western. Susan then cut all communications between Joel and Randy, and continues to this day.3 This has made things only worst for Randy’s health – it was not helpful, but caused further harm. In May 2011, Randy asked his father to ask Susan and her family for copies of Joel’s identification documents. None of Susan’s family replied, and Susan withheld Joel’s records from Randy (Consular Report of Birth Abroad, Certified Copy of An Entry, passports, SSN), to prevent Randy from proving he is Joel’s father and to act on Joel’s behalf or to gain access to Joel. Susan’s divorce action continued even though friends and Randy’s family tried to convince her otherwise as Susan refused to provide Joel’s identification records to Randy to prevent Randy from filing a Hague Convention request. We anticipate Susan will probably claim Joel is settled in the UK and should not be moved in order to keep Joel from Randy. Due to Susan’s refusal to provide Joel’s identification records, Randy was not able to file papers for a Hague convention request. Recently, Randy found copies of Joel’s records Susan left in my garage that Randy sent to the London Embassy to request a welfare visit for Joel that occurred on March 28, 2012. Susan continues to disregard anything related to Randy, including the involvement of Randy in Joel’s life. Susan (and her family) intend to keep Joel from Randy (and us—Joel’s American grandparents) until he is an adult, and Susan intends to deny Joel’s rights as an American to know and communicate with his father and grandparents. (“When he is an adult I will leave it up to him about whether he wants to get back in touch with you.”) Susan’s father, the Bishop of Peterborough, totally supported Susan’s unlawful and abusive controlling demands about Joel’s relationship with Randy. (“Susan is my daughter and I love and support her. She is also an adult, fully able to make her own decisions which I respect and accept.”). If Susan’s autocratic control and abuse against Joel and Randy (and us as Joel’s grandparents) is left to stand, Joel 2 Catherine Connell McSherry’s statement is not correct on these points. 3 Joel’s last statements Randy is aware of come in Nov, 2010, when he asked to speak to Randy. Since that time, Susan has retained Joel from Randy.



will suffer irreparable harm, due to the abusive acts against Joel’s rights as an American that Susan is perpetrating (supported by her parents) in order to obstruct and prevent all communications with Randy—Joel’s American father.4 Susan expressed no regard or remorse for her actions towards Randy or Joel’s grandparents (my husband and me) and other family members and friends of the family. Susan and her parent’s planned and then executed on their goals for Susan’s divorce of Randy that harmed Joel, over and against Randy and his family’s recommendations to reconcile and maintain commitment—which is Susan’s right of choice for herself, but not for Joel. Susan communicated nicely to Randy long enough to get her things returned to her in the UK at Randy’s expense while she refused to return Randy’s things to him. Susan has prevented and obstructed all contact between Joel and Randy/Dale/me, and we have no current photographs of Joel or anything else. Randy has known nothing about his son, Joel, since November 2010 when Susan and her family prevented Joel from speaking to Randy. They retained Joel then, and they continue to retain Joel and hold him away from and against Randy now, and they intend to continue that condition until Joel is an adult.

Randy seeks to halt and reverse the adversity to his father-child relationship by Susan and her family who are seeking to disrupt and destroy our relationship with Joel– which all occurred after the illegal award in May 2010 that the government is covertly acting to enforce by withholding or destroying material records of evidence from us that we requested through the FOIA.

Randy and Joel have been deprived of each other’s father-son love, affection, solace, companionship, society,

protection, moral guidance and support, services, care, counsel, training, and advice. Susan unilaterally removed Randy as Joel’s father until Joel is an adult. Susan’s conduct (aided by Donald, Janice, and John Allister) are depriving Randy from raising and instructing Joel in the values of loving father-parental affection and devotion shared with and between parents and their offspring. Susan is preventing and depriving Joel, by alienating Randy from raising and instructing Joel about and in American values. The loss of his young child deprives Randy of his instinctive need to nurture, guide and to affectionately love his child and to be the kind of father Randy wanted to be for his son, which he did not have himself. The loss of his father-son relationship with Joel associated with all the other losses Randy experiences are substantial and should not be diminished or reduced.

My husband, Dale, and I would like to know Joel and to communicate with him, but we are being deprived of a loving

grandparent-grandchild relationship with Joel by Susan and the Allister family who are alienating us from Joel which is abusive to Joel. Susan is depriving us of love, affection, solace, companionship, society, protection, moral guidance and support, services, care, counsel, training, and advice with Joel, while Susan has removed us from having a loving relationship with Joel, and she likely will then seek to replace Carol and Dale as grandparents, with the expressed intent to revoke the relationship until Joel is an adult at which time Dale and I will probably be deceased. Susan’s conduct (bolstered and supported by the Allister family) has deprived Grandfather Dale and I from instructing Joel in the values of loving affection of his American grandparents. Susan and the Allisters are alienating Joel from our devotion that is commonly shared with and between grandparents and their grandchildren. The loss of our grandchild has also deprived Dale and me of our instinctive need to nurture, guide, and to affectionately love our grandchild, and to be the kind of grandparents, Randy wanted for his son, Joel Tristan Allister Chapel. The loss of the grandparent-grandchild relationship with Joel associated with all the other losses that Dale and I experience due to Susan’s obstruction that Susan links to the abusive and corrupt litigation involving the government are substantial and should not be diminished or reduced.

Parental Alienation (PA) refers to a situation in which a resident parent (usually but not exclusively) turns their child against the non-resident parent, intentionally or unintentionally, resulting in the child’s supposed desire to reject all contact with that parent. There is still much debate among medical and psychological experts as to whether this behavior pattern constitutes a syndrome, often referred to as Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) which was initially described by Dr Richard Gardner (Gardner, R. A (1989), “Recommendations for Dealing with Parents who induce a Parental Alienation Syndrome in their children,” Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 28 (3/4): 1-23). Currently, PA is not officially recognized although there is much activity worldwide to influence its acceptance in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM- V, which is due to be published in May 2012 (http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV.aspx). The goals of psychiatric intervention must be, first, the protection of children and other family members from maltreatment and, second, the provision of relevant treatments for children and their families with the aim of reversing the psychological and physical sequelae of the maltreatment, improving the quality of parenting, and preserving the family unit whenever possible. In practice, poisoning against one parent does occur, and is a genuine problem, which goes strongly against a child’s best interests. The question “why should children who were initially close to both parents suddenly seek to reject one of them” (Journal of Parental Alienation, Vol. 2 No 2- March/April 2006; Dr. L. F Lowenstein) is often raised at the beginning of a Family

4 Until the unjust award, Susan praised the relationship and marriage (see her own words on the family blog). When she was not going to get any money, and when Randy was suffering, she took Joel and left Randy to die and proceeded to (and continues to) disrupt the father-son relationship between Randy and Joel. Susan walked away with a $35,000 diamond ring, $18,000 in cash and other valuable possessions, while she ducked out on her part of community property debts.



Court case. The child is ‘programmed’ by the alienating parent against the other, and is used as a tool in the process of exclusion of an ex-partner, thereby emotionally harming the child by depriving them of a good parent. Judges, social workers, and others often fail to recognize parental alienation as a genuine case of significant emotional abuse, and these children may lose a loved and loving parent for a long time or sometimes permanently. In the UK it is known as ‘implacable hostility’, which is caused by the ‘controlling’ parent subjecting the child to this form of emotional abuse. This can have devastating life-long effects for the children, excluded parent, grandparents and the child’s other parent.5 Both the US and UK have dealt with Parental Alienation. US. Case law (Decisional cases in California): • Coursey v. Superior Court (Coursey), 194 Cal.App.3d 147,239 Cal.Rptr. 365 (Cal.App. 3 Dist., Aug 18, 1987.) • John W. v. Phillip W., 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 899; 1996. • Valerie Edlund v. Gregory Hales, 66 Cal. App 4th 1454; 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 671 • In re Marriage of Condon, supra, 62 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 552-553 [upholding schedule of four long visits per year between father and sons after mother was allowed to move with children to Australia, with additional time (up to fifteen days per month) in Australia; visitation schedule at time of trial was for two to four days per week in California]; id., fn. 13 [sons who were no longer infants or toddlers could still "maintain a valuable relationship with their father with visitation which comes in longer doses four times per year"].) UK Case Law: The value of a father in the life of a child is very important, even in cases where there is violence, contact with the father is still encouraged as seen in Re P (Contact: Supervision) [1996] 2 FLR 314, CA. A reiteration of the principle that where children live with one parent it is almost always in their interests to have contact with the other parent, even when as in this case there had been violence. Also of importance is the court's willingness to grant contact in the face of the mother's hostility. The CA decided that the judge had made no error of principle but that he had made an error in the balancing exercise, which rendered his decision not to order direct contact plainly wrong. He had given too much weight to the risk of emotional harm to the children through deterioration in the mother's health due to her stress and anxiety over contact, and insufficient weight to the importance of the children maintaining direct contact with their father. The Court of Appeal ordered supervised contact not exceeding two hours on not less than three occasions per year. The Court has shown and concluded that it is not acceptable to marginalize one parent over another. Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124, CA. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, the court being concerned with the interests of the mother and father only insofar as they bear on the welfare of the child. It is almost always in the interests of the child whose parents are separated that he or she should have contact with the parent with whom the child is not living. The court has power to enforce orders for contact, which it should not hesitate to exercise where it judges that it will overall promote the welfare of the child. Infrequently cases do arise in which a court is compelled to conclude that in the existing situation an order for immediate direct contact should not be ordered because to do so would injure the welfare of the child. In such cases where direct contact cannot for the time being be ordered, it is highly desirable that there should be indirect contact so that the child grows up knowing of the love and interest of the absent parent with whom, in due course, direct contact should be established. The judge ordered indirect contact, requiring the mother to send the father:

• photographs of the child every three months • copies of all nursery or playgroup reports • information about any serious illness • to accept delivery of cards and presents for the child through the post, read and show the child any communication, and

give him any presents. The CA found that s 11(7) of the Children Act 1989 conferred on the judge the powers to impose these conditions, even to impose positive obligations requiring the mother to perform an act - to read the letters to the child. It would be quite wrong to give her the power of censorship. If she found anything untoward in the letters, that the father abused this privilege, the mother

5 See Ludwig.F. Lowenstein Ph.D. Implacable Hostility Leading to Parental Alienation, Southern England Psychological Services, Justice of the Peace, (2008), Vol 172, No.12, 185-187. Ludwig.F. Lowenstein Ph.D. What Can Be Done To Reduce the Implacable Hostility Leading to Parental Alienation in Parents? Southern England Psychological Services. 2008. "Should Courts Order PAS Children to Visit/Reside with the Alienated Parent? A Follow-up Study" written by Richard Gardner was published in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(3):61-106, 2001. See Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties that Bind Beyond the High Road - Amy J. L. Baker (http://www.amyjlbaker.com/) See also The Spectrum of Parental Alienation Syndrome (parts I and II), a comprehensive review of U.S. research on PAS by Deirdre Conway Rand Ph.D. (American Journal of Forensic Psychology, Volume 15, Issues 3-4, 1997, abridged). Full references to other academic papers are included. See also Douglas Darnall, Divorce Casualties: Protecting Your Children From Parental Alienation, Taylor Trade Publishing (October 1, 1998).



could approach the court and the order could be varied accordingly. The court has ample power to compel one parent to send photographs, medical reports and school reports - and in a proper case the court could require the mother herself to write reports. In this case, Susan (and the Allister family) have not only cut off all communications between Joel and Randy, but Randy has no photos, reports, access to medical records or anything concerning Joel. Randy desires to have all of Joel’s records, medical records and reports, and photos as soon as possible, because he loves his son very much and he cares about Joel’s wellbeing. Joel looks like Randy, and Joel idolized his daddy before Susan filed for divorce and cut off communications. Contact should also not be diminished simply because Dale and Carol are grandparents and would seem to have no rights. Re S (Contact: Grandparents) [1996] 1 FLR 158, CA. This case is noted on two points: (1) as a reminder of how positions can become entrenched if family proceedings are not firmly handled from the outset: and (2) as a reminder that the court should not accede to the implacable opposition of a parent to contact where other factors indicate that contact would be in the child's interests. The daughter when seven years old had made allegations of indecent assault against the father. Prior to this the father and paternal grandparents had had regular contact. For the following two and a half years the grandparents struggled to get contact to their granddaughter, culminating in a decision not to order contact. The mother's hostility and the judge's confidence that in time she would change her mind were factors. The CA found that they did not outweigh the judges finding that three was a real risk that the child would suffer significant harm if contact was not re-established. In this case, Susan and the Allisters have barred all contact with Randy, Dale and me directly impacting us with no sense of human decency from the Allisters toward Randy, Dale, and me. We have sent gifts for Joel, and there has never been any evidence that Joel receives our gifts or that Joel was told who the gifts were from. Susan and the Allisters are not training Joel to show thankfulness, appreciation, or reciprocal kindness for love and affection given to Joel by Randy, Dale, and me. Clearly, Joel is not being taught American values for “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” which is one of the reasons why Randy and I have acted to protect our civil rights and refuse to be part of Western’s academic fraud demanding “education for cover up of Korch’s molestations, and Section 504 fraud,” etc. Currently, Susan is rejecting the Embassy staff’s request to reestablish contact between Joel and Randy. Randy only has what Catherine Connell McSherry stated as a means to understand what happened at the welfare meeting on March 28, 2012. Susan is obstructing Randy’s communications with Joel, and Randy does not know if Joel received the gift of Legos he sent to Joel. Susan is not training Joel to have manners saying, “Thank you,” for gifts given to him by his father, Dale, or me, and Susan is not allowing Randy to know whether or not Joel receives the gifts/letters Randy sends to Joel. Susan is alienating Randy from Joel and she is alienating Joel from Randy—in abuse to both Joel and Randy, and in abuse to their father-son relationship. This is further pragmatic, as Susan has and continues to use to her benefit the undeniable fact that Western Seminary, because they are accredited by ATS, can cause students and family members to cover up child molestations, illegal acts, tax evasion, and so on – which is the subject of the FOIA requests Randy, Dale, and I filed, and the subject of the Federal Tort Claims Act case to be filed. In other words, Susan used the government’s errors and omissions to her advantage to sabotage the father-son relationship and end the marriage. It is not reasonable that any American should be forced to tolerate and to be caused to live the rest of their life oppressed by the government forcing them to accept “gag” orders to not complain to the government about criteria that includes conditional admissions and program standards without the quality of education required by 34 CFR Part 602, or published program requirements of ATS, NWCCU, and Western, or their Articles of Incorporation or the “mission” of the USDOE or NACIQI. Both President Obama and U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, know what is going on in this case, and neither of them have taken any action to curtail government abuse behind the withholding and destruction of records in concerted acts to obstruct justice that instead, allowed even further destruction in Randy’s life and the lives of his family. Susan’s obstruction of Randy from having Joel’s identification records caused Randy to not be able to file a Hague Convention application, and the damage to Randy’s life by the government’s negligence of duty condoning the Western fraud, Susan has used this fact to her advantage against Randy in order to retain Joel. Thus, I am writing to ask for your help, Secretary Clinton. Your diplomatic skills, along with those of President Obama and Congress made a world of difference in other circumstances of parental alienation such as for the American father, David Goldman, of New Jersey, and his 9-year-old son, Sean Goldman, who was held and alienated from his father. (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/134047.htm) It is completely understandable that the Allisters don’t understand America, much less America’s government, but it doesn’t excuse them of actions to alienate Joel from Randy and alienate Randy from Joel. They have used to their advantage the Western fraud that the government supports to the government’s advantage—thus, the U.S. Attorney, James Scharf, told me “it’s time he [Randy] moves on.” It would be hard to find any community in America what condones the actions and beliefs of Western (or Mr. Scharf), and it is likely equally hard to find a community in England that would condone such unconscionable acts and beliefs as well. However, because the government wants to cover up its own negligence, the failures by the Spellings administration to correctly oversee accreditation agencies, our government has dumped this whole mess on Randy and destroyed



his life, his marriage and his father-son relationship – regardless of the government’s accountability. These are not American values we can be proud of—and I am not pleased, and I am sure many in America and England will be equally displeased. Randy has lost everything in his life. His house; his things; his land; everything. What Randy has suffered and is dealing with is unbelievable and surreal. He doesn’t have money to hire an attorney, which allowed the Allisters to manipulate the Court with misrepresentations. If it was not for the recent action by the U.S. Embassy, continued obstruction and no knowledge by Randy (and us) about Joel would have occurred. Can you please help American grandparents who desire to know and communicate with their grandson, and an American daddy who desires to communicate with his beloved son? Respectfully submitted, /s/ Carol Nye-Wilson Enclosures

hillary clinton ignored abduction case

Documents