The Dream

TOM FARRELL took away a minor child’s free speech protected by Judge Wilson of Third Circuit Court Hawaii. Peter held all the power and held onto all the money. There was no free speech and no due process.

Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement FC-D No. 15-1-0062K

Judge Andrew P. Wilson

15. The concerns of the Canadian Court of risk of physical harm by the steps taken by a 13 year old boy, who was encouraged by his father to engage in inappropriate behvavior should not be rewarded. Pursuant to the report submitted in the Canadian Court, this Court concludes that if C.H. were returned to Hawaii for a custody determination, removed from his father’s inappropriate influence, there would be no basis for the Canadian Court to retain emergency or any other jurisdiction.

16. Under HRS 583A-207, Hawaii is the more convenient forum and will not decline jurisdiction. The parties, with C.H. moved to Hawaii in 2010, resided in a home they purchased in 2005. C.H. as attended school in Hawaii for the past five years –his teachers, friends, coaches, tutors and other pertinent witnesses all live in Hawaii. Ontario, Canada is over 2,500 miles from Hawaii. Dated Dec 09, 2015

EPSON077 25/08/2022

In order to overturn this decision Pete Henderson and his legal adviser needed to appeal within 30 days. They did not.

Pete moved C.H. to another location. He hired false child lawyers to keep him busy.

Endorsement Judge Paisley of Ontario Superior Court August 4, 2016

2) On March 22, 2016 The Divisional Court released reasons for decision on an appeal from an order that the child shall not be removed from Ontario pending further order of the court or unless the father consents in writing and concluded that “the Motion judge erred in law in determining that Ontario has jurisdiction to determine custody and access to C.H.” In reasons for decision, the Court stated that ‘

In April 2015 the Appellant (mother) commenced an application for permanent sole custody, terms of access, and support in the Hawaiian court, the application was served on the Respondent on August 10, 2015, On September 11, 2015 the Hawaiian court granted temporary physical custody of the children to the Appellant pending further order of the court. The Respondent was represented by counsel on the motion. 2016 ONSC 1736 per Patillo J. at paragraph 15.

3) I am satisfied that the Divisional Court recognized the authority of the Hawaiian Court and that no further steps are required by the mother to act pursuant to that court’s decision.

4)The Divisional Court referred to the report of Linda Chodos, who had been jointly retained by the parties to prepare a Views and Preferences of the Child Report in respect of C.H.: The court stated that,

“the clear inference which comes from the evidence and from the Report is that the Respondent was, if not instigating, at least encouraging many of C.H.’s actions…the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error in failing to consider Ms. Chodos’ answer to the question he posed when asking for an expert report, and which directly engaged the issue of serious harm, to determine ‘if there are serious concerns that [C.H’s] well-being will be impacted if a determination is made which is contrary to his views and preferences” Ms. Chodos’ answer to that question, following a thorough investigation, was that she would have no serious concerns that C.H.’s well-being would be impacted if the court determined C.H. should return to Hawaii contrary to his wishes.” Reasons supra paragraphs 70-72

5) The decision supra was not appealed and is binding on this Court.

6)The father opposes the mother’s motion. Mr. Gottlieb appeared on this motion on behalf of the child. Mr. Gottlieb did nto seek leave to add the child as a party. Affidavit evidence of the child was filed without leave. The child appeared in the body of the court. The mother was asked if she consented to the child being present. As the mother did not consent, the child was excused.

This was the last time Kelly Winsa saw her child except for a brief visit in the Eaton Centre, Toronto. Pete Henderson moved him, would not reveal the location and there would be no reunification.

On August 22, 2016, Tom Farrell ignored emails from Kelly Winsa, the custodial parent. She wrote that C.H. was missing and she could not attend the hearing he motioned for on August 22, 2016.

Judge Paisley wrote about the influence of two false child lawyers Pete Henderson hired violating court rules during the time the child was isolated and moved. August 4, Ontario Superior Court, 2016.

6)The father opposes the mother’s motion. Mr. Gottlieb appeared on this motion on behalf of the child. Mr. Gottlieb did not seek leave to add the child as a party. Affidavit evidence of the child was filed without leave. The child appeared in the body of the court. The mother was asked if she consented to the child being present. As the mother did not consent, the child was excused.

Pete Henderson ignored these orders.

Justice P. Wilson, Hawaii Third Circuit

Divisional Court Justices Patillo, Swinton, and Kurke J.J.

Ontario Superior Court Judge Paisley

Tom Farrell travelled for over an hour to court on August 22, to overturn Judge Wilson and claimed to not read his emails on the one hour journey by taxi. This is what he says in his email to Ms. Winsa.

Tom Farrell writes to the Respondent mother, “Dear Ms. Winsa, [C.H.] was not ‘abducted’ by my client, I think you are becoming delusional, and I would recommend that you seek professional help of the kind lawyers do not provide.” August 23, 2016. I have overturned your jurisdiction, custody, and support, he wrote.

Tom Farrell wrote that he had overturned Judge P. Wilson in front of Judge K. Laubach retrying the same case at the same level court though he was obliged by court rules to Appeal Judge P. Wilson within 30 days at a higher level court.

Tom Farrell also wrote a letter to Homeland Security. This letter is dated July 27, 2016, eight days prior to Justice Paisley Endorsement.

In it Farrell writes “[W[e have a hearing in Hawaii on August 22. The principal purposes of that hearing are to determine jurisdictional issues (other than child custody jurisdiction, which has been decided.) [Farrell's punctuation.]

However, at the hearing on July 22, 2016 Farrell overturns jurisdiction, custody, and the mother’s support.

He continues, “This summer, Kelly left Hawaii and spent several weeks in Canada, where I believe she remains as of this writing. However, she plans to return with [C.H.] to Hawaii: in fact she intends to take up residence in a house that she and Pete own in Kamuela, and to enroll [C.H.] in Hawaii Preparatory Academy.” Farrell goes on, “I have made this (his own personal claim that she would ‘fraudulently’ use a visa) known to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, and I believe that if Kelly and [C.H.] attempt to re-enter the United States they will be stopped and returned to Canada (or possibly arrested). [Original punctuation of Farrell]

So, Mr. Farrell believes that his letter to Homeland Security will not only stop Kelly at the border with C.H. that she will be sent back or arrested. This is his claim in a letter to Ms. Theresa MacLean, Pete Henderson’s Ontario counsel, which will be presented by her to the Ontario court after Mr. Farrell’s personal hearing (as Ms. Winsa cannot attend due to his letter to Homeland Security and neither can C.H.) in Kamuela on August 22, 2016.

Mr. Farrell concludes, “I will be in Germany and the Netherlands for the next two weeks, returning to my office on August 9. Getting you a notarized affidavit may be a bit of a challenge, if you need it before then. If a declaration under penalty of perjury will do, then I declare under penalty of perjury that the contents of this letter are true and correct.

Farrell will admit at a trial in Kamuela that he knows nothing about Canadian/US visas, including the ability of Canadians to remain in the US for extended periods, or of any application Ms. Winsa may have had for a visa.

So, in order to contravene three Court Orders, Mr. Henderson via Tom Farrell and Theresa MacLean has had his ex-wife’s visa tampered with. (an independent citizen)

He and Tom Farrell have orchestrated further isolation of C.H.

They have tampered with his mother’s passport status so that she cannot travel.

Then they overturn, not just jurisdiction (claimed in Tom Farrell’s letter above to the Ontario Superior Court and Ms. MacLean), but added custody, and all support payments. He will separate the jointly owned real property 64-1068A Mamalahoa Highway, also on the same day, therefore setting up the eviction Motion he files that December.

That later motion of four months, says, not that Kelly “spent several weeks in Canada” but that “Pete believes that she spent some time this past summer in a mental institution. Pete believes that Kelly attempted to return to Hawaii in late August, and was denied entry into the United States for various reason.” Farrell does not state that the ' various reasons' are that he tampered with her status, (or possibly arrested). Original punctuation. That letter was intended only for the Ontario court, not however, the Hawaii one.

He will isolate Ms. Winsa by emailing to her that she is “delusional” and he will walk into court alone.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All