Extradition worry for family as FBI puts mum on 'most wanted' list (From Oxford Mail)

This treaty was supposed to be a two way treaty. However the US has never ratified the treaty and UK can never extradite criminals from the US under the treaty. The UIK giovernment, whatever the case that might be against Mrs Clark should refuse to allow the extradition on the grounds that the treaty has not been properly completed.

It seems that this woman is being accused of International Child Abduction. This is covered in international law by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction and both the UK and US are signatories. However, the Convention only applies to children under 16 and what appears to have happened is that Ms Clark has dragged matters out past that time (a common tactic among abducting parents). The fact is that she absconded from the US with her children in defiance of a US court order and failed to turn up at a custody hearing there. The comments of the children show clear patterns of parental alienation - where they have been coached and brainwashed. Why did they wait until 209 to contact the police - and then only on legal advice. Sadly, this phenomenon is all too common.

I was used a display toilet in a furniture superstore.
Now I am on the MFI most wanted list.

Dear Mr. Sloan:
This is in regards to the story you wrote regarding Extradition worry for family as FBI puts mum on 'most wanted' list. There are always two sides to a story. I would like the chance to share the “other” side of the story. I am ready to speak out and am amazed that no one has sought out any answers from the other side of this article. I am the sister of John Clark. I was Eileen Sams Clark sister in law and I was also a bridesmaid at their wedding. The article discussed about my sister in law and my niece and nephews is a huge distorted mistruth. The picture posted in the Daily Telegraph and now in your newspaper of Eileen, Hayden and Chandler is the first time in fifteen years my brother, my parents,( Chandler, Rebekah and Hayden's grandparent's), my brother Clay and I have seen of them.
First of all, Eileen Sams Clark has been on the FBI's wanted list for kidnapping and parental interference for almost the full 15 years since her abduction of my brothers children. Extraditing an American Citizen that broke US laws should be a simple procedure. Unfortunately, it appears that my sister in law and her advisors are using a political issue to try and help her AGAIN avoid due process here in the United States. Please do not misunderstand my intentions here. This specific extradition regarding my former sister in law is not about a British Citizen being extradited to America. This specific extradition regarding Eileen Sams Clark is about a US citizen, with a 15 year warrant out for her arrest being returned to America to face consequences of her actions. Eileen entered the UK because she was fleeing justice here in the United States. She was fully aware of all charges against her. Eileen entered a foreign country in order to FLEE prosecution. I believe, in my understanding that that means she is most likely in your country without proper documentation. Charges against Eileen were dropped in 2004 because the first grand jury transcripts mysteriously "disappeared". Two months later the State of New Mexico reissued the same exact warrant for her arrest. Her story so far was only a half truth.
To this day, my brother and our family do not know why Eileen "fled" and kept the children from my brother. No one seems to ask Eileen the question that has haunted me and my family for years, “If she was so unhappy and so distraught, why didn't she just divorce my brother?" All Eileen had to do was file for divorce, share custody with my brother and everyone could have moved on in their lives.
Unlike the Daily Telegraph article, your interview with Eileen explains that Eileen fled my brother because”she was too scared to remain in her marriage to husband John Clark when she left her New Mexico home in 1995." I cannot pretend to know what was ever truly in the mind of my sister in law. All I know is that my brother has been through a thorough background check from the FBI and the US Attorney’s office and there is no record of abuse whatsoever!
In your article, it stated, "In 2009, on the advice of lawyers, Mrs. Clark’s sons Chandler, now 23, and Hayden, 20, contacted the Santa Fe Police Department to say they were not missing, but living safely and happily with their mother in the UK." This did happen. The local police station was approached and given information. For some reason, and we truly do not know why, this police officer went into the NCIC system and took Chandler and Hayden out of the system. The person that was contacted in Santa Fe police department had NO authority to remove anyone from the NCIC (missing children) list. The officer was presented with a formal letter. He never saw or observed Chandler or Hayden. For all he knew the guy down the street could have produced the exact same information. In order to have had the kids name removed, they would have had to appear with proper documentation, to the FBI and prove they were who they said they were. Their attempt to remove their names from the list could have been resolved if they had actually contacted the actual authorities that needed to be informed. Later, through attorneys for Hayden and Chandler, it was proposed to my brother that if he were to drop the charges against Eileen, he could then have the ability to be in contact with Chandler and Hayden. Throughout this ordeal is the consistent pattern of Eileen Sams Clark using the children as a wedge between her and my brother.
What is so painful to realize for my family is the fact that any opportunity to have a decent relationship with these three children has been taken away. None of this had to happen. Eileen Sams Clark perpetrated this chain of events. All of this could have been resolved simply.
My brother and Eileen were never formally divorced. My brother sought a divorce by abstention here in the US. That means that because Eileen was "in hiding" and could not be located, my brother had to post advertisements in the legal sections of local newspapers where he thought she might hide and post his intentions to legally divorce her because she abandoned the marriage. This took a year to legally accomplish. There was never ANY joint custody decided through a divorce at all. My brother was never sure that Eileen even knew that they were legally divorced until he confronted Eileen's father through the Dr. Phil show in 2005.
We have hoped for years of wishing to share a holiday with ALL of us together. We have always looked forward to having an opportunity to knowing my brothers children. Speaking just for myself, I would love them to meet my sons and to share pictures and videos we have of them when they were young. We are a decent law abiding family. We wish this could find an end and we might be able to reconnect with the children.
My family is like most families. We value family and the strength you get from that family.
My former sister in law has broken many laws. There are consequences for her decision to do what she did. My former sister in law has family members that are attorneys. She was and still is, fully aware of the consequences of her actions. Much of the information given to you in this article by her is inaccurate and flat out untrue.
My parents and I have remained silent all of this time with the great hope that we might be able to reunite with my brother’s children. My former sister in law has made so many false accusations that it is hard to keep them straight. Because Eileen has chosen to USE the political climate to fight extradition for wrongs she knew she perpetrated is unacceptable to my parents and me. My brother seeks to reunite and connect with his children. Unfortunately, to do that, his ex wife has to face the charges against her. Eileen is no victim here. My brother and the three children are the victims. I can only imagine the untruths she has told these three young adults. They have only had her to rely upon for all these years. Of course they will come to her defense, just as most children would. These three children were much to young to remember anything of their father when they were cruelly separated from him.
After all this time, I wish things for everyone concerned could have been different. My parents and I still would love the opportunity to reach out to these young adults and learn about their lives. We would relish the chance to share our lives with them. Their cousins would love the same opportunity as well.

To Chandler, Rebekah and Hayden, We have never forgotten you. You all have always been in our thoughts and prayers. We hope that you will someday seek to reach out to us and join our lives. Your father has NEVER stopped searching for you.

I'm very disappointed in this news piece. It's one thing to have a discussion on the balance and international cooperation (or lack thereof) in a given international treaty, it is quite another to disengenuisly pretend that the US is arbitrarily hunting down a loving mother.

Hiding the crime of international child abductions behind absurd euphimisms like "fleeing a failed a marriage" or "starting a new life in the UK" is really unconscionable to me and, without a doubt, to the tens of thousands of other families victimized by such an act. As would be most any other moral human being that is actually presented with the facts rather than the one-sided and misguided rhetoric that you have presented.

It is patently false that this abducting mother is on the FBI's "most wanted" list. She is not. She is on the list of parental kidnappers -- an exclusive list for such parents and completely separate from the most wanted list.

Unbelievably, you are allowing this abducting mother to pretend that the US just invented this charge out of thin air. Anyone who actually knows about how the USDOJ and the FBI handle international abduction cases will tell you that they actual file charges in far fewer than 1% of the cases and request extradition in an even smaller fraction of cases than that.

More importantly you allow the claim that "America wouldn't treat it's own citizens this way." Which begs the question, is this mother not a US citizen? Does she even hold British citizenship? And of course, does channel4 news frequently air such polemically unbalanced stories under the rubric of "news" or "journalism."

Shug, thank you for addressing the other side of this story. It rings true in all the ways that only someone familiar with international child abduction cases can hear and answers all the questions begged by this shoddy journalism. It would seem that someone at this paper with an axe to grind about the US/UK extradition treaty has decided to use this story as a coat-rack for their ulterior agenda and won't let a small thing like facts get in there way. She's not a UK citizen she's American. Don't bother with extradition just deport her back to the US to pay for the damage she's done to her own children and extended family and let her be an example to future would be child abductors that destroy the lives of others with their selfish and egotistical desires to put themselves above everything and everyone else (and as usual claim they did it for the kids because they are not self-centered but selfless saints.)

This is yet one more case showing the US patriarchy. The children in the US seem to be treated like property, property that belongs to father. US women are routinely horribly abused and unable to get away from abusive men. The women and children's claims of maltreatment are routinely denied in a coverup much like the Catholic Church. There are many US women and children who are maltreated and when they try to get away, just like this woman and her children, they are hunted like animals. The US is no better than Sharia law with the terrible treatment of children as the father's property. Claims of joint custody are bogus as giving the man authority over the children gives him authority to order the mother around and to torment, harass her, the kids, stalk and control and in this case the father has made a criminal out of this mother just for raising her own children. Not all men are like this, not the US seems to be full of them and the legal system is like a Gulag. I hope this mother and her children are left in peace. With the US bullying other countries to spread their patriarchy, look for the US to threaten the UK if they don't bow to their demands to torment and prosecute another woman and take her kids away and force them to go to the mad scientist brainwashing psych units like the Rachel Foundation who will try to force the kids to be with their "father". The father's sister's comment shows what a controlling family these people must be.

I would love to know how sister in law (is that is indeed who it is) can know without any doubts at all, that no abuse took place ever in this household. So sister in law, how do you know? Did you live with them their entire marriage and witness all events 24/7? Did you follow them around day in day out? Did you witness how he treated her during intimate moments? Did you see EVERYTHING? I highly doubt it so just because your brother has all these so-called clearances does not mean he did not abuse your former sister in law. For all we know, maybe you are abused and what you saw your brother do was normal in your own household so you would not even know. I would think a 23 yr old can know their own mind even if you think the 17 yr old cannot. I do not see children with black eyes and broken bones. I see children concerned for mum. And I see nosy in laws who simply can't deal with a woman who has said enough is enough. I wish I was as brave as this woman.

MzPetuniaPigg, I can first assure you that Shug is who she says she is, as am I. I find it totally repulsive that you would support a parent taking their children away from the other parent. I remember, through my sister in law and brother, when this terrible thing happened because it was heavy on their hearts.
It would seem that this mother would have sought to divorce this man and state her case in front of the justice system to make sure that her and her children were in fact, safe. If she really is on the up and up, why not face the charges knowing that she has nothing to hide?
You see no black eyes or broken bones? Do you know the injured hearts and minds that this mother has created by taking her children away from their father? Do you know the damage she has created will probably take more time to undo then it took to create?
Maybe people who don't know the whole story should just read an article and keep their distorted views to themselves. Oh, I forgot what a wonderful place we live and how we are afforded the luxury of voicing our thoughts no matter what little, inaccurate information we have.

After reading about this case, and what the sis in law had to say..i feel i need to comment. I understand that there are people that do have to escape a marriage that they find "scary" as she put it. If it was that bad, she should have just divorced him. Or gotten the authorities involved. Why just up and leave? I dont understand how people can sympathize with this. Its a crime people!! She didn't have to go all the way to the UK. She could have went to a shelter and gotten the police involved. The sis in law says she comes from a family of attornys. Why not ask one of them for some legal advice? I can understand her children sticking by her, but if she was any kind of mother, she would tell them what she did was a crime. You don't kidnap your children, take them to a different country, and hide behind the statute of limitations and act like its all a joke. If he was an abusive husband she should have had him arrested. I feel sorry for the kids. They have their mother to thank now for the mess that they are in.

Who is the current “husband” whom Eileen is now separated from? I wonder if anyone has considered who the unknown step father is. It would be interesting to hear his take on this; no doubt, the unfortunate chap will soon be in a fish bowl as a result of his association with Eileen Clark. Is the separation a result of Eileen’s arrest and possible extradition back to the US? Are there allegations of abuse against him (or her)? Is she protecting him from possible allegations of aiding and abiding a fugitive? Was he aware of Eileen being wanted by the FBI before he married her? How long have they married? Has he adopted the children, possibly illegally? In addition, I would imagine that the (now) grown children are somewhat traumatized by yet another “failed marriage”, especially one fresh in their minds. Since the children are “articulate” and educationally aspired, I would suppose they would apply prudence and, at the minimum, speak with the biological father, John Clark, and listen to his account of the story in a neutral and harmless environment in order to make a logical determination before “strongly resisting” a reunion with him; which would therefore confirm they are intelligent, balanced, and well turned-out human beings. If the tables were turned, wouldn’t she want the same chance? A parent whom removes a child from the other parent, (nondiscriminatory of gender), harms, hurts and damages the child emotionally and mentally; then continues to distress the child each time the parent shuns the child’s cries and beckoning for the parent they love and are separated from. Until one day, they surrender their emotions and thoughts of the vanished parent, and are left powerless in the control game the abductor has methodically executed. Is it possible that this could be deemed as abuse? Life for the abductor becomes a play in which the family is required participate and perform, all the while convincing the children that life as they knew it, along with the tragedy of being ripped from the other parent, never existed. It appears that Eileen has been carrying out this fraudulent guise for so long that she has no choice but to deliver an Academy Award performance at the extradition hearing in order to preserve the trust of her children. Let’s not forget, the alienated parent is also emotionally and mentally anguished and grief stricken; the wound remains open, oftentimes indefinitely. It is disingenuousness to point the finger at the victim, John Clark, whom you have not given a voice to in this report, and avoid the abuse of the accuser who has no conscience about exploiting her children to her benefit in the media, after she of course had the opportunity of manipulating and influencing their minds for 15 years. It seems a wee bit unfair. Nonetheless, a lapse in time doesn’t lessen the crime. Let’s face it, if you tell the truth, you never have to remember what you said, and she is unable to keep her accounts straight according to the varied reports. “Intricate is the web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”. Has Eileen invested so much effort into her careful plan to flee and shelter the children from the truth because they would be absolutely devastated to discover that she deceived them? Is the risk of losing the confidence and self-reliance of her children greater than the risk of being truthful and consequently reduce her sentence if found guilty? Nevertheless, “You reap what you sow” regardless of where you live. “What goes around comes around”, no matter whom you are. It is what it is folks, whatever your view.

Thank LABOUR for the anti-British UK/USA extradition treaty!