Q: What happened next?
A: One week after entry of FLC DuBuque’s order dated March 11, 1988, and only four weeks after fleeing Washington State, on March 18, 1988, King County Prosecutor Michael T. DiJulio prepared and filed the requisite pleadings with the court to formally charge me with Custodial Interference in the First Degree. His filing requested the issuance of a $20,000 bench warrant.
A: One week after entry of FLC DuBuque’s order dated March 11, 1988, and only four weeks after fleeing Washington State, on March 18, 1988, King County Prosecutor Michael T. DiJulio prepared and filed the requisite pleadings with the court to formally charge me with Custodial Interference in the First Degree. His filing requested the issuance of a $20,000 bench warrant.
Q: What was the reason given by DiJulio for requesting the Custodial Interference charge and warrant?
A: Prosecutors are required to set forth all known information for initiating a criminal charge in a document titled “Certification for Determination of Probable Cause.” This document is relied on by the judiciary in the granting or denial of the prosecutor’s request. DiJulio’s Certification states that I had kidnapped my daughter because Don and I were embroiled in “frequent and continued disputes” regarding visitation. Note that DiJulio claimed that Don and I were embroiled in disputes involving “visitation” and not “custody,” as “custody” would have alerted the court to Don’s harassment since I was the parent with custody. This claim of DiJulio’s is contained in his Certification, KCSC Cause No. 88-1-01332-9.
A: Prosecutors are required to set forth all known information for initiating a criminal charge in a document titled “Certification for Determination of Probable Cause.” This document is relied on by the judiciary in the granting or denial of the prosecutor’s request. DiJulio’s Certification states that I had kidnapped my daughter because Don and I were embroiled in “frequent and continued disputes” regarding visitation. Note that DiJulio claimed that Don and I were embroiled in disputes involving “visitation” and not “custody,” as “custody” would have alerted the court to Don’s harassment since I was the parent with custody. This claim of DiJulio’s is contained in his Certification, KCSC Cause No. 88-1-01332-9.
Q: Did Don ever make a claim that we were embroiled in “frequent and continued” disputes involving visitation?
A: No such evidence of Don making any such claim exists.
A: No such evidence of Don making any such claim exists.
Q: What evidence did DiJulio rely on to make the claim that he did in his Certification?
A: I don’t know. There exists no evidence in any of the court files (family law, criminal, or civil) to support his claim that Don and I were embroiled in “frequent and continued disputes” regarding visitation.
A: I don’t know. There exists no evidence in any of the court files (family law, criminal, or civil) to support his claim that Don and I were embroiled in “frequent and continued disputes” regarding visitation.
Q: Despite the fact that there was no evidence to support the claims made by DiJulio in his Certification, and in spite of the plethora of evidence of Don’s abusive behavior, did the court grant DiJulio’s and the King County Prosecutor’s Office request for a criminal charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree against me?
A: Yes. DiJulio’s Certification did not disclose to the court all information known by the King County Prosecutor’s Office it was lawfully required to disclose. DiJulio’s Certification contained NO information regarding Don’s November 18, 1987 assault upon me; NO information regarding Don’s harassment, abuse, and threats during the marriage and post-dissolution; NO information concerning the recorded statement I’d given to Det. Chapin on February 29, 1988; NO information of Det. Chapin’s February 29, 1988 handwritten note to “Maureen” with the King County Prosecutor’s Office regarding Don’s two (2) use of force complaints and written reprimand for insubordination while he was a volunteer reserve officer with KCDPS; NO information that the two February 17, 1988 FLC Velatequi orders had expired under their own terms and were therefore void; NO information that the March 11, 1988 temporary order that DiJulio was relying on to pursue the Custodial Interference charge against me was issued by a family law commissioner and that FLC’s possess no Art. 4, Sec. 6 constitutional authority to decide any contested matters modifying custody in Decrees of Dissolution.
A: Yes. DiJulio’s Certification did not disclose to the court all information known by the King County Prosecutor’s Office it was lawfully required to disclose. DiJulio’s Certification contained NO information regarding Don’s November 18, 1987 assault upon me; NO information regarding Don’s harassment, abuse, and threats during the marriage and post-dissolution; NO information concerning the recorded statement I’d given to Det. Chapin on February 29, 1988; NO information of Det. Chapin’s February 29, 1988 handwritten note to “Maureen” with the King County Prosecutor’s Office regarding Don’s two (2) use of force complaints and written reprimand for insubordination while he was a volunteer reserve officer with KCDPS; NO information that the two February 17, 1988 FLC Velatequi orders had expired under their own terms and were therefore void; NO information that the March 11, 1988 temporary order that DiJulio was relying on to pursue the Custodial Interference charge against me was issued by a family law commissioner and that FLC’s possess no Art. 4, Sec. 6 constitutional authority to decide any contested matters modifying custody in Decrees of Dissolution.
