Q: What was DiJulio’s response to my attorney’s letter?
A: In a short, curt response, DiJulio informed my attorney that he refused to discuss any issue involving the Custodial Interference matter with him, stating that he considered me to be a fugitive from justice. DiJulio further advised my attorney that if I wanted to clear my name I should subject myself to arrest and turn my daughter over to Don. DiJulio also advised my attorney that it was his belief that he (my attorney) was assisting me in my criminal behavior.
Q: What happened on April 1, 1988?
A: In reliance of the newly filed Custodial Interference charge Don filed his civil action against me seeking $200,000 in emotional damages.

In support of Don’s newly filed civil action, in her affidavit dated April 1, 1988, Hepburn finally confesses to the judiciary in the civil matter her knowledge of my forwarding address information. This “confession” is self-serving as Hepburn does not reveal that she has known said information since February 18, 1988.

Hepburn continued to withhold her knowledge of my forwarding address information from the judiciary involved in the family law matter.

Q: What emotional trauma did Don claim to support his civil action against me?
A: Don utilized the services of Dr. David Smith (Smith), a mental health professional under contract with the Port of Seattle Police Department (where Don was employed), to help establish his $200,000 claim of “emotional trauma.” For purposes of Don’s civil action, Smith diagnosed Don as having “dysthymia.” Dysthymia is medically defined as a depression-like illness, with the patient exhibiting symptoms of low energy, low self-esteem and feelings of helplessness.

Don remained employed at POS for several more years after this diagnosis.

Q: Why did Hepburn reveal my forwarding address information only to the judiciary in the civil matter?
A: Because it was of benefit to Don to continue to withhold this information in the family law matter. Hepburn’s acknowledgment of my forwarding address information in the civil matter was necessary to perfect service by mail of the summons and complaint upon me in the newly filed civil action. Otherwise, Don would have been required to perfect service by publication, and that involved a delay in pursuing their agenda, which was to secure my arrest and gain physical possession of Doni.

In her affidavit titled “Declaration of Counsel in Support of Motion for Alternative Service” filed in King County Superior Court under Cause No. 88-2-0611-6, Hepburn states that mailing the summons and complaint to my forwarding address was just as likely to give actual notice to me of the civil action as would service by publication or any other means.

page
- 17 -

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Purchase Book Online Contact Me