Q: What happened after I fled?
A: Because it was a holiday weekend, DJ did not receive my letter until Tuesday, February 16th. He shared the contents of the letter with Don who shared it with Hepburn. Don’s third petition for custody of Doni was immediately filed. The show cause hearing was set for the next morning, Wednesday, February 17, 1988.
A: Because it was a holiday weekend, DJ did not receive my letter until Tuesday, February 16th. He shared the contents of the letter with Don who shared it with Hepburn. Don’s third petition for custody of Doni was immediately filed. The show cause hearing was set for the next morning, Wednesday, February 17, 1988.
Shortly after I fled, and because he’d been absolved of his child support arrearages and no longer had to pay any child support at all, Don purchased a house.
Q: What happened at the February 17, 1988 show cause hearing?
A: Solely because I had fled in fear for my life, FLC Velatequi awarded temporary custody of Doni to Don. As required in show-cause matters, this temporary order was in effect until February 29, 1988.
A: Solely because I had fled in fear for my life, FLC Velatequi awarded temporary custody of Doni to Don. As required in show-cause matters, this temporary order was in effect until February 29, 1988.
Q: Was FLC Velatequi’s modification of the existing Decree of Dissolution lawful?
A: Absolutely not and for the following reasons: Reason #1: My fleeing Washington State with my daughter was lawful under RCW 9A.40.080(2) given Don’s history of abusive behavior, therefore, FLC Velatequi had no lawful basis to award Don temporary custody. Reason #2: A FLC cannot modify—temporarily or permanently—any contested provision in existing Decrees. Further, a FLC cannot render final decisions in contested matters relative to family related rights because a FLC does not possess the requisite constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Requisite Art. 4, Sec, 6, constitutional jurisdiction is not conferred on FLCs just because they are called family law commissioners and are assigned a courtroom in the superior courthouse building. Reason #3: FLC Velatequi violated court rules, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, and state and federal Due Process guarantees by hearing the show cause motion on February 17th. Show cause motions require ten day’s notification to the opposing party unless approval for shortening the time is reflected in a court order titled “Order Shortening Time.” No such order was sought by Hepburn. No judicial officer is empowered to disregard and disobey the law or deny Due Process. FLC Velatequi would later state that he found the law to be “merely interesting”—his words—but nothing needing to be complied with. (VRP April 24, 1992.) Reason #4: The requisite constitutional jurisdiction to modify existing Decrees in contested custody matters and/or render final decisions in contested matters relative to family related rights is set forth in Art. 4, Sec. 6, of the Washington State Constitution. This provision states that only duly elected judges of the superior court have this power. Further, this constitutional provision does not allow a superior court judge to abrogate this jurisdiction to a judicial officer that is not a duly elected officer of the Art. 4, Sec. 6, superior court. Reason #5: Hepburn’s noting of the show cause motion to be heard upon less than twenty-four hours notice without an Order Shortening Time violated every state and federal Due Process guarantee afforded to citizens. Court rules require ten day’s notice be given to the opposing party when any show cause motion is noted. Due Process requires that any party who notes a show cause motion upon less than the required ten day’s notice to the opposing party must first obtain court permission to shorten this ten-day time period. The granting of permission is then reflected in an order titled “Order Shortening Time.” A copy of this Order Shortening Time must accompany the paperwork served on the opposing party. Hepburn failed to obtain an Order Shortening Time and failed to give me notice.
A: Absolutely not and for the following reasons: Reason #1: My fleeing Washington State with my daughter was lawful under RCW 9A.40.080(2) given Don’s history of abusive behavior, therefore, FLC Velatequi had no lawful basis to award Don temporary custody. Reason #2: A FLC cannot modify—temporarily or permanently—any contested provision in existing Decrees. Further, a FLC cannot render final decisions in contested matters relative to family related rights because a FLC does not possess the requisite constitutional jurisdiction to do so. Requisite Art. 4, Sec, 6, constitutional jurisdiction is not conferred on FLCs just because they are called family law commissioners and are assigned a courtroom in the superior courthouse building. Reason #3: FLC Velatequi violated court rules, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, and state and federal Due Process guarantees by hearing the show cause motion on February 17th. Show cause motions require ten day’s notification to the opposing party unless approval for shortening the time is reflected in a court order titled “Order Shortening Time.” No such order was sought by Hepburn. No judicial officer is empowered to disregard and disobey the law or deny Due Process. FLC Velatequi would later state that he found the law to be “merely interesting”—his words—but nothing needing to be complied with. (VRP April 24, 1992.) Reason #4: The requisite constitutional jurisdiction to modify existing Decrees in contested custody matters and/or render final decisions in contested matters relative to family related rights is set forth in Art. 4, Sec. 6, of the Washington State Constitution. This provision states that only duly elected judges of the superior court have this power. Further, this constitutional provision does not allow a superior court judge to abrogate this jurisdiction to a judicial officer that is not a duly elected officer of the Art. 4, Sec. 6, superior court. Reason #5: Hepburn’s noting of the show cause motion to be heard upon less than twenty-four hours notice without an Order Shortening Time violated every state and federal Due Process guarantee afforded to citizens. Court rules require ten day’s notice be given to the opposing party when any show cause motion is noted. Due Process requires that any party who notes a show cause motion upon less than the required ten day’s notice to the opposing party must first obtain court permission to shorten this ten-day time period. The granting of permission is then reflected in an order titled “Order Shortening Time.” A copy of this Order Shortening Time must accompany the paperwork served on the opposing party. Hepburn failed to obtain an Order Shortening Time and failed to give me notice.
