Q: How many orders were entered by FLC Velatequi on February 17, 1988?
A: Two. The first was a temporary order awarding Don custody of Doni until February 29, 1988. The second order was a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to Doni. The purpose of this writ was to assist Don in gaining physical possession of Doni. To retain this award of temporary custody that had just been entered, another hearing was required on February 29. If Don failed to obtain another order for temporary custody on February 29th, under the law, custody of Doni would automatically be restored to me on February 29th.
A: Two. The first was a temporary order awarding Don custody of Doni until February 29, 1988. The second order was a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to Doni. The purpose of this writ was to assist Don in gaining physical possession of Doni. To retain this award of temporary custody that had just been entered, another hearing was required on February 29. If Don failed to obtain another order for temporary custody on February 29th, under the law, custody of Doni would automatically be restored to me on February 29th.
Q: What happened after the February 17, 1988 FLC orders were entered?
A: Immediately after the hearing, and because Don had been awarded temporary custody, Don and Hepburn approached KCDPS Det. Chapin for the filing of a criminal charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree against me. On February 18, 1988 Don, Hepburn, and Det. Chapin obtained my forwarding address information. Don’s handwritten notes establish the trail of communication relative to him obtaining my forwarding address information. The trail evidences that Hepburn issued a subpoena to AT&T after the address information had already been released to Don—without benefit of a subpoena—by Allen Nicholson, an employee at AT&T. Don and Allen Nicholson knew each other because they had both been volunteer reserve police officers with KCDPS at the same time.
A: Immediately after the hearing, and because Don had been awarded temporary custody, Don and Hepburn approached KCDPS Det. Chapin for the filing of a criminal charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree against me. On February 18, 1988 Don, Hepburn, and Det. Chapin obtained my forwarding address information. Don’s handwritten notes establish the trail of communication relative to him obtaining my forwarding address information. The trail evidences that Hepburn issued a subpoena to AT&T after the address information had already been released to Don—without benefit of a subpoena—by Allen Nicholson, an employee at AT&T. Don and Allen Nicholson knew each other because they had both been volunteer reserve police officers with KCDPS at the same time.
Q: Did Det. Chapin pursue a charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree against me?
A: Yes. On February 23, 1988, in response to the request by Don and Hepburn, and in reliance of FLC Velatequi’s February 17, 1988 temporary order, a charge sheet for Custodial Interference in the First Degree was filed by Det. Chapin with the King County Prosecutor’s Office.
A: Yes. On February 23, 1988, in response to the request by Don and Hepburn, and in reliance of FLC Velatequi’s February 17, 1988 temporary order, a charge sheet for Custodial Interference in the First Degree was filed by Det. Chapin with the King County Prosecutor’s Office.
Q: Did Hepburn mail notice of the February 29, 1988 hearing to my forwarding address?
A: No. Despite gaining knowledge of my forwarding address on February 18th Hepburn served my vacant house with notice of the hearing. Hepburn would intentionally withhold my forwarding address information from the court until it was to her advantage to release it. However, Det. Chapin contacted the friend to whom my mail was being forwarded and he advised her of the February 29, 1988 hearing date. Det. Chapin also advised my friend that he was planning on attending the hearing and said that if I wished to make a telephonic statement he would record my statement and submit it for the court’s consideration on February 29th.
A: No. Despite gaining knowledge of my forwarding address on February 18th Hepburn served my vacant house with notice of the hearing. Hepburn would intentionally withhold my forwarding address information from the court until it was to her advantage to release it. However, Det. Chapin contacted the friend to whom my mail was being forwarded and he advised her of the February 29, 1988 hearing date. Det. Chapin also advised my friend that he was planning on attending the hearing and said that if I wished to make a telephonic statement he would record my statement and submit it for the court’s consideration on February 29th.
Q: What happened on February 29, 1988?
A: On the morning of the court hearing I contacted Det. Chapin by phone to give my recorded statement. In my statement I included Don’s abusive behavior during the marriage and post-dissolution, details of the November 18, 1987 assault, the decision by the King County Prosecutor’s Office to prosecute Don, his increasing anger and rage, and my fear of future assaults, as reasons for fleeing Washington State. Upon learning that I had provided a recorded statement to Det. Chapin, however, Hepburn struck the hearing in order to prevent my recorded statement from being presented to the court.
A: On the morning of the court hearing I contacted Det. Chapin by phone to give my recorded statement. In my statement I included Don’s abusive behavior during the marriage and post-dissolution, details of the November 18, 1987 assault, the decision by the King County Prosecutor’s Office to prosecute Don, his increasing anger and rage, and my fear of future assaults, as reasons for fleeing Washington State. Upon learning that I had provided a recorded statement to Det. Chapin, however, Hepburn struck the hearing in order to prevent my recorded statement from being presented to the court.
