Q: The intentional withholding of information by an attorney—an officer of the court—so as to deny notice in violation of Due Process guarantees is a serious allegation. Do I have any evidence that Hepburn withheld notice of this March 7, 1988 hearing from me?
A: Yes. As already established, Hepburn had full knowledge of my forwarding address as of February 18, 1988, yet she did not mail any notice of the March 7th hearing to that address. Hepburn also made no attempt to give notice to my friend of the March 7th hearing during her March 4, 1988 deposition.

On March 4, 1988, Hepburn conducted the deposition of the friend to whom my mail was being forwarded. During the deposition, Hepburn asked my friend: “I understand that she (Janelle) has had her mail transferred to your house, is that correct?”

In her affidavit dated December 29, 1988, Hepburn admitted that she made no attempt to mail me notice of the March 7th hearing. In defending her refusal to give me any notice of the March 7th hearing, Hepburn asserted that she did not feel it was necessary to give notice “through the grapevine” declaring that she was aware of no case, court file, or statute to even suggest that she was required to give me notice of any family law motions via a forwarding address or through friends.

Though Det. Chapin had advised my friend of the February 29, 1988 hearing date and was fully aware of the March 7, 1988 hearing date, he also did not inform my friend of the March 7, 1988 hearing date.

Q: What happened on March 7, 1988?
A: Det. Chapin withheld my recorded telephonic statement from the purview of the court. FLC DuBuque granted Don’s fourth custody petition and awarded him temporary custody of Doni.

Det. Chapin’s frustration over his lack of success in learning of my whereabouts resulted in his threatening to file a charge of “Rendering Criminal Assistance” against my friend, even though she had no idea of my whereabouts.

Q: Given that this was a show-cause motion, was there a return date for another hearing as was required for the February 17, 1988 hearing?
A: No. By this time there was no compliance with court rules or the law by Hepburn, the judiciary, Det. Chapin, or the King County Prosecutor’s Office.

Q: Why doesn’t the court file reflect any order dated March 7, 1988?
A: Recognizing that the hearing was noted by Hepburn with less than the ten-day notice requirement, FLC DuBuque post-dated the order to March 11, 1988, so that, on its face, the order would appear to have complied with state and federal Due Process guarantees.

Q: Isn’t it illegal and unconstitutional to post-date an order, and doesn’t it represent the fact that a judicial officer was fully aware of Due Process violations yet ignored them?
A: On appeal Division I, Washington State Court of Appeals ruled that the intentional violations of state and federal Due Process guarantees by Hepburn, as well as FLC DuBuque’s post-dating of the March 11, 1988 order, were deemed inconsequential to the overall outcome of the proceedings and, therefore, the Due Process violations were left to stand.