Q: How can I prove that this January 12, 1988 Memorandum established my complete, statutory defense to the crime of Custodial Interference and, therefore, the charge of Custodial Interference should never even have been filed by the King County Prosecutor’s Office?
A: In addition to the existing evidence as to Don’s abusive behavior, and in addition to RCW 9A.40.080(2), on May 3, 1989, King County Superior Court Judge Robert Dixon also ruled that the evidence of Don’s abuse (which DiJulio omitted from his Certification), along with the January 12, 1988 Memorandum established the requisite criteria under Washington State law and specifically the Custodial Interference statute, RCW 9A.40.080(2), to afford me a complete statutory defense to the charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree.
A: In addition to the existing evidence as to Don’s abusive behavior, and in addition to RCW 9A.40.080(2), on May 3, 1989, King County Superior Court Judge Robert Dixon also ruled that the evidence of Don’s abuse (which DiJulio omitted from his Certification), along with the January 12, 1988 Memorandum established the requisite criteria under Washington State law and specifically the Custodial Interference statute, RCW 9A.40.080(2), to afford me a complete statutory defense to the charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree.
Q: What did DiJulio and the King County Prosecutor’s Office have to gain by burying this January 12, 1988 Memorandum and withholding evidence of Don’s abusive behavior?
A: Withholding evidence of Don’s abusive behavior and the burying of the January 12, 1988 Memorandum enabled DiJulio and the King County Prosecutor’s Office to obtain the Custodial Interference charge against me and secure my arrest, which, in turn, aided Don in gaining physical possession and custody of Doni.
A: Withholding evidence of Don’s abusive behavior and the burying of the January 12, 1988 Memorandum enabled DiJulio and the King County Prosecutor’s Office to obtain the Custodial Interference charge against me and secure my arrest, which, in turn, aided Don in gaining physical possession and custody of Doni.
Q: When did I first learn about the existence of this January 12, 1988 Memorandum?
A: It was included in the King County Prosecutor’s discovery packet released to my attorney after my arrest on the Custodial Interference charge. I learned about this Memorandum during a phone call with my attorney in February 1989, while I was in jail in Arizona, having been arrested on the Custodial Interference charge one year after fleeing Washington State.
A: It was included in the King County Prosecutor’s discovery packet released to my attorney after my arrest on the Custodial Interference charge. I learned about this Memorandum during a phone call with my attorney in February 1989, while I was in jail in Arizona, having been arrested on the Custodial Interference charge one year after fleeing Washington State.
Q: Was Don ever prosecuted for his November 18, 1987 assault?
A: No.
A: No.
Q: When was the Custodial Interference warrant issued?
A: On March 21, 1988, in reliance of DiJulio’s Certification, the court issued a $20,000 bench warrant for my arrest on the charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree. An arraignment hearing was scheduled.
A: On March 21, 1988, in reliance of DiJulio’s Certification, the court issued a $20,000 bench warrant for my arrest on the charge of Custodial Interference in the First Degree. An arraignment hearing was scheduled.
Q: Did you appear for arraignment on the Custodial Interference charge?
A: The King County Prosecutor’s Office did not intend for me receive notice of the Custodial Interference charge or arraignment hearing. At p. 3, lines 1-4 of DiJulio’s Certification, he advised the court that I had left forwarding address information, yet the arraignment notice was mailed to my vacant house, not my forwarding address. As a result, any possible appearance at the arraignment was denied me. I did not have an attorney at this time. By not receiving notice of the arraignment hearing, the King County Prosecutor’s Office obtained an additional arrest warrant for my Failure to Appear for Arraignment.
A: The King County Prosecutor’s Office did not intend for me receive notice of the Custodial Interference charge or arraignment hearing. At p. 3, lines 1-4 of DiJulio’s Certification, he advised the court that I had left forwarding address information, yet the arraignment notice was mailed to my vacant house, not my forwarding address. As a result, any possible appearance at the arraignment was denied me. I did not have an attorney at this time. By not receiving notice of the arraignment hearing, the King County Prosecutor’s Office obtained an additional arrest warrant for my Failure to Appear for Arraignment.
Q: What did I do next?
A: Not knowing what was occurring in Seattle, as copies of orders and notices of hearings were intentionally being withheld from me, and unable to make any legal sense of what little I could glean of the situation, I decided to remain in Arizona, more determined than ever to protect myself and my daughter. I did, however, hire a Seattle attorney to look into the family law and criminal matters. Before my attorney completed his investigation into these two matters, however, Don would be filing a civil action seeking $200,000 in emotional damages stemming from my act of Custodial Interference.
A: Not knowing what was occurring in Seattle, as copies of orders and notices of hearings were intentionally being withheld from me, and unable to make any legal sense of what little I could glean of the situation, I decided to remain in Arizona, more determined than ever to protect myself and my daughter. I did, however, hire a Seattle attorney to look into the family law and criminal matters. Before my attorney completed his investigation into these two matters, however, Don would be filing a civil action seeking $200,000 in emotional damages stemming from my act of Custodial Interference.
My attorney wrote a letter to DiJulio reminding him that FLC’s have no constitutional or judicial authority to modify provisions of an existing decree in contested family law matters. Believing that DiJulio was not fully informed of family law procedures or the facts regarding the family law matter, my attorney pointed out the numerous Due Process violations and requested a dismissal of the Custodial Interference charge and withdrawal of the warrants.
