A: I know it was more than five months because in an affidavit submitted by Hepburn in the family law matter dated August 19, 1988, she continued to deny having any knowledge of my forwarding address information! Hepburn’s August 19, 1988 affidavit advises the FLC that my Auburn residence address “was the last known address that Donald or she had then or has now on me.” Reference: Cause Nos. 82-3-05162-8 and 88-2-06110-6.
These series of on-going, conflicting, and self-serving affidavits by a lawyer and officer of the court represent nothing less than consummate lying to the court by Hepburn.
It was shocking when, years later, during the appellate process, I discovered case law that allows judges, prosecutors, attorneys, and other court related personnel to lie under oath, without fear of punishment. The only requirement is that their lies must be stated in good faith and without malice. The Supreme Court decisions states, in part: “On certain occasions one is qualifiedly or conditionally privileged to publish false and defamatory matter of another and is not liable therefore, provided such privilege is not abused. Facts contained in such communication need not be true, if published without malice, in good faith, and in an honest belief of their truth arrived at after a fair and impartial investigation or upon reasonable grounds for such belief.” This quotation of the Supreme Court’s ruling is taken from pg. 5 of the unpublished opinion of Kauzlarich v. Yarbrough, Court of Appeals, Div. II, Cause No. 23815-2-II, consolidated with No. 24133-1-II. See, also, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, (1997), a published opinion.
Who is the individual responsible for determining that a “fair and impartial investigation” was conducted by the liar, or that the liar had reasonable grounds to lie? A judge, the same judge who is shielded with immunity from prosecution and not responsible to anyone for his decisions.
This explains why all levels of the judiciary ignored the lies and conflicting affidavits submitted by Hepburn.
A: Det. Chapin advised my attorney that a federal charge of “Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution” and a No Bail arrest warrant had been filed against me by the FBI.
According to my attorney, Det. Chapin had to do some “FBI agent shopping” to secure the filing of this charge as the first several agents he approached refused to assist him.
The federal charge was sought by Det. Chapin solely to place a federal hold on me so that Don could gain physical possession of Doni after my arrest. The FBI never had any intention of prosecuting me.
The “Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution” charge represents an abuse of federal judicial, prosecutorial, and police powers. I was NEVER arraigned on this charge and NO bail hearing was ever conducted. When Don gained physical possession of Doni after my arrest, this federal charge was dropped—quietly and without notice to my attorney or me. When I contacted the U.S. District Court in Seattle for a copy of the warrant and pleadings relative this federal charge the court denied the existence of any warrant and pleadings.
I then ordered a copy of my FBI file from the Department of Justice, which took almost five years to receive! My FBI file contained copies of the Seattle U.S. District Court warrant and pleadings which the U.S. District Court in Seattle said did not exist. The “No Bail” warrant on the “Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution” charge was issued by U.S. Magistrate John L. Weinberg on May 26, 1988. My FBI file also contained sixteen pages of additional documents relative to this federal charge.
