Note: This motion and the exhibits are as submitted to the court
except that all identifying information for my wife has been replaced with her
first name, Karyn, as the normal references on my web pages are to first name
only.
Page breaks have been moved slightly to avoid page splits in the middle of paragraphs.
In the Superior Court of
Clark County
State of Washington
|
| Number
|
Karyn | 04-2-08824-4
Petitioner |
| Motion to
versus |
| Revise
Brian Patrick Carr |
Respondent |
|
To: Karyn
PLEASE NOTE the
above captioned case is set forth to be heard:
Date: January
28, 2005
Time: 9:00AM
Department 6,
Judge Johnson, 4th Floor
Cause of Matter:
Motion to Revise
Dated this 28th
day of December, 2004
Submitted by:
Respondent
Brian P. Carr
Address: 11301 NE 7th St, Apt J5
Vancouver, WA 98684
Daytime Phone: 360-607-0556
| ________________________________
|
In the Superior Court of Clark County
State of Washington
|
| Number
|
Karyn | 04-2-08824-4
Petitioner |
| Motion to
versus |
| Revise
Brian Patrick Carr |
Respondent |
|
The Respondent, Brian P. Carr seeks
modifications by the Clark County Superior Court of the Order of
Protection entered on October 27, 2004.
1. Allowing the Respondent to attend
any hearing or session of any court in which he is scheduled to
appear and have such contact with the Petitioner as permitted by the
court.
2. Allowing the Respondent to contact
the Petitioner via mail as related to current or potential future
litigation between the parties.
3. Expanding the record as necessary
for compliance with the requirements of due process.
4. Allowing the Respondent to provide
service on Petitioner via mail.
5. Terminating the Order of
Protection altogether.
________________________
Signature of Respondent
Brian Carr
11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-607-0556
Petitioner:
Karyn
| ________________________________
|
In the Superior Court of
Clark County
State of Washington
|
| Number
|
Karyn | 04-2-08824-4
Petitioner |
| Memorandum In Support
versus |
| Motion to Revise
Brian Patrick Carr |
Respondent |
|
The wording of the current Order of Protection violates the right of
the Respondent to due process in that it does not permit him to
attend any court hearing or session at which the Petitioner is
present. While this court may feel inclined to grant exceptions,
other courts might not be so inclined due to jurisdictional
questions.
If, when this
matter is heard, the Petitioner is present, but the Respondent is
not present in the court room, the Court is asked to notify the
Respondent at the benches in front of the Chief Administration
Office of the Superior Court if permission is granted for the
Respondent to attend said hearing.
Oregon law provides that in order for a filing party to maintain
certain rights, they must first attempt
to resolve the matter without litigation at least ten days
prior to filing suit (see Oregon A102005,
BEER v. JESON ENTERPRISES). However, the current Order of
Protection makes no provision for such contact and, hence, makes an
unwarranted infringement on the rights of the Respondent.
The court is
asked to include for consideration the supporting documents for the
Motion for Revision which was denied on December 10, 2004. While
the motion was not submitted in
a timely fashion, the supporting papers do indicate that the grounds
for the current Order are weak and there is no need to repeat them
(making the record needlessly bulky).
| ________________________________
|
The
Sheriff's Office was unable to serve the papers submitted for
the hearing scheduled for December 10, 2004 after four attempts over
a ten day period and while
there was service
for the Notice of Appeal of December 10, 2004, it took over eight
days (while the alternate service by mail took less than three
days).
As the
Petitioner is not represented by an attorney, works in
Portland, and has an irregular schedule, service via the
Sheriff's Department is slow and unreliable. Other
jurisdictions (such as New York) have found that once initial
service has been made, service by mail is quite reliable and speeds
the overall process.
The court is
also asked to include under consideration the Petition in case
04-2-08908-9 as it
includes facts relevant to this case.
The statewide
judicial information system of RCW 2.68 raises questions of due
process for respondents in matters of domestic violence under RCW
26.50 as in chambers review of the Petitions does not document what,
if any, information was accessed or provide the parties with notice
and rights of appeal to this information. The Respondent requests
that the record be updated to include a listing of any documents
which were accessed in this fashion and, if it can not be
determined, expand the record to include the results from querying
all cases and reports referenced in the petitions. It is further
requested that the parties be granted access to the expanded record
for review.
Clark County
Superior Court rule number 79 states that the parties in a
particular matter should be given access to inspect sealed
materials.
The Order of
October 27, 2004 was based on certain allegations
of the Petitioner to include that: a) the papers for the
dissolution were resolved, b) the dissolution action would be
completed in a few weeks, c) the marital residence was not shared,
and d) there were not significant property disputes to be resolved.
| ________________________________
|
However, the
dissolution still has not been finalized (months later) and is not
likely to be finalized while the current order is in effect as it
has prevented the parties from resolving current disputes and has
fomented new disputes.
There is an
apparent contradiction between the Petition of October 15, 2004
where it it stated that the Respondent was removed from Brainstorms
for stalking while the Respondent's affidavit of December 9, 2004
states that he was removed because of lack of use, an exact opposite
of the Petitioner's claim. Respondent requests that additional
testimony be taken on this issue and that each party be given the
right to cross examine as necessary to resolve any differences.
I certify that all documents and pleadings were prepared personally
without the advice of any attorney and that I understand that the
court by entering a decree or other order does not relieve myself of
the responsibility for any omissions, defects, or inaccuracies in the
file or matters presented or any consequences resulting therefrom.
________________________
Signature of Respondent
Brian Carr
11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-607-0556
Petitioner:
Karyn
| ________________________________
|
In the Superior Court of
Clark County
State of Washington
|
| Number
|
Karyn | 04-2-08824-4
Petitioner |
| Affidavit In Support of
versus |
| Motion to Revise
Brian Patrick Carr |
Respondent |
|
I, Brian P Carr, am
the respondent/petitioner in these matters, have knowledge of the
facts of these matters and make the following statements under oath
and penalty of perjury.
At the
current time it appears likely that I will need to file suit in
Oregon against the City of Portland, Officer Lindsay, and Karyn for
false arrest on November 5, 2004 as related to an alleged violation
of this Order for Protection. It is possible that this could be
settled out of court as I am only seeking one day's pay (less than
$200) and having the record of the arrest expunged, but the current
Order of Protection prevents me from contacting Karyn for any out of
court settlement necessitating further litigation.
For over
thirteen months I paid half the mortgage on the marital residence
(eliminating the simple claim that it was separate property)
including nine months in 2004. However, other than litigation, I
have no way of reaching any agreement as to how the U.S. income tax
deductions for the property taxes paid should be divided. Exhibit A
is a copy of the loan agreement under which these mortgage payments
were made (actual amount was $559).
When I reviewed
the records of this case and that of 04-2-08908-9, there was a
manila envelope associated with the case which I was not
given to review. I would like the opportunity to inspect these
materials in accordance with Clark County Superior Court rule 79.
| ________________________________
|
There are
numerous outstanding property disputes between myself and Karyn.
These are documented in the exhibits of the Motion of December 10,
2004. In addition, Exhibit B is a copy of the letter I sent on
November 1, 2004 concerning these issues.
Exhibit C is a copy
of the e-mails I received from Karyn in response.
The series of
letters and e-mails after this (and before) are exhibits in the
Motion of December 10, 2004. However, Exhibit D is a
copy of Karyn's response on December 18,
2004 and Exhibit E is a copy of my response on December 19, 2004.
Of note in
these correspondences is that in all cases I have been polite and
informative. While Karyn sometimes includes invectives in her
correspondence, the key problem is that all of Karyn's proposals for
resolving the property disputes require violations of the current
Order for Protection. It is on this basis that I ask that the
current Order of Protection be terminated.
________________________
Signature of Respondent
Brian Carr
11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-607-0556
State of Oregon, County of Multnomah
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this
28th day of December, 2004.
James L Arena
Notary Public
My commission expires July 6, 2008
| ________________________________
|
This agreement is between Karyn xxxx of xxxxxx, Vancouver, WA
(hereafter referred to as Karyn) and Brian Carr of 11022 NE 18th St, Apt. F326,
Vancouver, WA (hereafter referred to Brian).
1) Brian agrees to lend Karyn money at various times
up to $10,000 maximum at any time.
2) Karyn will repay the loans by making payments of $250 each month
with the payment being made at any time during the month with the
first payment being made during the month of September 2003.
3) In the event that Karyn and Brian marry and Brian is living in
Karyn's home (xxxxx, Vancouver, WA) then no payment
need be made and the balance on the loan will be creditted with $550
as Brian's contribution to the mortgage on Karyn's home.
4) At any time Karyn can make any payment beyond the required
$250 without any penalty or fees until the balance due is reduced
to zero.
5) In the event that there is a month when the required payment of $250 is
not made or creditted in accordance with paragraph 3), Brian will have option
of giving
written notice to Karyn that the loan is in default and that entire
balance is due within thirty days. Once said written notice is
provided, the entire balance on the loan will be due within thirty
days. If Brian chooses not to provide such written notice while
the loan is in default, this will not restrict his ability to
provide such notice in the future. Further, if the entire
balance is due and Brian chooses to accept a partial payment
to take the loan out of default and reinstate the terms of this loan,
this will not require him to accept such partial payments in
the future.
6) Each month at the end of the month, the loan balance will
increase by 0.1% interest giving an annual interest rate of about 1.2%.
7) Money lent to Karyn can be paid by Brian directly to Karyn
or to a third party under the direction of Karyn. In the case
that the payment is made to a third party, Karyn will show her
approval of the payment by writing the loan amount and her initials
in the top left corner of the check or charge slip.
Karyn Brian Carr
5/25/03 May 26, 2003
| ________________________________
|
Brian Carr
11301 NE 7th St, Apt J5
Vancouver, WA 98684
brian@brian.carr.name
Karyn
xxxx
October 1 2001
Dear Karyn,
I regret that I must inform you that there are a series of issues that I have
concerning the dissolution of our marriage. As a result, unless all these
issues are resolved by November 9, 2004, then I will need to make a motion to
the Superior Court, County of Lincoln, concerning our Petition for Divorce
requesting that no action be taken before December 16, 2004 in order to provide
more time work out the remaining issues. I myself do not expect that these
issues can be resolved by November 9, 2004 due to the difficulties of working
out agreeable terms while there is an Order of Protection prohibiting me from
contacting you in any way other than via mail. If significant progress has not
been made by December 9, 2004 on resolving the disputes between us, then I
will make a motion to the Superior Court requesting that I be removed as
Joinder to the Petition due to differences which we were not able to resolve
and requesting that the Petition be denied.
I will list the differences which must be resolved before I will consent to the
dissolution of our marriage.
1. Outstanding Loan
First and most serious is the lack of payment during the month of October of
2004 toward the loan I made to you (current balance is $6,851.20). According
to the terms of the loan, you are now in default and payment of the entire
balance is due within 30 days (or by December 9, 2004, though in December
the balance could be 6,858.05 if no payment is made in November). However,
if payment of $500 (the payment for October and November) is received by
November 9, 2004, I am willing to reinstate the normal repayment terms of the
loan. A significantly larger payment will be required if the Facts of Law are
to be accurate and the balance is to be reduced to $5,600.
2. GE 25" Television
When we first discussed the terms of our divorce, you asked if you could keep
this television until you had time to arrange for a replacement. I agreed and
offered to assist you with transporting the replacement television to the
marital residence. However, after I left the residence and inquired into
the status of television you did not respond, instead seeking an Order of
Protection which makes my retrieval of the television impossible. Had you
originally asked if you could have the television, I probably would have agreed
(as I agreed to most other requests). However, I find it objectionable that
you are attempting to keep the television through deception, claiming to the
District Court that there are no remaining disputes concerning the dissolution
when you know very well that there are such disputes.
| ________________________________
|
At this time I am willing to offer that you can retain this television
indefinitely under the following conditions. I will retain the receipt for
this television to demonstrate that it belongs to me and you can retain this
letter to demonstrate your right to have and use it. I will provide you with
the manual and remote which you will retain them under the same restrictions
as the television.
You may not move or permit the movement of the television outside the family
room of the marital residence (or the previous marital residence if we are
divorced) without first providing me the opportunity to retrieve the television.
If there is an outstanding Order of Protection or other Order which would
prohibit my receiving the television, you must first get an exception to
said Order(s) as necessary so that I may receive the television.
In exchange for the use of my television, for each year or part thereof
which you use this television under the terms of this loan, I will be
provided with the pears which are grown in the yard of the marital residence
(or previous marital residence in the event that we are divorced). In the past
these pears were left to rot in the yard which attracted various vermin which
were not conducive to the health and well being of yourself, your son, or the
neighbors, so this is not viewed as a large concession on your part. However,
at this time I am prohibited from picking the pears, so it will be your
responsibility to arrange for picking of the fruit and deliver them to me
at any time when I am prohibited from picking them due to outstanding Order(s)
of Protection.
3 Pumpkins
As I raised the pumpkins from seeds which I kept back from pumpkins that I
purchased and I provided all the care necessary for the pumpkins growth, I
would like for the pumpkins to be provided to me. Again, I would be happy
to pick them except that I am prohibited from doing so by the current Order
of Protection, so some other arrangement needs to be made by you to provide
me access to these pumpkins.
I had intended to offer one of the smaller pumpkins (there is only one large
pumpkin) to Alex, so if Alex is interested in having any of the pumpkins, you
can retain one of the smaller pumpkins on his behalf.
4 Accounting for August and September House Expenses
On October 2, 2004 I sent you an e-mail with the latest accounting of the
house expenses from August 7, 2004. I asked that you provide an accounting
of all expenses since that time (and through the end of September), but have
received no response. I request that you update that spreadsheet and provide
me with an accounting of the expenses so that the appropriate payment or
adjustment can be made. If you would like, your loan amount can be debited
or credited for the appropriate amount. However, an accounting of the expenses
is necessary in any case.
5 Tire Chains/Cables and other Items.
As the marital residence is quite cluttered with your belongings and on numerous
occasions you moved my belongings to other locations in the residence without
informing me of the items or new locations, it is likely that I have left
numerous possessions in the residence. Those conditions made it almost
impossible for me to identify and retrieve all my possessions during the
extremely limited time I had to access them. The primary example of this
which I have remembered to date is the tire chains/cables which I purchased
for my car (and for which I have the receipts to demonstrate ownership if
required). It is unlikely that these chains/cables would fit your car and
you already have studded tires so that they are of no value to you. To leave
them in the marital residence garage, adding to the clutter, and requiring me
to purchase additional chains/cables is wasteful and inefficient.
| ________________________________
|
As such I would like for these chains/cables to be provided to me prior to the
dissolution of the marriage. Again, I would be happy to assist in the locating
of the items (they should be in the garage in an unopened plastic box with a
handle on the top), but am prohibited from doing so by the current Order of
Protection).
Also, it is likely that there are other of my possessions that would simply
contribute to the clutter of the current marital residence. While we were
settling our differences amiably, I was quite willing to sort out these
omissions on an informal basis, but recently you have taken a rather
adversarial stance on any issues that have been raised and so I must insist
that we have procedures specified in writing to handle these issues.
As an example of such procedures that would be acceptable to me,
a) If you discover an item belonging to me, you will within one week notify
me of the item (e-mail is preferred). Within one week I will notify you of
the desired disposition (with minor items such as a sock the requested
disposition would likely be for you to retain the item until such time as
there are other items to return to me or when it is convenient to return
the item). If I request that the item be returned to me, you will arrange
for the item to be returned within two weeks. Under no circumstances will
you dispose of any items belonging to me without first getting my approval.
b) If I remember an item of mine which was left in the marital residence, I
will notify you of my recollection of where the item was last located and
its appearance and within two weeks you will endeavor to locate the item.
Once you have located the item you will coordinate with me to return the
item within one week of locating the item.
Conclusion
These five items cover the outstanding issues which must be resolved before
I will consent to the dissolution of the marriage. I personally don't see
how they can be resolved by November 9, 2004 with the current Order of
Protection restricting our ability to communicate and exchange property.
However, I do think that it will be much easier for us to resolve these
issues by December 9, 2004 if you apply to the local District Court for
exceptions to the current Order of Protection to provide for whatever means
of communication and exchange of property you consider appropriate.
As an alternative, it should be possible for you to leave items for me with
the office of the apartments where I am currently residing. The items would
need to be properly packaged (which is inconvenient) and, sadly, the offices
are open only during normal business hours on Monday to Friday (which are not
convenient for you), but the offices are also open on Saturday and Sunday as
well so that some exchange of property would be possible. I only mention this
as a possibility.
I hope that we can work together as necessary to resolve these issues promptly
and can avoid the very lengthy and, potentially, costly alternative of a
contested divorce.
Sincerely,
Brian Carr
| ________________________________
|
Subject: URGENT: Fwd: Answer to your letter
From: "Karyn"
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:35:11 -0800
To: brian@brian.carr.name,briancarr@yahoo.com
BRIAN,
DID YOU NOT GET THIS??? (BELOW--FORWARDED)
DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE JUST MOVED THIS DIVORCE INTO 2005???
DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT IF THE DATE WERE NOV 22 THAT IT WOULD NOT BE SIGNED BY THE JUDGE FOR
F O U R T O S I X W E E K S
AFTER THAT DATE???
AND THAT YOU HAVE NOW MOVED IT INTO 2005???
DON'T BELIEVE ME??? CALL LINCOLN COUNTY AND CHECK!!! I TOLD YOU!!!
YOU JUST COST YOURSELF AND ME A FEW THOUSAND MORE DOLLARS!!!
YOU IDIOT!!!
DID YOU NOT READ THIS LETTER I SENT YOU???
YOU STATED IN THIS MOTION I JUST RECEIVED THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE IT...
HUH???
I HAVE PROOF THAT IT WAS SENT... AND IT WAS NOT RETURNED AS UNDELIVERABLE...
AND ALSO... YOU SAID NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE ON THE LOAN... THAT IS A LIE!!!
YOU HAVE RECEIVED TWO PAYMENTS, TOTALLING $500, AND BY THE NOV 9 DEADLINE YOU SET FORTH!!!
YOU HAVE JUST PURJURED YOURSELF CONCERNING THE LOAN, AS I HAVE PROOF OF BOTH PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY NOV 6...
HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY ON NOVEMBER 10 THAT THEY WERE NEVER RECEIVED???
YOU WANT TO GET NASTY ABOUT THIS? YOUR PREVIOUS LETTER WAS A VIOLATION OF THE
PROTECTION ORDER... HOW ABOUT THAT??? YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT??? OR DO YOU
WANT TO RECANT THOSE STATEMENTS???
YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY FUCKED UP THE NOV 22 DEADLINE... HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO DEAL
WITH THAT??? I PROPOSED REASONABLE SOLUTIONS IN MY LETTER BELOW... YOU HAVE
NOT ANSWERED THAT LETTER, WHICH YOU RECEIVED ON:
NOVEMBER 8, 2004
I REQUEST YOU RESPOND IMMEDIATELY AND VERIFY THAT YOU RECEIVED BOTH PAYMENTS OF
$250. AS I SEE IT, THERE IS NO WAY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED BOTH PAYMENTS
WELL IN ADVANCE OF NOV 9, UNLESS YOU CHOSE NOT TO ACCEPT THE SECOND PAYMENT
FROM YOUR APARTMENT/PROPERTY MANAGEMENT STAFF, WHO WERE TO ADVISE YOU IT WAS
WAITING FOR YOU. IT WAS DELIVERED ON NOV 6. IF YOU DID NOT PICK IT UP, IT IS
NOT MY FAULT, AS I DELIVERED IT; I OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT TRUST MAILING IT, AS I
WOULD NOT HAVE ANY GUARANTEE THAT IT WOULD BE THERE IN ADVANCE AFTER RECEIVING
YOUR "OMINOUS" LETTER.
| ________________________________
|
AS YOU CAN SEE, I HAVE RESPONDED TO EVERYTHING YOU HAVE REQUESTED A RESPONSE
TO, AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED BY FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH EVERYTHING YOU THREATENED
TO DO IF I HAD *NOT* MET YOUR "DEMANDS."
YOU HAVE 24 HOURS TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER. THIS TIME, I DEMAND A RESPONSE,
AS YOU DID NOT RESPOND LAST TIME AND NOW SEE FIT TO CLAIM THAT YOU DID NOT
RECEIVE IT. I WILL NOT STAND BY AND BE DECEIVED BY YOU IN THIS MANNER AGAIN.
THIS LAST DECEPTION WILL NOW COST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, AS I TOLD YOU IT WOULD.
IF YOU TRY THE SAME TRICK AGAIN, IT WILL NOT BE ME YOU WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH.
*******PLEASE LET ME GO********
KARYN
Envelope-to: karyn@xxxxx.com
X-Sender: xxxx@mail.xxxxx.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:27:48 -0800
To: "Karyn" ,brian@brian.carr.name
From: "Karyn"
Subject: Answer to your letter
Brian,
As I mentioned before, I am sending you additional information concerning the
items you inquired about in your letter.
1. Loan payment. See below. You received two $250 payments, totalling $500,
by November 6. As stated in court on 10/27/04, I will be making these payments
through an electronic bill payment system. As you probably already know from
the first payment you received, it is the same service I already use for
payment of my other bills, PayTrust. They will likely issue you a paper
check and send it to you as part of the service I purchase from them. I
will set it up to automatically issue the payment monthly, though was not
able to do so in November because of your threat to stop the divorce
proceedings if you did not receive the November payment by November 9. Due to
the wording of your letter, I hand-delivered the check to your building property
management facility to assure that you would not be able to claim that it had
not reached you in time. This, that you claim is the most "serious" of all
the matters, is taken care of just as I said it would be and using the service
I told you (before you moved out--and again in court) I would use.
2. Spreadsheet. Though I did not receive a spreadsheet from you as you claimed
to have sent, I created an updated accounting of expenses and forwarded it to
you on November 6, 2004. Thus, this matter has been resolved.
3. 25" Television. Your used television is not a 25" television; it is a 21"
television, measured diagonally. I wish to clarify this, as if I do not, you
may attempt to claim that you had a 25" television here and attempt to coerce
me into purchasing one for you, when in fact your used TV is a 21" television
(new models of which can be purchased for approximately $100-150). I do not
wish to keep your TV in my house, nor will I be coerced into removing or
modifying the Protection Order (and allowing you to enter my house) as you
demand if and when I am to move the TV out of the family room, which I
obviously will need to do when I move my new TV in. As you demand that I am
not to move it, and as you are not allowed entry into my home, and as I will
not be coerced or blackmailed into modifying or removing the Protection Order,
I ask that you send someone to retrieve your television at your earliest
convenience so that I may return it to you. I have no wish to keep it from
you, nor did I have any wish to "keep it by deception" at any time (I didn't
even think about it, nor did you remember to mention or remind me of it in
court--had you, I would have offered right then and there to let any courier
or other representative retrieve it at any agreed-upon time). I wish to return
it to you and have no desire to keep it. As I am, I repeat, not able to move
it due to your demands, please make arrangements to have someone pick it up
on your behalf.
| ________________________________
|
4. Pears. As I will not be keeping your television "for a year or any part
thereof," I have no cause to grant you right to any fruit grown in my yard
(either Bartlett or Bosch pears or apples) as a ransome or "blood money"
for the use of said used 21" television which you had previously said I
could use *without payment*, yet which I wish to return to you as soon as
possible so as to expedite the final settlement of all matters between us.
This, then, becomes a moot point.
5. Pumpkins. I have no objection to your taking the pumpkins you grew--against
my wishes--in my yard while you were a renter in my house. I do not wish to
give any to my son, Alex; however, I may ask him if he wishes to keep a small
one for some purpose if you have no objection. The plants were planted in my
yard and are on my property and you did not take them or the pumpkins with
you when you moved. Now you wish to be able to have the matured pumpkins,
now that they have grown in my yard (as you do not have the facilities to
grow pumpkins), and wish them to be packaged and delivered to you. As you
can see, you have your loan payments (1), your spreadsheet (2), and the
standing offer of your television (3)... and you have no rights to the
fruit from my fruit trees (4). I have no obligation whatsoever to pick
pumpkins in the cold and rain, package them, and deliver them to you on
your demand. However, if you agree to allow the divorce to proceed without
contesting it, and agree to be reasonable in resolving any remaining property
issues that may arise, I will allow you to send someone to pick and remove the
pumpkins at an agreed-upon time. You may need to hire a student or some
such--it is not my concern. I do know, however, that I am not obligated
to perform this work and expend this time and effort simply because you
wish to have these items.
6. Tire chains and other items. Your letter is disjointed and each page
contains sentences that are cut apart at the end of the page; the item
on the tire chains is missing what looks like critical information, perhaps
as to the whereabouts of the tire chains you speak of. All I know is that
you say they are in the garage and are in a box with a handle. If you provide
more specific information as to where you put them or stored them, I will be
willing to look for them. The same goes for other items. You must attempt to
provide the most detail you can on where the items in question are and the
most detail you can on their appearance, etc. so that I may endeavor to locate
them. Small items I am willing to deliver on weekends when I am not out of
town or otherwise engaged; however, a two-week delivery deadline in this case
may not be reasonable, given my schedule and the fact that I cannot make any
deliveries during the week. Keep in mind that I am offering to go out of my
way to deliver these items. The alternative, if you are not willing to wait
for my schedule to allow for such delivery on weekends when I am able to make
such delivery is for you to send a courier to retrieve the items. I can also
leave the items at an agreed-upon public place (store, restaurant, some other
place you have arranged) where you or a representative will them retrieve them
once I am gone. It is up to you. Again, I have no desire whatsoever to keep
anything belonging to you. My desire is to be completely finished with this
whole business as soon as possible.
You certainly may decide to stop the divorce proceedings or to contest the
divorce. However, as I mentioned before, it would be very expensive for you
in my estimation. I would recommend you consider the very reasonable proposals
above. Unlike you, I have made no demands. I only offer what I believe to be
a logical path to resolution. It would be wise of you to give it serious
consideration.
Karyn
At 11:32 PM 11/6/2005 -0800, Karyn wrote:
Brian,
I did not receive any spreadsheet from you in October, though you claim to have
sent one. I am sending you an updated spreadsheet, however, because you
threaten action against me if I do not.
| ________________________________
|
You failed to inform me that Waste Management refunded money to you which you
are claiming as a credit/payment. They advised me of the fact, as I ended up
paying for August and September when I changed the account to my name and
changed the service level.
You will note that I sent you a PayTrust payment in the amount of $250 on
October 28. I also delivered a payment by check of $250 today (Nov 6) to the
office of your apartment building. Please note that you gave me the incorrect
zip code when you gave me your address. This caused a delay in processing
payment to you. Also note that payments, according to the loan agreement,
are not due on the first day of the month. Again, note that your demands
have been met and your threatened action against me is therefore not justified
on the grounds that it has not been.
Note that I advised you in court of the method I planned to use to make these
payments. You feigned ignorance of this in your threatening letter. Your play
at ignorance was only an excuse to overstep the bounds set by the court. Do
not do this again.
You now have the two payments and the updated spreadsheet by the "deadline"
you set forth in what was your letter of coercion. I will deal with the
remaining issues by your DEADLINE. Do NOT attempt to further blackmail,
harrass, or coerce me. This is in clear violation of the court's orders.
And do NOT further threaten me. There is no reason for you to delay the
divorce proceedings. It will only cost you, not only in thousands more in
taxes, but in legal fees and other ways as well. You would be very foolish
to pursue this course.
I will send you, by email, a response to the other items by the end of the
day on November 9.
Karyn
| ________________________________
|
Subject: Please respond
From: "Karyn"
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:02:38 -0800
To: "Brian P. Carr"
Dear Brian,
Please let me know if you have gotten the emails I have sent you. You claim the
loan is in default, but I claim it is not. Payments are not "due" until the end
of the month, but the December payment was sent to you in advance of the
December 9th date you requested. You have not paid the amount owing on the
spreadsheet I last sent you an updated copy of on November 6th.
You claim that we have not made adequate progress on working out our
"differences," yet you don't answer my emails or respond to the various
offers I have made to you in the past more than month. I get no response
from you other than legal actions and motions. You don't even respond to
the proposals I make, and I think they have all been quite fair and equitable.
You seem to think that email is an acceptable form of communication, yet I
don't get a response back from you except through formal mail. It seems to
me we could have resolved all of this long ago and without all of this mess
had you responded to my offers and been willing to enter into some sort of
discussion.
Please remember that none of this present form of animosity was present
until you broke into my house while I was out of town. I told you on the
phone from Connecticut that I would be happy to get the items you wanted
to you upon my return to Vancouver in a few days, but that you could not
come over and get them--I would make arrangements to get them to you or
drop them off at your apartment office. I thought that was understood.
Yet I came home to find the house broken into. You said you needed your
cell phone, yet you stayed a while and went on to take other items while
you were there... why did you have to do that? Why did you have to start
this? I had just had all the locks changed before I left, after you moved
out... do you know how it feels to know that you are not secure in your
own home and someone can simply break in whenever they want? And that
they may well do so at any time and feel justified for doing so? Our sense
of security is gone, I am constantly checking for signs that you might have
been in my house again, I have no feeling of privacy in my own home, I have
trouble sleeping at night because I am awakened by any loud noise.
You said you needed your cell phone and I told you to simply call the cell
phone company and have them activate the phone a day or two later. You
could have done that. Why on earth, as I asked you, did you have them
deliver a new cell phone to my house a week after you moved out anyway?
You knew your new apartment address well before you ever moved in and could
have had it delivered to the office there for weeks before it was delivered
to my house. Or you could have had it delivered to you office. Why my house?
I even had to go to FedEx and pick it up, and rather than refuse delivery,
which would have really messed up your phone account activation, I accepted
delivery and kept the phone there (unopened, as you saw when you came into
my house and took it) and told you I would arrange for you to get it when I
got back home from Connecticut. Why did you have to break in and start all of this?
Please, Brian, I would like to get the property and other issues resolved.
Do you really want to continue on like this? I am having headaches frequently
now, am not feeling well, and this animosity is taking its toll on my health.
This is not good for me, nor is it good for Alex. In addition, the more it
ends up costing me, the more it takes away from Alex. As you know, I have more
expenses for him than I used to have, and have never received any child support.
This whole thing has been hard on him. He is also having trouble in school now
and I am looking for some professional help for him to help him with all of the
issues he is dealing with inside right now. He may also be exhibiting ADHD or
ADD as an extremely gifted child, and that's another thing he may need testing
for and help with as applicable. That stuff doesn't come cheap, and I don't want
to have to choose between "defending myself against a legal offensive" and
getting any help Alex might need or benefit from, i.e. taking care of my family.
| ________________________________
|
As for property items:
To start, if you are willing to work with me, I have found your toaster.
I have also found a box about 8" high and about 20" wide (looks squarish) in
the garage that does not look like mine (unless you put some of my stuff in a
different box) labeled "Sakura" with smaller letters "terrain" beneath. It is
well behind other larger, heavy boxes and bins and is up about 6' high in the
garage against the wall by the water heater, sandwiched back behind many things
and would take a lot of work to get to. If you think this is your tire chains
and are reasonably sure, tell me and I will try to find someone to help me get
to them, as I don't know that I can lift and move all the items needed to get
to them by myself. But you must respond and let me know. It is too much heavy
work for me to do just to get to the box to find out that it is not your chains.
You must at least let me know.
As for the TV, which I have made various offers about before, you say you won't
send someone to get it without my removing or modifying the Order of Protection.
Well, as it now appears that you are appealing to have your denied request for
"one of your own" reviewed by the Supreme Court, it would be foolish of me to
request modification or removal of the Order where you are responded, wouldn't
it? Perhaps you were trying to trick me all along... maybe this was your intent?
Regardless, as it stands now, I will not now consider your request--not with you
doing what you're doing. You have nothing to fear from me and you know it--you
are only trying to get back at me, while I have reason to wonder why you have
been doing all the things you have been doing... and yes, it is very scary that,
as soon as I filed for divorce, there you are not working in Vancouver but
working a few short blocks from me in downtown Portland, and there you are
after being away since your few visits in the fall until October 2002 back
at Mensa TGIFs (where I have been a member and going more often than not
since 1981... that's almost 24 years, that you break into my house God knows
how many times and linger around and take your time and leave us feeling
violated and unsafe and afraid, that you follow us and show up where we go...
Anyway, as for the TV, I would have arranged for someone to deliver it to your
apartment if you would have agreed to pay for the delivery...
Brian, would you please respond, if to nothing else than simply to the property
items and to let me know if your intention and desire is to continue on in a
worsening vein of animosity or whether you are willing to work to get this all
resolved. I just want this over with. You know that, if you insist on a
contested divorce, then so be it. We're going to get divorced. We're not
going to stay married. I'm sorry it worked out this way.
Please respond this time.
Sincerely,
Karyn
| ________________________________
|
Dear Karyn, December 19, 2004
I received an e-mail from you on the 18th of December, but had not received
any others after my letter of response of November 24, 2004. I am not responding
to you via e-mail as you requested because I am not permitted to contact you in
any way other than mail and can only send you court papers and mail related to
our divorce. As such, this letter will not address any matters you raised
which are not related to the divorce.
You are still in default on the loan as you did not make any payment in
October of 2004 and I gave you written notice of that fact. According to
the terms of the loan, the only way you can get out of default is by paying
the entire balance. I understand that that is not readily possible for you
and so have set other conditions which might allow you to get out of default,
but there was no requirement that I set any such alternatives. You have not
fulfilled these requirements to date, but if you continue to make early payments
(on or before the 9th of the month) for three more months, you will no longer be
in default and can make payments at any time during the month. Of course if any
payment is even one day late (after the month when the payment was required),
you should expect to be in default again. It is my hope that you will be able
to make the next three payments early so that you will no longer be in default
and this will no longer be an outstanding issue preventing the divorce from
going forward.
As to the payment for September house expenses, I would prefer to have them
offset the loan balance as we have sometimes done in the past. Also, the
spread sheet you provided seems to have errors as the total I get that I would
owe you is $161.45. One charge of contention is the 2003 cell phone usage.
Could you please mail me the relevant bills to demonstrate those minutes of
usage as they do not appear to include the payment from December of 2003 of $40?
There are other minor corrections, but as I can not send back the corrected
spread sheet and we can not discuess the individual items, perhaps this should
wait until we can discuss these matters directly.
All of your suggestions on how to resolve the remaining property disputes require
that I violate the current restraining order and, as such, are unacceptable at
this time. As you also previously found all of my suggestions on how to resolve
the property disputes unacceptable, I can only conclude that there is no solution
to these disputes until the current restraining order is no longer in effect.
Unless you have other alternatives which do not entail violations of the current
restraining order, I would suggest that we wait until the order is no longer in
effect and can then directly resolve these disputes.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Carr
| ________________________________
|
This page was last updated on May 2, 2007.