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 Revisit and
	versus			|
				|        Consolidation with
Brian Patrick Carr		|
	     Respondent		|         04-2-08908-9
				|					

The Respondent/Petitioner, Brian P. Carr seeks review by the Clark County Superior Court of the decisions rendered in District Court under Case Number 04-2-08824-4 entered on October 15, 2004 and October 27, 2004 and Case Number 04-2-08908-9 on November 12, 2004 in the above named court. The parties in the two cases are the same and there is no reason to treat them as separate matters.


Temporary Order of Protection Issued October 15, 2004



The Temporary Order of Protection issued on October 15, 2004 was improper because the supporting Petition does not contain any allegations of domestic violence in accordance with RCW 26.50.10.

The petition for relief must allege "the existence of domestic violence" and must be accompanied by an affidavit under oath that states specific facts and circumstances supporting relief. 103 Wn. App. 325, SPENCE v. KAMINSKI

RCW 26.50.10 Definitions ...

(1) "Domestic violence" means: (a) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury or assault, between family or household members; (b) sexual assault of one family or household member by another; or (c) stalking as defined in RCW 9A.46.110 of one family or household member by another family or household member.

The allegations of residential burglary are not relevant as they do not apply to RCW 26.50.10. Neglecting the fact that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the alleged 'breaking into' was committed by Mr. Carr, these allegations suggest that the underlying issues are really property disputes and, as such, should be dealt with in the appropriate civil actions not under the auspices of domestic violence.


Mtn to Revisit

1

________________________________

The allegations of stalking/harassment are conclusory and without foundation. RCW 9A.46.110 places a high standard on stalking as:

(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:

(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and

(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and

(c) The stalker either:

(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or

(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person
.

As the parties are still married and were living together in the marital residence for most of the period of alleged stalking (through September 30, 2004 according to the Petition) it is expected that there would be a great deal of 'unwanted contact' (as Karyn wanted a divorce). However, this does not automatically induce a 'fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person'. The allegations as presented do not, on face, support any conclusions that the behavior of Mr. Carr was one to induce fear of injury of person or property as stated in the statute.

Karyn's allegation that Mr. Carr 'stated intent to harass and upset' is not plausible as no one (violent or otherwise) makes such convoluted statements in conversation. As to the content of the actual conversation, it can not be determined from such a gross summation. Further, even were such a convoluted statement a fact, it would not be one to induce fear of injury of person or property as the stated intent was, apparently, only to upset within careful limits of avoiding actual injury.

The allegations that Mr. Carr 'threatened not to leave', 'refused to leave' and did not, in fact, leave the marital residence until September 30, 2004 are not allegations of domestic violence as defined above but are further indications that these are actually property disputes which should be dealt with in the appropriate civil actions.

The alleged 'forced entry' does not, on face, imply domestic violence as the issue of physical or bodily harm is not addressed in the allegations and, as such, are insufficient to justify the requested order.

Expressing an interest in taking Karyn's son, Alexander, to 'family potlucks' does not imply any threat or inclination to domestic violence and should be ignored by the court as irrelevant.


Mtn to Revisit

2

________________________________

The medical treatment described suggests an endemic problem rather than an immediate threat of physical harm. It is well understood that divorce is a significant source of stress. However, 'To receive a temporary order, the petitioner must allege that irreparable injury could result if an order is not issued immediately. RCW 26.50.70(1).' and this course of treatment hardly rises to the level of irreparable injury.

No Irreparable Injury



The Temporary Order for Protection should not have been issued because there were no indications of 'irreparable injury'.

103 Wn. App. 325, SPENCE v. KAMINSKI

in the temporary protection order statute, RCW 26.50.70, the application must allege that an immediate order is necessary to protect against "irreparable injury[.]" RCW 26.50.070(1). Irreparable injury includes situations in which the respondent "has recently threatened petitioner with bodily injury[.]" RCW 26.50.070(2). The temporary protection order is issued ex parte, without the notice and hearing found in the permanent or fixed-time protection order processes that protect the respondent's due process rights. The immediacy of the threat to the victim justifies a temporary infringement on the constitutional rights of the alleged abuser. RCW 26.50.070(4) (the temporary order shall be effective for a fixed period of not longer than 14 days, or 24 days if notice was served by publication or mail, and a full hearing is required at the end of that period).

RCW 26.50.070
Ex parte temporary order for protection.

(1) Where an application under this section alleges that irreparable injury could result from domestic violence if an order is not issued immediately without prior notice to the respondent, the court may grant an ex parte temporary order for protection, pending a full hearing, and grant relief as the court deems proper, including an order:

(2) Irreparable injury under this section includes but is not limited to situations in which the respondent has recently threatened petitioner with bodily injury or has engaged in acts of domestic violence against the petitioner.


Migraines and stress do not meet the requirement of irreparable injury and there are no other indication of any imminent harm to Karyn. As such the Order should have been denied for that reason alone.

Mtn to Revisit

3

________________________________

Order is Still Relevant



The court might be inclined to find that the issuance of this order is moot as the order expired on October 27, 2004. However, such orders are widely disseminated in accordance with RCW 26.50.070 (5) 'Any order issued under this section ... shall be entered into a statewide judicial information system by the clerk of the court within one judicial day after issuance.' Domestic Violence is taken very seriously by the legislature and law enforcement bodies. However, incorrect findings can have a deleterious effect for the individual falsely accused and Mr. Carr is asking that the issuance of this order against Mr. Carr be expunged from all such databases.


Order of Protection Issued October 27, 2004



The hearing of October 27, 2004 provided no more justification for an Order for Protection and, as such, the Order should have been denied. As the record is complete with audio and visual this court has full ability to evaluate the same evidence as the trial court and does not need to rely on the evaluations of the trial court. For the sake of discussion, the allegations are summarized below along with the time that they occur on the CD. The hearing starts at 3:22:42PM according to the time stamps on the CD.

3:23:30PM Karyn claims that the duration of the marriage was less than a year and that Mr. Carr opposed the divorce, as he needed time to move out (45 days) versus her desire that Mr. Carr move out immediately.

3:23:55PM Karyn claims that Mr. Carr attends Mensa functions which upsets her and limits her support network. Karyn had asked Mr. Carr not to attend these events.

3:24:45PM Karyn alleges that Mr. Carr changed jobs with the intention of stalking her, but this is conclusory without any supporting evidence as to how she determined the intentions of Mr. Carr. Further there are no indications how this change of jobs had the effect of stalking her (or causing fear of injury to person or property as that is the definition of stalking applicable to this matter). The new work location is in proximity (four blocks) of Karyn's work location, but there are no allegations that Mr. Carr has ever approached Karyn's work location uninvited. There were no questions to Mr. Carr to determine the purpose of his changing jobs, but clearly there are many lawful purposes of changing jobs (e.g. higher salary, better benefits, more stable work, better work conditions, and better career potential).

3:25:15PM Karyn alleges that Mr. Carr had promised to leave the leave the marital residence by September 30th but this was later than Karyn would like (Karyn wanted Mr. Carr to leave immediately). Karyn alleges that Mr. Carr had an apartment available as of September 23, but returned on September 29 in the evening as the apartment was not ready to be occupied (no cable modem access). Karyn alleges that Mr. Carr 'forced entry' to the marital residence but only notes that the door was locked and that Mr. Carr used a key which he had not returned as yet. There are no allegations Mr. Carr used any physical force (other than turning the key in the lock). However, Karyn did admit that she had threatened Mr. Carr that he would be 'forced' out of the marital residence by Karyn's father on September 30 which does amount to a threat of physical violence against Mr. Carr rather than Karyn.

Mtn to Revisit

4

________________________________

3:27:13PM As to the burglary, Karyn alleges that she left town October 7th, but had signed for the property of Mr. Carr (a cell phone) before leaving and had not made any effort to contact Mr. Carr or return the property. Karyn alleges that, in response, Mr. Carr had left five voice messages inquiring into the status of the phone and, apparently, other items of property. Karyn alleges that she called Mr. Carr on October 9th and informed him that the property was in the marital residence and she would not be back until October 13th. Karyn then alleges that the property was gone when she returned and that there were no signs of forced entry.

3:29PM The judge inquired into the status of dissolution and Karyn said that the matter was filed in Lincoln County where hearings are not required, all is done by mail, and that the dissolution would be completed in a few weeks (90 day waiting period).

3:30PM Mr. Carr explained that the parties are still married and that there was no court ordered legal separation to date. The frictions to date were simply the result of the parties sorting through the process of separating. Mr. Carr noted that there were still outstanding property issues and that the Temporary Order of Protection had prevented them from resolving the remaining property disputes.

3:31PM Mr. Carr explained that Mensa functions were social functions which both parties had attended for many years. The parties had met at a Mensa function and had gone to Mensa both before and during the marriage.

3:32PM Karyn admitted that the parties met at a Mensa function and had attended functions during their courtship. Karyn made spurious accusations that Mr. Carr had been a vagabond prior to settling in Portland.

3:32:50 Order granted

3:34 The judge explains that he finds Mr. Carr guilty of the crimes of stalking and trespass. Mr. Carr notes his objections to the conclusions of the court. The judge explains that the bearing of Karyn clearly demonstrated that she was terrified of Mr. Carr and that finding was indicative of Domestic Violence.

3:37 The judge reads through the terms of the Order of Protection.

3:40 Paperwork signed and next parties called.

Even a cursory review of the hearing demonstrates that the Order of Protection should not have been granted.


Mtn to Revisit

5

________________________________

Finding of Trespass Not Supported or Relevant


The claim that the marital residence was 'her house' is not an issue to be resolved in this proceeding. Washington is a community property state and the determination whether or not the marital residence is separate property depends on many factors which are beyond the scope of this matter. However, as long as the parties are still married and there was no court ordered separation agreement or order, it was beyond the scope of the court to determine whether or not access to the marital residence was trespass.

Further, while criminal trespass may be defined as a form of domestic violence in some sections of the Revised Code of Washington, the section providing for Orders of Protection (RCW 26.50) has its own very narrow definition listed above (RCW 26.50.010) and criminal trespass is of no relevance in this proceeding.

Finding of Stalking Not Supported


As to the finding of criminal stalking, this was not supported by the evidence before the court. The RCW definition of stalking which applies to this matter is:

RCW 9A.46.110

(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:

(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and

(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and

However, the only allegations before the court to support this finding were that:

a) Mr. Carr had attended the same public Mensa functions which he had attended before the marriage and during the marriage. Both parties had been members of Mensa for many years and had attended Mensa function for many years.

b) Mr. Carr sent e-mails and left voice messages concerning such matters as the division of property in support of the dissolution and potentially taking the minor child, Alexander, to 'family potlucks' as he had done in the past (with no disagreement when Karyn did not approve of this proposal).

c) Mr. Carr had threatened to not sign certain papers related to the dissolution.

d) Mr. Carr refused to move out of the marital residence immediately but instead waited to find another place to stay and get all utilities functioning before he moved out.

While the court may have found that Karyn was terrified of Mr. Carr, that is not sufficient to justify the curtailment of Mr. Carr's First Amendment right to freedom of travel. In 110 Wn. App. 865, HECKER v. CORTINAS:


Mtn to Revisit

6

________________________________

III. First Amendment. The freedom to travel is a First Amendment protected liberty interest. State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n v. 119 Vote No! Comm., 135 Wn.2d 618, 647, 957 P.2d 691 (1998) (Talmadge, J., concurring). But that freedom of movement cannot be used to impair the individual rights of others. Lee, 135 Wn.2d at 390. As with the stalking statute, RCW 9A.46.110, the protection order of chapter 26.50 RCW curtails an abuser's right to move about when such movement is harmful or illegal and interferes with the victim's right to be free of invasive, oppressive and harmful behavior. Lee, 135 Wn.2d at 391-92. The protection order does not interfere with Mr. Kaminski's legitimate freedom of movement or right to travel. It, like the stalking statute, is a reasonable exercise of police power requiring one person's freedom of movement to give way to another person's freedom not to be disturbed. Id. at 392.

Of relevance is that before Mr. Carr's rights can be abridged Mr. Carr must have first have abused the rights of another person. It is not sufficient for Karyn to simply fear domestic violence as the fear could well be irrational and unjustified (as in this case). Fortunately the Revised Code of Washington sets a clear standard for just what abusive behavior is required before an Order of Protection can be granted under RCW 26.50.

The relevant section of RCW 9A.46.110 requires that:
The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances

While Karyn may have been terrified by the actions of Mr. Carr it is hard to imagine that a reasonable person would fear injury of person or property as a result of the actions of Mr. Carr which are, in fact, a very reasonable response to a requested divorce.

The court should have denied the Petition for an Order of Protection because the allegations before it were insufficient to justify the Order.

Findings Premature

The court also ended the proceedings of October 27. 2004 prematurely denying Mr. Carr due process. While Karyn was permitted to ramble on about numerous issues of no apparent relevance (for over ten minutes), Mr. Carr was permitted less than two minutes to respond before the court announced its decision even though there were outstanding issues of fact and Mr. Carr had not been permitted to fully address all the issues raised by Karyn. A few of these contested facts are:

a) Karyn claimed to have been a member of Mensa for 24 years but in fact had allowed her membership to lapse well before the parties met in 2002 and did not renew her membership until just a few months before this action.

b) Karyn claimed that the parties never attended Mensa functions together after they were married, but Mr. Carr has receipts which demonstrate that they did in fact attend these events after the marriage.

Mtn to Revisit

7

________________________________

c) The duration of the marriage was at the time of the hearing well in excess of a year. Karyn mailed the divorce papers to Lincoln County on August 16, 2004, the first anniversary of the marriage and they were not filed until August 18. Mr. Carr took no actions until the filed papers were received by him on August 26th. He gave notice at work on the 27th and commenced planning to pack up his belongings with the intent to return to NY at the end of September.

d) That Mr. Carr was never a vagabond as, while his choice of lifestyle was for a brief period quite unorthodox, it was in no way illegal, immoral, or even irrational.

e) The medical treatment referred to in the Petition was commenced well before the parties met in 2002 and includes several serious psychotropic drugs. Further, Karyn often does not take her medications as prescribed, sometimes reducing the dosage against the advice of her neurologist and then exceeding the dosage in a hazardous way. These variations in the dosages often cause serious emotional outbreaks and irrational behavior. While these drugs may be substantially responsible for Karyn's irrational fears, they are in no way the responsibility of Mr. Carr.

f) The change of jobs of Mr. Carr was, in fact, a reasonable response to the improving job market in the Portland area. Mr. Carr had first interviewed for the position in July of 2004 and was not originally aware of the precise location of the work (only that it was in downtown Portland). Mr. Carr was turned down for the position on August 16, 2004, and so was planning to return to NY as there were no good prospects in the Portland area. He was offered a position on September 3, 2004 (another position came available unexpectedly) and accepted. To imply that these machinations were done with the intent to harass Karyn is not credible (no one can foresee that much).

g) Mr. Carr never stated an intent to harass and upset anyone. At one point Karyn asked Mr. Carr if he intended to resume attending Mensa functions, harassing, and upsetting her once the parties were divorced. Mr. Carr replied that he expected that he would resume attending Mensa functions as the parties each developed their separate lives and that if he saw her he would greet her with a polite but brief greeting and then not speak to her in particular at all. Mr. Carr continued that he didn't know if Karyn would be upset by that. On further consideration he concluded that she would probably be upset by that, but that was really her problem rather than his.

h) Mr. Carr did not stalk Karyn on Brainstorms from February 2004 to June of 2004. In the first quarter of 2004, Mr. Carr read various topics on Brainstorms including the topics which he had started, but did not post to the service and he never accessed or read the topic maintained by Karyn (as requested by Karyn). For the remainder of 2004, at the request of Karyn, Mr. Carr never accessed Brainstorms at all.

i) Mr. Carr only sent three emails to Karyn since he assumed his separate residence and the emails were polite and informative, addressing topics related to the parties separating. Copies of these emails are available for the review of the court.


Mtn to Revisit

8

________________________________

If the allegations of Karyn were found by the court to have provided sufficient justification for the Order of Protection, Mr. Carr should have been provided with the opportunity to affirm a positive defense including the above easily demonstrable facts. This was not done and so the action should be reversed.

District Court Jurisdiction, Shared Residence

There is also a jurisdictional question as to whether a District Court can grant an Order of Protection beyond the Temporary Order of Protection in this case as RCW 26.50.020 states:

The jurisdiction of district and municipal courts under this chapter shall be limited to enforcement of RCW 26.50.110(1), or the equivalent municipal ordinance, and the issuance and enforcement of temporary orders for protection provided for in RCW 26.50.070 if: (a) A superior court has exercised or is exercising jurisdiction over a proceeding under this title or chapter 13.34 RCW involving the parties; (b) the petition for relief under this chapter presents issues of residential schedule of and contact with children of the parties; or (c) the petition for relief under this chapter requests the court to exclude a party from the dwelling which the parties share.

As the parties are married, Washington is a community property state, and there was no court ordered separation, then the status of the marital residence was undecided, it could be community or separate property. Further as the property of both parties is at the marital residence it is not proper for the District Court to exclude Mr. Carr from the marital residence (dwelling) which the parties share.


Petition for Order of Protection dated November 12, 2004

It was an administrative error to assign a new case number to the Petition of November 12, 2004 as RCW 26.50.060(4) authorizes 'the realignment the designation of the parties' and the parties and court are otherwise the same.


The two matters of case number 04-2-08824-4 and 04-2-08908-9 should be consolidated into a single matter. It only increases the costs and administrative overhead to process them separately as the relevant facts to be determined are virtually the same in both cases.

Recent Domestic Violence Not Required

I regret that in my motion papers I claimed that the Petition of November 12, 2004 was declined without the particular reasons being written on the order. My copy of the Order is not very legible, but after several minutes of studying I was able to determine that the judge seems to have written 'Declined action stale'. While this does, in fact, minimally meet the requirements of RCW 26.50.070 (6) it is in error. The justification seems to imply that there is a requirement for recent acts of domestic violence which is contrary to the statutes and associated case law.

110 Wn. App. 865, HECKER v. CORTINAS

Mtn to Revisit

9

________________________________

An unambiguous statute is not subject to judicial interpretation, and the statute's meaning is derived solely from its language. Id. The court may not add language to a clearly worded statute, even if it believes the Legislature intended more. Id. Statutes are construed as a whole, giving effect to each provision. State v. Merritt, 91 Wn. App. 969, 973, 961 P.2d 958 (1998).

In light of the Legislature's intent to intervene before injury occurs, and in recognition that RCW 26.50.20 and RCW 26.50.60 do not require an allegation of recent domestic violence, we decline to read into these statutes a requirement of a recent violent act.

The petition describes three incidents of assault of Mr. Carr by Karyn. While the assaults described are comparatively minor, it is apparently the intent of the legislature that no person should be forced to submit to any form of assault (even if serious injury is not immediately present) as that is all that is required in RCW 26.50.10 (1).

While RCW 26.50.70 (1) requires 'irreparable injury could result from domestic violence if an order is not issued immediately', this requirement is met as there were recent acts by Karyn indicating that there was an increasing adversarial relationship between the parties and that Mrs. Hunting was not emotionally stable in that:

a) In the hearing on October 27, 2004, Karyn admitted that on September 29, 2004 she threatened that she would have Mr. Carr physically removed from the marital residence by her father.

b) On November 5, 2005, Karyn intentionally went to a public restaurant where she knew Mr. Carr was present and had Mr. Carr arrested for violating the Order of Protection of October 27, 2004 though he was not aware that she was present at the time.

c) Since 2002 Karyn has been taking serious psychotropic medications and does not take them as prescribed and has serious emotional outbreaks as a result.

d) Karyn has a semi-automatic hand gun in the marital residence.

While these elements do not indicate that 'irreparable injury' is likely, there is no requirement in the statute that such injury be likely, only that it is a reasonable possibility ('could result'). The elements above meet that requirement.

Mtn to Revisit

10

________________________________

Required Hearing Not Held

There was a further error in that RCW 26.50.70 (3) requires 'The court shall hold an ex parte hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the following judicial day.' and no such hearing was held though Mr. Carr was available for such a hearing. Without holding such a hearing to determine if there were indications that 'irreparable injury' was imminent, it was not proper for the court to deny the Temporary Order for Protection.

Full Hearing Not Scheduled

In accordance with 103 Wn. App. 325, SPENCE v. KAMINSKI that 'the application must allege that an immediate order is necessary to protect against "irreparable injury[.]" RCW 26.50.70(1).' is only applicable to Temporary Orders of Protection. There is no such requirement for an Order of Protection or the hearing for such an order. The court should have scheduled a hearing to determine whether a full Order of Protection was warranted if, in fact, the 'action (was) stale'.

Equal Protection Not Provided

While the statute of RCW 26.50 makes no discrimination based on the sex of either of the parties, it is unclear whether the implementation of these statutes by the District Court in Clark County is similarly just. Given the disregard to the actual statutes by the District Court in this matter, it suggests that court is biased by sexual stereotyping, with men presumed to be brutish louts and women as helpless victims. This form of stereotyping is a hindrance to the elimination of domestic violence as, with all forms of prejudice, it is often not correct. This leads to abuse of the statute by wasting resources on needless arrests and litigation and has a withering effect on support for the legislation even though the legislation itself is sound. A review of the historical rulings of the District Court of Clark County with respect to Domestic Violence (RCW 26.50) is requested to determine whether they meet the requirements of equal protection under the law in the implementation of these statutes.






				________________________
				Signature of Respondent/Petitioner
				Brian Carr
				11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5
				Vancouver, WA 98684
				360-607-0556


Petitioner/Respondent:

Karyn



Mtn to Revisit

11

________________________________

In the Superior Court of Clark County
State of Washington

				|
				|              Number
				|
Karyn				|           04-2-08824-4
	     Petitioner		|
				|       Affidavit in Support of
	versus			|
				|        Motion to Revisit and
Brian Patrick Carr		|
	     Respondent		|             Consolidate
				|					

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.

1) When I first met Karyn she did not have the monthly publications of the local or national Mensa organizations as, she explained, she had previously let her membership expire. After we were married, I was the only recipient of these publications until just a few months ago when Karyn also started receiving these publications. These publications are sent to all members of Mensa in the U.S..

2) Karyn and I met at a Mensa TGIF function at the Mandarin House restaurant on a Friday evening. I had been to two previous functions, but this was the first that she had attended, she explained, in a long while. As we dated we often went to Mensa functions, in particular the Friday evening TGIF. After the marriage in August of 2003, Karyn showed less interest in attending Mensa functions and our attendance dropped off and finally stopped by late 2003 and early 2004.

3) Karyn and I were married on August 16, 2003 and the Petition for Dissolution of the marriage was filed on August 18, 2004 in Lincoln County, Washington.

4) When I first met Karyn, she was taking medications prescribed for her by a neurologist to treat migraines. Shortly after I met her she reduced her dosage as she was running out of her prescription and did not refill it promptly. This led to severe migraines and unstable emotional outbursts. Throughout our courtship and marriage Karyn seemed unable to refill her prescriptions regularly and would not accept my assistance even though her neurologist emphasized the importance of maintaining a regular dosage of these powerful psychotropic medications.

5) My change of jobs was a reasonable response to the improving job market in the Portland area. I first interviewed for the position in July of 2004 and was not originally aware of the precise location of the work (only that it was in downtown Portland). I was turned down for the position on August 16, 2004, and so was planning to return to NY as there were no good prospects in the Portland area. I was offered a position on September 3, 2004 (another position came available unexpectedly) and accepted. At no time in 2004 have I come within a block of Karyn's work. My decision to change jobs was based on the better pay, benefits, hours, and experience provided by the new job.


Mtn to Revisit

12

________________________________

6) I never stated an intent to harass and upset anyone. At one point Karyn asked me if I intended, once we were divorced, to resume attending Mensa functions, thereby harassing, and upsetting her. I replied that I expected that I would resume attending Mensa functions as we each developed our separate lives and that if I saw her I would greet her with a polite but brief greeting and then not speak to her in particular at all. I also said that I didn't know if she would be upset by that. On further consideration I offered that she would probably be upset by that, but that was really her problem rather than mine.

7) I did not stalk Karyn on Brainstorms from February 2004 to June of 2004. In the first quarter of 2004, I read various topics on Brainstorms including the topics which I had started, but I did not post to the service and I never accessed or read the topic maintained by Karyn (as she had requested). For the remainder of 2004, at Karyn's request, I never accessed Brainstorms at all. Recently I contacted Brainstorms and learned that my account was terminated due to inactivity (not stalking). A copy of this email is Exhibit B.


8) I only sent three emails to Karyn since I moved to my own apartment and the emails were polite and informative, addressing topics related to our divorce. Copies of these emails are Exhibit C.


				________________________

				Signature of Respondent/Petitioner

				Brian Carr
				11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5
				Vancouver, WA 98684
				360-607-0556


Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 9th day of December, 2004.

James L. Arena

Mtn to Revisit

13

________________________________

      Superior Court of Washington, County of Lincoln

In re the Marriage of:		|      Number
				|
Karyn				|     04-3-02728-9
	     	Petitioner	|
				|   Motion for Delay
	and			|
				|      in Decree 
Brian Patrick Carr		|
	     Respondent		|    or Other Relief
				|
				|
				|					

Respondent requests that the final Decree of Dissolution be delayed until December 16, 2004 at the earliest as the parties have not, as yet, resolved their disputes over property and finances.

In the event that the court can not delay the Decree of Dissolution, the Respondent requests that the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage be denied as there are outstanding disputes over property and finances.

				________________________

				Signature of Respondent

				Brian Carr
				11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5
				Vancouver, WA 98684
				360-607-0556

Exhibit A

14

________________________________

In re the Marriage of:		|         Number
				|
Karyn				|       04-3-02728-9
	     Petitioner		|
				|       Affidavit in
	and			|
				|     Support of Motion
Brian Patrick Carr		|
	     Respondent		|    and Proof of Service
				|
				|					

I, Brian P. Carr, am the respondent in this matter, have knowledge of the facts of this matter and make the following statements under oath and penalty of perjury.

1. On September 12, 2004, I signed my concurrence to a Findings of Facts describing the proposed separation between the parties (attached as Exhibit A). However, at that time plaintiff and I were still both residing in the marital residence. While we did agree in principal to the terms of the planned separation, we have not, as of this date, been able to implement the agreed upon separation.

2. The plaintiff has not made the required payments on the loan to myself described in the Findings of Facts (Exhibit A, paragraph 2.11) and, as such, the loan is in default with the entire balance due on December 9, 2004 in accordance to the terms of the loan. A copy of the loan agreement is attached as Exhibit B.

3 There are several items of my property to which the plaintiff has denied me access. On October 15, 2004 plaintiff received a Temporary Restraining Order, and, on October 27, 2004, contrary to my desires, she received an Order for Protection (Exhibit C). These orders have prevented me access to my property and have not been incorporated into the proposed Decree of Dissolution which I signed on September 12, 2004 (Exhibit D).

4. The outstanding Order for Protection makes the Decree of Dissolution flawed in that it does not take into consideration the order (Exhibit D, paragraph 1.1). Either the Order for Protection needs to be overturned (I expect to appeal the Order, but that will take significant time and is hardly guaranteed) or a revised Decree of Dissolution is necessary before the dissolution of marriage can be finalized.

5. On Novemeber 1, 2004 I notified the plaintiff of the outstanding issues concerning the divorce (Exhibit E) and have not received any response. As such I do not see any action possible other than delaying the final dissolution of the marriage. If we are not able to resolve our differences in a timely fashion, it would seem most appropriate to deny the Petition for Divorce so a new action can be commenced in Clark County where evidentiary hearings can be held to resolve the disputes.


Exhibit A

15

________________________________

Notice of Service:

On November 10, 2004 a copy of these papers together with all attachments were served on plaintiff by mailing in an envelope addressed to Karyn at xxxxx with first class postage attached. Papers were mailed in a U.S.P.S. mail box located at 304 SE Hearthwood Blvd, Vancouver, WA.

				________________________

				Signature of Respondent

				Brian Carr
				11301 NE 7th St., Apt J5
				Vancouver, WA 98684
				360-607-0556


Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 10th day of November, 2004.


				James L. Arena
			_________________________________

			Notary Public for the State of Washington
			County of Multnomah


		

			My Appointment expires:July 6, 2008

Exhibit A

16

________________________________

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.

Exhibit A

17

________________________________

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@thecoolsurf.com
X-Sender: coolsurf@mail.thecoolsurf.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.

Exhibit A

18

________________________________

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.

Exhibit A

19

________________________________

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

Exhibit A

20

________________________________

Dear Karyn,

As to the loan, I did not recieve the first check until November 3, 2004. That check was
cut on November 1, 2004 (which definitely put you in default). As to the wrong zip code,
the e-mail I sent you on Sep 29, 2004 listed a zip code of 98684. What zip code did you
use? As to the next payment which you may have left with the office here on November
6, there was no way that I could have picked it up before 5PM on November 9, 2004. In
fact I was not aware they had it until 5:15PM on November 10 when I went to pick it up
(they left a note on my door, there had not been one there on the 9th). As such you are
still in default.

However, if you make a payment of $250 before the ninth of each month for the next four
months I will not file suit for the balance and, if all four payments are made as
required, after the fourth payment you will no longer be in default. I would request that you
schedule the payment well before the ninth as, if any payment is received late, I will
almost certainly file suit and we certainly don't need any more litigation between us.

As to the T.V., the manual does not state the dimensions, but I am sure that won't be a
problem. Sadly I can not arrange for anyone to pick up the T.V. as long as the Order for
Protection is in effect (that would be a violation as it would amount to third party
contact). As there does not seem to be any way to resolve our disputes in the immediate
future, perhaps you would like to join me a request that the Petition for Dissolution in
Lincoln County be denied so that you can start an action in Clark County where the
appropriate hearings can be held to resolve our disputes. You might even be able to join
the divorce on to the current actions pending in Clark County Superior Court.

I have been unable to locate my electric hand mixer which my mom gave to me many
years ago. It is in a small greenish box and was in the kitchen last I saw of it.
Like the tire chains/cables, I don't remember its precise location (and it wouldn't matter as it may
well have been moved). I would like to get it back as soon as possible.

Also, as you chose to ignore my query about the TV in the Sep 29, 2004 e-mail until you
had a restraining order (which prevents me from ever getting it while the order is in
force), I would like to raise a new issue. Your list of debts does not include the loan on
the residence at 14417 SE 7th St, Vancouver, WA. Could you please provide a statement
of the principal on Aug 16, 2003 and Sep 30, 2004 and the disposition of all mortgage payments
during that time? Thanks.

As to my previous letter being a violation of the Order of Protection, I am not sure I see
that. It specifically states that I may contact you by mail concerning the dissolution. I
thought that letter was entirely related to the dissolution as is this one. However, as the
Order of Protection appears to be a hindrance to resolving several issues (like the
pumpkins), it will be helpful to have it overturned (or expired). If you think that I have
violated the Order of Protection, though, you are certainly welcome to raise the issue
through the appropriate channels.

Exhibit A

21

________________________________

I am not surprised that the divorce will be delayed until 2005. That was almost a given to
me as soon as I got the TRO. Adversarial divorces never go quickly as the issues being
disputed seem to grow without limit. I wonder if we will be divorced before the end of
2005 (could go either way). I would like to suggest that you consider joint counselling
for us. I wonder if it might be a cheaper and faster way to resolve our differences in that
forum rather than continual litigation.

As to your comment, '***PLEASE LET ME GO***', it brings to mind the teaching of a
great yogi who explained that the key to freedom was to just let go. That seems
appropriate in this case.
		                   	Sincerely,
		     
					copy
		     
					Brian P. Carr



Exhibit A

22

________________________________

Subject: Your account
From: Karen Hanson
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:40:49 -0600
To:
CC:
Hi Brian,
Your message to Howard was forwarded to the Floating Committee for a reply.
Your account was routinely deleted for lack of use.

Sincerely,
The Floaters




*********************
From: Brian Carr 
Date: December 1, 2004 7:09:46 AM PST
To: hlr@well.com
Subject: BrainStorms Account Brian_Carr

I would like to inquire as to what transpired with my Brainstorms account.

I had expected that it would have expired due to lack of activity,
but I have heard recently that I was permanently banned because of stalking.
If that is the case, I would be interested in what I am purported to have
done.  According to my recollections I was a most inoffensive member (though
not very active) and I would like to know what I was accused of.  Sorry to
trouble you with this and I appreciate your attention to this matter.
                       Thanks,
                        Brian

Exhibit B

23

________________________________

Subject: DSL Workiig
From: Brian Carr
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:26:33 -0700
To: Karyn (web), Karyn (work), Karyn (personal)
CC: Brian Carr
I now have DSL working so that hurdle is past.

I forgot what happened to your old TV.  I have an older TV that I could use for a 
couple of weeks until you get a replacement (or we could do that together as your 
car doesn't have much room).

Also, you are welcome to keep the ladder (or give it to a neighbor).  Or I can take 
it to Goodwill sometime.

Lastly, on Oct 3 and Oct 24 the yoga crowd are having family get togethers that 
Alex is welcome to come to (as are you).  I could pick him up in the late afternoon 
and drop him off in the early evening (maybe 4PM to 8PM though I would have to 
check the exact times for each get together).

We can coordinate later.  My work e-mail is above, though I don't think it had ever 
worked for me in my test sends (of which this is another).
                                       Brian

P.S.
My new work address is:
Brian Carr
@At-Once, Suite 900
390 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Phone  1503-419-0598

My new home address is:
Brian Carr
11301 NE 7th St, Apt J5
Vancouver, WA 98684
Cell/Home 360-607-0556

Exhibit C

24

________________________________

Subject: [Fwd: [symc-pdx] Annoucements 9/29/04]
From: Brian Carr
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:48:53 -0700
To: Karyn
This has the description of the yoga family event on the 2nd (I had said the 3rd, 
but they would be on the 2nd and 23rd).
                          Brian
Subject: [symc-pdx] Annoucements 9/29/04
From: "Margaret McNabb" Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:50:16 -0700
To: "symc"

//Om Guru Om//

Portland will be hosting the Global Satellite Intensive!!!

Join us to discuss the Intensive and seva at the Community Meeting following the Guru Gita and breakfast on Sunday, October 3rd!

Satsang

  "Chanting is both the means and the attainment"
Friday, October 1st, 7:30 – 9 p.m.

Gurumayi says, "When you chant the Name, it actually moves through your whole being - purifying you, bestowing grace, and making you sacred."

Please join us for an evening of chanting the Name of the Lord.

Family Program
Saturday, October 2nd

Potluck at 5:30 p.m., Program begins at 6 p.m.

As we continue our exploration of the 2004 Siddha Yoga Message, we will listen to and study the Palace of Mirrors story. We suggest that you also listen to this part of the message as a family beforehand so everyone can contribute to the satsang.

All are welcome!


Exhibit C

25

________________________________

Guru Gita

Followed by Amrit breakfast and Community Meeting Sunday, October 3rd

 Chant from 9 – 10:30 a.m., Community Meeting to begin at 11 a.m.

Join us to chant this ancient chant that describes the Guru-disciple relationship.
Portland WILL BE hosting the Global Satellite Intensive! Stay for breakfast and a Community Meeting to discuss the Intensive and seva for the Intensive.

Call Paula Herrera at (503) 228-1314 if you would like to offer Amrit seva or contribute to the breakfast.

Swami Satsang - "The Mahasamadhi Satsang"
Friday, October 8th, 7:30 – 9:00 p.m.

You are invited to participate in the fourth audio Swami Satsang: The Mahasamadhi Satsang, facilitated by Swami Shantananda. This program will focus on the practice of satsang. As we discussed in our recent community programming meeting, this audio Swami program will be held during our regular satsang time. Like the previous 3 audio programs in this series, there is preparation for the satsang, which can be collected at the Center, and a $15 registration fee for the evening.

Guru Gita

Sunday, October 10th, 9-10:30 a.m.

Join us to chant this ancient chant that describes the Guru-disciple relationship.

With great love, 

SGMKJ!!!

********************************************************* 

Portland Siddha Yoga Meditation Center
11830 SW Kerr Parkway, Suite #355
Lake Oswego, OR 97035


Exhibit C

26

________________________________

(In the Mountain Park Plaza across the street from PCC Sylvania
(Use stairs by the elevator)
503.525.2431 – Information Line, Voice Mail

_______________________________________________
Please visit the national web site: www.siddhayoga.org

 

[symc-pdx] Annoucements 9/29/04

Exhibit C

27

________________________________

Subject: House Expenses, Pears, etc.
From: Brian Carr
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 21:17:27 -0700
To: Karyn

Hi,

I have attached the latest house expense spreadsheet that I have (you should have the same). Could you update it with the expenses for August and September and send it back to me (I don't think that I had any expenses that matter during that period). Thanks. Also, we need to make arrangements for the repayment of your load to me. How do you want to handle that (some payment needs to be made for October, September is fine)?

Also, I would offer to mow your lawn again for a chance to pick the pears and the pumpkins. Does that work for you? As an aside, at the yoga thingy on Sat. I brought a green pear pie. On of the people there was from Germany and said that they tasted just like a fruit they have called quitten (I think) that is shaped like a pear, is only good for cooking, and tastes like the pears in my pie. Cool. Perhaps I have a lead as to what they are, really. Also, the local Mena 1st Sat was only a mile away so I went there after the yoga thingy. The host was Bill and his wife and I recognized Bill from yoga. Small world!

Brian

P.S. I hope you got the wireless router OK on Sat..


Exhibit C

28

________________________________

This page was last updated on October 12, 2005.