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 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 |
|
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 |
|
No Irreparable Injury
Mtn to Revisit |
|
Order is Still Relevant
Order of Protection Issued October 27, 2004
Mtn to Revisit |
|
Mtn to Revisit |
|
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 |
|
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:
Mtn to Revisit |
|
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 |
|
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:
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.
Mtn to Revisit |
|
Mtn to Revisit |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 | | |
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 |
|
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 | |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Exhibit A |
|
Sincerely, copy Brian P. Carr
Exhibit A |
|
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 CarrDate: 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 |
|
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 |
|
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). BrianSubject: [symc-pdx] Annoucements 9/29/04
//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 |
|
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 |
|
(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 |
|
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 |
|