Month: November 2002

At 1452, my stepdaughter emailed her dad and told him, her mom and her grandma how her Christmas vacation/visitation is going to go. It was clearly all for her dad’s benefit, because we will never be convinced that her mother and grandmother didn’t already know the details. ANYWAY, she started off snarky- “ok Here is the plan if anyone miss heard it or just don’t get it at all….” and proceeds to tell him the night she is leaving on 12/20 to stay the night to catch a flight in a closer town (which was more expensive and against court orders) the next morning to come out to CA. She wrote she was staying with her dad from the 21st of December (his birthday) until the 29th and on that day, her and her dad will be driving to Oceanside, (over an hour drive for him) leaving early enough to meet her grandma and her grandma’s husband to have lunch (even stated what restaurant) between 2 and 3, believing that that was about “half way”) at which time she will leave with her grandma and her grandma’s husband to go back to El Cajon, to spend time with her and other family members, which would be about a 45 minute drive for her grandma’s husband. I don’t think that that is half way… but oh well…. She said that’s the plan for “X-mas Vacation” and “if you disagree some way or some how contact me asap…” Her PS was to say she will be sending driving directions for both her grandma and Dad on how to get to the restaurant in the next day or so.

Keith responded to his daughter, her mother and her grandmother at 1536 saying ” me, you, Thomas, Sarah and Pat will take you to meet up with your grandma on the 29th. I will take your wishes under advisement. What is the big rush? this is still about 6 weeks away. Like I told your mom, I will talk to the OTHER adult in the situation, your grandma, about the 29th. I am not agreeing and I am not disagreeing. What I am saying is that if it works out to be the time frame you mention here, fine, if not, because of something I may have planned, then we will deal with it. If you have a problem with this, or disagree, let me know asap.:” He thanked her for the driving directions and joked because he didn’t know where Oceanside was.

At 2108, guess who wrote back? Yep, the ex. She said that 6 weeks is plenty of time for him to make their daughter’s wishes for drop off and pick up the plan. She said if he had plans then he should have told their daughter that before she made these plans, that at first she wanted to leave on Saturday and changed her plans to suit his. She wrote in bold, “Taking her suggestions up for advisement is not what anyone is asking.” She added, “this is the way that (daughter) wants to spend her time. You need to make plans and arrangements accordingly. The other adults have agreed to this time frame as well. The visitation schedule is to be worked out between (daughters) parents. Saturday is the preferred day to meet halfway, but (Daughter) changed her plans because you said it would be better.” The ex continues to blather on about how it’s settled then, on Sunday the 29th, between 2:00 and 3:00 pm he will meet with an adult (whichever adult she, the ex chooses) who will pick up (daughter) in Oceanside at said restaurant and take her to San Diego to stay with her great grandma and relatives. She said (daughter) sent directions to the restaurant they were meeting at because there are two in Oceanside, and they all know he knows where Oceanside is. Then she ends with the zinger. “You just can’t travel alone you might escape, the whole family must accompany you because you might run away or see something that interests you more.” and she signed her e-mail “Mary Poppins” because Keith told her one time that she thinks she’s perfectly perfect in every way.

Yep, still dealing with this. He owes $295.20, though I really don’t care about the .20. This letter is dated Nov. 8th, but I didn’t take it to the PO until Nov 18th. He got it today.

So page 3 in particular is interesting. Keith was NOT contacted, or “cited” or notified of judicial acts. ALL the “Rights of the Respondent” were denied Keith. ALL she did was tell him that he would be receiving the questionnaire and he never got it.

Would LOVE to know what she wrote or told the Tribunal. Wouldn’t that be considered PERJURY not to mention FORGERY? I’m SURE, had Keith been sent the questionnaire and answered it HIMSELF, he would have had to sign it as well. Hmmm…. Would LOVE to see the actual paperwork on this, to compare writing and signature.

Wonder what they would think if they knew the TRUTH, that Keith was not provided any information. Would they have granted this marriage “null and void” if they had known they were deceived? I know, the irony….

So some time in 1999, the ex had told Keith that she was taking “religious education classes” because she wanted to remarry her then husband in the Catholic church. Apparently, being divorced, she couldn’t do that unless she took some courses, and she had told Keith he would be receiving paperwork that he would have to fill out and return back. So he waited and waited and nothing.

Instead, he received a letter in the mail from the Tribunal Diocese of Yakima. He was surprised. It read, “After carefully considering the evidence submitted to this Tribunal, in regards to the marriage of (ex’s name using her maiden name) and (Keith’s legal name), we declare this marriage null and void.

The Affidavit of Freedom to Marry regarding your previous marriage to (ex’s full name using her maiden name) has been issued. This frees both parties of this bond of marriage. Providing there have not been any other bonds of marriage that need to be taken care of, both parties are free to enter marriage in the Catholic Church if that is their choice.

If you choose to marry in the Catholic Church it will be necessary that you contact this office. It would be helpful if you would reference the protocol name and number as given above.

If you have any questions concerning the above matters please do not hesitate to contact this office.

With every good wish, I am sincerely, ” and it was signed by the Tribunal Secretary.

Wonder what information they received. Did SHE fill out the paperwork that was meant for Keith and signed his name to it? Which would be forgery, and a lie. Did she tell them that she cannot locate him? Which would DEFINITELY have been a lie. What “evidence” did she submit? Whatever it was, it was not truthful, but being it went to a Catholic Church, is it really any surprise they didn’t question it?

Weird.