西雅图夜未眠

　　I. INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
　　This action arises out of a years-long intimate relationship between the parties, which hurts Respondent deeply due to Petitioner’s lies and abusive treatment. For more than six years, Respondent was misled by Petitioner to believe that she was dating a single man and was building up a committed relationship. It turns out only recently that Petitioner had intentionally hidden, and continually lied about, the fact that he was a married man and had at least one child from his marriage. After his lies were exposed, Petitioner confessed to Respondent and acknowledged the severe harm he had done to Respondent, he also promised Respondent that he would provide solutions and listen to her demands for damages.
　　But things changed dramatically afterwards: Petitioner reported Respondent to police on May 1, 2023, and then filed this petition on May 16, 2023 for a protection order against Respondent. Depicting Respondent as a “occasional acquaintance …engaged in a limited number of casual sexual encounters”, see the Petition, §7, at 2, Petitioner accused Respondent of making harassing contacts, exposing his personal information, and threating his and his family members’ safety. See Id., at §§16- 17, at 9- 10.
　　The facts, however, are quite different. Among other details, the following critical facts were distorted or omitted in Petitioner’s May 16, 2023 petition:
　　1. Petitioner had initiated, maintained, and dominated in a six-strong year-long dating relationship with Respondent, and had initiated contacts to Respondent for sex and other
　　intimate activities;
　　2. Petitioner had continually assured Respondent about his care and love to her, and denied he was a married man, leading Respondent to invest her time, money, energy, and emotion into him and the relationship;
　　3. To satisfy his personal desire in dating Respondent, Petitioner had violated work ethics and probably employment policies as an Amazon employee;
　　4. Petitioner had confessed to Respondent for his lies, and invited Respondent to bring her requests and demand;
　　5. When Respondent attempted contact for his response, Petitioner intentionally kept silent, and had never given clear notice of not wanting further contact;
　　6. Petitioner has been actively engaging social media and seeking public attention and has voluntarily disclosed enormous amount of personal information; and
　　7. Before filing his petition, Petitioner knew clearly that Respondent was not the cause of the alleged “leak” or “exposure” of his personal (including employment) information.
　　When it became clear that Petitioner had lied to her, manipulated her, and misled her into a years-long intoxicated relationship, Respondent did the following:
　　1. She wrote down and publish her love story, hiding parties’ names and personal information, for self-healing and farewell,
　　2. For the same purposes, she quietly and briefly visited a place that she believed to be associated with her pain in her relationship with Petitioner;
　　3. She confronted Petitioner and demanded for apologies and damages, and had only started to contact Petitioner for response after Petitioner disappeared and remained silent to her demands;
　　4. When attacked and insulted online, she defended herself by reporting Petitioner to
　　third parties that she believed had the authority to conduct investigation and reveal the truth.
　　5. Once learned about the nature of the temporary protection order, she made her best effort, including submitting herself to the police, to comply with the order.

　　Respondent has not unlawfully harassed Petitioner, she has not invaded Petitioner’s privacy, nor has she ever had “the intent to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate Petitioner.” See RCW 7.105.900(3). What she did are reasonable and justified reactions towards Petitioner’s lies, his hypocrisy, and his threats and insults when things were exposed: to protect herself, to seek justice, and to reveal the truth.
　　Now, though Respondent has determined to pursue legal actions against Petitioner she will undoubtedly avoid any future contact with Petitioner in her life forever. Respondent’s has committed no unlawful harassment at Petitioner. There is no need and no basis for a civil protection order to restrain her.

该作者现在暂无推文