《西雅图夜未眠》CoCoM

40、法院文件-反驳他申请的临时保护令和虚假证据

　　II. FACTS
　　Respondent is currently an international student attending school in Seattle.
　　Respondent met Petitioner Mr. Kang Dai in September 2016, when she was traveling in Seattle was offered a to stay in Petitioner’s apartment before she left the city. Id. ?7 & Ex. 1. The two had sex before Respondent left Seattle. Id. ?8. This experience started a dating relationship between the two for more than six years, with a few intervals of interruption. Id.?4.
　　Petitioner had dominated this relationship. He was the one initiating contacts to Respondent to show his care and love, sending invitations for holidays’ meeting together, and requesting sex and other initiate activities with Respondent. Id. ??9-14 & Ex. 2-3. No doubt, the joy and excitement in sex was what Petitioner was after: he took photos during sex with Respondent without her knowledge or consent, Id. ??12-13; he requested Respondent to take medication to delay period (so he could have sex without any wait), Id.?14; he insisted on having sex despite Respondent was having period, Id.?21; and used violence during sex despite Respondent’s reluctance. Id.
　　But Petitioner also vowed, for many times, for his care and love to Respondent beyond sex. Id. ??9, 15-16,20, Ex. 6. Most importantly, he kept assuring Respondent that he was a single man so the two, as long as continuing the dating relationship, would have the opportunity to be fully together ultimately. Id. ?6 & Ex. 4. Petitioner wanted the relationship with Respondent; he also managed to maintain the intimate relationship with Respondent by taking advantage of her love and trust in him. Id. ??5, 16.
　　After Respondent moved to Seattle for her school, Petitioner spent more time physically with Respondent, treating her more and more like a life partner. Id. ??17-20 & Ex. 5. Petitioner took Respondent in tours and for meals, showed her his workplace and took her into his office, and visited Respondent’s apartment for intimate activities. Id.
　　By March 2023, Respondent was still expecting to build a long-term, serious relationship with Petitioner – including marriage. But her suspicion on Petitioner’s honesty and faithfulness started to grow rapidly since late February, when she discovered evidence showing that Petitioner was a married man and already had a child from his marriage. Id. ?22. When confronted, Petitioner denied that he was married and told Respondent that he wanted to continue his relationship with Respondent. Id.?23. The suspicion, however, intensified in late March 2023, when Petitioner even denied his Chinese name to be the one Respondent had long believed and used. Id.?25. The confusion, doubts, and insecurity caused serious emotional distress on Respondent. Id. ?23 & Ex. 8. In early April 2023, Respondent could no longer bear it and determined that she must end this relationship. Id.?26.
　　To say farewell to this seven-year-long relationship, Respondent did three things.
　　First, she wrote down her love story and posted it on the social media website “Little Red Book” (in Chinese Xiao Hong Shu) on April 23, 2023. The story contained no name or any identifier information, Id. ?27& Ex. 9, but it was re-posted on other Chinese websites without Respondent’s knowledge. Id. ?30 & Ex. 11. Second, on May 1, 2023, she made another post on Little Red Book titled “Move on”, expressing her personal feelings of pain and shock, and her decision to end her relationship with Petitioner. Id. ?49 & Ex. 20. Third, also on May 1, 2023, accompanied by a church friend, Respondent paid a visit to, and stayed about ten minutes in, the neighborhood where she assumed Petitioner was residing. She took two pictures of the neighborhood as she found the view was beautiful and posted them on her social media account. Id. ?47-48; The photos were posted in Respondent’s May 1, 2023 “Move on” post, but the photo-taking location, shown in the post, was not the same location of the neighborhood. See the Petition, §Evidence, Appendix 5 (showing “Swedish Issaquah Ca…”);. ??48-49. By paying the visit, Respondent did not intend to stalk Petitioner or visit Petitioner’s residence. In fact, at the time, she did not even know for sure if Petitioner really lived in that neighborhood, and she actually thought Petitioner was still in China. See Respondent Decl.??47-48;
　　On or about May 1, 2023, Petitioner reported to the police, accusing Respondent’s post and the disclosed information therein, including the posted neighborhood pictures, as a threat. The police report for this case showed that information was considered to be “public information” and had no threat to Petitioner. ?50 & Ex. 21.
　　After Respondent posted her story on Little Red Book, Petitioner’s real name was identified by unknown internet users. Id. ?31 & Ex. 12. Respondent ignored or rejected these internet users’ suggestions that she should expose Petitioner online, but she could not stop Petitioner’s personal information from being disclosed and circulated online. Id. ??28-29 & Ex. 10, 13. Petitioner himself made all of the disclosure possible and easy: he is a social media influencer and has shared with the public a lot of personal information, including photos of his family members and pet dog. Id. ?33 & Ex. 14. It was from the disclosed information, circulated online or supplied by unknown internet users, that Respondent learned about Petitioner’s marital status, marital property, and employment information. Id. ?? 31-32 & Ex. 12.

　　On April 24, 2023, starting from 2:43 a.m., Petitioner called Respondent 13 times via WeChat speaking for 219 minutes and sent Respondent about 50 WeChat messages. In these communications, Petitioner repeatedly insulted, harassed, and threatened Respondent. For instance, Petitioner yelled at Respondent in his calls, threatening with his death, and his wife’s revenge. Id. ??34-35. Petitioner also made death threats multiple times to Respondent and also threatened to release email correspondences containing intimate content to the public. Id. ??34-35, 40 & Ex. 17. Respondent was exhausted and scared by Petitioner’s calls and threats. Id. ?36.
　　Petitioner also knew that Respondent had nothing to do with the circulation of her love story and the exposure of his personal information. Id. ?37 & Ex.15.
　　During the communication via WeChat, Petitioner also attempted to secure another personal meeting with Respondent in Seattle in May 2023. Respondent expressly rejected it, and clearly informed Petitioner that she wanted to stay away from him due to Petitioner’s threats. Id. ?38.
　　In the evening of April 24, 2023, Petitioner contacted Respondent again on WeChat
　　to confess his lies about his marital status. Id. ?39 & Ex. 16. Petitioner told Respondent
　　that she could bring up her any demands and he would continuously listen to Respondent’s complaints and demands. Id. ?39 & Ex. 16.
　　During the late night of April 24, 2023, Respondent made her demands to Petitioner
　　via WeChat, but she received no response from Petitioner. Id. ?41 & Ex. 18.
　　At the same time, Respondent started to find anonymous posts online attacking and insulting her with slanders and defamation. Respondent replied some of the attacking posts on the website 1point3acres.com to defend herself. Id. ?42-43 & Ex. 19.
　　On April 27, 2023, finding herself not receiving any response from Petitioner and trying to protect her creditability and reputation from the online attack, Respondent sent emails to individuals that she believed to be Petitioner’s supervisors at work to report Petitioner. Id. ?44. Respondent was hoping to prompt an investigation made by a neutral third party that had authority over Petitioner, to reveal the truth and prove what she was complaining about. Id. ?45. Amazon Inc. replied to Respondent’s email a day later, and also invited Respondent to attend a meeting with its investigator on May 2, 2023. Id. ?46.
　　In order to seek Petitioner’s response to her demands April 24, 2023, Respondent started to send messages to Petitioner and call Petitioner via WeChat to repeat her demands for apologies, compensation, and resolutions. From May 10, 2023 through May 13, 2023, Respondent sent a few messages on WeChat. None of the messages, however, was responded by Petitioner. Id. ?51. In the following three or four days, Respondent tried different ways to contact Petitioner to see if her messages were received by Petitioner and to prompt Petitioner’s response, including making telephone calls to Petitioners, sending emails, and sending messages on WeChat and Chime. Id. ?52.
　　Respondent’s last attempt to contact Petitioner was made through her social medium account at 2:59 p.m. of May 18, 2023. Id. ?53.
　　Petitioner remained silent throughout the entire time from May 10, 2023 through May 18, 2023. Before filing the Petition and even before Respondent was actually served the full package of the temporary order, Petitioner had not provided any clear notice to Respondent that he did not want further contact. Id. ??54-56.
　　The full content of the temporary order issued on May 16, 2023 was only served upon Respondent in the late afternoon of May 18, 2023. Id. ??58-59. Before she was served, Respondent made a post expressing her confusion, shock, and pain. Id. ?60. After she fully
　　understood the meaning of the temporary order, she voluntarily submitted herself to the police to ensure full compliance. She had complied the order. Id. ?61.
　　During the entire two months of April and May, Respondent had never tried to meet Petitioner in-person, nor had she stalked, or attempted to stalk, Petitioner or any of his family members. All of Respondent’s attempt of contacting Petitioner in the month of May 2023 were caused by Petitioner’s failure to fulfill his promise to listen to Respondent’s complaint and his intentional silence. Even though, Respondent has never intended to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate Petitioner, her goals were simple: to protect herself, to seek justice, and to reveal the truth.
　　On May 23, 2023, Respondent filed her petition for civil protection order against
　　Petitioner. Id. ?62.
　　Respondent has suffered from severe emotional distress from this intoxicated
　　relationship with Petitioner, from Petitioner’s lies, insult, and threats, as well as
　　Petitioner’s abusive litigation. Id. ?63 & Ex. 23.