By the way, you said in your declaration that you were only 18 when we got married. You were actually 19, and only 5 weeks away from turning 20. Not that it's material to the matter, though. Patrick On 03/15/2015 06:45 PM, Patrick wrote: > Hello, Desiree. > > I'm assuming by now you're received your mail and you've convinced > yourself that my resposne to your petition for annulment is irrelevant > because the California court has dismissed the petition for > dissolution that I filed back in November 2012. But as far as I > recall the California court did no such thing. At our last hearing > the clerk asked the court about how to proceed with the dissolution > and the commissioner responded that if you wanted to go forward with > that you'll have to file in Arizona. That, unfortunately for you, is > not a dismissal. Moreover, a court does not have the authority to > arbitrarily dismiss a petition - there MUST be a legal basis for such > a dismissal, and the California court provided no such legal basis. > As far as I can tell, the only basis the California court provided for > NOT proceeding with litigating my petition at that time was that it > couldn't find the petition in the case file - but you and I both have > our stamped copies so that's all we need to provide as proof that the > petition was filed...and that the matter IS pending before the Compton > court. > > And, finally, what is important right now is whether or not the matter > of our marriage was already pending before another court *on the date > you filed your current petition in Arizona*. So, even if the > California court dismisses that petition tomorrow (which it can't > because, again, it requires a legitimate, legal basis to do so), then > you'd still have to refile and start the process over in Arizona. > > I could have saved you a lot of time and effort and told you this a > long time ago, but why would I? How would that serve my interests? > And remember, in order to use bigamy as a basis for an annulment you > will have to prove that I was already *legally* married to another > person on August 26, 2000. The important part there is already > "legally married". Meaning that the person I was allegedly married to > was not, herself, already married to another person at the time I > allegedly married her...and that I was the actual person that she > married. I have documentation and the witnesses to contradict your > claims - including an affidavit from Kim Shires stating that I am not > the person she married. But, we'll deal with all that when it become > relevant :) . > > Good day, Desiree. I hope you enjoyed your week in Alabama and Tampa. > > Cheers, > Patrick > > P.S. I've decided to put your seb site back up but haven't had time to > update the content.