24 December 2009

Well Catherine,

This has certainly been an interesting year. First, you refused to vacate your gratuitous legal attack of 2006, then falsely accused me of felony burglary. When the police suggested an expensive mediation to address your fear, you agreed, then failed to appear. When this required much more expensive court action on my part, you contested. But again you failed to show such that, with your appeal, your actions shall have cost me nearly $20,000. Whatever the courts may finally decide, you owe me a significant moral debt, whose cash value is no less than eighteen thousand dollars, incurring annual interest at the federal prime rate plus two, beginning 25 February 2011. Please plan to pay it in full before returning to Oregon or Washington.

In some ways I suppose I should thank you for this odd trial by ordeal. At Republic 361 Glaucon asserts that the most perfect justice is to be just but considered unjust, a situation no sane person would hope for. With no good intent or rational plan, you put me in a crucible which helped prove my temper as a matter of public record. For the rest of my life I may speak of this wrong: sure of what each did and confident of who I was and remained in the face of repeated, provocative insult.

When you left me in February of 1998 there was a clear commitment to remain amicable, to work on things so that both of us could go on to better lives. Such lives presumably did not include legal threats on your part to file for a bogus restraining order, to make up self-serving stories to tell your friends or to repeatedly bring me into court with vague claims that I wanted to hurt you in some way and for reasons you could never specify. Your cartoon narrative never matched the facts and, not well when you left me, I was confused. When I sent you a banal 2003 birthday letter, I was surprised by the force of your irrational response, but naively gave you the benefit of the doubt as you repeatedly invoked the justice system against me in 1999, 2006 and 2008. When I asked you to voluntarily resolve this at no cost to you, you refused, hence my direct legal expenses. After twelve years and thirty-thousand dollars between us, what exactly do you have? You are in precisely the legal position you had in 1998, only older, tattooed, abroad and with fewer prospects. Moral integrity cannot be purchased like a Chinese child, but recompense can be made. Please do so.

I don’t know if you ever graduated from Reed College, Cate, but I do know that you failed to become what you once wanted. How much of this was over-reach and how much moral or mental illness I shall never know. It is not my business. What is mine, though, is to wonder at the nature of your obsession with me. Are you guilty for things you falsely told me about my brother? For having left under the conditions you did? Did these betray the honor you felt you owed your mother’s memory? Have you performed some sort of secret Mormon sealing voodoo, or did you feel at some level that you deserved to die? Did you hope to taunt or frustrate me into killing you, that false  stories of persecution would bring salvation? You are on your fourth lawyer as I write this and, from what I can see, have yet to think this through. You lurch from point to point like a drunken pinball, a disappointment to us both.

The central fact of our current relationship, Catherine, is that you have used the legal system to harass and annoy me, for which you owe me nearly $20,000. Any additional emotional charge or issue you may hold is secondary: Yours entirely. Not my problem. I believe that I have shown compassion over the past fifteen years and shall, upon payment, be open to helping you address your psychological issues as you may wish. If you have a death wish, show up at my house with a weapon and I shall address it logically, lawfully and with mercy. If you do not have a death wish, pay me my money and go in peace. I do not really care much either way, but do not die with this debt unfulfilled. You are stuck, Catherine, and must resolve this.

You have outlived your mother by raw count of years, which is more than I think you ever expected. What good that has done anyone is unclear. Your life could have been so much better, Catherine, and may yet be if you resolve this.

What you did to externalize your guilt and other psychological issues is understandable, but your decision to abuse the legal system was wrong. I can forgive the psychological pain but the moral debt of verifiable legal costs is a just one. Please pay the moral debt made by Cate Carter, to go forward with my blessing.

Happy Christmas, Catherine Lynne, wherever you may be.

- Rory

My assumption for quite a while has been that Catherine Lynne Carter is not mentally well, obsessing on me for reasons that were unclear but presumably related to her own guilt, shame, or desire for attention. In light of seeming inconsistencies in her 1999 testimony and the PDNS name record, what other sort of factually incorrect statements might have been made by Cate before the court?

Looking back at her second stalking petition from March, 2006, filed under ORS 30.866 she claimed

At least two unwanted instances of contact have occurred within the last two years which were alarming or coercive.

The basic problem with this original petition is that it is false in that (A) there were not two instances of contact with her at all, (B) the one contact with her was a letter more than three years old and, although her mental state might be such that she found my existence “alarming,” (C) neither of the incidents she cites was even vaguely coercive in any common or legal sense.

The first “contact” cited was not with her at all, but with Kevin Balmer, who had initially contacted me and made some ambiguous and potentially threatening actions.  The point of this contact was explicitly to avoid her and instead address my concern about (a) what he had been told about me, (b) my actual intentions and (c) subsequent actions of his that might create unnecessary fear or danger.

On 03/17/06 in the parking lot of CNF, NW 21st and Savier, Mr. Bowman (respondent) either followed or was waiting for my boyfriend Kevin D Balmer & attempted to confront Mr. Balmer outside his workplace with questions regarding me and my relationship with Mr. Balmer.

Notes from that meeting were introduced into court and clearly showed Carter’s assertions to be false, as later established by Kevin Balmer’s direct testimony in the matter.

Before that, on February 20, 2003, in Bar Harbor ME, Mr. Bowman sent a series of letters to me via my parents in disregard of a judge’s order. In the feb 20th letter, he used an out of state post mark and admits to ongoing mental health issues and to being off his medication. The Feb 20th letter used a return address of Elinore Friedberg, a business client of mine. the contents of the letter indicate a disturbed mental state.

There was no such “judge’s order,” and what I had done was send her a single birthday letter in 2003, more than three years prior. Before that, the only package I had sent was around the ludicrous “letter bomb” incident. Way back in 1999, I had mailed some personal items of hers in care of her parents near San Diego, as promised over a year before that, in June 1998. One letter and one package over four years three years prior was not a “series” of anything, and her assertion that I claimed to be off my medication was a fanciful reading on her part. That a judge did not question either of these assertions or note the dates still annoys and saddens me.

My assumption at the 2006 hearing was that these false assertions were indicative of her poor mental state and not malicious. Certainly no judge ever looked at them critically, and I did not think it kind to embarrass her in open court. In retrospect, I believe it was unethical for an opportunistic lawyer to have taken such a clearly baseless case, and I naively failed to contest a variety of false, irrelevant and prejudicial things he said of me in open court. She found a lawyer, who danced around the lack of facts. A pro-tem judge failed to notice the absence of facts and played to a colleague, while I was naively willing to take a legal hit in support of a former friend.

Not only had she jumped to conclusions and made false accusations, she had actively sought professional legal help to turn them into a legal attack. Given our class disparity and the law, this was morally suspect. Mental illness is an excuse to a point, but she went beyond her own fear to externalize her anxieties and willfully cause me significant harm. Her basic argument was that she did not want me to exist, so the court system should punish me to help assuage her mental state, because she said so.

The falsehood of these assertions was conclusively established as a matter of fact with a formal “request for admissions” later, so dissecting the rest of that petition isn’t worth the time. The 2006 petition shows, however, the degree of her self-centered conceit and willingness to abuse the legal system.  These false affidavits before the court were clearly wrong, morally. Her decisions around filing and pursuing that petition are clearly indicate an amoral sense of entitlement.

This mental or moral defect on her part would, combined with her irrational fear, end up costing me the better part of $20,000.

Like most modern police deparments, the Portland Police Bureau maintains a series of databases on persons of interest, including criminal complainants. After the partial victory of August 2009, I began to wonder at Carter’s mental competence and veracity more than before and asked a private investigator to check PPB records to find out how often she had contacted the police about things, given her previous sworn testimony about having contacted the police in 1999 when I’d returned her couch and some other online examples of her having claimed to be in contact with the police about supposed dangers. Did she call the police all the time or was I special? To my great astonishment, neither of those alleged interactions were in the basic record. Had she lied about the calls or had PPB just not recorded them? It was an odd development, to be sure. What else should I look at again?

PPDS NAME RECORD
PPDS NUMBER: 1434677
DATE PRINTED: 10/01/09

NAME: CARTER, CATHERINE L
SEX: F RACE: W AGE: 32
HGT: EYES: SKIN:
WGT: HAIR: BIRTH PLACE;
LAST KNOWN ADDRESS-MOST CURRENT FIRST ASSOC DATE
[ADDRESS B REDACTED] PORTLAND 04-09-08
[ADDRESS A REDACTED] PORTLAND 03-31-96

ASSOCIATED VEHICLES: NO ASSOCIATED VEHICLES FOUND

PPDS NAMES ASSOCIATED TO CRN: NO ASSOCIATED CRNS FOUND

ASSOCIATED CASES

CASE NBR 0893047 AGENCY PORTLAND POLICE REPORTED DATE 09-20-08 INVOLVEMENT VICTIM
LOC OF OCCURRENCE [ADDRESS B REDACTED]
OFFENSES 1: BURG -RES -UNK- FORCE ENTRY

CASE NBR 0833252 AGENCY PORTLAND POLICE REPORTED DATE 04-08-08 INVOLVEMENT VICTIM
LOC OF OCCURRENCE [ADDRESS B REDACTED]
OFFENSES 1: STALKING

CASE NBR 9529907 AGENCY PORTLAND POLICE REPORTED DATE 03-05-96 INVOLVEMENT COMPLAINANT
LOC OF OCCURRENCE [ADDRESS A REDACTED] PORTLAND
OFFENSES 1: LARCENY-FRM BUILDINGS

CHARGES: NO CUSTODY INFORMATION FOUND

MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION: NO MISCELLANEOUS NAME INFORMATION FOUND

END OF RECORD T438677
TERMINAL ID X4OZ

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

CATHERINE LYNNE CARTER,  Petitioner
v
RORY GREY BOWMAN, Respondent

Case No. 060303051

ORDER TERMINATING FINAL STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This case comes before the court on respondent’s motion to terminate the final stalking protective order and judgment entered on April 22, 2006.  The court has read and considered respondent’s motion, petitioner’s opposition, the transcript of the 2006 hearing, and the exhibits.  The court further heard testimony and argument on behalf of both parties on August 21, 2009.

Insofar as respondent argues, in Part II of his memorandum of law, for a finding that this stalking protective order was void ab initio, respondent’s motion must be denied.  Respondent did not appeal from the court’s judgment, and no circumstances that might compel extraordinary relief from the judgment are present.  The court declines to revisit Judge Todd’s findings of April 22, 2006.

Based on the entire record in this action, however, the court cannot find that petitioner continues to suffer reasonable apprehension due to the past acts of respondent under ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(iii).  Edwards v. Biehler, 203 Or App 271, 277 (2005).  Respondent’s communications to petitioner’s boyfriend and petitioner’s counsel on April 23 and 24, 2006, must be understood in the context of how close in time to the prior hearing they occurred.  They were not, in any event, timely brought to the court’s attention as potential violations of the order.  The court is unable to find on this record that respondent’s Internet communications about petitioner and this case constitute the sort of clear threat that could be a violation of the order.

The criteria for issuing a stalking protective order under ORS 163.738(2)(a)(B)(i) to (iii) are no longer present in this case.  Edwards, 203 Or App at 277.  Respondent’s motion is therefore granted for the reasons articulated in Part I of respondent’s memorandum of law.  The final stalking protective order and judgment entered on April 22, 2006, are terminated as of August 21, 2009.  They shall have no prospective effect.  Judgment will be entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED this ____ day of _______________, 2009.

_____________________________

Circuit Court Judge, for Ronald E. Cinniger, Senior Judge

Submitted by: Bear Wilner-Nugent, OSB #044549, Counsel for Respondent

Portland Police Bureau Investigation Report 05131

Case number 08-093047 Burg FE Residence
Reported: 09/20/08 @ 2011
Occurred: 09/20/08 1230-2000

PERSONS

• Victim CARTER, Catherine L.  Female White
  [DOB, home address and phone number redacted]
• Suspect BOWMAN, Rory,  Male White

PROPERTY

• Damaged: Entry door, $200
• Stolen: Full box of personal checks, Washington Mutual Bank, $10.
• Stolen: Laptop Computer, Apple MacBook Pro 17: $2000
• Stolen: External Hard Drive, Lacie 250 GB, $80
• Stolen: Silver Nikon Coolpix Digital Camera, $100
• Stolen: Antique pearl necklace, 24″ Mikimoto pearls w platinum clasp. 5mm pearl attached to clasp, $5000
• Stolen: Small women’s Seiko watch, 3/4″ face in 14K gold w a brown band, $200
• Stolen: Antique Chinese bracelet, discs of 28kt gold, $1000
• Stolen: Loose polished opals in a small bag, various sizes, $800
• Stolen: Ring, gold band with teardrop cut opal, 4 small diamonds, $400
• Stolen: Work identification: Adidas swipe key, $25
• Stolen: Rolled quarters, $20

NARRATIVE

#8) Radio call of a burglary to the listed address. Upon arrive (VI) Carter was waiting outside. She lives in a secure apartment building. The apartments are above first floor restaurants and businesses. There are three ways into the apartments that are on the second and third floor. Each floor has three key accessed doors. I checked all three and none appear to have been forced.

(VI) Carter lives on the third floor fo the most rear apartment. We cleared the apartment to make sure no suspects were inside. Upon arriving at the door to the apartment, the deadbolt and door handle lock had been forced. They were pried by multiple strikes against each one. Entry and exit can only be made through this door. There was one of (VI) Carter’s shirts on the floor outside the apartment door.

After clearing the apartment I had (VI) Carter come inside and begin to locate missing property and where items were moved or misplaced. I called Identification Division at 2035 hours to process the residence for prints.

There are three floors to this apartment. After entering the apartment there is a room that is her work space. In this room a box of personal checks were taken from a desk. Other items were moved, but no other items appeared to be taken. Up the stairs from this room is the main living area on the second floor. All other items listed were taken from this room. The third floor is a loft style bedroom. (VI) Carter stated nothing was disturbed in the bedroom. The shirt left outside was from the second floor.

(VI) Carter makes clothing and dress accessories. She uses jewelry to include loose gem stones in her work. One item taken was a bag of several loose opals. Two unique items are the string of pearls and the Chinese bracelet. The string of pearls is described in the property area. The Chinese bracelet is several discs of 28 kt gold, approximately each disc with one of four different patterns. The first pattern is of grass, the second is of a cherry blossom, the third is a maple leaf, the fourth pattern could not be remembered by (VI) Carter. Both the necklace and the bracelet are antiques that belonged to her mother.

I gave (VI) Carter my business card with the case number for this incident. I gave her both the red sheet and the white tri-fold pamphlet about crime prevention and information to burglary victims. Last, I gave and explained a Special Report for additional items found taken from the location. As I was finishing, the criminalist arrived to process the location. I knocked at the three neighboring apartments and had no response. There is no suspect at this time.

It should be noted that (VI) Carter has been stocked [sic] by a boyfriend she broke up with approximately 10 years ago. His name is (SB) Bowman. She has a permanent stalking order out of Multnomah County on him. The order number is 0603-03051. (VI) Carter felt he was not involved. (SB) Bowman has not been in this residence and his fingers should not be found there. Over the past few months (SB) Bowman has been trying to remove the order.

Fulitano DPSST 35225

Identification Division Special Report 08-093047

I responded to the listed location regarding a burglary investigation. When I arrived I contacted (CO) Carter. Carter showed me the point of entry and items the suspect/s may have touched. The suspect/s gained entry by prying open the front door.

I processed the point of entry, a plastic tray, a glass jar, the top of the printer, several pieces of paper, a plastic binder, the glass from a display case and two containers.

I found no latents of value.

Schleich A, DPSST 36817

Portland Police Bureau Special Report Supplemental 08-093047

Date This Report: 09/22/08 2037

[Contact info for Carter, Bowman, Balmer redacted]

8. R/C to listed location regarding a follow up to a previously reported residential burglary. Upon arrival I contacted (VI) Carter who was visibly shaken and upset. Ms CARTER told me that she has a Stalking Protection Order agianst (SB) BOWMAN. About a month ago BOWMAN’s attorney forwarded a letter authored by BOWMAN to Ms. CARTER’S attorney. The gist of the letter is that BOWMAN wants the Stalking Order vacated and that if it wasn’t, “things would start happening, including legal action.”

Tonight, Ms. CARTER got an email from (SB) Balmer who is a former boyfriend. BALMER has an online blog on the web site people.tribe.net. BALMER informed Ms. CARTER that BOWMAN had posted a comment on his (BALMER’S) blog on 09/21/08 at 1140 hours. The comment reads “You have nine days to save approximately $10,000. Please do so.” BOWMAN’s photo and user name is posted next to the comment. Ms. CARTER states the dollar value of the items stolen in the burglary to be in the $15,000 range, so she believes this posting is a reference to her property. The people.tribe.net web site is a members only site. BOWMAN is aware of this site and BALMER and CARTER’s prior relationship, and he has made postings on this site in the past as a means to contact CARTER.

BALMER e-mailed Ms. CARTER a screen shot of the blog comments and she provided me with a printed copy. BOWMAN’s comments do not fit in with the other posted comments. Ms. CARTER was unable to access the people.tribe.net site or BALMER’s blog to show me what was being commented on. Ms. CARTER said that BOWMAN is a computer (Mac) technician and very proficient with computers and technology and may have done something to the DSL router in her apartment, if he was the one who broke in.

Ms. CARTER said that BALMER is currently out of town but is available by phone and/or email and will cooperate with any further investigation regarding BOWMAN. I placed the copy of the blog comments into evidence, receipt #1125341.

A.E. Edgecomb, DPBSST 21339

Portland Police Bureau Investigation Report

Case number 08-33252 Stalking 2551
Reported: 04/08/08 1310
Occurred Start: 01/14/08 1440
Occurred End: 03/27/08 1129
Location of Occurence: [Presumed home address redacted]
One Sentence Summary of Incident: Possible Violation of Stalking Order

PERSONS

• Victim CARTER, Catherine L.  Female White
  [DOB, home address and phone number redacted]
• Witness 1 BALMER, Kevin D., Male White
  [DOB, home address and phone number redacted]
• Witness 2 HILTON, Wesley Calm, Male Unspecified
  Reed College Student
• Suspect BOWMAN, Rory Grey,  Male White
  [DOB, home address and phone number redacted]

NARRATIVE

#8) The VI (Carter) called to report what appears might be violations of Stalking Order #0603-03051 by the listed XI (Bowman). Per the VI all of these possible stalking violations stem from a 3rd party.

Starting with an email VI received on 01/14/08 from student (W2) at Reed College that had been directed by XI to contact her (see attached email for details).

The 2nd contact the VI (Carter) relayed was two letters sent to her presnt boyfriend (W1) where XI (Bowman) talks about his relationship with the VI (Carter) amongst other things. These letters included business cards and a picture of a man with a gun (see attached copies).

The 3rd contact was an email again sent to W1 (Balmer) (see attached copies). The letters sent in the email seem to WI (Balmer) appear to be all the same in content.

Per the VI (Carter) this has been ongoing with XI (Bowman) for about 10 years. The VI feels that these 3rd party contacts are sent by XI to disrupt her life.

The VI was not sure of XI’s home address but she believes it might be [address redacted] in Vanc Wa.

The stalking order #0603-03051 is on file with Multnomah County in Leds.

M. Castlio, BPST 11684

At various times since 1985 I have been actively involved in Reed College’s “Paideia” interim program: teaching, taking scores of classes, and otherwise pitching in to help. As part of that I was contacted by the signator in January of 2008 and had a moderately detailed email exchange on various aspects of the program. In a minor aside in response to a direct question I mentioned that Cate Carter had once been a signator and the current signator, Wes Hilton, tried to contact her with a few minor questions. Apparently it had not registered that a stranger had found her on the Internet in fifteen minutes. Her decision around this, I would learn much later, was to freak out and notify the police, on the theory that my every conversation or mention of her was part of a master plan to win back her love, or kill her, or something. Emails below.

Wes Hilton to Rory Bowman, Jan 8, 2008 @ 10:48
Subject: Re: it’s paideia time!

Hi Rory,

The listings we have are below. I’m sorry I couldn’t get this to you earlier. As Emily said, the combatives class on Monday needs to be moved, but the rest can stay where it is.

As a side note, I was in the archives yesterday looking at old Paideia materials and saw your name appear a lot. One person credited you with “teaching more total hours of classes this year than anyone will probably attend”. Wow! I hadn’t realized just how much you’ve been doing for Paideia for so long. Thanks for all you do–we really appreciate it.

~Wes

Sunday (1/20)    Combatives A        3:00 PM    5:00 PM    mat room
Monday (1/21)    Combatives B      3:00 PM    5:00 PM    mat room
Wednesday (1/23)    Combatives C        3:00 PM    5:00 PM    mat room
Friday (1/25)    Combatives D       3:00 PM    5:00 PM    mat room

Wednesday (1/23)    Start Your Own Computer Consulting Business     1:00 PM    2:30 PM    CC110

Sunday (1/20)    Writing to Plan      10:00 AM    12:00 PM    CC110
Monday (1/21)    Writing to Heal      10:00 AM    12:00 PM    CC110
Wednesday (1/23)    Writing Relationships       10:00 AM    12:00 PM    CC110
Friday (1/25)    Writing to Remember     10:00 AM    12:00 PM    CC110

Rory Bowman to Wes Hilton, Jan 8, 2008 @ 12:16

Thanks, Wes, for getting back with specifics.

Bill and I are going to cancel the combatives, as I just explained in another email to Emily (with cc to you and Bill) but I am excited to do the writing and business things. Hopefully Emily and some of the other fighters can do something as good or better. There is a lot of solid material available from the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatives including a full link to Matt Larsen’s FM 2-35-150 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-150/

It might make sense for Paideia to spend a few bucks on a physical copy of this manual from Paladin Press or Powell’s, to place in the Sports Center cabinet, in the Paradox cafe or even the library. There used to be copies of Fairbairn’s “Get Tough” as part of the main collection (basically a civilian equivalent from the time).

Also, if there is an online schedule somewhere (accessible from outside the Reed network) or a PDF I would be happy to promote these in the various unofficial alumni networks I am part of. Even alumni who hate Reed and everything the institution is or has become have a soft spot for Paideia and frequently enjoy taking part.

Some years I do more and some years I do nothing, but I am very glad that Paideia survived the late 90′s attempts by Student Services to completely destroy it or make it an authorized neo-nanny event, focused around condescension and childcare.

- Rory

Wes Hilton to Rory Bowman,  Jan 8, 2008 @ 13:05

We are in the process of turning our haphazard Excel file into a shiny PDF for printing and distribution. We’ll send it electronically to all participants and the alumni office within a week. In the meantime I will come up with a “mini-schedule” of some selected events that you can pass around on those networks.

A late-90s attempt to destroy Paideia, you say? Was there any discussion about this in, say, 1998?  Discussion that would have been printed somewhere? Since it’s Paideia’s 40-year anniversary I’m trying to put together excerpts from every tenth year. ’78 and ’88 are fine, but after about 1990 the archives are all but empty.

Thanks for all the classes,

~Wes

Rory Bowman to Wes Hilton,  Jan 8, 2008 @ 15:59

Interesting. I was coordinator for the 1995 Paideia and Kate Carter was the signator in 1998. Her website is http://madebycate.com so you should be able to contact her there.

The attempt was never overt, but during the presidency of Jim Powell (with Jim Tederman as VP of Student Services) there was the creation of a competing event called Reed Arts Weekend. At the time all of Paideia’s budget came from the Student Senate and had never been more than $10,000, while RAW had the full staff support of the Student Services office and PAID student staff (to Paideia’s volunteers). Paideia used to also be much longer, and run from pretty much just after New Year’s until classes opened. I’m not sure when it was shortened to its present abbreviated form, but that was largely for the convenience of the Student Services staff as well.

If you have any interest, I think it would be a terrific thing to create an online history of Paideia and all the classes involved over the years, perhaps making that part of a reunion theme or somesuch. Paideia was very much on the ropes in the mid-90′s and I assumed that it would be completely killed before 2000.

If you have any interest in this, I would like to do something longer-term on the history and place of Paideia. 1998 was the 30th anniversary and Kate had made some noise about marking that in some way. I wonder if that is why the archives stopped storing anything. Certainly there was a lot around when I last checked in 1995.

Hmmm. I think I may have an idea for a new Paideia class. What do you think? – Rory

Wesley Hilton to Rory Bowman, On Jan 9, 2008 @ 09:55

How times change! We still have RAW, but they’ve moved it to the beginning of March. The budget is definitely smaller, though: now we have $5000 instead of $10,000. I’m also surprised to hear that you coordinated Paideia after you graduated: now it’s a purely student-run affair, mostly handled over finals week and winter break.

But at least there’s less antagonism from the administration, at least that I’m aware of. I think that’s shifted to Renn Fayre, which is a big messy affair of indulgences and trash on the lawn.

It’s very last-minute for another class, but I am wild about the idea of doing some kind of project about Paideia’s history. We can put a link to an online visual history and/or an article in the printed catalog.

I made up a condensed schedule for you to give to your friends. I will send it in a separate email.

Rory Bowman to Wes Hilton, January 9, 2008 @ 12:22

Notice that I said “coordinator” and not “signator.” A student was officially in charge, but the senate trusted me enough to let me take a more active role than any student was able to that year. At one point there had been some discussion about institutionalizing Paideia as a more cooperative affair while still retaining student control: bringing in a few alumni and staff folks, etcetera, but the students could never get their shit together enough to do to this. Youth is often wasted on the young, and very few students appreciate what a unique opportunity Paideia represents, or what a wide and deep reservoir of talent the Reed “community” provides. It absolutely needs to stay under the control of the student body (with a student leader and student financing) but it is very possible to create a “stable” of presenters and class themes that could stand in the wings to be drawn upon as needed. The closest we got was encouraging various staff departments to offer their trainings during this period and open them up, with Computer User Services being the largest participant and the Sports Center closely behind.

Another idea that nothing ever came of was for the signators to commit to two or three years: first as assistant, then as signator then as advisor. If you love Paideia and plan to be around for a while, there is a moderate base of past folks who have assisted with Paideia in the past and who would probably be willing to help, if asked, but the short schedule really complicates things, and every signator seems completely unaware that all of their problems have been solved before and wastes time re-inventing the wheel.

I fundamentally see the main constituencies of Reed as following a generational model, with staff as the parents, students as children and alumni as grandparents. The logical power alliance is between the children and the grandparents so that the parents don’t become tyrants, with Paideia a very powerful place for such countervailing force to manifest.

Barry Hansen was originally brought in as a fundraiser, to increase the net budget through ticket sales. It is possible for many Paideia activities to actually generate revenue which subsidizes other activities, but few students have the time to understand or manage that in addition to their studies.

- R

Wes Hilton to Rory Bowman on Jan 10, 2008 @ 18:05

I like what you say.

Especially the idea of keeping around a “stable” of classes/instructors. I was frustrated this year that my role was so reactionary: I just waited for people to submit applications and couldn’t manage to actively seek anyone out.

Also the thought of people staying around to be involved in Paideia more than once, and I don’t know how Emily feels but I’m considering doing this again next year. (Not if people felt I was monopolizing the position, though.) I’d definitely love to stick around as an alum to help out Paideia in the future.

Whatever happens, I am drawing up a few documents to influence Paideia in the future. One is a collection of my experiences and advice so that next year’s organizer gets a bit of a head start, and another is a list of suggestions to the student Senate and the administration in order to make the whole deal smoother. (Number one? Appoint the organizers earlier than November.)

~Wes

Rory Bowman to Wes Hilton,  Jan 11, 2008 @ 11:07

Let’s meet and talk sometime this week. Because Paideia is funded by the Senate and their budget cycle falls as it does, the scheduling is a consant issue. What I have suggested in the past is that a stable system be established for housing all of these materials in one place. At one point I had created a FileMaker database for all this, but I don’t think it was ever implemented, and in the era of FaceBook and blogs and such, this should be housed online in a place that is not subject to Reed’s internal network weirdness.

A logical place to begin would be to compile a list of past classes and instructors, and configure some sort of online presence for alumni and others to take part. Now that Reed Alumni Relations is running their “alumni college” schtick each June, it would be logical to use this as a place to recruit and perhaps create a tie-in of common interests. I have some ideas but want this to be a way for alumni to directly support the student body, not infantilize them: especially those alumni who are hostile to the administration or do not want their contribution to the “reed community” to be primarily financial.

I believe I still have much of the information from Paideia 1995, and can probably assemble more. If you can begin to assemble a list of past signators, that would help enormously. When would be a good time for us to meet in person about this? There is no reason, for example, that a bevy of Reed martial artists could not descend for a whole series of classes such as Emily expressed interest in, and most of those are NOT professionals who should be charging for their services. Same for writers, carpenters, brewers and more. Let’s talk!

- R

Wesley Hilton to Rory Bowman on Jan 11, 2008,@ 12:20

I work in the Admission Office daily (weekdays) until 1:00. If you’re not busy in the middle of the day that would be a good time to meet.

An electronic database is not a bad idea, but an additional paper file couldn’t hurt. The current staff of the Student Activities Office is very friendly towards Paideia and probably wouldn’t mind holding on to things in a file cabinet for us.

The central storage place gives me an idea for inviting alumni. Over the course of a year we can run advertisements (in the Reed magazine, etc) inviting alumni to submit their contact info and areas of interest. Responses can accumulate all year, then get examined more closely during the fall semester when the planning really gets going.

Sorry for backpedaling, but I think it’s too late to add more classes to the schedule at this point. We’re trying to send the catalog to the printer by early next week to be ready for people to read on Friday. If we can get more alumni involved in preexisting classes that would be great, but I don’t want to overextend this year.

~Wes

Rory Bowman to Wes Hilton, Jan 11, 2008 @ 16:46

Oh, I had no delusions about adding classes this year, but in getting something going for years to come. Paper files are always terrific, but also at the mercy of one bad decision by someone going through a file cabinet. It saddens me to hear that the archives have so little after 1990, because I know that those years included some of the most jam-packed Paideias ever. I’ll try to catch you sometime in the next week or so. – R

Rory Bowman to Wes Hilton on Jan 14, 2008 @ 15:11

Terrific! Thanks for letting me know.

I have emailed at least one other past Paideia signator I know (Marna Hauk) and she would be available to meet this Friday afternoon if you are game, to discuss longer-term (2009+) Paideia planning. Marna’s Paideia had about 300 classes, just slightly more than mine. She has also worked for many years as a project manager, so will have some valuable insights on that aspect.

- Rory

Wes Hilton to Cate Carter, Jan 13, 2008

Hello,

This isn’t about the bags, although they look very nice. I’m actually just looking for Kate Carter. I hope I’m not being a creepy stalker by contacting you this way, but the Reed alumni database doesn’t have anyone by that name, and the “contact us” page on madebycate.com was empty. (Rory Bowman directed me to the website.)

I’m one of the organizers for Paideia at Reed this year, and I’d like to do something for the 40th anniversary. I was hoping to find some materials in the library archives about the 1998 Paideia, but they’re all but empty. I know it’s a long shot, but do you have any old documents lying around that might have something to do with Paideia when you ran it? Would you be willing to answer a few questions by email?

Thanks for whatever help you can give, and sorry for the unexpectedness of contacting you this way. You can respond to me at [email address redacted]

- Wes

Cate Carter to Wes Hilton, Jan 14, 2008

Hi Wes,

I think you’ve unintentionally ventured into a mine field on this one. Rory probably did not have mentioned this, but I have had to obtain a permanent restraining order against him in an attempt to put an end to ten years of harassment. One of the elements of the restraining order is that he is legally enjoined from contacting me directly or inducing third parties to contact me. It is wholly inappropriate that Rory put you in this position.

While this has little to do with your purpose, it has everything to do with my response. I wish you all the best with your celebration of Paideia, but I cannot assist you in this matter – I have severed all ties with Reed College to protect my privacy. I hope you can understand my situation.

Best wishes,
Cate Carter

Wes Hilton to Cate Carter on Jan 14, 2008 @ 14:40 pm

You guessed right. I was very unaware of the true situation. I’m sorry for the part I played in stirring things up, and I won’t trouble you any further. I will not reveal this email address.

For the record, in case it matters later on: while Rory gave me your name and website and tole me to contact you, he never said anything about using any online forms to send a message. That was all me, thinking I was internet-clever for finding a way to reach an off-the-grid person. Now it’s more clear why you didn’t want to be found. My apologies.

Best,
Wes

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Catherine Lynne Carter, DOB: 2/2/5/77
vs
Rory Grey Bowman, DOB: 10/6/65, aka Rain Grey Bowman

Case number 0603 03051
FINAL STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER AND JUDGMENT

This matter came before court on 04/21/06 for hearing on issuance of a Final Stalking Protective Order and Judgment.

Petitioner appeared in person with attorney R. Callahan 88026.
Respondent appeared in person.

The Court finds For Final Judgement.

1. Respondent has engaged intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, in repeated and unwanted contact with the Petitioner or a member of the Petitioner’s immediate family or household.
2. Respondent knew or should have known that the repeated contact was unwanted
3. Petitioner was alarmed or coerced by this unwanted contact.
4. It is objectively reasonable for a person in Petitioner’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by Respondent’s contact
5. Respondent’s repeated and unwanted contact caused the Petitioner reasonable apprehension regarding the Petitioner’s own personal safety or the safety of a member of his/her immediate family or household.
6. Respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the person to be protected by this order.
7. Any unwanted contact that was purely communicative in nature was perceived by Petitioner as a credible threat of imminent serious personal violence or physical harm to Petitioner or a member of his/her family, and it was reasonable to believe that such threat was likely to be followed by unlawful acts.
8. It is therefore ordered that Respondent is required to stop any contact with the person protected by this order, and any attempt to make contact with the person protected by this order.

9. Contact includes, but is not limited to, the following:
A. Coming into the visual or physical presence of the other person;
B. Following the other person;
C. Waiting outside the home, property, place of work or school of the other person or a member of that person’s family or household;
D. Sending or making written or electronic communications in any form to the other person;
E. Speaking with the other person by any means;
F. Communicating with the other person by any means, including through a third person;
G. Committing a crime against the other person;
H. Communicating with a third person who has some relationship to the other person with the intent of affecting the third person’s relationship with the other person;
I. Communicating with business entities with the intent of affecting some right or interest of the other person;
J. Damaging the other person’s home, property, place of work, or school: or
K. Delivering directly or through a third person any object to the home, property, place of work or school of the other person.

10. SECURITY AMOUNT FOR VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER IS $50,000

A hearing on PERMANENT relief having been set for today after notice to the Respondent:

17. The court has ordered the terms of restraint detailed in paragraphs 8 and 9, above. This Order is a Final Judgment and is of unlimited duration unless modified by law or further order of the court.

18. Petitioner and Respondent was served in Court with a copy of this Order.

19. Respondent’s date of birth is October 6, 1965.

Dated this 21st day of April, 2006.

D. G. Todd, Circuit Court Judge Pro Tempore

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

CATHERINE CARTER, Petitioner,
vs.
RORY BOWMAN, Respondent.

Case No.: 0603-03051

Portland, Oregon
April 21, 2006
1:30 p.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE TODD
MULTNOMAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:        Robert Callahan, 405 NW 18th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97209, 503-228-0930

For the Respondent:    Rory Bowman, pro se, P.O. Box 202, Vancouver, WA 98666, 360-695-6929

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript produced by transcription service.

INDEX

OPENING STATEMENTS:                                PAGE

On behalf of Petitioner, by Robert Callahan                      6

On behalf of Respondent, by Rory Bowman                      8

WITNESSES FOR PETITIONER:    DIRECT     CROSS     RE-DIRECT    RE-CROSS

Catherine Carter            p. 10         n/a         n/a        n/a

Kevin Balmer                p.19         p.24         p.54        p.54

WITNESSES FOR RESPONDENT:

Rory Bowman            p.28         p.41         N/A        N/A

EXHIBITS:                            Marked        Received

Petitioner’s 1 – 1999 Stalking Order request        p.12            p.12

Respondent’s 101 – Chronology                p.27            p.28

Respondent’s 102 – photo                    p.27            p.36

Respondent’s 103 –     email excerpts            p.28            p.28

Petitioner’s 2 – letter with envelope            p.50            p.50

Petitioner’s 3 – package with address            p.53            p.53

ARGUMENT:    Mr. Callahan            p.54

RESPONSE:        Rory Bowman        p.55

MR. CALLAHAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Robert Callahan 88026 – page two the bottom line – it’s Carter versus Bowman. I am here representing petitioner I see that respondent is in the courtroom as well. My estimate is 30 to 60 minutes. We have two witnesses.

THE COURT: Do we have lawyers on both sides or just – ?

MR. CALLAHAN: I don’t know if Respondent is represented or not.

MR. BOWMAN: No I am not. I am the respondent too?

THE COURT: So, Mr. Bowman, you have two witnesses?

MR. BOWMAN: No, No. Just myself.

THE COURT: OK

MR. CALLAHAN: I, I have two, Your Honor.

THE COURT: OK. Well, but are both sides ready to go today? If I can squeeze – I just don’t know. It depends on how many other cases I have but – OK. I’ll recall the case. Thank you for letting me know.

THE COURT: OK so let’s go ahead and get started. Catherine Carter and Rory Bowman. If everybody is ready on that case you can come forward. If there are enough chairs you can sit at the same table because we don’t have that many people so…just sit at opposite ends of the table will be fine. Is there another witness as well?

MR. CALLAHAN: Yes there is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If they want to grab a chair somewhere close that’s fine. Yes sir?

MR. BOWMAN: How long will this take?

THE COURT: It’s hard to predict. It’s hard to predict.

MR. BOWMAN: Can I get a transcript of this?

/////

THE COURT: Yeah – we are recording everything. It’s on hard disk, so it’s not a windows media file but it is similar to an audio file. You can get a CD burned of that. I think they are going to charge you $5 or $10 or something like that. It takes a week or two to get a copy.

Alright. First of all, let’s make sure we have correct names and correct spellings. Is it Catherine with a “C”? C-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E? Middle name L-Y-N-N-E? Last name Carter, C-A-R-T-E-R? And is the date of birth 2-25-77?

MS. CARTER: Yes.

THE COURT: And then, Mr. Bowman, we have two different spellings. So I want to…

MR. BOWMAN: The top one is correct.

THE COURT: R-O-R-Y. And the Middle name is G-R-E-Y, B-O-W-M-A-N?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And uh 10-6-65?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And we’ve got a third witness here. What is your name sir?

MR. BALMER: Kevin

THE COURT: Kevin? And what is your last name sir?

MR. BALMER: Balmer. B-A-L-M-E-R.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Balmer.

Let me explain briefly how a hearing works in case you folks haven’t seen one. It’s basically a miniature trial. I’ll make the uh petitioner, which is basically the plaintiff, bringing the case to go to court. Let them put on their evidence first. When each witness is done testifying the other side has the right of cross-examination which means you can ask questions. It doesn’t mean you should be cross like you see on TV. I don’t want people to argue with each other. It happens all the time. Because unless you are legally trained, especially if you are involved in the case emotionally, it is really easy to end up just arguing with the other person so don’t do that. But if you want to ask specific questions you can ask specific questions. Usually its yes or no kind of questions: “Isn’t it true your car is red?” “Isn’t it true that’s your signature?” “Isn’t it true you said ‘x,y,z’?” You can ask questions like that. But most of the time what people really want to do is tell me why they think the witness is wrong. So try not to argue with them. What you do is take notes. I encourage people to take notes so when the other witness is testifying you’re not so tempted to interrupt each other and that way when it is your turn to testify you don’t forget to say why you think they were wrong. So I will allow cross examination as long as it is appropriate but many times you just want to takes notes and tell me how you disagree.

Ok, Plaintiff, or Petitioner, puts on all her witnesses first and then we turn to the other side which is Respondent, or the Defendant, and you put on your witnesses. Sometimes we have to return to the other side for what’s called rebuttal. That’s when the one side brings up something the other side didn’t think of they get a chance to respond. We are fairly loose on the rules. I want everyone to say everything they want to say, we just have to have some order with that. When we are done with all the evidence then I will listen to argument from both sides as to what I should decide in the case and then I’ll reach a decision, I’ll give you a copy of that, and that will be the end of the case. Any questions?

Oh, one other thing. The documents, it’s very helpful, and I usually require you to show paperwork to the other side so that while we are testifying in court they can see what – oh and it’s helpful if you can get copies. And if there’s an objection to something I’ll try to rule on it before we actually bring it into evidence.

The other thing we often do in trials or hearings is what’s called an opening statement which is like a summary like a preview of what the evidence is going to be. That’s really hard to do unless you are experienced at it because you end up giving your whole case at opening. But if each side wants to give me a summary of what the dispute is about you can do that. When witnesses testify I suggest you try to go in chronological order and let me know from the very beginning how did you first meet this person, what was the relationship, what went wrong, when did things start happening. It helps me to do that. I don’t think that I specifically said this but I wanted to mention that what’s written in the petition I am not going to assume is true. One of the good things about our system is a different judge heard the case just to make sure there is enough evidence to have a hearing. But I am not that other Judge. You’ve got to start from scratch even though I read the files I’d like everyone to say everything out loud in court so we all know exactly what’s the issue. Any questions? OK.

Does Petitioner want to give an opening?

MR. CALLAHAN: Yes, Your Honor.

PETITIONER’S OPENING STATEMENT

MR. CALLAHAN: This is one of those cases that is going to go back in time. We are going to go back 9 almost 10 years, 1997. The Petitioner dated the Respondent’s brother and  it was brief. They broke up and the Petitioner then began dating Respondent. They were students together at Reed College. This is actually the first contact I have had with respondent. And everything that I’ve read about him tells me that he’s intelligent, thoughtful. I believe he has a Masters degree, if not he’s close to a Masters degree I believe in woman’s studies. He’s very smart. He’s a computer technician, an IT person, and he appears to be articulate and very together. But we’re dealing with ex-lovers, if you will. Their relationship ended in under a year in 1998. There was a no contact request that was made by petitioner to respondent basically saying please leave me alone. This was made via email and petitioner retained an attorney. In 1999 when those requests were ignored there was a stalking order complaint filed. I have a copy of the judgment from that case. Ultimately after the hearing that matter was dismissed without the order issuing.

THE COURT: Mm-hmm

MR. CALLAHAN: The respondent and petitioners were the same parties, same names, in that action. Essentially respondent said, “I didn’t know my behavior was offensive and unwanted.” Now we have from 1999 to the present a series of back door third party contacts, escalating patterns of behavior that bring a great deal of stress to petitioner. The respondent has a history of depression, of medication, both on and off medication; this whole relationship is complicated by the fact that after petitioner broke up with the respondent’s brother he committed suicide. That death weighs heavily in this relationship. There’s a possibility that there is other drug use involved. There is some reference to it in one of the letters that he wrote. There have been death threats against third parties. There have been suicide threats by the respondent. My understanding that he is trained and experienced in martial arts and that he was an Army ranger in the military. That brings credibility to the threats.

There were attempts by the respondent to contact the petitioner through mail sent to her parents, through mail sent to her attorney and there’s an internet, it’s not a chat room, it’s kind of a society where people interact…

THE COURT: Mm-hmm.

/////
MR. CALLAHAN: …called the tribe. And there has been contact developed through that forum wherein the respondent discovered and intimate relationship with the petitioner’s current boyfriend and showed up at the screening of this movie and then totally unexpectedly showed up in the parking lot of his work outside his car. Before that time they really had no interaction at all. And as a result the petitioner is alarmed. She is frightened. She is worried that we are dealing with a possible murder-suicide situation given the mental issues here. She has made numerous credible attempts to communicate to the respondent that she doesn’t want anything to do with him. And in spite of that, again, we get a pattern of escalating behavior and contacts of a disturbing nature. So, the petitioner asks that this order be entered and that the respondent be told to “stay away.”

THE COURT: Thanks. Alright sir, you have the right to make an opening statement. Just a summary of what your issues are. I’ll give you a chance to give your whole case in a minute. But do you want to just give me a summary of what your position is?

RESPONDENT’S OPENING STATEMENT

MR. BOWMAN: I was born and raised here in Portland; I’ve lived here my entire life. I don’t have any reason to believe that petitioner’s fear is not authentic. But I don’t believe any of my actions would cause a reasonable person to be fearful. Portland is not a very large town. We are both of uh, similar age and similar interests. Actually I periodically see the petitioner around town, more often than not but I usually avoid it. So, I believe that there is no escalation and while the contact is not wanted I have made efforts to respect those wishes and a reasonable person would not be fearful.

/////

The gist of the 1999 hearing, and I don’t have the case number here, is that the Judge told me not to be a jerk. And told the petitioner that a reasonable person wouldn’t be fearful and I was instructed to contact her via letter to the lawyer if I was to do that which is basically what I’ve done until the lawyer disappeared.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. BOWMAN: Yeah, and that’s over a period of years and years. And that’s covered on the yellow sheet which is the chronology.

THE COURT: Okay, so we’ll talk about that later.

OK. I’ll go ahead with the first witness unless we need to do something with that other case.

Um, Mr. Williams? I want to give you plenty of time to review the documents. Do you need some more time to look at those? I am just going to go witness by witness on this other case and give you a chance to…do you still want to go through those?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

THE COURT: OK. Then I’ll go ahead with the first witness on this case. Um, go ahead. With, Ms. Carter then?

MR. CALLAHAN: Catherine Carter.

THE COURT: Okay, Ms. Carter, please stand for a moment and raise your right hand.

CATHERINE CARTER, PETITIONER’S WITNESS, SWORN

THE COURT: Go ahead.

/////
/////
/////

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALLAHAN:

Q.    Let’s go back to before you met the Respondent. You were a student at Reed College is that correct?

A.    That is correct.

Q.    And about what time was that?

A.     I arrived at Reed in August of 1994. I met the respondent a few days later when my car was broken into. And as part of his job as a campus security office he came and looked at my car and filed a report with campus security.

Q.     And I assume over the next couple of years you had just passing acquaintance with him.

A.    Yes, we were both members of a student group on campus and I saw him through that group.

Q.    And at some point in time you began dating his brother Marcus, is that correct?

A.    Yes.

Q.     Ok, and uh, was Marcus a student at Reed?

A.    No he was not.

Q.    Ok and, and, a point to clarify I want to make was respondent a student at Reed?

A.    No, he an alumnus and worked with campus security.

Q.    And, there were a lot of intense and personal feelings that resulted after Marcus’ suicide, right?

A.    Correct.

Q.    Just for chronological help, you began seeing Marcus in 1997?

A.    It was the summer after my sophomore year which uh, 94, 95, yes, 97.

Q.    Ok. And about how long did that relationship last?

A.    It was over, I believe by September 1997.

Q.    And then soon after that you began dating respondent.

A.    Yes.

Q.    And how long did that relationship last?

A.    I moved out in late February of 1998. And that was basically the end of that relationship.

Q.    And when did the respondent’s brother Marcus commit suicide?

A.    Uh, it was right before Easter in 1997.

Q.    So after your relationship with respondent ended, what sort of communications did you have with him regarding your desire for contact?

A.    I felt that I had made it pretty clear that I didn’t want to talk to him. And he didn’t take it seriously. He sent a multiple-choice quiz to my house with a pencil in it so that I could indicate my contact wishes on this form and mail it back to him. Which I did not do.

Q.    When you said that you made your wishes clear, do you have any specific examples of how you may have communicated that to him?

A.    I believe I told him directly over the phone. Um, after the note incident. I was starting to become alarmed and I didn’t want to meet with him in person. I had an acquaintance who was an attorney and she agreed that she would meet with him on my behalf and explain to him that I didn’t want to hear from him and that he should leave me alone. And at, I can’t testify to what was said at that meeting but um, the behavior escalated and that is what brought me here for the first hearing.

Q.    What was it about the contact that caused you alarm? (2:38:55)

A.     In one incident Mr. Bowman used a key that he had for my vehicle and apparently drove it to his house, loaded a sofa in the back that some friends of mine had given me when I was living with him. He placed on the passenger seat a package he sent to my parents’ house that I asked them to return to sender and in that package there was a letter stating that he was putting his house in order, and that phrase disturbed me in light of his brother’s suicide . And that was the incident that prompted my bringing my first stalking complaint.

Q.    So, so you said that even after your friend the attorney had a meeting with that the contacts continued.

A.    Yes.

Q.     OK. I have a copy here of what appears to be the original stalking complaint. Does that look like the correct one?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And, and, in it you make certain allegations about the then respondents’ behavior…

THE COURT: Excuse me just a sec. Excuse me just a sec. Gentlemen, is there some problem?

MR. WILLIAMS: No.  <inaudible> (related to another case on the docket)

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Excuse me.

MR. CALLAHAN: I am marking these items. I’d offer this into evidence.

(Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 marked for identification and received into evidence.)

Q.     When you filed that complaint in 1999 did it go to a hearing similar to this one?

A.    It did.

Q.    Ok, and at that hearing did respondent testify?

A.    He did.

/////

Q.    And what was his response to your suggestion that you were alarmed by his behavior and you had asked him not to contact you?

A.    He basically expressed that he didn’t understand why we had broken up and he didn’t…my understanding of what he said was the he feels or felt at that time there is some answer I could give him that would allow him to resolve the end of this relationship. And, that he just felt that he was trying to get that resolution and that was the reason for the ongoing contact.

Q.    The result of that hearing was that the Judge did not continue the stalking order, is that correct?

A.    That is correct. At the time Mr. Bowman was teaching elementary school and he specifically told the judge that he worked in the schools and he didn’t want this kind of complaint on his record.

Q.    Was there any suggestion by the judge that Mr. Bowman refrain further contact?

A.    That, that is certainly my recollection of what the judge verbally stated at the end of the case. He asked Mr. Bowman to return my car key to my attorney, and my understanding from what he said was that the judge told him to leave me alone.

Q.    Has Mr. Bowman the respondent spoken to you at all about his mental state?

A.    I haven’t spoken with him since the last time I was in a court room with him. Before that when we were involved he talked about suicide as a philosophical issue. He mentioned it a lot. He’s a creative person, he’s a writer. It is my opinion that he may suffer from depression. I believe from my interaction with him, I believe he has a temperament that is compulsive and erratic and an anger management problem.

Q.    Has he ever in your presence made death threats against anyone?

A.    Yes

Q.    And, can you give us an example?

A.    Before we were involved Mr. Bowman was married to a woman named [Kimberly Rhiannon]. She began an affair and, on multiple occasions. Mr. Bowman talked about killing her boyfriend, a gentleman named [Kaleb]. He posted an acrostic poem using the letters of this man’s name that began with the line “Killing is too good for this adulterer”. He at one point mentioned to me decapitating this man with a shovel, specifically mentioning that he would do it from the back of the neck to the front to leave a ragged edge on the severed head. I find that really disturbing.

Q.     Sometimes in life people make threats that they not only don’t have the intent to carry out but don’t have the capacity. Is there anything about Mr. Bowman that makes you think he has the capacity to carry out such threats?

A.    I believe that he does. I have seen him angry. I don’t believe that he is entirely in control of himself when he is angry. I have seen him rip a pair of pants that he was wearing to shreds and he is trained in a number of different martial arts. I believe he has the training and physical capacity to do pretty much anything he wants.

Q.    Has he ever made any statements to you that he is on medication for his mental health?

A.    There is a, what I would classify as a vague reference in a letter that is here in court today. In that letter he also, I, I don’t have a specific threat of him doing something to me but he talks about doing something rash and, given the history of the situation, that disturbs me.

Q.    We’ve been talking about things that happened quite a while ago in time. I suggested to the judge that Mr. Bowman has engaged in a pattern of escalating behavior. Are there things that have happened more recently regarding Mr. Bowman either contacting you directly or through friend or attempting to contact you?

A.    The most recent presence of him in my world has been on the tribe.net Internet service.

Q.    Just very briefly would you explain to the court what tribe.net is? I tried, I don’t know why…

THE COURT:    Is it like MySpace or something…?

MS. CARTER:    Exactly. I have a profile on that service that I use both to connect with my friends and for business purposes. And I noticed that Mr. Bowman had signed on to that service. It has a feature where you can have a group of friends, and Mr. Bowman was apparently on the friends list of people that I knew. I immediately removed those people from my friends list and placed Mr. Bowman on “Ignore” so that if he tried to send me a message I wouldn’t receive it. And when he was on the service his avatar icon wouldn’t appear. Also, I immediately put up a note that I sent out on a global thing to everyone that I know that said there is somebody on this service who shouldn’t have my contact information. Please just don’t give out my contact information out to anyone on this service without talking to me first.

/////

I don’t want to ruin this guy’s life. I just want to respect his privacy as much as I can. I just want to be left alone.

Q.    Have there been attempts that you are aware of by Mr. Bowman to try to contact you for instance through the mail or through third parties other than on tribe.net?

A.    Yes. Um, there’s a letter also here in court today. In my capacity as a dress maker and costumer there is a woman named Eleanor Friedberg. At one point Mr. Bowman sent a letter to me care of my parents with a return address of my name care of Eleanor Friedberg, and then her address. Additionally she was doing a performance that I had made a costume for her for that , and Mr. Bowman was going to videotape of. She specifically told him that I was going to be there and didn’t tell me that he was going to be there because she felt that if I knew he was going to be there I wouldn’t go. And that was the last time I was in a room with him.

The most recent thing that happened that is really the reason we are here today is the contact between Mr. Bowman and Mr. Balmer.

Q.    Which is <inaudible>, To your knowledge since the 1998 message sent through your friend the attorney, have you ever um, suggested in any way to Mr. Bowman or others that time has passed and you don’t mind reconnecting?

A.    Absolutely not. I have moved to make sure, well to do my best to make sure he doesn’t have my address; I have an unlisted phone number; I don’t promote my business because I don’t want him to somehow acquire my contact information. Um, I have tried to make it as difficult as possible as possible for him to find me without leaving the place that has been my home for the last almost 12 years.

Q.    And in spite of that, he has continued to somehow make contact?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Why is it that you feel your physical safety is threatened by Mr. Bowman?

A.    There are two parts of that. The first one is that I believe if you are going to do violence to another person you first have to establish that they are not a person with rights and feelings, and I think that you have to diminish them before you can take that next step. The fact that Mr. Bowman repeatedly violates my wishes, invades my privacy, involves my family and loved ones. I feel that if he saw me as a whole person with rights he’d probably leave me alone. I think that’s what a sane person would do in that situation.

That being said I also feel that if he aggresses against me I don’t really feel like I’ve got a chance. I’ve taken self defense classes but I am not really interested in martial arts. I don’t want to devote years of my life to trying to be able to defend myself against something I don’t know is going to happen. It seems like a waste of energy. At the same time I have done what I can to try to protect myself. He’s going to argue that my fear isn’t rational and reasonable. I feel that his repeated harassment isn’t reasonable and that it I can’t imagine how this behavior would be anything but alarming to any other person in my situation.

Q.    You said “if he aggresses against you” you would have a hard time defending yourself. What makes you feel like he has an intent towards aggressiveness?

A.    I feel that he has somehow gotten it into his head that I can answer for him the question of why the relationship ended and I don’t have that answer. And the continued contact and the continued coercion of trying to get this answer that I don’t have is, I just don’t know where it’s going to stop. I can’t give him what he wants and I don’t. I’m sorry. May I have a minute?

Q.    Would you like some water?

A.    Yes, please. Thank you.

/////

A.    I feel that the ongoing contact and his current escalation points to escalation and that is particularly why I am concerned for my personal safety.

Q.    When you talk about recent escalation, do you include Mr. Bowman’s contact with Mr. Balmer?

A.    I do.

Q.    And how, how did that affect you?

A.    It was extremely upsetting. I have been, I don’t, I lived with Mr. Balmer for about a year and a half and I don’t feel comfortable at his house. I have to assume that Mr. Bowman has determined where Mr. Balmer lives. It’s made me concerned for his safety. It’s made me concerned for my safety.

Q.    That’s all, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Alright. As I mentioned earlier Mr. Bowman you have the right of cross-examination if they are very specific focused questions. If they are things you just disagree with her about then you should just tell me directly. Do you have specific questions for this witness?

MR. BOWMAN: Um, I, let’s see, I would disagree with the technical aspects of the death threat against Mr. Naholi.

THE COURT: OK. Well you can talk about that when it’s your turn. One question I have so I would be clear on the time frame of some of these incidents. The internet, um, tribe site, when did that happen?

MS. CARTER: Um, that was I believe January of this year.

THE COURT: of this um, of 2006? OK. Were there other incidents in the past several years? Because I heard about the history, I’m just a little blurred as to exactly where they fit.

/////

MS. CARTER: There are post marks on the letters from 2002 and 2003. Um, I um, I believe that I, I’m not certain about the date of the dance performance, I believe it was 2001.

THE COURT: Okay. But in terms of the past two years the, the main issues you are focusing on are this internet issue and the contact with Mr. Balmer?

MS. CARTER: Yes.

THE COURT: Those are the two things that happened in the past two years?

MS. CARTER: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify what that was. Um, anymore questions for this witness?

MR. CALLAHAN: No. Not for this witness.

THE COURT: Okay. Let’s move onto the next witness then.

MR. CALLAHAN: We call Kevin Balmer.

THE COURT: Mr. Balmer, would you stand up for a moment? Please raise your right hand.

KEVIN BALMER, PETITIONER’S WITNESS, SWORN

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALLAHAN:

Q.    Mr. Balmer, what do you do for a living?

A.    I am an application support analyst with geographic information systems for a national communication firm.

Q.    Where is that physically located?

A.    That’s located at 21st and Savier, Northwest Portland.

Q.    And um, how, how long have you known Ms. Carter?

A.    I believe that Ms. Carter and I began seeing each other in April or May of 2004.

Q.     Prior to that time did you have any knowledge or interaction with Mr. Bowman?

A.    No. None.

Q.     Is it fair to say that the only way you know of Mr. Bowman is through your relationship with Ms. Carter?

A.    That would be fair.

Q.    Um, in addition to your employment you also have an avocation, do you not?

A.    Uh, excuse me?

Q.    Something else you enjoy doing?

A.    Uh, I do film and stuff.

Q.    To the best of your recollection, when was the first time that you knew that you were having any sort of interaction with Mr. Bowman?

A.    Let me check here… to be accurate. Um, he sent me a message through the tribe service stating that he was interested in coming to see uh, a film that I had produced that was playing at the Portland State Theatre. He <inaudible> and I can’t recall specifically when but it probably would have been sometime in early December this last year.

Q.    Of 2005?

A.    That’s correct.

Q.    And at the time that you received that message did you have any idea of who he was?

A.    I was aware of Mr. Bowman’s presence on the tribe service, and I believe it was just kind of a random chance that we discovered that we had perhaps seen his presence prior to that but it was it probably would have been a few weeks prior to his first contact with me.

Q.    And, with that contact, that presence on tribe, was he identified as Rory Bowman?

A.    If I recall correctly his name on tribe was just Rory. R-O-R-Y.

Q.    Was there some point where you made the connection to this Rory on the internet and Rory Bowman of Cate Carter’s past?

A.    I don’t believe so, not until there was some discussion between Cate and I about his presence being on tribe but I wasn’t aware of who he was.

Q.    Was there an incident that occurred back at the showing at the film?

A.    Um, there was no encounter on that day that I recall. He did compliment me on my film shortly after, which indicated to me that he was actually there.

Q.    Did you have another occasion where you had an interaction, a physical interaction with Mr. Bowman?

A.    Yea – there was an incident a few weeks ago, perhaps a couple of months ago, I can’t recall what date it was at this point but it was a kind of random encounter. I didn’t expect him to sort of confront me or engage me where I work. I’m not even quite sure how he knew where I worked. And that again was probably a couple of months ago now.

Q.    Could you describe for the court what happened at that um, confrontation?

A.    Again, I‘ll try to recall as best I can. I got out of my vehicle and Rory was perhaps maybe 30 or 40 feet away. He just sort of appeared in a way. I didn’t see him as I went to park the vehicle.

Q.    Ok. So let me stop you. You were arriving at work?

A.    That’s correct.

Q.    And is it a company parking lot?

A.    It is. It’s a rather large one. I don’t know if you know northwest Portland it’s a huge, several big lots of parking spaces for the CNF on <inaudible> for employees.

Q.    Ok. So, I interrupted you as you were beginning to tell the court what happened. I just wanted to set the scene, location of where it was.

THE COURT: Okay. What time do you get to work?

MR. BALMER: Uh, this is probably sometime around 9 in the morning.

THE COURT: Okay.

A.    Again, I can’t recall specifically the dialogue how it went exactly, but Rory  introduced himself and really kind of moved from A to B very quickly saying something to the effect like “I think you probably know who I am um, and there are some things that uh, I would really like to talk to you about, regarding some issues that have happened between Cate and I in the past.”  He continued to follow me as I made my way toward the building.

Q.    Did you indicate to him at any way that this was awkward or uncomfortable or conversation that you know that you really hadn’t planned on having with him at the time?

A.    Well I am a very accommodating person and again I didn’t really know specifically what the history was between my girlfriend Cate and Rory. But I was aware that there was quite a bit of tension and so I wanted to give him an opportunity really to engage me but I have to confess that I wasn’t really responsive in any of his offers to have a dialogue, either in person or on the internet.

Q.    Have there been other overtures by Mr. Bowman toward you to converse about his relationship with Ms. Carter?

A.    No there were not.

Q.    Have you had any sort of indication from him that that’s his desire?

A.    None specifically, no.

Q.    Ok. Can we go back to the parking lot? Again I interrupted that. I apologize. Last I remember you said that he approached you as you were exiting your vehicle around 9:00 a.m. and heading, I assume, toward work.

A.    That’s right.

Q.    Can you, can you pick up from that point and describe to the Court what happened?

A.    Again, there was really kind of a quick assumption or quick jump from A to B, that I was aware of a lot of the history between him and Ms. Carter. And so I was really not able to kind of process some of the things that he was trying to tell me. It was a little bit unusual, hearing, and that is part of the reason I am really having kind of a hard time trying to recall kind of the exact language.

Q.    Is it common for you to be approached by people in the parking lot at 9 o’clock in the morning on the way to work?

A.    It’s not common at all.

Q.    And, did you find it somewhat alarming?

A.    I did, actually.

Q.    Uh, did you have questions running through your mind like, you know, like “why is this guy here?” and “how did he find me?”

A.    Well, I did actually think that it was quite odd because as it became obvious that Rory was making some attempt to sort of be in some part of her life um, and we needed to talk about what that looked like.  I got exposure to Cate’s feelings about her fears related to all of this and so, aside from sort of the kind of the unpredictability, the feelings of unpredictability about his character as described by Cate. That was pretty much the extent that I was just a little bit alarmed, a little bit surprised to see that. It was a very strange encounter.

Q.    Was there anything about his overtures that, that you took as threatening, either directly or overtly to you regarding your relationship with Ms. Carter?

A.    No there weren’t, really.

Q.    Have you had any other interaction with Mr. Bowman since that time?

A.    No I’ve not.

MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Alright. Your cross examination. Any questions for this witness?

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWMAN:

Q.    Yeah. A question. Mr. Balmer, you said the first contact with me you are aware of on tribe was in regard to the film. Was there any contact before that, do you recall?

A.    I don’t believe there was.

Q.    Were you aware of um, Ms. Carter’s citywide broadcast email on the 3rd or 4th of December?

A.    I wasn’t. I don’t believe she stated that that was something she was planning to do. I actually just saw it up there.

Q.    The PDX tribe, general Portland broadcast.

THE COURT: What was this? This email? Was it an email or uh, the witness can tell us if he knows what…

/////

MR. BALMER: She actually referenced it earlier in her testimony. She referenced that she put up a posting to um, I don’t believe it was citywide, it really, it basically went to all the people in her address book that she has connections to.

THE COURT: In the tribe thing?

MR. BALMER: Yup.

THE COURT: Okay. What was it about?

MR. BOWMAN: This is the email she referenced, the message she referenced where she didn’t want anybody giving out any of her personal information: um, where she lived, phone numbers, to anyone that might come to her looking for it.

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. BOWMAN: I may have a copy of that Your Honor. Yes I do. I have two copies of it. There is the first version as originally posted and the second version and one of them was posted under her name and the second was posted under an alias, “Invisigoth,” which is relevant.

THE COURT: Mm-hmm

MR. BOWMAN: And, is this the appropriate time to mention this?

THE COURT: Well, sure, I, I think right now you are asking the witness questions , so we’ll let him look at that exhibit and he can tell us what he knows about it.

MR. BOWMAN: Because the reason I am asking  Mr. Balmer this question is because this incident happened at the beginning of December. The invitation and the film invite happened at the beginning of January, is my recollection. So that’s like a month between them. And that…

THE COURT: Let’s just let the witness respond to this. Do you recognize those?

MR. BALMER: Yes I do.

THE COURT: And those are the messages or whatever you want to call them from, from her to the people in the tribe group?

MR. BALMER: That’s correct.

THE COURT: And what do they say? Just basically or you can read the whole thing back.

MR. BALMER: Uh, It’s very brief, Your Honor. If you want…

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. BALMER: OK. “Dear Family, an individual has popped up on tribe in the last few weeks who should not have access to my contact information due to multiple instances of unwanted contact. Please, Please, Please do not give out my phone number or address to anyone on tribe. Anyone with a genuine need to contact me can do so through tribe.” That’s basically it.

THE COURT: Okay. So, sir, your main point is the timing of those…

MR. BOWMAN: Also the distribution of these was, the way tribe works is a social networking site. When you post something you post it to groups you are part of and there is a group that is citywide called PDX and that is actually where my girlfriend saw this and asked me about it because she knew who Cate was. So, basically it went out all of Portland and I, and that’s…

THE COURT: Do you have any other questions for this witness?

MR. BOWMAN: No, I just wanted to establish the time, uh, the timeline of the initial contact.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else for this witness?

MR. CALLAHAN: None.

/////

THE COURT: Alright. Any more evidence for the petitioner? Any more documents or other testimony?

MR. CALLAHAN: I’m sorry, not at this time.

THE COURT: Okay. So, Petitioner rests at this point. So what that means is now it’s your turn. They are done with their evidence and you can proceed however you want to. Obviously you can testify yourself. You had something you gave to the clerk and unless there is an objection, I’ll look at that while you testify – is that your summary?

MR. BOWMAN: Yes: Three pieces of paper. The yellow one is a chronology, which I’ll start out with and you can look at that. Basically because there are lots of people and lots of dates over quite a bit of time.

THE COURT: Okay. Just a second. Oh, I see. Yeah, we’ll give them numbers right now and then we can ok…let’s go ahead and give these things numbers right now.

MR. BOWMAN: The yellow one is the first one.

(Respondent’s Exhibit 101 marked for identification.)

THE COURT: Then what’s your next one?

Mr. BOWMAN: The next one is a picture of Mr. Ballmer –

THE COURT: OK. That’s the one page on the green paper – a photograph…

(Respondent’s Exhibit 102 marked for identification.)

MR. BOWMAN: And the next one is four pages. Excerpts…

THE COURT: Looks like an email or a letter something

MR. BOWMAN: Yeah.

/////

THE COURT: Okay. And it’s about four pages. Okay so I’ll staple that together.

(Respondent’s Exhibit 103 marked for identification.)

THE COURT: Are there any objections to these being offered.

MR. CALLAHAN: I do object to 102 but have no objection to 101 or 103.

(Respondent’s Exhibits 101 and 103 received into evidence.)

THE COURT: I’ll wait to hear more about 102. OK, sir. Thank you Mr. Bowman. That way I can follow along with what you’re talking about. 101 is received. Let me take a look at this because it might help me understand. Um… Oh, ok. Okay, I thank you. Now I have a better idea of what you’re talking about. Go ahead.

DIRECT EXAMINATION/TESTIMONY BY RORY BOWMAN:

A.    Uh, let’s see. Basically things are pretty much in accordance with Ms. Carter’s testimony as far as the timeline. I believe she actually dated my brother in the summer of 1996, about a year, a little bit less than a year before my brother’s death by suicide. The other things were the last normal contact we had before the court hearing was in April of ‘98 in her apartment when she invited me over. The address of which I did not know until she called and invited me over. I it’s technically very easy for me to get these things but, yeah…

THE COURT: Oh, I’m sorry. I usually do it at the beginning of a hearing without…thank you.

RORY BOWMAN, RESPONDENT’S WITNESS, SWORN

/////

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I usually swear all the witnesses when we start and I didn’t do that. I’m sorry.

A.    So the other big difference on the chronology so there was a little bit more time between them not, them being breaking up and the death of my brother Marcus.  And in 1999, when Ms. Carter had moved out from my house in February of 1998 there were a variety of small items Ms. Carter said she wanted. For example, the only one I  remember with any clarity was a small ceramic rice bowl that a small jade plant was in. And those were the items that I had mailed down to her in August 1998 that were returned to me.

THE COURT: Those were in the box?

A.    Yes, that was the box. And I felt I was um, she had asked me to return these things and I had done so and the package was returned refused and that’s when I was admittedly a jerk and I said, “I’ve got this ugly couch in my living room and you’re refusing the stupid bowls” that I’ve been saving. And my reference to, she mentioned I was putting my house in order. I was literally cleaning house and finding various small items like that bowl that she had asked me to return. So the sequence in 1999 is I, which is sort of a question mark because I am unsure of the dates here in the second <inaudible>, but she had asked me to mail her things back which I did and she sent back refused which struck me as just really…it annoyed me more than it should which is when I “stole” her car to take her back her couch. It’s like “Look, you wanted me to do you a favor. I’ve been paying for this couch. Now get out of my hair.” That’s when she interpreted that as a threat. It wasn’t unwanted contact. I thought I was helping her out.  The judge’s verbal order at that time was to return the car key through the other lawyer, and if I had anything further to say do so through the lawyer. <Inaudible> because she didn’t want any further contact. So, that’s established. It wasn’t not to know anything about her or anything like that: it’s just if you need to contact her do it through the lawyer. So, I did that over the years. I believe there were some letters that were sent to her lawyer. Her lawyer I believe stopped practicing or moved or something.

THE COURT: Who’s the lawyer?

MR. BOWMAN: The lawyer was Nancy Cooper.

THE COURT: I think she is doing corporate now. Oh, yea. Yea she’s <inaudible>. Did she have blond hair?

MR. BOWMAN: It’s a long time ago, I don’t…

THE COURT: Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know <inaudible> but I know who they are.

A.    Anyway, so, in keeping with the judge’s verbal instruction I’ve done that. Um, she had left and the letters bounced. It is my custom um, with people I’ve known for a long time, every year just to send a birthday card. For example Ms. Carter mentioned a February ‘03 letter I happened to be out of state, and  in her complaint she said it was an out of state postmarked with return address and blah, blah, blah. Based on the earlier package being returned I did not want to use my own address because I knew that would annoy me, so I used the address of a person I knew , who knew her and who I mentioned inside the letter so she wouldn’t be freaked out by it. So if she marked the letter refused I wouldn’t have to hear about it. I wouldn’t get annoyed,  and I already mentioned that that person had told me about her, so it seemed a logical choice. Just a mutual acquaintance. So that letter was one of three. I sent three birthday letters that day. I kept copies of them. And the birthday letter I wrote is on page 104 of 103.

THE COURT: Three letters all…

/////

A.    The first one uh, the first one was 19 February. The letter to Ms. Carter turned into evidence where she seemed to indicate I was off my medication and um uh, what was the words she said? And the reason I, since I already had this custom of writing letters to people, the other letters I wrote were to a fellow I’ve known since 4th grade and to someone I went to college with in the 80’s, that day. So I decided that if I were to have any contact with Ms. Carter I would do it in the form of a letter to her lawyer on her birthdays. Just to establish something arbitrary that would not be related to anything, you know, about my emotional health. I have written and done a lot of psychological therapy around the death of my brother and so forth but yeah. So, anyway, that was the letter, the letter I sent to her through a mutual acquaintance and a client of hers. Actually the mutual acquaintance, her client and I were romantically involved that year, and there were several times Ms. Carter was at the house and did now know that I was there. So that was sort of the shitty thing on the part of the mutual acquaintance.

I’ve had plenty of opportunity to find Ms. Carter if I’d wanted to find her. I don’t believe there is anything that she can give me, and I want to establish that. I don’t mean any ill will, but after she had, she had freaked out about that letter I sent to our mutual acquaintance and then when I had joined tribe.net. The timeline becomes important here because 102 becomes relevant here because I have  a computer consulting business and, like Ms. Carter, one of the ways if you are a small business person in the modern age to get business contacts is to do networking. I had a client who suggested I sign up on tribe because the sort of people who are creative types are there.

THE COURT: Mm-hmm

/////

A.    And I do Macintosh computers including film, video editing and stuff. So that seemed a logical thing. In fact, someone who knows Ms. Carter is a client of mine and actually I know Mr. Balmer because I was a tech writer with a fellow who was in the same graduate program,  and I know of Mr. Balmer from KBOO radio and a project he worked on. I was a tech writer with James Gill who was on your master’s project. So, I knew of him. Portland’s not a big town.
<inaudible>

MR. BOWMAN: Yea, <laughing>. Hey, wait a minute!

A.    Um, anyway so I had joined tribe in November. In mid-November, because I left tribe I don’t have the exact date but it was sometime in mid-November. Um, the reason that’s relevant is because I had seen Ms Carter tribe. I had joined tribe in early November,  looking for new clients, I was active on the Macintosh boards, making my expertise known. I had seen Ms. Carter there but I ignored her. I’d seen her around town periodically. I saw her at Alberta art street walk, saw her downtown, saw her for a dance event, saw her once getting out of a car down down off MLK. You just see people around Portland if you are paying attention. Anyway, so I saw her there and ignored her.

I’d been on tribe for a few weeks when she posted the previous, citywide thing about how someone has shown up here and don’t give out my information. Tribe is, in addition to being a social networking and a business networking site, it is also a primary dating site. Lots of people go on tribe to find romantic partners. It seems inconceivable to me that an attractive woman in her 20s or 30s would have to tell anyone not to give out her personal address or phone number in that environment. It didn’t make sense. That she was sending out a citywide thing saying don’t do this common sense thing. It just struck me as odd.

When I first saw Ms. Carter on tribe she was on under her own name. I was also under my own name. On tribe you have a long name and a short name. By default your short name is your first name and your long name is your full name. Um, my long name was “Rory Bowman” and my short name was “Rory” to establish that. I was there under my own name. As a business person, it doesn’t help people to find me as a business person if they don’t know what my name and phone number are. So I had seen her under her name at the time and I had ignored her. After she did the citywide notice my girlfriend, who only knew of Cate from me having talked about her, asked me if I contacted her. Because, actually, my girlfriend saw the notice first before I did. Because she was also on tribe. She was like “what? What have you been up to?” I said “I didn’t do nothing.” (laughing)

Shortly after that Ms. Carter changed her name to “Invisigoth”. And Invisigoth is a relevant name in this case because it is from an X-Files episode which was, ironically,  one of the last things that Ms. Carter and I had watched just before she moved out. And we had, we both admired the genius of the name at that point. And she told me at that point, “Oh, if I never need to have a code name I’m going to use ‘Invisigoth’” and we laughed about it.

So, in December when Ms. Carter posted a citywide notice saying something which should have been common sense which got the date I arrived on tribe wrong and then promptly changed her name to Invisigoth. I was like, “Ok this, it doesn’t make sense that if she’s afraid of me that she would posting personal information on the web.” I’d also seen, she occasionally does shows for her business. She does shows and things like that. I know some other artists who she’s been involved in shows with and I think I’ve read about some of her shows in like the free papers, like the Mercury, Just Out, things like that.

So it didn’t make sense to me that she was doing this. But I thought, and this is in early December. Okay it could be a message, and it could be nothing: I’m going to continue ignoring her. I asked some people who knew both if us what they thought and their general opinion was that she was looking for attention and I shouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. They said stay away from it, that she’s bad news, so I thought that.

Shortly after that happened, Exhibit 102. Mr. Balmer changed his icon, the picture that shows who he is on the tribe service, to a picture of him pointing a pistol at the camera. And I happen to be on another board Mr. Balmer was on that had a fairly finite number of people on it – a masculinity board called Shiva’s Circle. When I saw the new icon I thought it was someone new who had joined the board. “Ok, let’s see who this is” and I poked on it and it was Mr. Balmer. I had heard about his work on the diggable city project, on KBOO radio and I knew someone else who was involved on that project. And I saw that okay, wait: he just changed his icon. It was actually he had changed his icon from his icon to the new icon so I thought it was a different person and I looked at that and then I read about it and realized that this was a boyfriend. Because he had written a testimonial on Valentine’s Day about how he loved her and so…

THE COURT: On tribe?

MR. BOWMAN: On tribe, yes.

A.    A good deal, because they’re on tribe and a good deal of their social circle is presumably on tribe, there’s a lot of information about their personal lives on tribe, and their schedules…

THE COURT: So you are offering this 102 to show <inaudible>

/////

MR. BOWMAN: The reason it is relevant is because it happened on basically the same day Ms. Carter changed her name to Invisigoth, so I thought the two were related. Which is why I thought it was relevant to establish when Mr. Balmer became aware of me.

THE COURT: So what did you take this to mean?

MR. BOWMAN: I took it to mean: I didn’t know what to make of it. It was at one end of this. I mean, an ordinary person, I suppose might take it as threatening. And I thought it might be intended as threatening. “Hey, you showed up and you’re threatening my friend” and you know, “Watch it, buddy”. But given my background, a skinny guy in a fur coat and cowboy hat pointing a pistol at me you know, it’s not. (laugh). It might be useful as rhetoric.

THE COURT: So your testimony is that this is definitely linked to Mr. Bowman?

MR. BOWMAN: Mr. Balmer, yeah. And it happened to correspond exactly with Ms. Carter’s changing her name to Invisigoth so I thought they were related.

THE COURT: Mr. Callahan, do you still have an objection to 102?

MR. CALLAHAN: I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What’s the basis of the objection?

MR. CALLAHAN: I don’t think it is relevant and I think its prejudicial.

MR. BOWMAN: I would argue that it is relevant. Can I do that?

THE COURT: Yea

MR. BOWMAN: I would argue that it is relevant because it is part of what I took to be a  pattern of backdoor contact with me. When I initially came on tribe it was for clients. It didn’t make sense for Ms. Carter to post so publicly about the fact that I was on tribe. Then Mr. Balmer changed his icon to this. Shortly after that:  on tribe one can post information about events and invite people to events.

THE COURT: Mm-hmm

MR. BOWMAN: And when you invite people to events you can ask for an RSVP like you would send to a party. In early January, Mr. Balmer sent out an announcement of his film and invited me, requesting RSVP.

THE COURT: Is that sent out to a whole group of people or just you?

MR. BOWMAN: Well, I was new to tribe. I didn’t understand exactly. For example I didn’t know about the ignore list, I didn’t know about a bunch of other things that Ms. Carter has mentioned. But it’s the first time I had ever received an invitation on tribe after about a month and a half, two months ago, and I initially thought it was a personal invitation from Mr. Balmer to me requesting an R.S.V.P. And I thought “OK, she showed up and sent a thing that didn’t make sense; He changed his picture. Now he’s inviting me to a public event.” I thought it might be an overture to check it out or what not. I R.S.V.P.’d immediately said I would be there. There was an R.S.V.P. list, I was number 3. Ms. Carter was number 4. Ms. Carter R.S.V.P.’d after I had R.S.V.P.’d to this public screening. And why this is relevant is because I thought it might be some sort of approachment. You know it’s been almost 10 years. So, I thought, “OK her boyfriend’s inviting me to a film. I’ll go.”  So I went to the film…

(Respondent’s exhibit 102 entered into evidence)

THE COURT: The parties can argue as to its significance, but I think there is sufficient relevance based on what I’ve heard so far.

A.    So, anyway, so I went to this film screening. I made a point to RSVP. I told Mr. Balmer that I would be bringing my current girlfriend because,  given the previous citywide notice, she had a stake in this. I sat halfway down on an aisle seat so I was clearly visible during the screening so,  if it was some sort of approachment or reconciliation meeting, I would be clearly visible. If Ms. Carter wanted to come in or if Mr. Balmer wanted to see me I was basically in the most obvious, vulnerable, you-could-see-me and I-would-not-see you position in the theater. They made no contact. I enjoyed the film, so I sent Mr. Balmer a note afterward telling him I enjoyed the film, telling him I had heard about the project, and basically encouraging him that it was good work. So he wouldn’t think I hadn’t gone there, and then shortly after that I decided that it had pretty much not been an overture and Ms. Carter’s citywide thing had pretty much poisoned that pond as far as business – because each of them had like hundreds of friends on tribe and Portland’s not a very large town – so if they are talking about me it was going to get around quickly and I don’t need that kind of business. So I  left tribe. I left the service. I came here for clients. It’s high school drama. I’m outta here. I don’t need clients that bad. It’s not worth my time. So I left and, so it wouldn’t look like I was skulking out, I left the service on Ms., Carter’s birthday which is February 25th – as a sort of goodwill gesture. Sort of like “Hey I showed up here, I didn’t know it was an issue, I’m leaving. Blah blah blah.” I believe one of the things Ms. Carter said was I had the training, the physical capacity to do anything I want. If I was tracking Ms. Carter, I could do so easily. Technically it is not hard to track an individual if you know their home culture. Some time with Google is how I found Mr. Balmer. I just googled his name: “Kevin Balmer, Portland Oregon” and found out he was a GIS systems analyst you know, over there. I walked into the main desk and asked “which one of these buildings does Kevin Balmer work in?” They told me “this building here.” So it is not hard to find someone on the net. I mention that because I want to establish that if I had wanted to find Ms. Carter, I certainly could have, and she has already indicated that I certainly could, and I have not: for years and years. Even when I see her accidentally around town, it’s none of my business.  After I left tribe I thought that well, it’s been a lot of years. Obviously Ms. Carter saw me, so I tried to send another letter to her care of the attorney, which bounced. After I received this one back I decided Mr. Balmer was involved in this whether he wanted to be or not, based on his interaction with me. So what I decided I would do was I would send a letter to Mr. Balmer for Ms. Carter and I would let him determine what her mental state was  – if it was appropriate for her to see it or not. Having done that and not sure if Mr. Balmer would take this as a threat, I decided that the least the least threatening place I could possibly contact Mr. Balmer would be in a public space during daylight hours, in the morning as he was arriving to work. That would be the least threatening thing I could do. Obviously if I showed up at his house and they were living together, which they apparently are, that would be seen as more threatening. So I met him as described. Immediately after meeting with Mr. Balmer, on pages two and three of the documentation, these are my immediate recollections of the conversation with Mr. Balmer. I basically asked him his name and if he wanted to have lunch. I explained that I was apparently more of a fixture in Ms. Carter’s life than I wanted to be. I gave him my card and told him he would be receiving a letter that I wanted him to make a judgment about whether to give to Ms. Carter or not and then gave him my card and left.

/////

And if you want to take a chance to look at this. Mr. Balmer can check it for, if it matches his recollection of the conversation. And the letter I had sent to Mr. Balmer’s house, that letter was never picked up.

THE COURT: Okay. Something you mention in this letter on page two three, yeah, bottom of page 2, beginning of page 3, it’s a question I was going to ask you anyway. It looks like he actually asked you that in the parking lot. Um, why didn’t you, if you really wanted to talk to him why didn’t you talk to him on tribe?

MR. BOWMAN: I had left tribe at that point. This conversation took place on, I’m sorry I just gave Mr., Balmer my copy. This conversation took place I believe on St Patrick’s Day and I had left tribe almost a month before. The sequence was…

THE COURT: Why were you trying to contact him after you left tribe? I’m confused.

Mr. BOWMAN: I’m sorry. I had left tribe on Ms. Carter’s birthday and I sent a letter to her care of her attorney after that so she would know why I left tribe. There is one sentence, it’s on page four, it says basically it’s time to stop being afraid and that letter came back to me. It’s after this letter, after I left tribe, when that letter came back to me is when I decided to try through Mr. Balmer. Because um, I, I don’t have any reason to doubt that Ms. Carter is fearful. I don’t think Ms. Carter has any rational reason to be fearful um, and, and it bothers me that she is fearful.  And I have had to work through a lot of stuff over the past two years around the death of my brother. I had a lot of guilt about that. I had a lot of issues around um, Ms, Carter’s, um, not necessarily her involvement in my brother’s death but what I perceived as her abandonment of me in a particularly difficult time in my life. I had had to work extra hard to work through those issues without any sort of assistance from Ms. Carter and I believe she has a lot of issues around this as well. That if she is afraid of me she has to work with it. I believe that Ms Carter perceives Mr. Balmer, Mr. Balmer um, as protection um, and with his picture, you know with the pistol and whatnot, perhaps perceived himself as protection. As Ms. Carter says, one of the main things that needs to happen when you are violent with someone is you need to dehumanize them. So by meeting with Mr. Balmer directly I humanized myself. I opened up he was trying to have some sort of interaction with me with pictures, inviting me to his film and whatnot. I made it easier for him to do that and I felt like I had fulfilled my, um, I guess, moral obligation to try and reach out with compassion to Ms. Carter <inaudible>. Trusting Mr. Balmer to make the decision if she wrote me back because as I told Mr. Balmer I don’t want to be cold but Ms Carter isn’t really my problem. I would like her to have a good life. She psychologically doesn’t want me around.

THE COURT: Mm-hmm.

MR. BOWMAN: So that was the nature of my interaction with Mr. Balmer. My attempt to contact Ms. Carter has been as unthreatening as I can make them: postal letters to mutual acquaintances. It would not be technically difficult for me to find out her home address or find out you know where she works and things like that. Private investigators do stuff like that all the time; process servers do it all the time, but I have not done that over all these years. When I thought Mr. Balmer engaged me I contacted Mr. Balmer. That Mr. Balmer decided not to, decided to go to Ms. Carter immediately about that and freak out Ms. Carter, is unfortunate, but I think it was Mr. Balmer’s decision. I don’t think that anything I can say will assuage Ms. Carter’s fears. I believe that her fears are her fears and there is not much I can do about it. When people have conspiracy theories they have a cognitive bias, that they only see things that reinforce the theory and they don’t see things that disprove the theory. If Ms. Carter has decided that I am an evil genius who is stalking her and planning to kill her boyfriend with a shovel, my saying “I didn’t do it” isn’t going to make a difference.

A.    When I was an elementary school teacher I was accused of stealing money; I was accused of diddling little girls; I was accused of diddling little boys. I mean, and I found out a long time ago that when you are accused of something the best thing you can do is to just be quiet and trust the system is working. That is what I am doing here. I can’t make Ms. Carter be less afraid but I don’t think I’ve done anything to make a reasonable person to be fearful given the circumstances and my ability. I certainly have the ability but I have no motivation and I think I’ve proven that over the years by, you know, keeping a clean criminal record and being involved <inaudible>, I mean I taught middle school. If I lost my patience easily it would have happened <inaudible> (chuckle). And I certainly did lose my patience teaching middle school but I didn’t kill anybody with a shovel and I think that’s the gist of it. And I don’t deny that Ms. Carter is authentically fearful I would just assert it is unreasonable and I have done nothing to intentionally make her so fearful. And I have no, there is nothing I could threaten her or force her into doing. So…

THE COURT: Cross examination?

MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CALLAHAN:

Q.    So, um, in 1999 a judge told you to have no contact with Ms, Carter, is that correct?

A.    No. A judge gave me a verbal instruction if I had anything to say to Ms. Carter to do so through her lawyer.

Q.    Am I not remembering your testimony correctly? I thought you said that the judge told you to have no contact.

A.    I don’t remember, but the gist of it was that he told me not to be a jerk, to return the key to her car and if I had anything to say to Ms. Carter to do so through her lawyer.

Q.    And he wanted you to return the key to her car because you had taken that without her permission.

A.    That is correct. As part of my…

Q.    I think you characterized it as you stole her car.

A.    Sarcasm on my part. It was hyperbole.

Q.    I’m taking a look through the documents you provided and there have to be at least half dozen places where you say that you know that that Ms. Carter wants nothing to do with you. Is that correct?

A.    No. What half dozen places are you going to? Is there a line number?

Q.    How about page 2 of 4 line 83 “it would make her uncomfortable if I were to contact her directly.”

A.    Correct.

Q.    So you knew that direct contact would make her uncomfortable

A.    I assumed so, yes. And at this point also I am talking to someone I am trying to humanize myself to because I didn’t know what he had been told about me.

Q.     Page 2, line 116

A.    OK

/////

Q.     “I think that you and she and the entire world would be better off if she wasn’t freaking out about shit she doesn’t need to freak out about.” I think you were talking about her freaking out about you, correct?

A.    Yes, under the assumption that her response on the 4th of December with the Portland thing was not a histrionic stunt but was authentic fear.

Q.    Ok, so you know that she was afraid of you?

A.    I think she may have been and my general point in that conversation was the world would be a better place if  people were not fearful. I think the current political climate encourages fear to encourage political control. And I think the world would be a better place if people were not afraid of things that are irrational.

Q.    Regarding respondent’s exhibit 102, the photo of Mr. Balmer. You responded that given your background that you didn’t think there was really much of a threat that he could make to you. Is that…

A.    I have faced down guns in person, so having a fellow post a picture of himself with a gun on the internet that may or may not be pointed at me shows me something about his mental state but I don’t think I had reason to be fearful.

Q.    What did you mean when you said, “given my background”?

A.    I have some experience with martial arts and I have worked security and various other things, I am more or less comfortable around guns and when faced with weapons.

Q.    Do you own any weapons?

A.    I do not own any pistols. I have a compound bow for hunting elk. I have a black powder rifle for hunting deer and I have a .22 because cleaning a black powder rifle is annoying and it is easier to practice with a .22. So yes I do own weapons but…

Q.    Have you ever been in the military?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What branch were you in in the military?

A.    The United States Army.

Q.    In what capacity?

A.    I joined under the delayed entry plan, to be part of an unassigned Ranger group.

Q.    And what was your termination with the military?

A.    At that point, it was during the Reagan administration, and it was my belief that we were going to go into Central America and I expressed that I would not go and I was given an administrative discharge.

Q.    When you talked about Ms. Carter’s post on tribe regarding the person that had arrived you said you were surprised that she would talk so publicly about you?

A.    She didn’t use my name.

Q.    How did you know if it was about you?

A.    I assumed it was about me.

Q.    You said you left tribe on Ms. Carter’s birthday, February 25?

A.    Yea, actually February 24th because I go to bed fairly early.

Q.    What does leave mean when you say you left the tribe?

A.    Tribe, like MySpace or a variety of other services, you sign up. And when you sign up you have an ID. At any point you can be kicked off because you are a jerk or you can terminate your account for whatever reason. And so I terminated my account which basically got me off there and off the boards.

Q.    Why does your summary say February 6th?

A.    It was February of this year – February 06. I am sorry those are months and years.

Q.    Oh, Oh. I see.

A.    Sorry. It’s military style.

Q.    Thank you. Can you tell me if you’ve ever seen this document before? You might know who the author is.

A.    Uh, yes. This is a document I posted on the masculinity board. A number of, tribe has various boards to the effect of say if people are interesting in Macintosh computers or small business development or whatnot, around there. This was one on masculinity and there was an issue where a number of people had expressed heartbreak and problems with relationships on the boards and in their personal lives and so I had written this sort of meditative piece that men should think about as they are dealing with romantic disappointment and I posted that there with the heading “unsolicited advice.”

Q.    And this is not listing your name in any way. You had a different moniker did you not?

A.    No. This printout you have um: when you leave the service all of your entries, well I don’t know for sure, but your entries that have had responses remain but your logo goes away.

Q.    So, you only had one identity on tribe?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And your testimony is that that identity terminated on February 24th?

A.    Yes. And began in mid-November.

/////

Q.    Was your intent when you sent the letter to Mr. Balmer to make a communication with Ms, Carter?

A.    My intent when I sent the letter was to establish myself as a real human being to Mr. Balmer because the other reading of that situation, where she had a very public appeal on December 4 and he changed his avatar to the pointing pistol is that Ms. Balmer, um, excuse me, Ms. Carter might be using me as a tool in her relationship with Mr. Balmer. This is based on certain other behaviors with Ms. Carter I’ve seen in the past. Where in times of, when she gets afraid, people help her, and it helps her cement her social position. I thought I might be being used as a way to hold on and manipulate Mr. Balmer. Having been on the other end of such manipulation, when the man in question didn’t contact me, I was not happy.

Q.    So, if I understand you correctly, your testimony is that you think that Ms. Carter was using her relationship with you or her characterization of her relationship with you in order to manipulate her relationship with Mr. Balmer.

A.    Nooo. That is one possible reading. That was suggested to me by someone who knew Ms. Carter and I.

Q.    I took a look at uh, exhibit 103, respondent’s exhibit 103 which is uh, your characterization of the conversation you had with Mr. Balmer in the parking lot.

A.    Yes

Q.    Um, did you tape record this?

A.    No, that would be illegal in Oregon.

Q.    Because it seems to be very detailed and um,

A.    It is very detailed.

Q.    And you did this all from memory?

/////

A.    It is very detailed because I had practiced approximately what I was going to say. I made the notes immediately after our conversation. I literally went back to my car where my laptop was and made the notes. And the main things I was paying attention to were odd phrasing on Mr. Balmer’s part and the sequence in which I covered my points.

Q.    Then on page 4 of the same exhibit…

A.    Yes. These would be the two letters that I tried to send to Ms. Carter. This is the letter I tried to send to Ms Carter via her attorney as per the previous judge’s instruction and the letter I sent to Mr. Balmer to decide whether to give it to Mr. Carter or not.

Q.    So he letter you sent, the letter you sent via Ms. Carter’s attorney had one sentence.

A.    Yes.

Q.    “It’s time to stop being afraid”?

A.    Yes.

Q.    So you knew she was afraid?

A.    If she was afraid I was conveying that there was no need to be afraid.

Q.    It seems to indicate that you knew that she was afraid.

A.    The terrible assumption in this situation is to assume that she was afraid.

Q.    And yet, in spite of the judge’s suggestion that you not contact her, in spite of the suggestion that you contact her through an attorney in spite of all of the information that you had that she did not want to talk to you and that she was making great efforts to avoid having any contact with you, you went ahead and sent her a letter knowing she was fearful of you?

A.    No, I contacted Mr. Balmer who I thought might be told all sorts of stories about me that might make him do something…

Q.    I’m talking about the letter you sent to her attorney, on page 4 of exhibit 103, that contains one sentence, “it’s time to stop being afraid.”

A.    Yes.

Q.    You sent that to her attorney with the intent of it reaching Ms. Carter, correct?

A.    Uh, that would be my hope. But my experience was that the attorney no longer existed and the letter was probably going to end up in a dead letter office somewhere.

Q.    Have you ever been on antidepressants?

A.    Yes I have.

Q.    When was the last time you were on antidepressants?

A.    I am still on antidepressants.

Q.    Have you gone off those medications for any period of time in the last five years?

A.    No I have not.

Q.    You’ve taken them according to the prescription?

A.    Yes I have. And at various points, for those who are not familiar with meds, at various points as your condition improves you try and lower the dosage in combination with the supervision of a doctor according to a stepped plan. So the dosage has fluctuated under a doctor’s guidance as I am moving towards getting off of them.

Q.    I should tell you both that I do hear about mental health related cases quite a bit. Was the diagnosis bipolar or was it clinical depression?

A.    It was severe clinical depression, episodic related to various things such as the suicide of my brother.

Q.    Is there different types?

A.    Yeah.

Q.    Because you hear, use that term all the time.

A.    Yes. I don’t have the exact ICD-9 code.

Q.    Ok. Yea I, there are just different types.

A.    Thank goodness

Q.    You have made various attempts to contact Ms. Carter through her parents at times?

A.    I sent a package of items that she asked me to send to her father which was marked with return to sender before my imprudent fit. And I sent the birthday letter in February of 2003.

Q.    Okay, and is that the envelope you sent the letter in?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And is this the letter?

A.    I would assume so. It’s the same as [exhibit] 103. Page 1 is the text of the letter.

Q.    Ok. And in that you acknowledge that you are causing Ms. Carter anxiety?

A.    Do you have a line number?

Q.    It doesn’t correspond. I am reading from the original. Second paragraph… Uh, “it makes me realize how much free flowing anxiety I was carrying around”?

A.    Uh, yes.

Q.    And you, in the same paragraph toward the end, you talk about the emotional effects of drug use, including antidepressants?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Have you been using drugs other than antidepressants? Street drugs?

A.    No.

Q.    What did you mean when you said, “I believe that drug use (even anti-depressants) in some sense freezes emotional and other development?”

A.    Are you asking me about my own drug use?

Q.    Yes I am.

A.    No, I was not using drugs.

Q.    What were you referring to?

A.    I was making a reference to Ms. Carter, that she may or may not have paid attention to, and which I would rather not discuss in open court.

Q.    So, in this letter of 19 February 2003, third paragraph back side – and again I am reading from the original so it doesn’t correspond – did you invite her to make contact with you perhaps on her birthday?

A.    Yes

Q.    So, Did she ever do that?

A.    No.

Q.    And what did you read into the absence of her contact?

A.    That she wasn’t ready or wasn’t the sort of person who would do that. People are different.

MR. CALLAHAN: Your Honor, I would like to offer this into evidence…

THE COURT: Will you stipulate that this is the same as Respondent’s exhibit?

MR. CALLAHAN: No, I have not had a chance to compare them.

(Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 marked)

THE COURT:  I see what you mean. This seems, this seems to be a typed version of the other one.

MR. BOWMAN: My custom is to write them out long hand and then to type them out.

(Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 received into evidence)

/////

Q.    So, in spite of the message that Ms. Carter sent out on tribe that you assumed was related to you in November of 05.

A.    She sent out the message in December of 05.

Q.    And you assumed it was related to you, where she asked all of her acquaintances not to give out her contact information, you went ahead and continued to try to contact her, correct?

A.    No.

Q.    You went ahead and contacted Mr. Balmer attempting to interact with him regarding his relationship with her?

A.    I interacted with Mr. Balmer based on his change of icon on his theoretical threat to me, not knowing what he was being told about me, and to humanize me to him so it didn’t need to turn into something stupid. That didn’t need to be fearful reagarding me. I contacted Mr. Balmer on my own behalf in the hopes that it would make Mr. Balmer’s life simpler, based on his contact with me. And I did so in a nonthreatening way. It was nonthreatening by design. When I contacted Mr. Balmer I was wearing shorts, sandals, and a t-shirt…

Q.    How did you know that Mr. Balmer would be there that morning?

A.    I had googled him. On the first page of results I noticed that he was a GIS analyst there. Based on that I walked into the main desk and asked which building he worked in. And they told me.

Q.    What time did you walk in and ask them where he worked?

A.    I went in Monday morning; first thing Monday morning on whatever that date that was…the 17th?

Q.    What time?

A.    Um, ballpark around 9:10

Q.    Ok so, on the day that you made contact with Mr. Balmer were you waiting for him?

A.    Um, on the 17th? Yes

Q.    How long did you wait?

A.    I was waiting approximately 35-40 minutes.

Q.    How did you recognize him?

A.    I had seen him at the film thing. There were pictures on tribe, but the way I recognized him that morning was from having seen him at the film thing.

Q.    Nothing further at this…oh, wait a minute. Um, did you send another package to Ms. Carter um, this?

MR. BOWMAN: <Laughing over Mr. Callahan>

A.    Uh, yes.

Q.    And is that content what you had sent in the mail?

A.    I assume so. I assume so. Um , this is a , um, what this is is basically, I am not sure what day it was, it had probably been, I am not sure what the date was, the postmark is unreadable.

THE COURT: Do you know what year?

MR. CALLAHAN: 2003, I believe, Your Honor.

MR. BOWMAN: I believe it was earlier than that.

MR. CALLAHAN: He is correct. The postmark is hard to read.

MR. BOWMAN: If you have a computer you can, you should be able to look at the file itself, the metadata.

THE COURT: I don’t have a CD drive

THE COURT: But both sides agree it is several years old?

MR. CALLAHAN and MR. BOWMAN: Yeah

Q.    And again, the return address that you put on it is not your own, is that correct?

A.    Yes, that was us, that was, I am not sure that may have been the earlier incident. It was well before the 1999 thing. It’s basically…

Q.    But the return address, did you ever live in Delmar, California?

A.    No, that is her father’s address.

Q.    That you put on as the return address for the package that you sent?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And what was your intent with that?

A.    My intent is that if it were to be refused it would end up with her.

MR. CALLAHAN: We’d ask this be admitted as well, Your Honor. Is it 3?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 marked and received into evidence)

A.    And that address actually came off of a card that Mr. Carter, at that address, had sent to my mother care of Ms. Carter. So it was established from both sides.

Q.    OK. Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Does that complete our evidence or are there any…

MR. CALLAHAN: Can I have a moment, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. CALLAHAN: We recall Mr. Balmer.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Balmer, you are still under oath.

A.    Okay

////

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CALLAHAN:

Q.    Mr. Balmer, I am handing you been marked Respondent’s exhibit 102, it appears to be a photograph of you in a cowboy hat and a  gun?

A.    Yes, uh, that’s a toy gun.

Q.    Can you approximate when that photograph was taken?

A.    That photograph was probably taken in January of 2004.

Q.    When you posted it as your icon on tribe.net did you have any intention of sending a message to Mr. Bowman?

A.    No I did not. I actually used this photograph as an avatar um, off and on through the last couple of years. I’ve been a member of the tribe.net since December of 2003. This was amongst my first photographs that I was using.

MR. CALLAHAN: Nothing further, Your Honor.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWMAN:

Q.    Are you asserting that that is a toy gun?

A.    It is a toy gun.

Q.    It’s not a Smith and Wesson 357 police special like one pictured elsewhere on your profile?

A.    No, it’s not the same. It’s not.

Q.    And, but you do have pictures of yourself with a real gun on tribe.net, is that correct?

A.    Uh, that’s correct.

MR. BOWMAN: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Okay. Are you done with your evidence then? Are both sides done with their evidence then?

MR. CALLAHAN: Petitioner rests, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, then I’ll hear brief argument. You don’t need to argue long but if there is anything you want to summarize you are welcome to do that.

CLOSING ARGUMENT

MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you Your Honor. I think there is a tremendous amount of evidence that’s before the court that respondent made repeated unwanted contact with the petitioner, that he knew it was unwanted, that he knew that it alarmed the petitioner. And furthermore, as the court knows, you are allowed to consider the full range of the relationship of the parties and given that I think that the evidence is strong that a reasonable person in petitioner’s stead would be rationally afraid of the respondent. Um, she has made as a strong a message as possible in 1999 by trying to get a stalking order before to which the respondent stated that he didn’t quite understand that his behavior was inappropriate. I think there has been, there have been numerous messages sent to respondent that petitioner doesn’t want anything to do with him directly, through third parties, boyfriends, letters to parents, through any way. And yet he persists in attempting to make these contacts and the petitioner is truly frightened of him. I believe it to be a reasonable fear and I ask that you place the order in effect and continue. I don’t think he gets it and I don’t know what other avenues petitioner has to protect herself.

RESPONSE

MR. BOWMAN: Based on Ms. Carter’s visceral reaction to seeing me I believe she is authentically afraid. I don’t believe she has a reason to be authentically afraid. Portland is not a huge place. As she has indicated and I’ve indicated, I have seen her around town and in various places, and her boyfriend on purpose, including on tribe and some other places like that. I have no reason to think <inaudible>. There is nothing I could convince her to do for me or give me. Since my brother’s death by suicide I’ve spent a lot of time, I’ve logged probably literally hundreds of hours in therapy, I’ve been on medication for a long time. I’ve worked through a lot of issues around Ms. Carter and this entire thing and, if I were a danger, I think my clean record, my professional history and just my life shows I don’t have impulse control problems. I am doing well with my business, I’m reasonably functional. If I wanted, if I meant for Ms. Carter to be harmed, I don’t think a reasonable person would think I couldn’t do it, that I was incapable of it. When she first brought me here in in 1999 I was confused, and then I was kind of insulted that she thought I was morally that type of person, and that I was technically not good enough to do it if I wanted to. And now, I don’t think it’s about me and I don’t think that I am a danger to anyone. And I don’t think it is reasonable for Ms. Carter to be afraid of me.  I will continue to avoid Ms. Carter as I do around town anyway. But basically what Ms, Carter wants me to do is stop existing and not being in the city of my birth. I back away when I see her and I’ve been doing that for the last seven years. I don’t think there is anything I can do to assuage Ms, Carter of her fear. Obviously if I were hunting her I wouldn’t do so in any of the ways she suggests. I don’t believe or think a reasonable person would be afraid of me in these circumstance s and this has a lot more to do with Ms Carter’s psychological state than with me or my actions.

FINDINGS AND ORDER

THE COURT: This is an interesting case and it does have a lot of history around it. I think if I had only hear about the last two years or the past three or four years I wouldn’t be making the decision I am but I think based on the entire history it is justified to get a permanent stalking order. A stalking order is kind of interesting. It requires on the one hand that I look at the petitioner’s frame of mind then it also includes the respondent’s frame of mind. Mr. Callahan stated that he doesn’t think that the respondent gets it. I think this case is a good example of how people can misread what is going on. I think his intentions may not be all that malicious at all. But based on all the history it is hard for somebody in her position to not be in apprehension of of of some future event. I think the average person might not see, read into it this, were they not aware of all this history. Um, but for example I think that on the other hand that Mr. Bowman is misreading things on petitioner’s boyfriend’s part.  This 102 is a good example of that where it is easy to see a picture like this of somebody pointing a gun as someone being threatening. That makes it all the more incongruous as to why you would be contacting this person. If you think they are threatening you then why does he go ahead and contact him. And why does he need to surreptitiously point out where he works. If his real intention was to be innocuous he would have dropped off a letter at the boyfriend’s place of work instead of waiting for him in the parking lot.  So I think it is really easy to misread people’s intentions but the bottom line is, based on the history, she does have reason to be fearful, that there is reason to be alarmed, of course. That a reasonable person aware of the background would be fearful of these attempts to contact her indirectly and I think the judge in 1999 was attempting to suggest that if there is any reason to have contact just to exchange property back in 1999 then the logical way to do that is through the lawyer so there isn’t any problem, but many, many, years later to continue to try to make contact is inappropriate so I am granting the order. It’s a very interesting, a different type of factual situation but I think that based on the background I’ve heard it is appropriate to enter the judgment.  Now, the statute says these judgments are good for a lifetime. And that makes it difficult as a judge to make decisions like this because we don’t always want to enter these lifetime orders, but there is a recent case that says a person can come back after a sufficient passage of time and ask that this order be rescinded. I am glad to hear that Mr. Bowman is getting some therapy. Certainly that is something I would consider if anybody asked me to reconsider an order but I would think it would be not appropriate to come back for at least several more years. But if things really do in fact settle down on both their parts, it is not impossible to undo these orders. But, at this point it’s, it’s permanent.

MR. BOWMAN: Uh, a question…

THE COURT: Yes sir.

MR. BOWMAN: Before my brother committed suicide I was working as a school teacher and my background is in criminal justice and so forth. At some point in the future I may need to have a background check and things like that related to getting a federal firearms license or things like that. How can this  affect my status as far as background checks and things like that?

THE COURT: I really don’t know. I know people are concerned about it. The order may show up in some types of records checks as to what effect the authorities might have on that I don’t know. It is not a conviction. It’s not a judgment in terms of a finding of some sort of wrongdoing…its only, it’s like a restraining order.

MR. BOWMAN: So when would be an appropriate time when I, for example, if I decided to go back to teaching I need to have a pristine criminal record, should I come back to court at that time?

/////

THE COURT: There is a possibility of doing that. I suggest the logical way to do that because you should not contact the other side is to contact Mr. Callahan, not anybody else. Let him know you want to come back to court and have a hearing and that way there can be a way the petitioner can find out about that and not be served directly by a process server or something. The lawyer can act as intermediary and that’s a lot less stress on her.

MR. BOWMAN: Will Mr. Callahan be around five years from now?

THE COURT: Oh, I’m sure.

MR. CALLAHAN: That’s a good question. <laughing>

MR. BOWMAN: Okay. Ms. Cooper seemed to be pretty…

THE COURT: She’s still around. She’s still around…That’s why I was pretty surprised when you said she was out of practice now. She, she’s at <inaudible> right down the street so…

MR. BOWMAN: Things were returned undeliverable from the address…

THE COURT: Yeah, people move, but that’s the reason the bar keeps track of addresses so if lawyers change their office you can always find the lawyer. Um, but I think there is enough history here that that you’re getting some help and maybe she can get some help as well.

MR. BOWMAN: Oh, I got my help a long time ago. Now, would Mr. Callahan be willing or would petitioner be willing to consider, to be amenable to that sort of thing in the future?

THE COURT: There’s no way of saying that today. That’s why I am saying the only way a judge, at least I personally, if I had somebody ask that’s the first thing I would ask “What’s changed since the last hearing? What’s changed for each side that’s appropriate? I have had cases where I have rescinded the order. I had one the other day where the people had been apart for 10 years, they lived in different states, and they both, they both agreed. I’ve had other cases where they disagree. But, generally speaking, these are final and permanent.

MR. BOWMAN: And I would ask that the petitioner, if she does leave the state, let me know I can get it rescinded for Oregon. Because obviously if I get an FFL or I need to get a BPST number, things like that…

THE COURT: Well, Again, I would not want you to contact her in any way. The lawyer is the logical point of contact.  We are giving the exhibits back to the parties but I want emphasize that both parties have the right to appeal and if there is to be an appeal we will need all the exhibits back so, please keep everything as it is with the exhibit stickers on, and if either side does appeal you will have to return your exhibits to the court. Thank you.

MR. CALLAHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

ELECTRONIC RECORDING FIRST TRANSCRIBED BY JENNIFER ZAMMETTI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Catherine Lynne Carter, DOB: 2/2/5/77
vs
Rory Grey Bowman, DOB: 10/6/65, aka Rain Grey Bowman

Case number 0603 03051
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

Rory Grey Bowman aka Rain Grey Bowman DOB: 10/6/65 [service address redacted]

You, the Respondent, have been named as an alleged stalker in the attached complaint. The complaint alleges that you have intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly alarmed or coerced another person or a member of that person’s immediate family or household by engaging in repeated and unwanted contact with the other person. A temporary court’s stalking protective order has been entered against you. See the attached copy of this temporary order.

VIOLATION OF A STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER IS A CRIME. The crime is a Class A Misdemeanor, but if you have a prior conviction for Stalking or Violating a Stalking Protective Order, violation is a Class C Felony.

You must appear for a hearing in Room JC2, Multnomah County Justice Center, 1120 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon at 1:15 PM on April 21, 2006. If you fail to appear at this hearing, the court may issue a warrant for your arrest and may enter a permanent Stalking Protective Order.

At this hearing the Court will determine whether to continue this Order for an indefinite period. If a Stalking Protective Order is issued at this hearing, your situation might subject you to federal prosecution for possession of firearms or ammunition for as long as the Protective Order is in effect.

While this order, or any order continuing this order, is in effect, federal lay may prohibit you from:

1) traveling across state lines or tribal landlines with the intent to violate this order and then violating this order.
2) causing the person protected by the order to cross state lines or tribal land lines for your purpose of violating this order
3) possessing, receiving, shipping, transporting, selling, or otherwise disposing of any firearm or firearm ammunition

Whether or not a stalking protective order is in effect, federal law may prohibit you from:

1) traveling across state lines or tribal land lines with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate your current or former spouse or intimate partner and then intentionally committing a crime of violence causing bodily injury to that person
2) causing your current or past spouse or intimate partner to travel across state lines or tribal land lines and then intentionally committing a crime of violence causing bodily injury to that person.
3) traveling across state lines with the intent to injure or harass another person, and as a result of, or in the course of such travel, placing that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury of that person or a member of that person’s immediate family
4) using the mail or other interstate instrumentality to seriously injury [sic] another person, or to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury of that person or a member of that person’s immediate family.

Dated March 23, 2006 by Circuit Court Judge Albrecht

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Catherine Lynne Carter, DOB: 2/2/5/77
vs
Rory Grey Bowman, DOB: 10/6/65, aka Rain Grey Bowman

Case number 0603 03051
TEMPORARY STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter came before the court on 03/23/06 for hearing on issuance of a Temporary Stalking Protective Order based on the Petition. Petitioner appeared in person. The court considered the allegations made. As indicated by its initials, the court finds for temporary order probable cause that

1. Respondent has engaged knowingly, recklessly, in repeated and unwanted contact with the Petitioner or a member of the Petitioner’s immediate family or household.
2. Respondent knew or should have known that the repeated contact was unwanted
3. Petitioner was alarmed or coerced by this unwanted contact.
4. It is objectively reasonable for a person in Petitioner’s situation to have been alarmed or coerced by Respondent’s contact
5. Respondent’s repeated and unwanted contact caused the Petitioner reasonable apprehension regarding the Petitioner’s own personal safety or the safety of a member of his/her immediate family or household.
6. Respondent represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the person to be protected by this order.

8. It is therefore ordered that Respondent is required to stop any contact with the person protected by this order, and any attempt to make contact with the person protected by this order.

9. Contact includes, but is not limited to, the following:
A. Coming into the visual or physical presence of the other person;
B. Following the other person;
C. Waiting outside the home, property, place of work or school of the other person or a member of that person’s family or household;
D. Sending or making written or electronic communications in any form to the other person;
E. Speaking with the other person by any means;
F. Communicating with the other person by any means, including through a third person;
G. Committing a crime against the other person;
H. Communicating with a third person who has some relationship to the other person with the intent of affecting the third person’s relationship with the other person;
I. Communicating with business entities with the intent of affecting some right or interest of the other person;
J. Damaging the other person’s home, property, place of work, or school: or
K. Delivering directly or through a third person any object to the home, property, place of work or school of the other person.

11. RESPONDENT MUST APPEAR at a hearing on this Temporary Order on April 21, 2006 and 1:15 PM in Courtroom #2 of the Justice Center to show why the temporary order should not be continued for an indefinite period. The Stalking Protective Order issed on 3/23/06 shall remain in effect pending this hearing.

Dated this 23rd of March, 2006 by District Court Judge Pro Tempore Albrecht.

Supplemented by testimony on record.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Catherine Lynne Carter
vs
Rory Grey Bowman, aka Rain Grey Bowman

Case number 0603 03051
PETITION FOR STALKING PROTECTIVE ORDER
under ORS 30.866

I am the petitioner and I state the following is true:
1. I am a resident of Multnomah County, state of Oregon
2. Respondent is a resident of Clark County, state of Washington. He or she is 40 years old.
3. Relationship between Respondent and Petitioner: cohabitated during 1997 & 98, former romantic partner.

Petitioner requests the Court to order the Respondent to STOP ANY CONTACT and AVOID ANY CONTACT WITH PETITIONER.

At least two unwanted instances of contact have occurred within the last two years which were alarming or coercive.

On 03/17/06 in the parking lot of CNF, NW 21st and Savier, Mr. Bowman (respondent) either followed or was waiting for my boyfriend Kevin D Balmer & attempted to confront Mr. Balmer outside his workplace with questions regarding me and my relationship with Mr. Balmer.

Mr. Bowman has apparently sought & found information regarding my whereabouts, relationship status & address in disregard of a verbal order from a judge.

On January 28th, 2006, on the internet bulletin board tribe.net, Mr. Bowman somehow determined my relationship w Mr. Balmer and appeared at a public screening of a film by Mr. Balmer where he had reason to believe I would be. He then emailed Mr. Balmer.

Mr. Bowman’s attempts to make contact with me through my boyfriend are alarming because they constitute a pattern of escalating behavior. His attempts to determine my whereabouts appear to be ongoing.

Before that, on February 20, 2003, in Bar Harbor ME, Mr. Bowman sent a series of letters to me via my parents in disregard of a judge’s order. In the feb 20th letter, he used an out of state post mark and admits to ongoing mental health issues and to being off his medication. The Feb 20th letter used a return address of Elinore Friedberg, a business client of mine. the contents of the letter indicate a disturbed mental state.

In 1999, I unsuccessfully filed for an anti-stalking order against Mr. Bowman. The judge verbally ordered him to return a car key he used to gain unauthorized access to my vehicle & never to contact me again: He continued to send letters to my lawyer and parents.

Mr. Bowman has an extensive background in martial arts and a violent temper. He appears to be in an unstable mental state. I am very concerned that he is targeting my boyfriend to gain information & access to me.

The spoken or written contacts described were NOT a threat that made me afraid of imminent and serious personal violence or physical harm.

Respondent is self-employed [address redacted], 6′ tall, 185 pounds with light brown hair and blue eyes: medium build and unknown vehicle, weapons or criminal hisotry. Respondent appears to be in a distressed mental state. It is unknown if respondent has weapons or access to weapons, or has ever been arrested for or convicted of a violent crime.

Submitted by Catherine Lynne Carter
Subscribed and sworn before the Court Clerk on the 22nd day of March, 2006.

Text of letter sent to Kevin Balmer at 5704 NE Mason, Portland. Return receipt requested, week of 17mar06. Never delivered.

March 2006
Post Office Box 202
Vancouver WA 98666

Dear Cate,

Please don’t be upset with Kevin, as he had no defense. I am older than him (among other things) and am sure he loves you as best he is able.

The main thing I want you to know is that I forgive you, and that any fear you have nine years after Marcus’ death is entirely your own. My gesture with the couch was never intended as a threat, and the subpoena that brought me down from Seattle for your hearing mostly just confused and saddened me. I carried a huge charge around that for a long time, and worked on it harder than you know. Marcus’ death was not your fault, nor mine, and I forgive whatever craziness your guilt must have brought you, as I believe Marcus would forgive me mine.

Very near the end of my madness someone asked me if Marcus would want to see me so broken. I didn’t think he would (you were with me at the portal) and I often wonder what he and Lynne, your mother, would say of us. Would they want this ongoing tension? Are these the lives that best honor the dead? I do not think so, and we all deserve better.

I forgive you.

Love,
Rory

Text of 15feb06 letter sent to Catherine Lynne Carter c/o attorney Nancy Cooper w USPS Receipt 7005 1820 0006 3714 1296. Returned as undeliverable.

C,

It is time to stop being afraid.

- R

“Invisigoth” is a character from an X-Files episode called “Kill Switch,” which originally broadcast on February 15, 1998.  The eleventh episode of the fifth season, it was written by Tom Maddox and science fiction author William Gibson. Watching it also happened to be the last regular “family” activity Carter and Bowman took part in before she moved out in February of 1998.

The episode features a woman named Esther Nairn who goes by the handle “Invisigoth” and is hiding from a computerized super-intelligence. Both Bowman and Carter admired the wit of the name, with Carter saying that she would use it if she ever wanted to hide, because it was so clever.

This was exactly the name that Carter used when she alleges that she was trying to hide from Bowman on December 3, 2005, by posting a city-wide announcement about herself on the Tribe.net service, reminding people not to give out her personal information to strangers.

Letter from RGB to CLC sent to father’s house in Del Mar CA, return address 1400 SE 34th Ave, Portland.

19feb03, Las Vegas NV

Dear Kate,

Forgive me for not writing you as promised last year, but the point of your birthday as a time to write was to choose something clear and neutral: something well-defined but arbitrary that would lessen your fear and lessen my chances to do something rash or speak impulsively. “It is a characteristic of wisdom,” as Thoreau once wrote, “not to do desperate things.”

I was surprised when Elinor mentioned you were in town, but pleased to hear that you seemed well. I don’t make much of Elinor’s insights into your character, but I have quite literally slept better since hearing that, making me realize how much free-floating anxiety I was carrying around you for all these years. As I was telling a friend earlier this month, you are in ways the last unresolved strand around Marcus’ death, the one variable I have not been able to balance. At an intellectual level I don’t understand what happened, at a limbic level I have not been able to process your scent spiritually* and the meds have partially arrested the mid-level stuff. Although clearly I needed them just to stay alive I believe that drug use (even anti-depressants) in some sense “freezes” emotional and other development, so some aspects of my coping and processing have been delayed until I am completely weaned of their effects. You must do what you need to, of course, and I have honored that, but just an FYI: I am glad of news and that you are well. Perhaps you could find it some year on my birthday to send news of your own, perhaps with a picture and news of your family.

I miss you, as I’ve said, and not always as one would think. Aristotle was right in the Nichomachean Ethics when he asserted that friends are dearer when one is happy. It is the good things I would share which pang me most sharply: a book or song, some craft or fabric. I understand so much more now some of the things you said of color, as this week in Las Vegas I am bathed by shining lights. I think you would cream over the Franklin-Covey organizing system and wish I could share small business tips and insights with you.

Was it worth gaining our brief sexual time time together, worth losing your friendship? At the time I thought it was, and I still might if we were now friends, but life is funny that way, so today I am not so sure.

I think today of Gary Snyder’s poem “Seaman’s Ditty” and a song from Laurie Anderson’s Big Science, “Born, Never Asked.”

Happy birthday, Catherine Lynne, wherever you may be. – Rory

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

CATHERINE CARTER, Petitioner,
vs.
RAIN RORY GREY BOWMAN, Respondent.

Case No.: 99-0708238

Portland, Oregon
August 20, 1999
1:30 p.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID SMEDEMA
MULTNOMAH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:    Nancy Cooper, 121 SW Morrison Street, 11th floor, Portland, Oregon 97204, 503-228-3939

For the Respondent:    Rory Bowman, pro se, P.O. Box 202, Vancouver, WA 98666, 360-695-6929

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript produced by transcription service.

INDEX

OPENING STATEMENTS:

On behalf of Petitioner, by Ms. Cooper

On behalf of Respondent, by Rory Bowman

WITNESSES FOR PETITIONER:    DIRECT     CROSS     RE-DIRECT    RE-CROSS

Martitia M. Dell            4        6        N/A        N/A

Catherine Carter            11        15        20        21

WITNESSES FOR RESPONDENT:

Rory Bowman            22        25        N/A        N/A

ARGUMENT:    Ms. Cooper                            26

RESPONSE:        Rory Bowman                        27

THE COURT: Let’s go to matters which have counsel. Carter then, and Bowman. I’ll hear that one. There was, it looks like, a temporary order issued after a hearing August second and uh…

MR. BOWMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor. There is an order issued?

THE COURT: There is a temporary protective order, yes, issued August second that runs until today.

MR. BOWMAN; Oh, is that part of the original subpoena I was issued?  I had been notified of nothing until I received that subpoena.

THE COURT: Uh, that subpoena was given to you after this order was entered, yes, setting this hearing and telling you of your, your right to appear and contest it. Alright, on behalf of Carter then, the attorney, your name and bar number.

MS. COOPER: Nancy Cooper, 95328.

THE COURT: Do you have any opening statement or summary?

PETITIONER’S OPENING STATEMENT

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, this is a relationship that ended, over a year ago but despite many requests to have no contact, Mr. Bowman has continued to contact my client in an escalating threatening manner. He has made statements such that if she were to get an order such as this that she should be prepared to either have the police shoot him or he would take her out with him. Uh, my client is in fear for her safety. Most recently he took her truck from her apartment parking lot, loaded a package that had been returned to him, loaded a sofa and returned the truck without letting her know any of this was happening which placed her in fear because he had obviously managed to find out where she lived. He is unpredictable, an unpredictable temper, and she is in fear for her safety.

THE COURT: Alright, and your first witness, they can testify from there if she wishes to.

MS. COOPER: My first witness will be Marti Dell.

THE COURT: Alright. Come forward.

MARTITIA DELL, PETITIONER’S WITNESS, SWORN

THE COURT: Be seated, give your full name.

MS. DELL: My full name is Martitia, M-A-R-T-I-T-I-A, Mary, M-A-R-Y, Dell. I go by Marti.

THE COURT: And spell your last name.

MS. DELL: Dell, D-E-L-L.

THE COURT: Counsel, go ahead.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY NANCY COOPER:

Q.    Ms. Dell, uh,would you state your occupation and address for the record?

A.    I am a lawyer and my address is 102 <inaudible>

Q.    No, your professional, your office address.

A.    242 Southwest <inaudible> Avenue, Portland, Oregon 972<inaudible>.

Q.    Thank you. Do you know Catherine Carter?

A.    Yes I do.

Q.    How do you know her?

A.    She’s a friend.

Q.    Has she also been a client?

A.    She has.

Q.    Do you know Rory, Rory Grey Bowman?

A.    I do.

Q.    And how do you know him?

A.    I know him as the former boyfriend of Ms. Carter.

Q.    Did you ever have occasion to meet with Mr. Bowman regarding Ms. Carter?

A.    Yes, I did.

Q.    Could you tell the court about that meeting?

A.    Uh, if I remember correctly it was in October of last year and Ms. Carter had talked to me about contact from Mr. Bowman and I offered to meet with him to request that he leave her alone. We discussed the manner in which I was going to do that. And, um, we decided that I would do it in a friendly manner to start with and depending on how he responded, potentially I would tell him that I was her attorney and I would tell him that she wanted no further contact with him at all.

Q.    Did you make that statement to him?

A.    I ended up making that at the end of the meeting, yeah, but that was not how it started out.

Q.    And how did he respond?

A.    He responded increasingly hostilely. He was very threatening. I said that Ms. Carter did not want to get a restraining order or anything of that sort but she wanted to just amiably part and he said that if she did that first of all, it wouldn’t stop him and, second of all there was nothing left for him to behave for, and she just better watch out before doing that.

Q.    Did he make any comments regarding how he would react to the police?

A.    If I remember correctly, he stated that he would do something very close to lethal force.

Q.    Did you feel that this was a legitimate threat?

A.    Yes I did.

Q.    Why?

A.    I had known Mr. Bowman for as long as I had known Ms. Carter and um, before this <inaudible> seemed very irrational and he seemed very angry and very uh, very certain of what he would do. He seemed determined.

Q.    I have nothing else, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Bowman, then, do you have any questions of Ms. Dell?

CROSS EXAMINATION BY RORY BOWMAN:

Q.    At any point during the conversation, Ms. Dell, did you say anything about being her attorney or anything about representing her or was that merely implied by my language?

A.    If I remember correctly, at the end of our conversation I told you I was her attorney and to no longer contact her.

Q.    Was there anyone else present for that conversation?

A.    Yes there was.

Q.    Who would that be?

A.    Uh, her name is Sarah Perrault.

Q.    How do you know Ms. Perrault?

A.    She also is an acquaintance of yours, so I have not had much contact with her.

Q.    So did you meet her before or after you met Ms, Carter?

A.    Before.

Q.    What can you tell me about Ms. Perrault and her general tolerance for abusive behavior or threats towards women…?

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, I don’t see the relevance. I object.

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. Do you have other questions?

Q.    Um, do you believe that Ms. Perrault would also agree that I was

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. It calls for speculation.

Q.    Um, was there anything other than my general manner and, that made you think that I was threatening you in any way?

A.    I’m not sure I understand the question.

Q.    Did I raise my voice?

A.    Yes.

Q.    What did I say when you claim I raised my voice?

A.    Uh, seeing how this conversation was almost a year ago I don’t remember your exact words but yes, you did raise your voice to me.

Q.    So do you think that Ms. Perrault would also testify that I raised my voice?

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, I object.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection as already been asked and answered.

Q.    Okay. Where did this meeting take place?

A.    It occurred at Divine Mocha on Grand and approximately Broadway. I don’t remember exactly <inaudible>

Q.    Okay. How many other people were there in the room at the time the conversation took place?

A.    I don’t remember.

Q.    Where there more than 5?

A.    I don’t remember. My back was to the room.

Q.    I thought you were facing south looking at me.

A.    I was facing you the corner.

Q.    Okay. I was in the corner of the room. So, would you say there were at least possibly half a dozen people in the room?

A.    I told you I don’t remember.

Q.    Okay. Which with you and I and Ms. Perrault there were at least five?

A.    Correct.

Q.    So it would not be unreasonable to think there at least a half dozen people there?

A.    I suppose.

Q.    Do you think that any of them would have noticed that I raised my voice?

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, I object. Speculation.

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay. I guess I am not exactly sure how this works, your honor. I had no idea it was going to be this legal. I thought it was going to be like a traffic hearing.

THE COURT: I don’t know what your questions are. I can’t advise you. I don’t practice law privately. I hear the cases so I can’t tell you what to do here.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay, I guess my point would be that, in my opinion, and I believe that Ms. Perrault would agree with this, Ms. Dell came in not at all happily. She came in very confrontive.

THE COURT: Well, you can testify later if you choose to do that. That’s totally up to you but now you are starting to argue facts I haven’t heard yet.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay.

/////

THE COURT: The sequence of things: they’ll put on witnesses then you can put on witnesses then I’ll allow each other very short closing comments and I’ll decide the case.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay. I had not known about witnesses.

Q.    Do you consider yourself to have good people skills, Ms. Dell?

A.    Uh, I’m not sure what you mean by “people skills.”

Q.    Do you think that, when you interact with people do they perceive you the way you want to be perceived?

A.    I have no idea. Most of the time I get the results that I want and I am effecive.

Q.    Did you intend, on that evening to come, in combative and offensive?

A.    I never intended to be combative and offensive. However, being an attorney, I certainly came in with an attitude of representing my client.

Q.    So your basic position that evening was representing your client?

A.    Absolutely.

Q.    And was oppositional?

A.    I wouldn’t say that.

Q.    Adversarial?

A.    I suppose, if you consider it that way. I did not consider it to be adversarial.

Q.    In the gist of your remarks, did you say that I had no business requesting to speak with Ms, Carter?

A.    I don’t recall.

Q.    Does the phrase “why should she grant you a meeting” sound familiar? Would that fit? Is that something you might have said?

A.    Sure.

Q.    Do you think it’s something you did say?

A.    I don’t remember.

MR. BOWMAN: Um, Excuse me Your Honor, are we sticking to this meeting as the only thing on the table?

THE COURT: I don’t think I understand your question.

Q.    Ms, Dell, do you know of any, and what sorts of contact I’ve had with Ms. Carter over the last year? Oh, let’s say two years. She graduated in May of 98.

A.    I could not tell you other than that email.

Q.    Have I seen her ever physically within the last 14 months? Ever? To your knowledge?

A.    To my knowledge: the last 14 months would be August; that would be August that would be June. Yes. Not personally that I was there but I understand from her telling me was that yes you have.

Q.    Okay. How many times and under what circumstances?

A.     I have no idea.

Q.    Would one of the times be when she came to my house?

THE COURT: You are asking her to speculate. She started to answer that based on pretty much a guess.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: That’s not very fruitful for what I am trying to decide.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay. Um, I’m not sure how, we, if there were no objection. Hmm.  Would counsel be willing to stipulate that I’ve seen Ms. Carter twice in the last 14 months?  Once when she came to my house to see some kittens and the second time in passing at Fred Meyer last January?

MS. COOPER: No, Your Honor, I am not willing to stipulate. I don’t have that information. I’ve not spoken to my client to get specifics on when she’s seen him or not. Part of our contention is that he has been contacting her and as she will testify and I mentioned in my opening statement that there were times that he has been around her property that she doesn’t even know about. So, she doesn’t know whether he’s seen her and she isn’t aware of it or not. So, no, I’m not willing to stipulate.

THE COURT: Any other questions of this witness?

MR. BOWMAN: Oh, um, I’m wondering when I’m going to do. I’m not a lawyer. I’m not even a caveman like on SNL who has fallen into some ice. No further questions. It seems like pretty much a done deal.

THE COURT: No redirect?

MS. COOPER: I have no further questions your honor.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MS. COOPER: I call Catherine Carter, Your Honor and ask that she be allowed to testify from here.

CATHERINE CARTER, PETITIONER’S WITNESS, SWORN

THE COURT: Give your full name, spell your last.

MS. CARTER: Catherine Lynne Carter, C-A-R-T-E-R Is my last name. I spell Catherine C-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOPER:

Q.    Ms. Carter, do you go by any nicknames?

A.    No.

Q.    Do you live in Multnomah County?

A.    I do.

Q.    Do you know Mr. Bowman?

A.    Yes.

Q.    How?

A.    Uh, Mr. Bowman, um, and I, were very much in love.  We lived together at his residence for two months.

Q.    Is this a current relationship?

A.    No it is not

Q.    When did it end?

A.    I’d say it was officially over by the middle of April.

Q.    Had you separated prior to that?

A.    Yes, I moved out of his residence on uh, February 15, 1998.

Q.    Have you had contact with Mr. Bowman since the relationship ended?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Would you explain that contact to the court?

A.    After I moved out of the house, we occasionally corresponded by email.

Q.    Let’s take the email.

A.    Okay.

Q.    You said they started out friendly.

A.    Yes.

Q.    When did that tone change?

A.    Um, late summer of 1998. The emails began to be concerning to me.

Q.    Can you describe them?

A.    Um, Mr. Bowman was becoming increasingly angry about the ending of the relationship and he didn’t understand why it ended. Um, I didn’t have anything to tell him. He was not satisfied with my answers. I asked him to um, give me time.

Q.     Did you ask Ms. Dell for help?

A.    Yes. Marti is my friend. I asked her for help because I didn’t know how to make him stop and I wanted her opinion on what was going to be the best way to end communication.  I didn’t…I felt like Mr. Bowman clearly felt there was resolution and I wanted to satisfy his desire for closure and just get on with my life.

Q.    Did the context change?

A.    There was a period of uh, about eight months where I didn’t have contact with Mr. Bowman. Then in late July of this year um, I received an email from Mr. Bowman, one line, that said if you have anything to say to me, do it soon. Within two days I received a call from my parents. I spoke with my father, a package had arrived addressed to me at my parents’ house in La Jolla from Mr. Bowman and they wanted to know what I wanted them to do with it. There was discussion about what was in the package, if I knew what it was and what was going on. There were concerns about what might be in the package because I had no idea what it was. What me and my family decided to do was return the package to sender. I responded to Mr. Bowman’s email saying that this is not how I want to remember you: please just don’t contact me and don’t contact my parents. If you have to contact me, contact my attorney. He wrote back an accusatory email, accused me basically of ruining his life, and I became extremely frightened at this point and left my home. I stayed with friends. When I returned home to feed my cat and take care of some personal business I found that my pickup truck was sitting in my apartment parking lot with a sofa that a friend had given me while I was living with him sitting in the back of it, and the same package that he sent to my parents sitting on the driver’s seat. At that point I called the police, um, and, they came and the package was opened. It contained some personal effects of Mr. Bowman and a few items of mine that I had left at the house when I left that I didn’t know were still there., At that point I felt that my security and my safety had been violated to a point that I was not going to be able to reside at that address. I felt very threatened.

Q.    Why?

A.    Um, up until that point the communication had been, it had been annoying and concerning but it wasn’t scary. It was actually about physical things. It was like, Mr. Bowman took something of mine, something that had a lot of value, to prove that he could do it.

Q.    Is there any behavior in the history with Mr. Bowman that caused concern?

A.    Yes. It is my opinion that Mr. Bowman has a rather short and violent temper. When he is angry I have seen him break different objects: from breaking pencils to ripping apart books to ripping a pair of jeans to breaking glasses. I feel that there is some instability in his behavior in the female realm. He made several references to suicide, and I feel that there are issues, that lead me to believe he may not be stable at this time.

Q.    Do you fear for your personal safety?

A.    I do.

Q.    Why?

A.    I feel that, if someone can’t control their temper, that is a really disturbing sign of what could happen. I feel like my things of great value that belong to me and were taken without my permission. And it disturbs me. The most basic personal property is my body and beyond that the things that belong to a person are theirs. If you can violate my personal property to the point of taking my car, I don’t know where things could escalate to, but I feel they are escalating.

MS. COOPER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  Mr. Bowman: questions? do you have any?

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWMAN:

Q.    Ms. Carter, did you ever give me any keys to any of your items you would consider personal property?

A.    Yes, you had the keys to the truck at one point in time.

Q.    Okay. And any other keys besides the truck?

A.    No.

Q.    Was there an apartment on Hawthorne that I had the keys to?

A.    At one point in time, yes, that was Fall of 98.

Q.    Okay. And do you have a key, and at one point did you know the alarm code to my house?

A.    Yes.

Q.    And what was that code that I gave you at that time?

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, I object. It’s not relevant.

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.

Q.    Um, at one point the code to my alarm system at my house was your birthday, was it not Ms. Carter?

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, I fail to see the relevance. I object.

THE COURT:  What’s the relevance?

MR. BOWMAN: The relevance is that at the time she moved out I told her the code would stay the same unless I told her I was going to change it. I have not changed it. At the time she gave me the key, she gave me the key to her truck saying that she’d like me to have a key in case I ever needed it. I’m not sure this crosses the line…

THE COURT: I’ll allow her to answer the question.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay.

A.    I would like to first state that I don’t remember making that statement, although I may. And I believe that not talking to someone for a year, he’s no longer, I don’t believe that gives him the right to take, to take the vehicle. Even if he still had a key.

THE COURT: You did give him the key at one time and you did have the code to his apartment?

MS. CARTER: I did at one time, yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Any more questions?

Q.    Um, did you ever at any point ask me to return the key or return any of your personal property?

A.    I do not believe so.

Q.    Did you ever ask me to return a small rice bowl with a jade plant at one time?

A.    I don’t remember asking for that, no.

Q.    You don’t recall a conversation wherein you gave me a jade plant and said if I ever moved it from the bowl you wanted the bowl?

A.    I don’t remember that, no.

Q.    Would you be willing to testify it was something you might have said?

MS. COOPER: Your Honor, Objection. He’s asked the question three times and she’s obviously…

THE COURT: Sustained. Another question.

Q.    If there were items of yours I had and I needed to return to you, but I’ve been asked not to contact you what would be the logical way to do so?

A.     The logical way to do would be to contact Ms. Dell who was acting as my attorney and ask her what she, ask her to contact me and find out what I wanted her to do.

Q.    What would be another way I could that without contacting Ms. Dell?

A.    You could have contacted a third party. You could have contacted a friend.

Q.    Would mailing things to a permanent address, a thousand miles away from you be the same as contacting a third party to you?

MS. COOPER: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.

Q.    Would it have been reasonable for me to think, even though I had not contacted you and I didn’t know whether or not you had moved since you last invited me to your apartment…

THE COURT: You’re starting to ask long extended and argumentative questions. This is a fact-finding stage.

Q.    Ms. Carter, would you agree that mailing something to your parents’ address in California where your father lives would be a reasonable way to return the items asked for?

A.    I don’t know.

THE COURT: Okay, next question.

Q.    Given that your first choice involved dealing with someone who I found to be  confrontive, um, deceptive, manipulative, and incompetent, um, and choosing to…

THE COURT: I’ll strike that question.

MS. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Please sir, I want light. I do not want heat. If you cannot deal with the kind of questions you should ask, I’ll ask you to leave and I’ll decide the case in your absence.

MR. BOWMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: This is not a time to be smart. This is not a time to be dismissive of the people on the other side. I am trying to give both of you the fairest hearing I can but it gets tougher and tougher when you keep asking those types of questions.

Q.    Is it reasonable to believe that you may have given me a key one time that you can’t remember and that you had asked for the return of the bowl at one time?

MS. COOPER: Objection, Your Honor. Those questions have been asked and answered.

THE COURT: Asked and answered, yeah. I’ll sustain the objection. You can’t continue to ask the same questions.

Q.    Ms. Carte:  except for the time I recently took your truck to return you your sofa, to your knowledge have I ever gone to your apartment unless I was explicitly invited by you?

A.    No.

Q.    To your knowledge, what was I doing professionally when you first met me?

A.    When I first met you, you were working as a member of the campus security office at Reed College.

Q.    Okay. I was a security officer. And, what was I doing when I moved out?

A.    You were teaching elementary school, I’m sorry, middle school at Gaiser Middle School in Vancouver.

Q.    Does it seem likely to you that working in security on a residential campus or teaching Middle School would be frustrating jobs at times?

MS. COOPER: Objection, Your Honor, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q.    To your knowledge have I ever struck another person in anger?

A.    Not to my knowledge.

Q.    To your knowledge have I ever physically threatened any person?

A.    Depending upon your definition of physical threats, yes.

Q.    Okay. What would you consider a physical threat that I may have made?

A.    I am referring to an incident involving [Kaleb Napoli], in which he was standing on the porch at Reed college talking to a professor, at which point you walked up beside him and he became concerned for his safety.

Q.    So, what was the threat I made in that instance?

A.    I believe you commented to me that you would use your elbow, and that he was concerned by your presence.

Q.    So I have never threatened anyone that you know of. I have never struck anyone that you know of?

MS. COOPER: Objection, Your Honor, already asked and answered.

Q,    Other than Ms. Dell’s comments, do you have any reason to believe I might be threatening towards you?

A.    You stated in an email that you feel you have nothing left to lose.

Q.    Um, and that’s a threat?

A.    It was creepy.

MR. BOWMAN: No further questions.

THE COURT: Any other questions?

Ms. COOPER: I have just a couple re-direct, Your Honor.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOPER:

Q.    What was the nature of your relationship when you gave the key to Mr. Bowman?

A.    We were romantic partners.

Q.    Why would you give your partner a key?

A.    At the time we would originally borrow each other’s cars on errands. I think that it is possible that this situation was one where he used it to pick up a desk or something like that.

Q.    When you gave him the key did you intend for him to use it after the relationship ended?

A.    No.

MS. COOPER: I have no other questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have any other witnesses?

MS. COOPER: I would like to recall Ms. Dell very briefly, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Can you stand and testify from the table there?

Ms. DELL: Yes, sir.

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. COOPER:

Q.    Ms. Dell, do you have any knowledge regarding Mr. Bowman contacting Ms. Carter, uninvited?

A.    Yes.

Q.    Could you relate that to the court?

A.    Um, my recollection is that Mr. Bowman called my house and left a voicemail on my machine that he was very concerned that Ms. Carter was not at home and had not been at home for two or three days, that he had stopped by to find out, and that she wasn’t there and she hadn’t contacted him to tell him why she had gone, and this was after the relationship had already ended and, did I know where she was.

MS. COOPER: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. No other witnesses?

MS. COOPER: No, no other witnesses.

THE COURT: Mr. Bowman? What?

MR. BOWMAN: Can I touch on redirect?

THE COURT: If you are dealing with that sole…

MR. BOWMAN: That sole issue?

THE COURT: Those one or two questions, yes.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BOWMAN:

Q.    To the best of your recollection, Ms. Dell, was this after she had possibly not graduated from college, and did I say at the time that she did not show up for work?

MS. COOPER: Objection, Your Honor, that was not, um, I did not address what was going on…

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection.

Q.    Um, did you, um, did we find Ms. Carter at that point?

A.    At that point?

Q.    Um, I mean after that incident?

A.    I’m not quite sure. Did you or I find her?

Q.    Yes, yeah, there wasn’t a call made to her father after I talked to you?

A.    I did not make a call, no.

Q.    You don’t remember a follow up call to her father?

MS. COOPER: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered.

THE COURT: I’ll sustain the objection. Mr. Bowman, did you wish to testify or call any witnesses? It’s your choice.

MR. BOWMAN: If I could testify <inaudible> that would be great.

RORY BOWMAN, RESPONDENT’S WITNESS, SWORN

THE COURT: Give your full name and spell your last.

MR. BOWMAN: Rain Rory Grey Bowman, B-O-W-M-A-N

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

DIRECT EXAM/TESTIMONY BY RORY BOWMAN:

A.    Um, Ms. Carter left under ambiguous circumstances and left some property with me, including a particular rice bowl that she said was important and a couch which I found particularly ugly and didn’t care for, as well as the key to her truck, the return of which she never asked. At the meeting with Ms. Dell, I found Ms. Dell to be confrontive and basically  looking for a fight. I brought a mutual acquaintance who agreed with that assessment at the time.  Um, I felt that…

THE COURT: I’m more interested in what you did, not why you did it.

MR. BOWMAN: About what I did?

THE COURT: You heard me. Talk about what the issues are. People seem to want to run the field.

A.    Okay. I had items, I had the bowl…

THE COURT: You said you had a couch, rice bowl and the truck key. What did you do with them?

A.    I returned them because I was planning… I wanted her to have them.

THE COURT: Did you tell her or her attorney that you were going to do that?

A.    I did not.

THE COURT: Why was that?

A.    Because the package was returned refused and I found her attorney to be a prude, a confrontive jerk who was probably misrepresenting her. The attorney in question is Ms. Dell. So I returned the items and that was going to be the end of it. <crying> At no point did I threaten her or anything other than my own death.

THE COURT: Did you ever hit her?

A.    What?

THE COURT: Have you ever struck her?

A.    No.

THE COURT: Have you ever told her you were going to hit her?

A.    No.

THE COURT: Do you carry uh, any kind of weapons at all?

A.    No.

THE COURT: What about when you were a security guard? Did you have a gun in the house?

A.    I have no firearms.

THE COURT: So you’re a campus police so you are unarmed?

A.    Correct.

THE COURT: Did you carry a baton or anything like that?

A.    At the time I began they did not. By the time I left we had handcuffs and mace, or rather capsicum.

THE COURT: When you left the car to pick up the couch and the package did you leave a note with it of any kind?

A.    No, I just left the package there.

THE COURT: In the pickup?

A.    In the pickup on the driver’s seat where it would be very obvious from outside the car.

THE COURT: What did you do with the key?

A.    I still have the key.

THE COURT: You didn’t like lock it in the vehicle or mail it to her or something?

A.    It didn’t occur to me to do that, but I could. I meant to bring it here today but I was running late. But that doesn’t matter.

THE COURT: You don’t carry it on a keychain like most people would.

A.    Uh, no, not other people’s keys I keep it in a drawer in my kitchen cabinet. If I carried all the keys people have given me to their houses and cars and stuff I’d go through more trousers than I do.

THE COURT: Do you have any keys to other apartments or vehicles of hers or anything else of hers remaining.

A. All those things were in the truck.

THE COURT: Okay, besides these items, it sounds like the package of miscellaneous items, I mean you kept your clothes and personal belongings and she kept hers?

/////

A.    Yes.  I met her because someone had broken into her truck. Originally I thought there was a certain component of closure in returning her truck and her ugly sofa and the package she asked me to send her months before. It was poetic.

THE COURT: I imagine one person’s poetry is another person’s cacaphony. But be that as it may, do you have any questions, counsel?

MS. COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MS. COOPER:

Q.    Um, Mr. Bowman, you were told not to contact Ms. Carter, weren’t you?

A.    Um, I was asked not to call her which I didn’t. I was asked not to contact her by Ms. Dell and I sent email to her and Ms. Dell simultaneously because I did not trust Ms. Dell’s account of Carter’s views or preferences.

Q.    Ms. Dell asked you not to contact Mr. Carter, or, Ms. Carter, is that correct?

A.    Uh, that is not my recollection of the conversation and I do remember much more of the conversation that Ms. Dell does.

Q.    And this meeting occurred in October of 1998, is that correct?

A.    Um, yeah, I think it was August of 1998 but I’m not sure of the exact month.

Q.    And the incident where you took the truck and returned the package and stuff occurred in July of 1999, is that correct?

A.    Correct.

Q.    You broke an item against the wall in anger before, haven’t you?

A.    Uh, I don’t recall any but I’ll tell you something I would do. I know I would throw a lot of the glass into the recycling bin in anger.

Q.    You’ve thrown other things in anger, too?

/////

A.    I’ve thrown pencils. When I was teaching fourth grade in New Orleans I threw an eraser.

MS. COOPER: I have nothing else, Your Honor.

MR. BOWMAN: at a blackboard…

THE COURT: The summation then, Ms. Cooper?

MS. COOPER: Very briefly, Your Honor.

CLOSING ARGUMENT

MS. COOPER: We have here a situation of a relationship that ended in early 1998. Mr. Bowman was asked repeatedly not to contact Ms. Carter. He continued to contact her. He acknowledges the meeting happened in the Fall of 98 and he makes it sound like it was just oh so convenient that he chose to end the relationship and return everything, just wash everything off and everything was clean.  However, eight, nine months ago and he just now in July decided to return everything. After having no contact these eerie emails started to appear. He appears at her apartment and takes her truck, loads things in it and then takes it back but then fails to return her key. He thought it poetic justice that he was putting the truck back because that’s how he met her and yet he has a problem with anger; he throws erasers while teaching fourth grade; he’s broken things against the wall and obviously placed my client in reasonable fear, that objective reasonable fear that she has reason to be afraid of his behavior and his constant contact and intentions even after she requested that he not contact her. And we are requesting that the Court issue a permanent stalking order. Thank you.

THE COURT: Any uh, summary you want to make, Mr. Bowman?

/////

RESPONSE

MR. BOWMAN: I’ve never gone to Ms. Carter’s apartment uninvited with the exception of this one time with the truck, which I thought fell within the realm of “if I never need it.”  When she asked me to stop phoning, I stopped phoning. I did ignore her request to move all communications through Ms. Dell because I did not believe Ms. Dell would pass them along. Um, I tried to responsibly return key items by mailing them to her father’s house because I promised I would. That’s reasonable. <crying>. I don’t particularly want to see her again. One way or the other, by her conduct, she has shown herself irrational. I think that Ms. Carter frightens very easily and has found two sympathetic characters who will get all motherly and protective against the big bad boogey man. I haven’t stalked anybody in 25 years. There is no reasonable fear. There is no reason for further contact. Besides screwing with my criminal record, such an order will accomplish nothing. And, given that I’ve worked in criminal justice and the public schools, my criminal record is important.

FINDINGS AND ORDER

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Bowman, I would, I guess I will start out by saying that you are not the first and  you’re not the last person that I am going to see in a court room proceeding who had difficulty handling the breakup of a relationship. And you don’t have no business having any kind of contact at all with Ms. Carter. And when I order that in, as I do in some types of cases, I tell people very directly you don’t call them, don’t write them, you don’t email them. You don’t do that to friends, you don’t do that to third parties, no contact means zero and that’s exactly where you should be, based on everything that I know and everything that you have told me.

I would have to find there’s not sufficient basis for me to issue a protective order that’s of full term, unlimited duration. It’s not an easy breakup but I don’t think the facts substantiate all the elements under the stalking statute so I’ll be dismissing the matter. I am doing a couple of things, though and you’ll get a copy of this order. One is you are ordered to return the key to the truck by mail by a week from today by mailing to the office of Ms. Cooper. Ms. Cooper will give you a business card or something else that has her mailing address. And I understand, I assume from everything you’ve told me that’s all there is left in this relationship and that you are advised that if you fail to do that then you can be found in contempt. I would have no problem that. I mean If I have to call you back in here and find you in contempt because you didn’t do a simple thing like put a key in an envelope and mail it then you need to be aware that I have the authority to put you in jail up to six months and fine you $500 or both. I would not hesitate to do wither one of those. Get a copy of the order. Shoot him a business card. Thank you all.

AUDIO RECORDING TRANSCRIBED BY JENNIFER ZAMMETTI, TRANSCRIBER

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 20:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rory Bowman <rbowman@reed.edu>
To: Kate Carter <ccarter@reed.edu>
cc: Marti Dell <mdell@hevanet.com>
Subject: “Talk to my Lawyer,” she said. How charming.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9907261045150.17557-100000@amon.reed.edu>

Marti is a basket case (psychic boyfriend who carries several guns? give me a break! but then again, what judgment have I shown these last four years…). The last conversation I had with her was very curt, a regular commercial for how well she is suited to work with documents and not people. I have nothing to say to her, and she seems to me as poor an advocate as she is an adviser. Tasha and Lia are a much better bet, but then this email is a flaming brand thrown down on the bridge of whatever hope I’d left.

The package contains an undelivered graduation card and the few things of mine (or yours) you had wanted returned. I am “getting my affairs in order,” as they say, packing up and distributing my things. Forgive me if in my desperate grief I intruded on your comfort or sense of propriety. I really don’t think you’ve left me anything to lose with you, and I honored the relationship years ago by rejecting my family for what I thought was more worthy: a pearl of great price and all that. Ha.

I take it that your below email means you have nothing to say to me. Such is life; negative results are results. Thanks for at least acknowledging receipt.

I shall “honor the time we had together” (assuage your guilt) by taking what thoughts I’ve left of you (dark and cold, warm and sweet) into poems or the crematory. Certainly they seem wasted on you, or who’ve you’ve proven recently to be. I gave away my heart, health, family and self-respect. What is left?  My soul?  Right.

Please hold the trivet dear (or as dear as you can manage) and give my love to the cats.

“because it is bitter, and because it is my heart.”  (- unknown)

“The heart-breaking beauty remains
when there is no heart left to break for it.”  (-Jeffers)

- R

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Kate Carter wrote:

> Rory,

> I was distressed by your cryptic email of last week and the information that you sent a package to my parent’s house.  This seems strange and out of character, and it is upsetting me.  I am asking you to please honor the time we had together by not continuing with this behavior.  I have asked you repeatedly in the past to not contact me (or in this case, my parents) directly, but rather to contact Marti.

> I wish you well.
> Kate

A form letter for Kate: the Dump-O-Matic

With our hectic schedules today, we here at Rorybowman.com appreciate how important your time is. Talking to people or dropping a card can be hard, we know, so we’ve developed this new version of Dump-O-Matic 98. In combination with Microsoft’s Pencil Wizard we think you can quickly and sincerely communicate your deepest feelings to those you once loved (or perhaps loved under emulation). Just check the boxes below which apply and drop it in the mail today. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

Please note that, for cross-platform compatibility, we have not included punctuation.

___   My best beloved
___   My once-beloved
___   Dear Rory
___   You fucking shithead

___   I am sorry I haven’t written but
___   I’ve been very busy with school
___   I’ve been very busy with work
___   I’ve been busy with new disposable friends
___   I’ve been dealing with emotional issues
___   I just really can’t be bothered
___   I can’t distinguish you from your dead brother
___   I’m afraid of you for reasons I can’t articulate
___   I’m afraid of you for reasons I won’t share
___   Marti told me not to
___   I never really gave a fuck anyway
___   I’m more comfortable with dead people
___   Who the fuck are you to complain that I haven’t written

When months ago I said that I wanted to play “for keeps” I was

___   a naive little twit who didn’t know what I was saying
___   enacting my own gender stereotypes about respectability
___   under the influence of hormones
___   grossly mistaken about who you were
___   suffering from romantic delusions
___   fooling myself
___   just kidding

___   Sorry that you believed me

I think that we should have

___   never slept together
___   never moved in together
___   just kept things as a sweet 3-week fling
___   just kept things at a sweet 3-month fling
___   taken time off after Marcus’ suicide
___   killed Marcus ourselves
___   moved to a different house
___   killed ourselves like in that Shakespeare movie with Leonardo

Right now I need

___   space to figure out my own feelings about Marcus
___   space to figure out what the hell happened to my identity
___   space to process Reed
___   space to figure out my feelings about you
___   time to figure out who I am
___   to find someone who wants to impregnate me
___   time to finish school
___   another dodge

I hope that I can

___   talk in person with you soon
___   send a more detailed letter soon
___   talk by phone with you soon
___   touch base with you around (insert date and year): ____________________
___   see you in some public place or perhaps at a party where we can visit
___   live my life without any further contact with you
___   visit you only at Samhain across an empty plate
___   forget I ever knew you

I would like to

___   see you once or twice a year
___   see you every month or two
___   talk to you by phone every month or two
___   talk with you by phone once or twice a year
___   exchange birthday cards and such once or twice a year
___   forget I ever met you

Right now I need to

___   get this in the mail
___   go to the bathroom
___   other: ___________________________________________________________

___   I love you
___   I’ll be in touch, I promise
___   Fuck off
___   I want you dead
___   I’m so very sorry

Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: “Rory Bowman” <rbowman@reed.edu>
To: Catherine Lynne Carter <ccarter@reed.edu>
Cc: Marti Dell <mdell@hevanet.com>
Subject: FYI 1: Marti to Rory Re Kate (fwd)

I don’t know what your state of mind is or what you have told Marti, but in the interest of transparency, following are the messages she and I exchanged recently. She has graciously agreed to meet with me for coffee this Sunday.  – Rory

———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:35:12 -0700
From: Marti Dell <mdell@hevanet.com>
To: “R. Rory Bowman” <rbowman@reed.edu>
Subject: Kate

Hi Rory,

Marti here (yes, Kate forwarded your email addresss to me).  First of all, I wanted to thank you for thinking of me a couple weeks ago about the tickets. Sorry I wasn’t home.  I’m sure it must have been (at least somewhat) awkward for you to call me.  I want you to know that although I am a close friend of Kate’s, I certainly don’t harbor any ill feelings towards you.  I always make my own decisions about people. So far, I still think of you as a nice and decent person, even if you may have a few emotional problems regarding Kate.  We all have our relationship issues that we need to deal with, me included.

However, I am primarily writing because of Kate.  She called me Sunday night, very upset, because you had sent her an email stating that you plan on calling her sometime this week.  I hope you aren’t offended, but I recommended that she forward your email to me, and I volunteered to write you back.  My recommendation to you is…don’t call her.

I will quote your email message here:

> “Well, I’ve been waiting months for you to write, with no good result.
> I shall probably phone sometime this week, probably in the evening. If I’m
> a good boy, the first call shall come Tuesday evening (when I assume
> you’ll be at knitting), but I’d like to talk fairly soon.

> I’ve been good, to no apparent benefit.
> Time, I think, to learn why.”

I will be very honest and admit that I certainly do not know what the content of all of your conversations have been with Kate, and so I do not know if you feel she promised to talk to you at a certain point, and do not want to make any judgments there.  However, I also know that Kate is definately not ready to talk to you.  I strongly recommend that you do not call her this week, or contact her at all for many weeks to come.

I also don’t understand what your email means, and Kate seemed somewhat confused by it also.  How do you feel that you have “been good, to no apparent benefit”?  What apparant benefit did you expect to receive? What have you been waiting for Kate to write to you about?

I can certainly understand your frustration if you feel that there are issues you need closure on, and that you may not have gotten that closure.  I have certainly had that happen in my life, and recently too.  However, you also won’t get closure (or any answers at all) if you push too hard.

Rightly or wrongly, Kate is not comfortable talking to you at this time. She needs to be in a better emotional space before she will be able to talk to you comfortably.  This is not something you can push about, and the more you try to push it, the less comfortable she is going to be about talking to you.

If it would help at all, I would be glad to talk to you about anything I may know or understand, but again, I strongly recommend that you do not contact Kate.

Give her a break, Rory.  And if you think that you already have, then give her a bigger (and longer) break.  As I am sure you are aware, she is working full time and trying to finish up her language requirements. Working full time and going to school is very demanding, so just leave her alone…at least until after she has completed school next May.

I understand that it may be difficult, but supposedly you still care somewhat about her.  If you do, then give her this space.

If you don’t care about her, and are just trying to harass her, then definately back off.  Although currently I think you are a fine and nice person, I am very protective of my friends, especially Kate.  She is like a younger sister to me.  If I think you are just trying to deliberately harass her, to get back at her because of some imagined (or real) wrong you feel she did you, then you will no longer find me to be quite as pleasant as I am being currently.  Right now, I am trying to appeal to your good nature.  I hope it is that part of you that is trying to contact her, and which will now give her the additional space and time she needs.

Please feel free to contact me, either at work or home, if you feel that there is any way I can help.  But yet again, I ask that you do not call her, quit emailing her, and just basically leave her alone and forget she exists, until at least next May. My work number is 241-2885 and home is 788-9219.

Thank you for your time.  I hope you are doing well.

Marti

———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 15:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: “R. Rory Bowman” <rbowman@reed.edu>
To: Marti Dell <mdell@hevanet.com>
Subject: Re: Kate

I would very much like to talk to you (or someone else with any insight as to where Kate is emotionally) if that would be okay. I’m a bit busy this week, but can adapt to your schedule. Please let me know what kind of times would be good for coffee or something. An hour or two in a public place would be ideal.

I have an Apple demonstration I am doing Sunday until 6 pm, then I wanted to go get a flu shot before 7. Would sometime shortly after 7 work for you Sunday evening?

Thanks for your help. Please give my love to Kate. – Rory

Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1998 09:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: “R. Rory Bowman” <rbowman@reed.edu>
To: Kate Carter <ccarter@reed.edu>
Subject: Re: Found Objects 8^)>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.96.980903184914.4811B-100000@amon.reed.edu>

I’m sorry to hear that work is getting stressful but I imagine (like teaching) that that is unavoidable in tech support. I’ve certainly talked to a lot of folks who felt they needed to plan a move into something else before they got too crispy. Perhaps a visit to Finegan’s so you have some distractions while you talk?…

Yes, the rice cooker would be lovely, if you’d like. It is an amazing gadget.  Finally printed that letter yesterday and shall review it today before sending with the book.  I hope that you are doing okay soon, and find a way to be healthy in the new job.

I love you.
- Rory

On Thu, 3 Sep 1998, Kate Carter wrote:

> Dear Rory,
> Thanks for letting me know about the book. I hadn’t missed it yet, but it has some really good patterns in it I hope to use in the future. I’m shedding stuff again, and I was wondering if you would want my rice cooker.  Work is really stressful, but I think it will be improving soon.

> Take care,
> kate