FILED13 AUG 15 AM 9:00

KING COUNTY. SUPERIOR COURT CLERK

E-FILEDCASE NUMBER: 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Superior Court of Washington County of

In re the Marriage of:

TWILA MARKHAM

andPetitioners),

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM ____________________________ Respondents).

No. 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Motion for Order of Dismissal under 12(b)(1)

ORALARGUMENT REQUESTED

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED per LCR 7(b)(4)(C) and Local Family Rule 6(g)(1)(B) "Permission

to Permit Live Testimony

Comes now Respondent by counsel and moves this court to dismiss the above action for lack of

jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to Washington Civil Rule 12(b)(1). This motion is

based on the following memorandum of law7 and supporting affidavit of Twila Markham and

further evidence that may be developed between now7 and the time of the hearing in this matter.

1. RELIEF REQUESTED

Based on the facts specified below, the Respondent requests this Court to dismiss the

Petitioner's Petition for Dissolution based on Washington Civil Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of

Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter.

IL STATEMENT OF FACTS

As reflected in the attached April 15,2013 affidavit of Twila Markham just twenty four

days before her attorney filed the instant Petition on May 9, 2013, the Petitioner unequivocally

and voluntarily swore that her domicile, residence and permanent place of abode" was with her

husband at 211 Mill Bay Road Kodiak, (Alaska) 99615 and has been since they were married

(Note: See date on notary, the date of April 15,2012 above Petitioner's signature is a typo). Such

statements were made during a period of the parties' normal domestic tranquility before the

subsequent domestic incident here in Washington that arose between the parties on April 24,

2013 that prompted the Petitioner's counsel to file this petition for dissolution.

Respondent also asserts that he is also in the process of transcribing a portion of a tape

recording of Mrs. Markham's interview with the Seattle police officer that took her statement

regarding the domestic dispute between the parties on the evening of April 24, 2013 in which she

also dearly stated that the parties were both Alaskan. Residents.

Upon information and belief, the Respondent reasonably believes that discovery will

further show that Petitioner has, during the foregoing period, maintained an Alaska driver's

license, an Alaska firearms conceal and carry permit, and a Kodiak, Alaska voter registration,

and she has consistently voted in Kodiak in numerous Federal, State and local elections over the

years and never in Washington, despite being politically active. Furthermore, the Petitioner has

taken no steps to change any of these badges of domicile since the filing of this action.

Respondent also represents that he is aware of numerous other badges of residency that

corroborates the declarations in her affidavit.

Finally, a review of Mrs, Markhams petition 1.7 Jurisdiction reflects that she has not

alleged any other basis for jurisdiction. Specifically she has not alleged that she is a member of

the Armed Forces or that Respondent is a Washington resident. On the contrary S, 1 of her

aforesaid affidavit acknowledges that his domicile is at 211 Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska as

well. If this were an issue, the Respondent is willing to provide all of the forging badges of

Alaskan residency as well as other evidence that indicates that his domicile is not in Washington.

I ll WHETHER THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

WHEN BOTH PARTIES DOMICILE IS IN KODIAK, ALASKA.

In re Marriage of Robinson 159 Wn. App. 162,167-68, 248 P.3d532(Wash. App. Div. 3

2010) clearly holds a dissolution action is a statutory proceeding. A court has no jurisdiction

except that which is conferred by the applicable statutes and that:

" Residence" in this context means " domicile. In re Marriage o f Strohmaier. 34 Wash. App. 14, 16, 659 P.2d 534 (1983). "The indispensable elements of domicile are residence in fact coupled with the intent to make a place of residence one's home." Id. at 17, 659 P.2d 534. Simply stated, domicile has two aspects: physical presence and intent to reside. Id.; Stevens v Stevens, 4 Wash.App. 79, 82,480 P.2d 238 (1971). The intent to make a home must be an intent to make a home at the moment, not an intent to make a home in the future. Strohmaier, 34 Wn.App. at 17, 659 P.2d 534 (quoting In re Estate ofLassin, 33 Wash.2d 163, 167, 204 P,2d 1071(1949))." Once acquired, domicile is presumed to continue until changed." Id. The burden o f proving a change in domicile rests upon the one who asserts it, and the change in domicile must be shown by substantial evidence. Id. (Bold italics emphasized).

Mrs. Markhams affidavit of April 15,2013 declaring her domicile to be in

Alaska must be presumed to be truthful when she made it as well as her statement made to the

Seattle City police on April 24, 2013. Thus, it is her burden to prove, bv substantial evidence,

that in the intervening fifteen days before her petition was filed on May 9, 2013, she changed her

domicile to Washington. It is the Respondents information and belief that she has maintained all

of her badges of domicile in Alaska, the state of her domicile, as evidenced by her affidavit,

drivers license, gun permits, voters registration and much more.

Date: August 14.2013

Daisuke T^Eahashi WSBA #46046

Superior Court of Washington County of

In re the Marriage of

TW1LA MARKHAM

and

No, 13-3-08383-7 SEA

Order of Dismissal

Petitioner(s). j

GERALD WAYNE MARKHAM__________________ Respondents).

The court received GERALD WAYNE MARKHAMS motion for order of dismissal. Having reviewed the motion and the court file, it is hereby ordered that this Petition for Dissolution action is di smissed.

Dated:Judge/Court Commissioner

Presented by: Approved as to form:Notice of Presentation waived:

Daisuke Takahashi WSBA #46046 KARMA L. ZAIRE WSBA #31037

Order of Dismissal (ORDSM) - Page 1 o f 1 WPFDRPSGU 01.0560 (04/2012)

12

3

4

6

7

8

9

1C

1 i.

12

13

i arj. ^

15

16

17

18

19

20

2:

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing, except where noted, upon the individual(s) listed by the following means:

Note for Motion Docket

Motion to Dismiss with supporting Affidavit of Twila Y. Markham, April 15, 2013

Order of Dismissal

Ms. Karma Zaike [k^lLS. Postal Service (First Class)Law Offices of Michael W. Bugni Sc Assoc., f ] Facsimile toPile [ ] U.S. Postal Service Express Mail11300 Roosevelt Way NE, Ste 300 [ ] Hand DeliverySeattle, WA 9S125 Tel: 206-365-5500 Fax: 206-363-8067

[ ] Via Legal Messenger for service by

Counsel for Petitioner

Dated: August 14, 2013By: Daisuke Takahashi 18130 Midvale Ave NShoreline, WA 98133 |

l..

| Counsel for Respondent

law Offices of Daisuke Takahashi 18130 Midvale Avenue N Suite A

Shoreline, WA 98133