WhilePetitionerassertedthattheseare“justasmallpartof…defamation，abuseand[Petitioner’s]personalinformation，”SeethePetition，§Evidence，Appendix7，hecouldnotevenprovethese“smallpart”wereactuallymadebyRespondent.Id
2Note，inthePetition，Petitionerprovidedonlyeightsetsof“Appendix”assupportingevidence，includingAppendix8asallegedtobePetitioner’smedicaldiagnosis
C.AccusationsinthePetitionAreNotSupportedbyEvidence
Forinstance，inoneoftheexhibitsprovidedbyPetitioner’scounselonMay31，2023asevidencesupportingthePetitioner，whichisattachedheretoasExhibitC，PetitionerpresentedafewonlinepostsmadebyRespondentandaccusedRespondentof“encouragingpeopletoengageinnewinternetviolenceanddoxingagainstKangDai”，andthatshe“encouragedpeopletoabuse[Petitioner]Kang，exposehisprivacy，andfurtherdefamehim.”
However，themaincontentofthesepostswasRespondent’squestioningwhyPetitionerstartedthelegalactionagainsther，asshevoluntarilyremovedhisnameandidentityinherpostedstoryandtriedtoprotectPetitioner’sprivacy.Intheseposts，Respondentwasalsomadeitclearthatitwastheinternetusers，insteadofher，whoexposedPetitioner’sinformation.Mostimportantly，eveninthispost，RespondentdidnotmentionanynameorprovideanyPetitioner’spersonalinformation
HowcouldthecontentofthispostprovideanysupporttoPetitioner’sallegationthat，bymakingthispost，Respondent“encouraged”peopletoengageinternetviolenceagainstPetitioner，and“encouraged”peopletoabuse[Petitioner]Kang，exposehisprivacy，andfurtherdefamehim”?
AsimilarexampleisPetitioner’saccusationthat“Respondent’ssocialmedia，livestreamingMr.Dai’sprivatevoicerecordtopublicwithoutauthorization，”attachedheretoasExhibitD.ThesupportingevidenceprovidedwasascreenshotofwhatappearstobeRespondent’ssocialmediaaccount，showinga“forecastoflivestreaming”onMay18，2023at20:00.However，theevidencecouldnotproveanycontentofthelivestreaming，norcoulditprovethatifthealleged“livestreaming”evertookplace
D.RespondentDirectedNoViolenceorThreatofViolenceatPetitioner，andNoUnlawfulHarassmentCanBeFoundunderRCW7.105.100(36)(b)
ThePetitionwasfiledwithnospecificallegationofanyviolenceorthreatofviolenceasdefinedinRCW7.105.100(36)(b)，noranyevidencetoprovesuchviolenceorthreatofviolence.Petitioneralsomadenoaccusationandprovidednoevidenceforanyhatecrime，orsimilarbehaviorsdescribedinRCW9A.36.080(1)(c)，madebyRespondent
Respondent’sdeclarationestablishesthatnounlawfulharassmentcanbefound
underRCW7.105.100(36)(b)
E.NoneofRespondent’sBehaviorsConstitute“UnlawfulHarassment”underRCW7.105.100(36)(a)
1.Respondent’sonlinepostingofthestoryinvolvingPetitionerisnota“courseofconduct”directedatPetitioner
ThelovestorypostedbyRespondentonlinecontainsnonamesandnoidentifierinformation.Thepostingisnothingmorethanabroken-heartedwoman’ssharingreleaseemotionandalsoseekingemotionalsupportfromthemembersofhercommunity.ThestorywasaboutPetitioner(withhisnameandidentifierinformationhiddenintentionallybyRespondent)butwasnotdirectedatPetitioner
Moreover，RespondentpostedherlovestoryonlyonceonApril23，2023.Thelaterspreadingofthestory，includingthosere-postingofthestoryonotherwebsites，hadnothingtodowithherandwasmadebywithoutherknowledgebyunknowninternetusers.Petitionerclearlyknewthisfact.RegardlessofthecontentofRespondent’spost，herone-timepostingofthestorywouldnotconstitutea“pattenofbehavior”，andthereforecannotestablishany“courseofconduct”forfindingunlawfulharassment.SeeRCW7.105.101(6)(a)
Further，Respondent’srefusalofdisclosingPetitioner’snameandotherpersonalinformationagainshowsthatthepostingwasnot“designedtoalarm，annoy，orharassthepetitioner.”SeeRCW7.105.101(6)(b)
Lastly，Respondenthasthefreedomtomakeaspeechinapublicforumaboutherownexperiencesandfeelings.Thepostedstory，andherexpressionofherfeelingsinhercommentsandcommunicationwithcommentatorsonthestory，areallconstitutionallyprotectedspeech，whichisclearlycarvedoutfromthedefinitionof“courseofconduct”forfindingunlawfulharassment.SeeRCW7.105.101(6)(a)
2.Respondent’sattemptstocontactPetitionerwereinvitedbyPetitionerandforlegitimateorlawfulpurposes
DuringtheperiodfromMay10，2023toMay18，2023，Respondentmadeintotalabout30calls(shecancelledanother12calls)，sentintotalabout90(plus13screenshots)messages，and7emailstoPetitioner，forthesamepurpose:promptingresponsethatwaspromisedbyPetitioner，anddemandingforcompensationandresolutions
AlthoughRespondentappearedtobeonlypartyinitiatingthesecontactsduringthisperiod，thecommunicationisessentiallyatwo-waycommunicationbecausePetitioner，onApril24，2023，assuredRespondentthathewould“continuallyapologize…listentoherdemands”andinvitedRespondenttorequest“anythingelse”otherthanapology.AndtheonlyreasonwhyRespondentcontinuedherattemptsforaweekisthatPetitionerchosetokeepsilent–hehadnevergivenanyclearnoticetoRespondentifhewantedthefurthercontact，butsimplyletRespondentcontinuehercontactingattempt.Forthesamereason，Respondent’sattemptedcontactswerenot“designedtoalarm，annoy，orharass”Petitioner.SeeRCW7.105.101(6)(b).Instead，theywereinvited，andthenprompted，byPetitioner’spromiseandsilence
PursuanttoRCW7.105.010(6)(b)，itisevidentthatRespondent’sattemptedcontacttoPetitionerweremadeforlegitimateorlawfulpurposes，andthereforewillnotconstituteanelementforunlawfulharassment
3.Respondent’sattemptstoreportPetitionertohisemployerandhissupervisorsatworkareforlegitimateorlawfulpurposes
Respondent’sreportingtoPetitioner’ssupervisorsatAmazonbyemailaboutPetitioner’smisbehaviors，includingcommunicatinghercomplainttotwoindividualsupervisorsofPetitioner，weremadewithherbeliefthatsheneededtopromptathird-partyauthoritytoinvestigatetheissueandrevealthetruth.Moreover，beingthreatenedandinsultedbynotonlyPetitionerbutalsoanonymousonlineattackers，resortingtoathirdpartywithauthorityoverPetitionerwasRespondent’sdefenseandself-protection.Again，thereportingwasnot“designedtoalarm，annoy，orharass”Petitioner，butwasmadebyRespondenttoseektruth，justice，andprotectherself.ThereportingwasalsoreasonablegivenPetitionerhadtakenRespondenttohisofficeforintimateactivitiesandlikelyviolatedhisemploymentpolicies
ThereactionofPetitioner’semployerandsupervisorsupportsthisconclusion.InsteadofdismissingRespondent’sreportingemailasany“harassment”，AmazonInc.quicklyopenedaninvestigationandinvitedRespondenttoaninvestigationmeeting.NoneofthesupervisorsthatRespondentcontactedrefusedtherequestorinanywayindicatedthattheywereharassed，instead，theyvoluntarilystayedinconnectionwithRespondentandevenrepliedtoRespondentdirectly
Lastly，PetitionerwasawareofRespondent’sreporting.ButhegavenonoticetoRespondentaboutifhewantedfurthercontactslikethis
4.Respondent’svisittoPetitioner’sneighborhoodwasnotacourseofconductandwasnotdesignedtoharassPetitioner
TosayfarewelltohercomplicatedandbitterrelationshipwithPetitioner，RespondentvisitedtheneighborhoodwherePetitionermaybecurrentlyresidingonMay1，2023.Respondentstayedinthisneighborhoodforabout10minutesandpostedtwopicturesoftheneighborthatdidnotincludePetitioner’sproperty.Herlocationofthepictureshowedamedicalinstitutethatwasabout3200feetawayfromtheneighborhood
Inthisone-timevisit，RespondenthadnoideaoftheexactlocationoraddressorPetitioner’shomeanddidnothingotherthanwalkingintheneighborhoodandtakingsomepictures.ShedidnotevenknowifevenPetitionerwasnotintheUnitedStateswhenshepaidthevisit
Clearly，Respondent’svisittotheneighborhoodisnotacourseofconductdirectedatPetitioner，notevenaboutPetitioner.Atmost，itwasherwayofsayinggoodbyeforherselfandthevisitwasnotdesignedtocreateanyintimatinglivingenvironmentforPetitioner.Byallmeans，aone-timevisittoPetitioner’sneighborhoodcannotbea“patternof”behaviors，norwasitdesignedto“alarm，annoy，orharass”Petitioner
Thisvisitwouldnotsupportforthefindingofunlawfulharassment
5.ThereisnoevidencetoprovethatPetitionerhassufferedactualandsubstantialemotionaldistressduetoRespondent’sbehaviors
Petitioner’sevidencecannotestablishthathehassufferedactualsubstantialemotionaldistresscausedbyRespondent.TheevidenceprovidedbyPetitionershowsnonameofdoctororthemedicalinstitution，northedateofthediagnosis.Theevidencealsoshowednocausalrelationshipbetweenthediagnosedsymptomsandtheallegedunlawfulharassment.SeethePetition，§Evidence，Appendix8
F.NoEvidenceIsProvidedtoEstablishthatRespondentWasStalkingorCyberstalkingPetitioner
Petitionerisnotpetitioningforastalkingprotectionorderbutcheckedthebox“stalking”inhisanti-harassmentorderpetition.ThisappearstobeasloppyandunintendedactasthePetitioncontainsnospecificallegation，letaloneanyevidence，regardingRespondent’sstalkingorcyberstalking
Moreover，theonlineexposureofPetitioner’spersonalinformation，includingthephotosofPetitioner’schildandpet，hasnothingtodowithRespondent.Thereasonscausingtheexposurearetwo-folded.Ontheonehand，Petitionerhadvoluntarilyreleasedanddisclosedasubstantialamountofpersonalinformationincludinghischild’sphotosonhissocialmediaaccounts，andinvitedorencouragedpublicmembers’attentionandfollowing，makinghimasemi-publicfigureintheinternetdomain.Ontheotherhand，withoutanyknowledgeofRespondent，anonymousinternetusershadfurthercirculatedandspreadPetitioner’salready-publicpersonalinformation
Ontheverycontrary，RespondenthadexplicitlyandclearlyrejectedtheideaofexposingPetitioner’snameandpersonalinformation.Clearly，shehashadnointentiontoannoy，threaten，orotherwiseharassPetitioner
G.AfterBeingServedoftheTemporaryProtectionOrder，RespondentHasNeverKnowinglyorWillfullyViolatedtheOrder
PursuanttoRCW7.105.455，enforcementandpenaltiesforviolationofanantiharassmentordercouldonlybeimposedifthe“respondentknowsoftheorder”and“willfullydisobey”theorder.Inaddition，theMay16，2023temporaryprotectionorderrequiredpersonalserviceof“aservicepacket，includingacopyofthisorder，thepetition，andanysupportingmaterialsfiledwiththepetition，”anddidnotallowalternativeservice.SeeTemporaryProtectionOrderdatedMay16，2023，§11，at8-9
Inthiscase，thepolicedidnotservethepacketonRespondentinperson.Instead，thetemporaryorder，thepetition，andthesupportingmaterialswereservedtoRespondentemailbyapoliceofficeronMay18，2023at2:02p.m.Theofficerreceivedaconfirmationofreceiptat5:09onthesameday.SeeAffidavitDeclarationorReturnofServiceLawEnforcementAgency(“ProofofService”)filedonMay30，2023，p.1
Here，afterthetemporaryorderwasissuedonMay16，2023，allofRespondent’sattemptstocontactPetitionerweremadebeforeshewasservedoftheorderandknewofthecontentandmeaningoftheorder.HerlastattempttocontactPetitionerwasmadebeforesheactuallyreceivedtheemailperformingtheserviceoftheorder
Inaddition，PetitionalsoaccusedRespondentofviolationoftheprotectionorderby“bypostingtheOrderandcourtdocumentsonhersocialmedia”.SeeExhibitEattachedhereto.Butthisaccusationhasnolegalbasis.Inthisstate，“Const.art.1，§5guaranteesanabsoluterighttopublishandbroadcastaccurate，lawfullyobtainedinformationthatisamatterofpublicrecordbyvirtueofhavingbeenadmittedintoevidenceandpresentedinopencourt.”Catlettv.Teel，15Wash.App.2d689，at701(2020).Therefore，thepostingofeithertheentireoraportionofthetemporaryprotectionorderiswithinRespondent’sconstitutionalrightandwillnotviolatethetemporaryprotectionorder
Moreover，makingacommentonthetemporaryorder，orPetitioner’spetitionforsuchorder，iswithinRespondent’sconstitutionalrightandshouldnotbeconsideredasviolationoftheorder
Therefore，Respondenthadneverwillfullydisobeyedtheorder.Onthecontrary，shevoluntarilysubmittedherselftothepoliceonMay19，2023fortheexactreasontoensureherfullcompliancewiththetemporaryorder，whichwasconfirmedbythepolice
H.ThereisNoNeedtoIssueaFullOrderRestrainingResponden
InpostingherMay1，2023posttitled“Moveon”，RespondenthadalreadymadehermindtoendherrelationshipwithPetitionerand，inlateApril，shehadclearlyinformedPetitionerthatshewantedtostayawayfromPetitioner
ButthisdoesnotmeanthatRespondentisnotentitledtodamagesandbringinglegalactionstorecoversuchdamages.Now，Respondenthasretainedcounselandknowsherrightsandtheappropriateandeffectivewaytoassertherclaims.ShehasnointentiontomakeanyfurthercontactPetitionerandwouldonlywanttoavoidPetitionerinherlifeforever
Therefore，thereisnoneedforafullprotectionorderrestrainingRespondentfromdoingsomethingthatshewouldneverdointhefuture
I.ThereisNoBasistoAwardAttorney’sFeesandCoststoPetitioner
PetitionerprovidednobasiswhatsoeverforthisCourttoawardhisattorney’sfeesandcosts.Inthisparticularcase，suchreliefisinappropriateandunjust.Here，Petitioner’spetitionwasgroundlessandunnecessary:helearnedfromthepolice，asearlyasofMay1，2023，thatRespondent’spostsdidnotconstituteathreatorharassment
Inaddition，PetitionercouldhaveinformedRespondentthathedidnotwanttobecontacted，butneverdidso.Lastly，Petitioneromittedtheevidencedisfavoringhisposition，e.g.，theMay1，2023policereport，tomisleadtheCourttoissuethetemporaryprotectionorderandforcedRespondenttoincurfeesandcostsforherdefenseinthiscase
Respondentisentitledtoattorney’sfeesandcostfordefendingherselfagainstthe
Petition，whichiswithoutfactualandlegalbasis
J.DesignationofthePartiesShouldBeRealigned
RCW7.105.210providesthat，“thecourtmayrealignthedesignationoftheparties…wherethecourtfindsthattheoriginalpetitioneristheabuserorharasser，andtheoriginalrespondentisthevictimofdomesticviolenceorunlawfulharassment
Thecourtmayissueatemporaryprotectionorderinaccordancewiththischapteruntilthevictimisabletoprepareapetitionforaprotectionorderinaccordancewiththischapter.”
Here，ampleevidencehasbeenprovidedtoshowthatMr.KangDai，theoriginalPetitionerhere，istheabuserorharasserandthatRespondentistheactualvictimofdomesticviolenceorunlawfulharassment.Respondenthasbeensubjecttounlawfulharassment，ordomesticviolence，orboth，thatarecommittedbyMr.KangDaiandneedsaprotectionordertoretrainMr.KangDaifromthefollowingbehaviors:
?Harm，orthreattoharmResponden
?Contactorstaywithin1，000feettoRespondentandherschool，residence，andworkplaces
?StalkorcyberstalkResponden
?PossessingorreleasingintimatephotosofResponden
?StartingorcontinuingabusivelitigationagainstResponden
Accordingly，wethereforerespectfullyrequestthatthisCourtissueatemporaryprotectionorderagainstMr.KangDaiforfourteendaystoallowRespondenttoprepareandfileherpetitionforaprotectionorder
IV.CONCLUSION
ThepetitionhereisdrivenbyPetitioner’sagendathathasnothingtodowithharassment:hewantstodeterRespondentfrompursuingherpotentialclaimsagainsthim，tochillRespondentandanyoneelsewhodaretoshowtheirsupportandsympathy，andtoexhaustthefinancialresourcesofRespondent，whoisaninternationalstudenthavingnoindependentincomesource
Fortheforegoingreasons，PetitionerKangDai’spetitionshouldbedismissedatprejudicewithallreliefsrequestedthereinbedenied，andthetemporarycivilprotectionorderagainstRespondent，enteredbythisCourtonMay16，2023andreissuedonJune27，2023shouldbevacated.Respondentshouldalsobeawardedreasonableattorney’sfeesandcosts