CREDIBILITY OF THE PARTIES.

139. Christoffer Thygesen has alleged that Kailin Wang is not credible and all of her pleadings and testimony should be disregarded. This is based in part on Commissioner Patton’s June 3 statement where he said that he did not find Kailin Wang to be credible.

140. Commissioner Patton’s statement, however, must be considered in context: Commissioner Patton was referring only to Kailin Wang’s application for a protective order against Christoffer Thygesen for the aggressive, assaultive, and unjustifiable conduct in serving the California application for a Restraining Order and the illegal and violent removal of the child Kayson from his home. Commissioner Patton was not referring to Kailin Wang’s credibility in filing her Paternity Petition or opposing Christoffer’s Motion to Dismiss.

141. More importantly, Commissioner Patton’s denial of Kailin Wang’s application for a protective order, was improperly based on Commissioner Patton’s misunderstanding that Kailin Wang had failed to disclose all concurrent cases at the time she filed her application for a protective order. But the reason Petitioner did not list all such cases is because (a) they had been terminated (Juvenile Court case) and were being dismissed (New York cases) and were no longer concurrent, (b) Petitioner had not been served in the California case, and (c) her belief that her filing of a child support case through the Los Angeles Child Support Services was not relevant to the issues in this protective order case. In other words, Commissioner Patton did not dismiss Kailin Wang’s application for a protective order on the merits or because he found that her allegations were unsupported. 142. Likewise, Kailin Wang alleges that Christoffer Thygesen has made false representations to judges in the California and Utah courts, that he (and his parents) have made false police reports, and that he and his parents have made false representations to Utah and San Francisco law enforcement in connection with obtaining custody and removal of the child Kayson as follows:

(a) In Christoffer Thygesen’s 02/15/19 Request for Protective Order (DV-100) with Request for exclusive custody, Thygesen made the following false statements: Pg. 3:

Item 9 (Pg.3 of 6): Thygesen falsely claims I’m in possession of a gun. Item 27(Pg.6 of 8): Date of abuse: STARTED 12/24/2018

Item 28 (Pg. 6 of 8): I believe Ms. Wang has or had a gun

Thygesen also requested my Bond to be $5,000,000, falsely alleging Flight Risk, purely because I’m Chinese. (DV-130).

(b) Utah Juvenile Court Case (Judge Richard Smith): IN RE: THE MINOR CHILD, KAYSON THYGESEN WANG, AND Christoffer Thygesen’s “MEMORANDUM ON JURISDICTION.”

“On March 6, 2019, after a hearing, the San Francisco County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order. ("California Order"). In the said order, the court found, pertinent to this case, the following: (1) that Mother is awarded no visitation with the child, (2) that Father be awarded sole physical and legal custody of the child, (3) that Mother receives written permission to travel with the child, (4) that California had jurisdiction to make custody orders pursuant to the UCCJEA, (5) that

Mother has a history of domestic violence, and (6) that Father, with assistance of Utah Police or other appropriate authorities, was allowed to retrieve the child” (p. 2)

“On or about March 7, 2019, Father, under the guidance and direction of Utah DCFS and CPS, obtained custody of the minor child from Mother’s parents. After obtaining custody, and consistent with State statute, the State scheduled a shelter hearing for March 12, 2019. Out of necessity, and with no other foreseeable way to obtain custody of the child, the Father worked with Utah authorities to ensure the safety of the minor child. Now, the minor child is in the custody of the Father, and any outstanding custody issues should be resolved in California" (p. 2).

(Pg. 4) Father flew to Utah on March 6, 2019, to obtain custody of his child. a.) Ms. Wang stalked one victim with a gun and threatened to do him bodily harm;

(Pg. 4) Most importantly, on March 6, 2019, Mother stated the following on social media: “I’m going to kill myself and our baby if he does not start paying me child support and then he will be guilty of 1st_- degree murder. I hope his parents are happy to hear this!" See Exb. E.

(Case No. 1170844): (EXHIBITS_37_THYGESEN'S PREVIOUS FILINGS CASE NO. 194400718, 194400711, 194400689)

Response: This is all untrue, Kailin does not own a gun, She never has, Thygesen has never contacted her concerning the child, he has never inquired about the child’s whereabouts. Moreover, the March 6, 2019 California order was granted ex-parte without any evidence.

Most Notably Thygesen represented to Judge Smith the following which was false:

"On March 6, 2019, Judge Darwin took evidence and argument, which both parties had the opportunity to present briefing, and that his order was based on its merits and there were findings.”

(c) Filed on March 13, 2019 (Provo District Court, Judge McDade), in Thygesen v. Wang (Case No. 194400689)"VERIFIED PETITION EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD CUSTODY

DETERMINATION AND REGISTRATION OF CHILD CUSTODY DETERMINATION." (EXB. 37, THYGESEN'S PREVIOUS FILINGS). Case to domesticate in Utah Judge Darwin’s March 6 custody order.

Ms. Wang was falsely alleging Thygesen told her to have an abortion and has refused to provide financially for the child.

Ms. Wang was falsely alleging the minor child was aborted, even though Petitioner knew the minor child was alive.

Ms. Wang stalked one victim with a gun and threatened to do him bodily harm;

Ms. Wang could have filed for just child support; however, she filed to establish paternity as well. Therefore, the case is a child support action and paternity action.

Response: Mr. Thygesen was well aware that this was an administrative action and not a judicial action, the application for Child Support was through Child Support Services (LACSS), they do not

provide services for custody or visitation. This is the standard across the United States. Mr. Thygesen falsely represented that the Child Support actions were a Custody/Visitation petition. He knowingly omitted that it was not a Paternity action, but because he denied he was the father of Kayson Wang, a Genetic Test is a mandatory part of filing for Child Support. Still, there was never a Petition for Custody filed anywhere besides Utah.

These disingenuous representations are not without severe prejudice. Ms. Wang's 3.5 Months old infant was coercively abducted by Christoffer, who asked me to blow my brains out and to kill the baby at a very late-term 18-24 Week stage.

Besides, Christoffer Thygesen's false statements in court that he did not pressure Kailin into abortion is not credible--there is nothing ambiguous about Christoffer Thygesen's texts urging me to extinguish his unborn child as follows:

This Text Message is self-evident (650) 862-8473:

"The longer you wait, the harder it's going to be to pull the trigger. I don't know what you've been researching or who's been giving you advice, but this will not play out favorably for anyone. Guaranteed. I can't sugar-coat this since it's so late already…" text messages sent to Ms. Wang by Christoffer Thygesen

Response: Paternity is mandatory to file for Child Support. It is because of this severe distortion of facts, to circumvent the normal process of custody and visitation determinations, that has caused such a mess. This was the revenge Thygesen promised Kailin --- he has lived up to his word to punish her for keeping the baby.

Thygesen continues telling the Courts that Judge Darwin granted custody based on its merits. Which is manifestly false, --- Kailin had no notice of the proceedings, she was not served, she was not present at the hearing, She had never participated in any hearings anywhere up until that point. She denies there have been any hearings on the merits of the current March 6, 2019 custody order.

(d) Filed on March 15, 2019, THYGESEN’s FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO JUDGE MCDADE (Provo District Court)

On March 17, 2019, in Thygesen v. Wang (Case No.194400689) in his “Memo RE: Utah Code ANN. 78B-13- 308(5)”:

(Pg. 7): “The California Court has jurisdiction over this matter. On March 6, 2019, hearing, in which Ms. Wang participated, the court made findings related to the jurisdiction".

(e) Filed on April 05, 2019, in Wang v. Thygesen, Kailin Wang’s Petition for Paternity in Provo District Court (Case No. 194400718) Thygesen’s MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS PETITION

Thygesen:

“On March 6, 2019, the San Francisco Court (Judge Darwin) took evidence, the court, after reviewing the pleadings, including the declarations and Exb.s that had been timely filed, issued an Amended

Temporary Restraining Order that granted sole legal custody and sole physical custody to Mr. Thygesen/Thygesen, and specifically made a no-contact order protecting Mr. Thygesen and the minor child from Ms. Wang".

All New York Cases were dismissed on March 26, 2019, after a hearing and after Ms. Wang was represented by counsel.

In further attempt to take advantage of the court system, Ms. Wang then filed this Paternity Action and a request for Protective Order in Utah.

Ms. Wang's filings were made despite the fact that the California Court (Judge Darwin), on March 6, 2019, had found, after taking argument and receiving evidence, that California had UCCJEA jurisdiction over this case. It appears that Ms. Wang's Utah filings are one last-ditch effort to confuse the court regarding jurisdiction or to prevent the Utah Juvenile Court from enforcing the California Court Order. Nonetheless, the California Court, Ms. Thygesen and Ms. Wang participated through multiple hearings, Judge Darwin has made findings and awarded Respondent full legal and physical custody of KW to Thygesen. Due to the evidence and findings of the California Order, and subsequent murder/suicide death threats against the minor child on March 6, 2019, and Petitioner's mental health history, Respondent, with the assistance of the State of Utah, obtained custody of the child, in compliance with the California Court Order. Ms. Wang is a threat to the minor child and has threatened to kill the child.

Response: These are complete lies, I was not represented by counsel for the New York Child Support application, and I did not apply for Custody/Visitation in New York, Nor LA. Thygesen's criminal behavior warrants a Court to seriously look into this matter and order Kayson Wang to be returned immediately as this entire case was based on treachery and deceit.

(f) On April 09, 2019, Thygesen filed his Declaration in Support of DVRO before Judge Darwin in California: (Pg. 6, #19)“On March 6, 2019, between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Kailin Wang posted on Holy

Smoke a threat to kill herself, and baby K. went back onto Holy Smoke. com, where she had previously falsely stated that "Christoffer Thygesen forced me to kill 18-week old baby," (See March 4, 2019, Declaration of Christ offer Stanford Thygesen In Support of Domestic Violence Protective Orders and Custody Orders, Exb. D-J) and made the following death threat:

(EXB. 10, BATES #408 to #409)

(g) Filed on April 12, 2019, Wang v. Thygesen (Case No. 194400711) (Judge Powell) MOTION AND MEMORANDUM TO DISMISS PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION:

(Pg.4) "Upon information and belief, Ms. Wang also directed her parents to file this action. Ms. Wang's filings and Petitioners' filings were made despite the fact that the California Court, on March 6, 2019, had found, after taking an argument and receiving evidence, that California had UCCJEA jurisdiction over the minor child".

"It appears that Petitioners' Utah filings and Ms. Wang's Utah filings are one last-ditch effort to confuse the court regarding jurisdiction or to prevent the Utah Juvenile Court from enforcing the California

Court Order. Nonetheless, the California Court, through multiple hearings, has made findings and awarded Mr. Thygesen full legal and physical custody of KW”.

(h) Filed on September 09, 2019, in Thygesen v. Wang Case No. 194100241 (American Fork, Judge Griffin) in OBJECTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS KAILIN WANG’S PETITION TO REGISTER FOREIGN ORDER. Christoffer Thygesen, through his attorneys false states:

“This Court likewise lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over custody and parent-time issues under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), because Utah is not the home state of the parties’ child in common and is an inconvenient forum to adjudicate the child custody of the minor child.

(i) March 18, 2019 (3:30 p.m.) Registration and Enforcement of Foreign Order Hearing before Judge Maude Thygesen falsely states under Penalty of Perjury that the Temporary California Orders granted by Judge Darwin on March 6 were based on arguments made, that the court took evidence, and Judge Darwin made Findings and Order after hearing.