Alaska Dispatch tackles the Amy Demboski divorce story, but now I am left with more questions than answers.

As I begin this post I first must confess that I personally never went through the Dempsey/Hyatt divorce file myself down at the courthouse.

Instead, as I reported, I received a call from Bill Fulton about this case, who then sent me the documents that I shared on IM.

It was he and others who did the actual legwork (Except for some internet sleuthing that I did on my own later.), and it was they who decided that I should be the person to take point on the story.

Bill has been a very reliable and honest source of information for me going back a few years now, and I have come to trust him.

We of course realized that once the story was posted that other news sources would do more digging, and invariably come up with information that we did not know. And that's indeed what has happened.

Yesterday the Alaska Dispatch followed up on the story and found some interesting facts.

For instance they learned that Demboski, then Amy Lynn Hyatt, was also in the Air Force when she got married.

Now that is interesting because Demboski was described by her father as "The most military kid that he knew." However she never mentions her service to her country in the biography at her own website:

I graduated from Chugiak High School in 1994 and went on to attend UAA. While working full time, and raising a family, I earned Bachelor’s degrees in Justice and History. I subsequently obtained an MBA, with an emphasis in Finance, from Columbia Southern University. I have spent the majority of the past 20 years employed in the private sector right here in Alaska. My responsibilities included building and managing multi-million dollar businesses. Currently, In addition to representing the Eagle River area on the Anchorage Assembly, I am responsible for the overall management, business development and operations of a business with multiple locations in Alaska.

See? No mention of serving in the military. How odd.

She also of course fails to mention her previous marriage and subsequent dissolution.

The Dispatch also claims that in the beginning of the proceedings that Hyatt and Dempsey claimed there was no child:

Among the statements in the petition the couple swore was true was this: “There are no minor or dependent children born of or during this marriage or adopted during this marriage, and the wife is not now pregnant.”

And that later there was a forged document which admitted to a child, but claimed that Dempsey was not the father: 

A document purportedly signed by Dempsey that sought to amend the initial filing with a reference to the pregnancy and an assertion it was not his child was a “forgery by someone else,” Shortell declared.

Dispatch has a statement from Dembosky insisting that it was not a forgery but in fact a notarized document from Dempsey. Which, as previously stated, declared that he was not the father. 

That must refer to this document:

Which read in full:

"I, Christian M. Dempsey, being duly sworn do hereby depose and say: (And this next part is hand written.) that I am not the father of the child to be born to Ms. Amy L. Hyatt in July 1996."

Dembosky also told the Dispatch this: 

Demboski said she joined the military when she was 18, and married Dempsey while she was in technical training. She said she and Dempsey were deployed to England, and she became pregnant with her daughter. She said she moved back to Alaska for health reasons. She said she received an honorable discharge from the military.

But see now all of that is confusing because the first of the documents I received was this one from April 2, 1996:

Which clearly states:

(resident 10/95 married, no child, 7/96 due) (resident never lived w/Mr., Mr. not the father.)

So they were both stationed in England after being married, and they did not live together?

And as you will notice there is already a statement that Mr. Dempsey is not the father.

Like I said confusing.

Also according to the Dispatch the first attempt at a dissolution did not take, so there was another more successful attempt filed on April 24, 1997, AFTER the child was born.

In this case apparently Dempsey did accept that the child was his, despite working so hard to disprove it in the initial case.

However he also stated that he was unaware of the child's birth until four months after the fact and, though he agreed to pay support, he did not ask for any visitation rights.

That seems more than a little odd. Almost as if in the end he gave in to pressure, but still knew the child was not really his.

Demboski also told the Dispatch that she did not lie under oath, did not remember anything about forged documents, and that she did not remember it took two tries to finally end her first marriage.

Uh huh.

Like I said this article raises more questions than it answers in my opinion, but the one thing that is made crystal clear is that we do NOT want to elect this person to be the mayor of my city.

No way, no how!

Which, if you take a moment to scroll through the comments under this Dispatch article, seems less and less likely.