Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
MrCHAEt t.
VERSUS
ELISA L,
SMITH,
DEFENDANT.
2;J
;.r:
n r-
::;JI':;;;: "
r-
l'!!r
-,
.. :.
MO'l'ION TO SET ASIDE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND RENEWAL OF UQUEST FOR RULE nfELVE SANCTIONS
THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEARD BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMBS R. OSBORNE, APPROXIMATELY 3:30 P.M., COUNTY COURTHOUSE, COMMENCING AT 2011, AT PAULDING GEORGIA.
APRIL 6,
DALLAS,
PAULDING COUNTY,
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF MARTIN E. VALBUENA ATTORNEY AT LAW ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT PRO SE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT:
WANT TO HAVE THE COURT REPORTER TAKE THIS DOWN. AND, MR. VALBUENA, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE DECLINED TO LOWE IN THIS
SHARE WHICH MEANS THE EXPENSE WILL BE ON MS. CASE. IS THAT CORRECT? MR. VALBUENA: YES, SIR.
ALL RIGHT.
AS
IS
DISCUSS THE FEE AT THIS TIME WITH MS. (WHEREUPON, THE COURT: PROCEED.
A DISCUSSION WAS HELD orF THE RECORD.) ALL RIGHT. MS. LOWE, I'LL LET YOU
NEW TRIAL AND RENEW A REQUEST fDR RULE TWELVE SANCTIONS BASED ON THE CONTINUING FRAUD COMMITTED BY ATTORNEY MARTIN E. VALBUENA. SO I'LL ALLOW YOU TO PRESENT ANY ARGUMENT OR
OTHER MATTERS AT THIS TIME IF YOU'D LIKE. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: BASICALLY I THINK MAINLY MY I HAD
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE JANUARY 6TH HEARING WHERE JUDGE BALDWIN WITH THE COWETA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT WAS CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THAT IT WAS CORRECT FOR ANOTHER COURT TO BE TAKING JURISDICTION WHEN
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THEY HAD NOT RELEASED IT. I DO KNOW THAT ON FEBRUARY 17TH IN MR. VAL8UENA'S
RESPONSE HE SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT TOUCH THE JURISDICTION ISSUES ANY LONGER BECAOSE THIS CASE WAS OVER, LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT. 6T". AND I WOULD
HAVE THE ORDER WHEN WE WENT TO COURT THE NEXT DAY. FACT, 12". ALSO, I HAD ASKED FOR
--
I BELIEVE,
JANUARY
EFFECT OF I COULD NOT COME TO ANOTHER COURT AND BASICALLY TELL ON ANOTHER SUPERIOR COURT. WAS TRYING TO DO. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT I OF COURSE,
SINCE THE JURISDICTION AND VENUE THING SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND I HAD ASKED HIM TO LOOK INTO IT ON A
PLEADING THAT I ALSO FILED A COpy WITH THIS COURT ON NOVEMBER 15, 2010, ASKING HIM TO PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS
BECAUSE I FELT LIKE I WAS NOT GETTING ANY HELP IN THIS COURT, I SUPPOSE. I DO HAVE A COpy OF THOSE TRANSCRIPTS.
CAN I SUBMIT THOSE AS EVIDENCE? THE COURT: VALBUENA, IF YOU'LL SHOW THEM FIRST TO MR.
1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I GUESS,
JUDGE,
WOULD OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE. THE COURT: PROCEEDING? WHAT IS IT? IT'S A TRANSCRIPT fROM WHAT
DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE:
THAT IN HIS RESPONSE TO MY MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE COURT: EXHIBIT? WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT IS THE
DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE:
THE COURT:
I WILL NOT ADMIT ANY DON'T THINK THEY'RE THEY MAY BE RELEVANT
NECESSARY rOR ME TO COMMENT OR TO PROVE MY CASE ON THE ITEMS THAT HE'S POINTED OUT. DO IT? IS THAT NOT THE WAY I SHOULD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
OTHER THAN I'LL ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE SUBJECT TO ANY OBJECTIONS THAT MAY BE FORTHCOMI NG. ANY FASHION THAT YOU'D LIKE. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOMB: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I WAS SO YOU MAY PROCEED IN
SAYING THAT IN THE PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF THAT HIS CONTENTION WAS THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE ANYMORE BECAUSE THAT CASE WAS OVER. AGAIN, IT WAS BECAUSE I HAD MR. VALBUENA
HAD FILED A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE THAT PUT THIS CASE OFF FROM NOVEMBER 22NO UNTIL JANUARY 6TH BY FILING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE HE HAD FILED WITH ANOTHER CASE ALMOST A YEAR PRIOR TO THIS. OFF. THAT'S WHY IT LOOKED LIKE I WAS ON THIS COURT TO ANOTHER COURT. TO STOP IS, I GUESS,
-
BUT ANYWAY,
WHAT HE DID SAY IN THE TRANSCRIPT WAS THAT IT WAS OVER AND THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THE PAULDING COUNTY THING. ALSO, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT I SHOWED UP WITH AN WHAT I SAY ABOUT THIS WHEN THE EX PARTE
ATTORNEY ON THE FIRST DAY OF COURT. IS THAT DAY IN COURT ON APRIL 1, ORDER WAS ISSUED,
2008,
I HAD GOTTEN OUT OF JAIL ON THE 28TH THIS WAS THE FIRST AND LAST TIME I SHE fILED NO ADMISSION WITH THIS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
COURT.
I THINK THERE'S EVEN A NOTE ON THE CLERK'S FILE "CARE OF DAWN, NO REPRESENTATION."
THAT SAYS,
AND IF MR.
ATTORNEY THEN I BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD HAVE SENT HER A COpy OF THE RULE NISI THAT HE SENT TO ME TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS LATER AFTER THIS CASE HAD BEEN HEARD AND THERE WAS AN ORDER ISSUED ON IT WHICH RETURNED MY CHILDREN TO ME AND SAID THAT THE ONLY OTHER STIPULATION WAS THAT THE VISITATION WAS TO RETURN AS IT WAS BEFORE AFTER HE WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL. SO I THOUGHT THIS CASE WAS OVER. BACK. I GOT MY CHILDREN
THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE I HAD BEEN ISSUED THIS RULE NISI. AND I NISI. DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. IT JUST SAID RULE NO
INFORMATION. AND AGAIN, WELL, I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE -A LOT CONFUSED BECAUSE I HAD JUST
BEEN SERVED ON MAY 27TH WITH A MOTION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER IN COWETA COUNTY THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED IN DECEMBER Of 2008 WHICH DISMISSED MIKE'S CUSTODY CLAIM THAT HE STARTED IN JANUARY OF 2004. WAS CONFUSED. ALL THESE DATES GET CONFUSING. SO I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27TH
I I
IN
ON THAT.
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER WAS DENIED. BEFORE THAT COURT I ASKED MARTIN, IN
I
GRANTS YOUR MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT COUNTY? ME WAS, SURE WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?" "THE JUDGE
HEARING."
SO HE SEEMED TO ALREADY HAVE PLANNED OUT WHAT IT. AND WHEN IT WAS DENIED, I'M
IF THAT WAS A SHOCK OR IF THAT'S I'M NOT SURE. WITH THE CONFUSION,
I
HOW IT WAS
PLANNED.
ANYWAY,
FILED MY
PLEADINGS.
THAT
IS WAIVED IF NEITHER MADE BY MOTION NOR INCLUDED IN A RESPONSIVE 9-11-12. PLEADING AS ORIGINALLY FILED. BY THAT'S O.C.G.A. YOU ARE
NOT RAISING ANY DEFENSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OR IMPROPER VENUE. AND THEN WHEN A PERSON WAIVES THOSE ISSUES NOT " RAISED IN THE
OBJECTIONS.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE PARTIES,
THERE WOULD
HAVE BEEN REALLY NO REASON FOR DAWN TO RAISE A DEFENSE OF JURISDICTION OR VENUE, AND HERE IS WHY. BECAUSE TEMPORARY
EMERGENCY JURISDICTION CAN BE OETAINED BY COURT IF THERE IS TRULY AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WHICH THERE WAS NOT ANY THEIR COMPLAINT
AND THEY DID NOT PROVE THAT IN ANY WAY. WAS FULL OF FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS. THOSE,
SO A COURT CAN TAKE THAT EMERGENCY JURISDICTION, IF THEY FIND OUT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER COURT THAT'S EXERCISING JURISDICTION THEN THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM. THERE HAS TO BE COMMUNICATION OF THE COURTS, WAS NOT,
WH ICH THERE
KURL
(PH)-- I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT HERE WITH ME DONE BASICALLY THAT. JURISDICTION.
THEY SAID THEY CAN HAVE THE TEMPORARY JURISDICTION BUT IT'S ONLY FOR A LIMITED TIME NOT TO EXCEED NINETY DAYS.
THEREfORE,
IF I GOT MY CHILDREN BACK AND I WENT HOME AND AND NINETY DAYS WAS THE
MAXIMUM OF TEMPORARY JURISDICTION THIS COURT COULD HAVE HAD, WHY WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANY PLEADINGS FILED?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ALSO,
THE TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS APRIL In UN IL THE TIME HE HE HAD I
HIS ATTORNEY,
AND WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE SAME CASE NUMBER. UNDERSTAND THAT,
JUST KEEP THIS THING LIKE WE HAVEN'T SKIPPED A BEAT WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS CASE HAD COMPLETELY CHANGED. MIKE HAD MOVED TO FLORIDA. RESIDENT OF DALLAS. HE WAS NO LONGER A AND SO
COWETA COUNTY HAD STILL NOT RELEASED THE JURISDICTION. THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAD ALL CHANGED. MY BOYS HAD ELECTIONS, PROPER.
I
NOW,
I UNDERSTAND THAT
BUT I
COUNTY COURT WHERE THE JURISDICTION HAS NEVER BEEN RELEASED. ALSO, IN THE FEBRUARY TRANSCRIPTS THEY MAKE MENTION THIS GOES TOWARDS THE FRAUD, I THAT 2005 IN FACT, AND
COURT
THEY MAKE MENTION OF THE FRAUD ORDER. IT WAS NEVER AGREED ON.
I HAVE A COpy OF ALL OF THE DRAFTS OF THAT ORDER. WHAT MR. VALBUENA AND MR.
LOWE
PRESENTED TO THIS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
STATING THAT
VERY FIRST DRAFT SENT BY MIKE'S ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME. I'VE GOT NOTES MARKING THEM UP SAYING, YOUR USE OF THE WORD JOINT CUSTODY. THAT," ETC., KNOW I ETC., AND I "I DON'T LIKE
TRANSCRIPTS, SUBMITTED.
BUT HE HAS CLAIMED TO COWETA COUNTY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN A RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO THE COWETA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT THAT WE HAVE LIVED BY JUDGE SMITH'S ORDER FROM MARCH OF 2008 UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2008. AND I ASKED
HIM IN MEDIATION IF WE HAD REALLY LIVED BY THE COURT'S ORDER FROM MARCH APOLOGIZE, WHY
---
EXCUSE ME
--
'08 THEN
AND,
IT CAME TO CUSTODY,
I ASKED IN MEDIATION,
I ARRESTED
ON AN EX PARTE ORDER IF WE WERE LIVING BY ALL THESE THINGS IN MARCH OF 200S?/I MR. VALBUENA; POINT. MS. JUDGE, I'M GOING TO OBJECT AT THIS
SOME OTHER NAMES BY IT WHICH BASICALLY HAS TO POINT OUT THAT THE COURT HAS ERRED AND TELL THE COURT WHY IT HAS ERRED AND ASK THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ERROR. AND YET I
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BUT I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE THE COURT HAS ERRED, WHY THE COURT HAS ERRED, AND THE CORRECTION FOR THE ERROR. IRRELEVANT TO THIS
AND I THINK ALL OF THE OTHER STUFf IS MOTION. THE COURT: FAR. WELL,
HERE IF SHE HAS ANYTHING ELSE SHE NEEDS TO TELL ME. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE; THE ERROR
--
THANK YOU.
WAS RESPONDING TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN HIS RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS BACK TO ME ON THIS. NEEDED TO TOUCH ON IT. I SO THAT'S WHY I
--
FELT LIKE I
FEEL LIKE
ERRED BY NOT COMMUNICATING WITH THE COWETA COUNTY COURTS. AS MUCH AS I PLEADED IT, AND I KNOW THAT I PROBABLY DROVE I
EVERYONE CRAZY,
Y'ALL WOULD UNDERSTAND AND SOMEBODY WOULD LISTEN TO ME. UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN WAY ABOUT PRO SE LITIGANTS,
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25
ATTORNEY'S BILLS.
$32,000.00 RIGHT NOW THAT I'VE BEEN FIGHTING THIS MAN FOR TEN YEARS, AND I HAVE NO MORE MONEY TO SPEND ON IT. SO
SO I JUST FELT I
LIKE I WASN'T BEING LISTENED TO BECAUSE I WAS PRO SE. UNDERSTAND, MORE MAJOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MA'AM. BUT
JUDGE,
NOT TO REITERATE TOO MUCH WHAT'S ALREADY IN MY BRIEF, THIS ACTION WAS FILED MARCH 4TH
OBTAIN AN EX PARTE ORDER GRANTING THE FATHER TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OR CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. AT THE END OF THAT ORDER IT SAYS, AND
WHETHER THE PRAYERS REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHALL BE GRANTED." THEN WE CAME: ON APRIL 1sT AND HAD THAT TEMPORARY HEARING. THAT'S WHEN DAWN BALLARD APPEARED FOR MS. LOWE.
AS AN ATTORNEY,
WANTED
DEFENSES
TO AT THAT TIME.
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
NOT TO.
MS.
BALLARD,
AS MS.
LOWE'S ATTORNEY,
COULD HAVE
FILED AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND AN ANSWER, NOT TO. SHE PREPARED THAT ORDER,
PRESENTED IT,
NOBODY FILED AN ANSWER OR ANY OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS. MS. LOWE WAS SERVED ON MARCH 28TH THE TIME FOR
FILING THEM EXPIRED THIRTY DAYS LATER WITH AN EXTRA FIFTEEN DAYS, FORTY-FIVE DAYS LATER. LOWE FILED ANYTHING, IT WAS WELL OVER TWO
JUST LIKE
SHE SAID,
BECAUSE THE CASE WAS SET BACK DOWN FOR A SECOND TEMPORARY HEARING WHEN THE CHILDREN ELECTED TO LIVE WITH THE FATHER. I DON'T SEE ANY SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED THAT SHE WAIVED HER OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE VENUE IN THIS CASE. IN MY BRIEF I TALK ABOUT SUBJECT I DON'T
MATTER JURISDICTION AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION. THINK THOSE ARE AT ISSUE. HAS ANY APPLICATION HERE.
I DON'T THINK THE U.C.C.J.E.A. AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS THE MOTHER SO
HAD JUST LEFT THE STATE WITHIN SEVERAL DAYS OR WEEKS. THERE'S NO REASON THAT APPLIES EITHER. I DON'T THINK THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING HER OBJECTION TO VENUE EACH TIME THAT SHE HAS RAISED IT, THE COURT HAS ISSUED ORDERS ON IT. BEEN OVER AND DONE WITH, CORRECTLY,
AND
AND IT'S IN OUR BRIEF THE CASE LAW AND THE LOWE HASN'T
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
MA'AM?
DBFENDANT SMITH-LONE:
JUST REAL QUICK AND TELL YOU THE DATES OF THAT. WAS SIGNED ON MARCH 4TH I WAS UN-NOTIFIED.
r BROUGHT AND
THE KIDS BACK TO MIKE TO HAVE THEM FOR SPRING BREAK. BEFORE THAT I HAD THEM HERE ANOTHER WEEKEND, ONLY A THREE-WEEK PERIOD HERE. A WEEKEND. I WAS ARRESTED ON MARCH 25TH WITHOUT SERVICE, NOTICE OF ANY KIND. UP FROM SCHOOL. I WAS ARRESTED.
SO THERE'S
WITHOUT
I WAS HELD IN JAIL FOR FOUR DAYS AND AND AS I WAS SITTING
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO SERVE ME OTHERWISE. AGAIN, WEEKEND. I WAS SERVED ON THE 28TH THERE WAS THE
CALLING TO TRY TO fIND AN ATTORNEY TO HELP ME DURING THIS TIME. RIGHT. SO SHE CALLED THIS LADY. SHE SHOWED UP. AND I AND HE'S DO NOT SEE
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LIKE
IT'S ALSO MENTIONED IN THE PLEADINGS THAT THEY FELT THEY SAID IT'S NOT A IT SHOULD BE DIRECTED MORE
MOTION rOR DEMAND AND STAY OF TEMPORARY HEARING DUE TO IMPROPER VENUE. ENOUGH. IT IS ALSO INDICATED THAT THE CASES THAT WERE rILED IN COWETA OR PAULDING WERE NOT IDENTICAL CASES PURSUANT TO A 9-6-5, I BELIEVE, STATUTE. AND I WANTED TO SAY THE IS THE IT SAYS HE HAS CLAIMED THAT I HAVEN'T SAID VENUE
SIMULTANEOUS CASES WHICH INVOLVE THE SAME SUBJECT AND THE SAME CHILD. ALSO, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IDENTICAL. A NEW PIECE or EVIDENCE, WHICH I FELT IN ASKING
FOR A MOTION TO SET ASIDE WHEN A NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE COMES ABOUT, I HAVE RECORDS FROM THE PAULDING COUNTY
SCHOOL SYSTEM WHERE MIKE WAS WORKING WHERE HE ACTUALLY EITHER RESIGNED OR WAS LET GO AND ALLOWED TO RESIGN ON FEBRUARY 28TH HE WAS BEING EVICTED FROM HIS HOUSE, AND
THE LAST DAY TO MOVE OUT WAS APRIL lOT". HR. VALBUENA: JUDGE, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO
THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I WAS
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
IF YOU HAVE SOME TESTIMONY OR IF YOU HAVE I'LL LET YOU PRESENT THOSE. I DO HAVE CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS. IF YOU'LL SHOW WHATEVER IT IS I'LL SEE IF THERE'S
ADMISSIBLE DOCUMENTS,
YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO MR. ANY OBJECTION. DEFENDANT SMITH-LONE: THE COURT: NORMALLY,
VALBUENA,
PREPARED BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN COURT ARE SUBJECT TO AN OBJECTION, AMONG OTHER THINGS, OF HEARSAY. AND
THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING OR PART OF WHAT HE'S SAYING. MR. VALBUENA: WELL, I GUESS, JUDGE, THE OTHER PART I
WOULD BE SAYING,
TOO,
BACK IN NOVEMBER WAS HOW MUCH VISITATION, VISITATION WAS GOING TO GO ABOUT, SUPPORT.
UNDERSTAND HOW SHE CAN CONSENT TO IT IN NOVEMBER AND THEN CHALLENGE IT ON APPEAL. THE COURT: WELL, LET ME SEE IF THERE'S SOME NON-
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
HEARSAY
--
TH8N
SO DO YOU HAVE
SOME DOCUMENT THAT IS PREPARED BY YOU OR IS THIS ALL STUFF PREPARED BY OTHER -DEPENDANT SMITH-LOWE: COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM. THE COURT; HEARSAY? MR. VALBUBNA: THE COURT: YES, JUDGE. I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT, THAT THE NOT FROM DO YOU OBJECT TO THAT DOCUMENT BASED ON NO, SIR, THIS IS BY PAULDING
ALL RIGHT.
DEFENDANT SMI'l'H-LOWB:
DOCUMENTS ARE FROM PAULDING COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, ME? DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY? THE COURT: I HEARD YOU SAY THAT. OKAY.
DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY DID YOU SAY IT SOUNDED LIK8 IT WAS
--
I COULD
DBFENDANT SMITH-LOWE:
THAT YOU WEREN'T CONSID8RING THAT OR HE WASN'T SAYING THAT WAS HEARSAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT THAT'S MADE UP BY ME. IT'S THEIR DOCUMENTS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE. WELL, THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR
17
1 2 3
PATIENCE.
AFTER REVIEWING THE FILE AS WELL AS THE I WILL FIND THAT THERE'S NO MERIT IN
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RENEWAL OF REQUEST FOR RULE TWELVE SANCTIONS.
AND,
MR.
VALBUENA,
THOSE MOTIONS AND SUBMIT THAT TO MS. MR . VALBUENA: THIS BEFORE TODAY, MS.
- I
WOULD PREPARE ONE THAT DENIED IT; THAT GRANTED IT. THB COURT: ALL RIGHT.
MR. VALBUENA:
I'VE JUST GIVEN IT TO HER NOW. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT (REVIEWING DOCUMENTS). ALL
RIGHT.
LEAVE AND GET A COPY FROM THE CLERK. OTHERWISE, IF YOU WANT TO SERVE A COpy OF THAT ON MS. MR. VALBUENA.
THE COURT:
18