PEOPLE'S LEGAL FRONT

INTERACTIVE FORMS HOME ABOUT US HISTORY LAWS MOTIONS LINKS INTERNET SEARCH

March 24, 2001

I have begun a new battle to acquire the Public Record for you. I have requested that all Policy and Procedures for the Department of Revenue be supplied to me in electronic format. There are other request made pursuant to RSMo 610. I believe that this department, which has not been audited since 1991, plays a significant role in the lives of all citizens of the State of Missouri. To allow this department to operate under a cloak of secrecy is tyranny.

April 5, 2001

I have received a response to my request of public records. The Director/Custodian of Records for the Missouri Department of Revenue has denied access to all records requested.

This is a case arising out of the Sunshine Law for the State of Missouri Chapter 610 of the Revised Statutes. I have requested public records from the Director of Revenue. These requested records are obviously public and the Director knows it and has admitted to it. The Attorney General for the State of Missouri is representing the Director in this case. It should be noted that the Honorable Judge Kinder of the 19th Judicial Circuit is presiding. Judge Kinder is also being sued by counsel for the defendant for misappropriation of funds in Morgan County Missouri. The conflict of Interest has not been addressed as of yet. In fact neither the judge or the defendant has took to notify me of any pending litigation where the judge is a party to actions brought by the counsel for the defendant.

My file

Case # 01CV324209 Lee Allen Martin V. Director of Revenue
19th Judicial Circuit Cole County State of Missouri
Judge Bryon Kinder presiding Division II

7-27-2001 Judge Patricia Joyce presiding Division IV

02-07-2002 Judge Patricia Joyce Recuse on Own Motion

02-07-2002 Judge Sodorgren Assigned by Presiding Judge

04-01-2002 Judge Sodergren recuse on Own Motion(Motion is Unsigned and not initialed)

04-01-2002 Judge Brown Assigned by Presiding Judge

06-19-2002 Judge Brown dismisses casue strikes all pleadings of the plaintiff and assess all cost to the plaintiff pursuant to Mo. S. Ct. rule 61 sanctions for failure to be deposed.

CASE.NET 19th Judicial Circuit




The Official Sunshine Request


Director/Custodian Responds


The Complaint


Defendant Answer


REPLY


Request for Production of Documents


Certificate of Service


DOR answer to Production of Documents


Motion to Compel and Judicial Notice


Interrogatories, Plaintiff


Defendant Response to Motion to Compel


Motion To Transfer lack of Jurisdiction


Request for Finding


Second Interrogatories, Plaintiff


Reconsider Jurisdiction


Reconsider Discovery


Answer to 2nd Interrogatories


Compel Answer to 2nd Interrogatories


Nunc Pro Tunc to Correct Record


Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance


Notice to Depose, Plaintiff


Motion to Suppress Deposition


Response to Motion for Continuance


Response to Motion to Compel 2nd Interrogatories
Judge Joyce Recuses on own Motion now assigned to Judge Sodergren


Judicial Notice of pretrial issues


Notice of Hearing
Judge Soderrgren Recuses on Unsigned Motion 4-1-2002
Judge Brown assigned 4-1-2002
Notice of Deposition 4-2-2002


Motion to Recuse Judge Brown


Motion to Quash Deposition


Motion to Dismiss


Answer to Court Ordered Interrogatory


Suggestion in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss


Admissions

Motion for Sanctions

Motion to Shorten Time

Motion for Continuance

Suggestions in Opposition to Motion for Continuance

Motion for Sanctions and Suggestions in Support

Suggestions in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions

Judgment of the 19th day of June 2002:
"Plaintiff appears pro se; Defendants appear by AAG Halcomb and AAG Kraus; Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions taken up; Parties offered opportunity to be heard; Said Motion overruled; Defendant's Motion for Continuance and Defendant's Motion for Sanctions taken up; Evidence adduced; Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, sustained; Plaintiff's pleadings are hereby stricken; Judgment of Dismissal is entered; Costs of this proceeding, including costs associated with attempted deposition on May 21, 2002, taxed to Plaintiff. TJB"

Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment of June 19, 2002


Defendant's Statement of Costs
On July 5th Judge Brown Ruled: "Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment of June 19, 2002, denied. TJB
(Copy of docket entry directed to parties on 7/8/02.)


Notice of Appeal and Request for Forma Pauperis


Petition fo File in Forma Pauperis and Affidavit of Poverty


Missouri Supreme Court Form 8B


Missouri W. D. Form 1


Motion for Retaxation of Bill of Costs


Mo. W.D. #61674


Tarnscript Request


Legal File Request


Docket Sheet Request


Transcript Request, Associate Circuit Division IV


Transcript for Hearing of June 19,2002 Assistant Attorney General Testifies as a witness under oath


Motion to Rescind Hearing


Appellant Brief


Opinion of WD court Ruling Dismiss for lack of fianl Judgment


84.17 Motion to Reconsider or Transfer to Supreme Court

My notes on Court Appearances

May 15, 2002 Oral Argument in Kansas City


July 5, 2002 Judge denies motion to reconsider without hearing.


July 1, 2002
At about 1:00 pm, hearing called for Plaintiff 75.01 Motion to set aside default judgment of June 19, 2002. Judge to Motion as submitted. Form 1 filled out.

June 19, 2002
At about 1:00 pm hearing was held on outstanding Motions. Judge required and evidentiary hearing as to Defendant Motion for Sanctions. Defendant Motions:

1. to Quash Subpeonas,
2. for Continuance,
3. for Sanctions, Rule 61.01.

Plaintiff Motions:

1. For Sanctions pursuant to Mo. S. Ct. Rule 55.03
2. Suggestion in Opposition to Defendant Motion for Continuance
3. Suggestion in Opposition to Defendant Motion for Sanctions, Mo.S.Ct. Rule 610.01

At about 2.45 pm Evidentiary Hearing was held.

1. Judge took up Plaintiff Motion for Sanctions, Mo.S.Ct.Rule 55.03. Plaintiff stood on Pleading. Judge denied Plaintiff Motion.
2. Judge took up defendant Motions. Ruled Continuance and Sanctions Motions stem from same incident heard testimony on both. Mr. Kraus took the stand. Mr. Halcomb questioned him as to the events of May 21, 2002.
   1. Plaintiff arrive first.
   2. Mr Kraus arrived after Plaintiff at about 10:10 am.
   3. Mr. Kraus spoke with Plaintiff and then both proceeded to another location for deposition.
   4. Court Reporter was already set up.
   5. Plaintiff had conversation with Court Reporter, Debbie Sontag, Alpha Reporting.
   6. Mr. Kraus wanted all questioning on the record.
   7. Plaintiff asked the Court Reporter "if she knew her oath of office."
   8. Court Reporter did not know her oath of Office.
   9. Mr. Halcomb arrived about 10:15 am.
   10. Plaintiff was not out of character.
   11. Plaintiff was not rude and obnoxious by questioning the Court Reporter.
   12. Mr. Halcomb demanded to go on record.
   13. Ms. Sontag cried.
   14. Ms. Sontag refused to take the deposition.
   15. Defendant could not locate another Court Reporter.
   16. Depositoin was never called.
   17. Plaintiff requested to futher question Court Reporter to determine a disqulifying interest.
   18. Transcript for deposition states deposition over at 10:20 am.
   19. Deposition was to be called at 10:30 am.
   20. Testified to Plaintiff refused to take the Oath 4 to 5 times and then recanted and testified that Plaintiff would not agree to be sworn.
   21. Defendant canceled deposition.
   22. Plaintiff Left.

Plaintiff took the stand presented two exhibits,

1. Exhibit #1,
2. Exhibit #2,
3. Stated that at no time did Plaintiff refuse to be sworn.
4. That he was obligated by Mo.S.Ct. Rule to move for disqualification immediately preferably before deposition.
5. That Ms. Sontag's utterance to the question "can you tell me what your oath says?" speaks for itself.
6. That Plaintiff appeared at deposition.
7. Plaintiff was not rude or abusive.
8. That no showing had been made that Plaintiff was rude and abusive.
9. That deposition was over before the scheduled deposition was to be called.
10. That Defendant counsel never properly called the deposition.
11. That no Order of the Court was issued on the 21st day of May 2002 calling for the Plaintiff to do anything.
12. That Mr. Halcomb stated at deposition he did not know his oath, and public servants are not required to know their oaths.

Judge ruled that Plaintiff did try to frustrate deposition, stuck all pleadings, dismissed action, accessed cost of deposition, and action against plaintiff. Witnesses: Robert L. Martin, Robin McDermott

June 17, 2002
At about 10:45 am I checked with the Clerk of the Court and was informed that Judge was not in on law day and Hearing was scheduled for 1:00 pm on the 19th day of June 2002.

May 21, 2002


At 10:15 am on the 21st day of May 2002 I arrived at the designated location for deposition.Mr. Krause arrived next and we moved to another room where the presumed court reporter was waiting and set up with a laptop and audio equipment. Do to the nature of electronic equipment it is likely that cameras were also operating. Mr. Halcomb appeared shortly. The court reporter identified herself as Debbie Sonntag from Alpha Reporting Service. Before deposition was called I questioned Ms. Sonntag as to where she lived? Where she was from? What did it take to become a court reporter? Did she have to take an oath to become a court reporter? And could she tell me what her oath was?

Ms. Sonntag replied she lives in Springfield, was from Ozark Missouri and she had taken a course and passed a test to become a court reporter. She stated that she had taken an oath the same oath as a notary, and that she could not tell me what her oath said. Her statement was that it had been 3 years since she had taken the oath and she could not remember it.

Pursuant to M.S.Ct. Rule 57.05(a) PERSONS BEFORE WHOM DEPOSITIONS MAY BE TAKEN: In Missouri, Within the State of Missouri depositions shall be taken before an officer authorized by the laws of the State to administer oaths, or before a person appointed by the court in which the action is pending. A person so appointed has power to administer oaths and take testimony."

Pursuant to M.S.Ct. Rule 57.07 (d)(2) EFFECTS OF ERRORS AND IRREGULARITIES IN DEPOSITIONS: As to Disqualification of Officer, Objection to taking a deposition because of disqualification of the officer before whom it is to be taken is waived unless made before the taking of the deposition begins or as soon thereafter as the disqualification becomes known or could be discovered with reasonable diligence.

Ms. Sonntag did disqualify herself from the proceeding as was Ms. Sonntag's right. Defendant by and through counsel terminated the deposition at about 11:00 am. No record was created.

Mr Kraus asked that I leave the building as I do not work there. Mr. Kraus volunteered to escort me to the door. I requested Business Cards from Halcomb and Ms. Sonntag. I also requested Mr. Halcomb's e mail address to which he gave me Keith.Halcomb@mail.agc.state.mo.us. Mr. Halcomb had stated on the October 1, 2001 that he would not give me his email address and I would have to go to court to get it. At least Mr. Halcomb has seen the error of his way in this minor regard.

(cost)I traveled 100 miles back to West Plains Missouri a total at $.50/mile comes to $50.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 3 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $120.00. My driver spent 2 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $40.00. all total expenses for February 4, 2002 comes to $210.00.

May 20, 2002


At about 15:00 Hearing was held in the Court of the Honorable Judge Brown. Counsel for the defendant was Assistant Attorney General Halcomb. I had noticed up the Motion to Suppress Deposition filed on the 15th day of April 2002. The court requested of Mr. Halcomb what information he hoped to obtain in the deposition of plaintiff. Mr. Halcomb's reply was the bases for the complaint and messages between plaintiff and defendant. I countered with the complaint is part of the record of the court. That the basis for the complaint is part of the court record. That all correspondence between plaintiff and defendant could be acquired by due diligence on the defendants part. I raised the issue of Conflict of Interest pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.05(d). Court over ruled motion to suppress the deposition. Court took up the Motion to Dismiss on advisement. Trial set for the 20th day of June, 2002. Deposition to be held on the 21st day of May 2002 at 149 Park Central Square, Springfield Missouri Room 1017 at 10:30 am.

(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 75 miles back to Springfield Missouri a total of 235 at $.50/mile comes to $117.50 dollars travel expense. I spent 8 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $320.00. My driver spent 8 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $160.00. all total expenses for February 4, 2002 comes to $597.50.

May 6, 2002


At about 15:00 Hearing was held in the Court of the Honorable Judge Brown. Counsel for the defendant was Assistant Attorney General Jones, as Attorney Halcomb and Kraus were not available on this day. I had noticed up Motion to Recuse Judge Brown for the excited utterance made on the 1st day of April 2002 before the parties, off the record. The Utterance was:


Plaintiff: Have you been sued by the Attorney General?
Judge Brown: I am not sure what you are talking about.
Plaintiff: So if you had been sued by the Attorney General you might have forgotten that?
Judge Brown: We won that case.
Plaintiff: What is the status of that case?
Judge Brown: That case is on appeal in the Supreme Court.
Plaintiff: So, there has not been a final decision? Doesn't this represent a conflict of interest as you may be prejudice toward one of the parties?
Judge Brown: Wouldn't that make me prejudice against them?
Plaintiff: I would hope so!
Judge Brown: No, No I am not going to be prejudice against you or any party in this case.

This conversation between the new judge and the parties was not on the record, but I contend this rises to the level of appearance of impropriety. Judge asked me on this day if I had any evidence to present. I replied only the statements made by him on the 1st day of April 2002 before the parties. Judge Denied my motion to recuse. Judge would not allow any other motion to be heard, but wanted to take up Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as I had already filed Suggestions in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Sanctions.

All parties said they would stand on the pleadings presented to the court. I asked that the court also take into consideration Mo.S.Ct. Rule 55.27 that Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which Relief could be Granted should have been brought within 30 days of service. To wait until a year has passed to bring the motion is out of time and should not be allowed. Other than that I will be happy to stand on my pleading.

Mr. Jones was not there to argue anything but the motion to recuse Judge Brown. Why is it that a judge who is falsely accused of wrong doing by the office of the Attorney General and admits that it would tend to prejudice him against counsel for the defendant have the defendant counsel arguing to keep him on the case? Things that make you go Hmmmm? At least he went on the record on the denial. The defendant is on record as not asking the judge to recuse. I believe that I have good standing to defeat the prejudice of the judge argument by defendant at the appeal level.

Judge said he intended to have parties back on the 20th of May for trial setting. I am confused as we have a trial set for the 20th of June.

(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 160 miles back to Jeff City a total of 320 at $.50/mile comes to $160.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 10 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $400.00. My driver spent 10 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $200.00. all total expenses for February 4, 2002 comes to $760.00.

April 1, 2002


At about 13:00 hearing was scheduled for Judge Sodergren. I spoke to Krause and Halcomb in the hallway of courthouse to ascertain who Kraus is talking to via the phone concerning the need to file conflict dates for trial. Kraus knows it is someone in the Cole County Courthouse but does not know who.
Sodergren Recuse on his own Motion without signing said Motion. Immediately reassigned to Brown. While waiting for hearing before Brown Clerk of the Court Debbie Cheshire, give Krause the file folder. I check the file in the presence of defense attorneys and find Notice of Hearing and Judicial Notice filed in March 24 2002 are missing from the official file. I take to notify the Courts Clerk of the problem and they find the missing pleadings at an undisclosed location.
Hearing held off the record. I question jurisdiction of the court as Judge Sodergren has not signed the motion to recuse. Judge Brown says he takes his orders from the presiding judge and it is his now. Brown denies motion to take judicial notice of the court file. Halcomb tries to explain the complicated computer program and the system for driver's license applications presently in use by defendant failing to mention the one on the web site. Brown states that my interrogatories are not in the proper form and denies all discovery. Brown sets trial for the 20th day of June 2002 at 10:00am. Takes all outstanding motions under advisement to issue order at a later date.
I inquire as to Court's conflict of interest. Judge cannot remember if he was sued by the defendant counsel. I further the questions to the court concerning the lawsuit for misappropriation of funds and the judge admits that he is a defendant in the case. He states that he won the case at trial but it had been appealed and is now in the Supreme Court. Brown states: "That would prejudice me against them(opposing counsel) wouldn't it?" I reply: "I would hope so." Brown in excited utterance "I am not prejudiced against you(opposing counsel)." Brown further states that the DOR did not bring the case and I point out that the counsel for the defendant are assistant attorney generals. All pleadings filed by the defendant have the Attorney name as filed by on them.


(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 160 miles back to Jeff City a total of 320 at $.50/mile comes to $160.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 10 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $400.00. My driver spent 10 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $200.00. all total expenses for February 4, 2002 comes to $760.00.

February 4, 2002


at about 13:00 hearing was held at Division 4 Cole County Courthouse. Defendant was present by and through Assistant Attorney General Earl D. Kraus. Plaintiff present. Ruthie, court clerk did go on record. Ruthie admitted that she does not number her tapes, and they are in the sole possession of her. There is not device on the tape to insure tampering with the official record. Witnesses to hearing: Robert L. Martin, Robin C. McDermott.
Numerous issues heard.
1. Motion to Suppress Deposition presented to the court, and defendant counsel. Court refused to make name of the court reporter known to the plaintiff. Plaintiff noted Rule 57 which allows that despondent has right to object to court reporter on the grounds that reporter is a relative, or employee of the deposing party. Plaintiff requested that deposition be held in a neutral spot, not AG Office in Springfield Mo. Court stated would not infer meaning to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules. That no mention of neutral spot mentioned in the rules, DENIED. Defendant requested that deposition be in person and not by phone as provided in rule 57 as there was no agreement among the parties for a phone deposition. Granted. Plaintiff stated that was not able to be to deposition on the 13th of February 2002. Court granted Continuance of Trial, and set deposition to be held after the 5th day of March 2002.
2. Motion to Reconsider Order of November 2nd, 2001 once again brought up. Judge heard this motion on the 7th day of January, but has not ruled upon motion as she "is to busy." Issue taken under advisement. Counsel for defendant restated that Application for a Driver's License is a Process in light of the evidence of Application on the defendant web site.
3. Motion for Continuance granted.
4. Motion To Compel Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories taken under advisement.
5. Nunc Pro Tunc Motion was taken under advisement.


(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 160 miles back to Jeff City a total of 320 at $.50/mile comes to $160.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 10 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $400.00. My driver spent 10 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $200.00. all total expenses for February 4, 2002 comes to $760.00.

January 7, 2002


at 13:45 I had a hearing on the filed motions to reconsider before the Cole County Court of the Honorable Judge Joyce. With the doors locked and personally summoned by the courts bailiff I had the hearing. The counsel for the defendant did not appear. The Judge said that the record would be corrected. They would go through the CASE.NET record and make sure it was correct. I requested that any changes that are made to the record be so noted. An explanation for the changes and initials of the party altering the courts record should be maintained. Even though I was entitled to default judgment against the defendant the Judge is going to review motions that have been before her court for over a month and then write an ORDER.
The clerk of the court, Debbie Cheshire, told me that there was internal auditing programs at work, but what they are remain a mystery to me.
The jurisdiction of the court is still in question, but I have to allow the court the opportunity to correct the record. The court then took up the motion to reconsider the Motion to Compel Discovery, Production of Documents. I filed a Motion to reconsider on the 3rd day of December 2001 with the attached copy of the electronic application for a Driver's License. This is the same application requested in the Official Sunshine request, Production of Documents to which counsel for the defendant stated in open court on the 1st day of October 2001 was not capable of being produced as it is part of a process. I did demand sanctions against the party, and asked the court to order the production of documents at defendant's cost. The bailiff although calling me by my name was less than cordial. Upon my opening of my briefcase with the documents needed for the hearing the bailiff jumped to determine the contents of this briefcase. The Fear of Terrorism is much more about the court's guilty conscious than about terrorism.

(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 160 miles back to Jeff City a total of 320 at $.50/mile comes to $160.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 10 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $400.00. My driver spent 10 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $200.00. all total expenses for January 7, 2002 comes to $760.00.

November 28, 2001


I appeared for a status and setting hearing at 13:00. Robin took me up. Everyone was nice. Defense still maintains that none of the records are in electronic format. I visited DOR facilities. I have the evidence and the witnesses, they lose. Judge said that they would correct the record. Trial set for March 1, 2002.

I filed Motion to Reconsider the Jurisdiction of the Court in open court. I filed 2nd set of Interrogatories in open court and submitted the certificate of service to the judge. I requested a ruling as to Rule 58 and 56 as to the meaning of "within 30 days" and for the court to set the time for response. So set as of the 26th day of December, 2001. If it was not for the terrible record keeping I would think it was possible to get an impartial hearing of the facts. In light of the felonious record keeping I want this court off the case.


(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 160 miles back to Jeff City a total of 320 at $.50/mile comes to $160.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 10 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $400.00. My driver spent 10 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $200.00. all total expenses for November 28, 2001 comes to $760.00.

October 1, 2001


I appeared for a scheduled status hearing in the Cole Courthouse, Judge Joyce. I was the first case called. Motions to compel discovery was on file with the court, as the Attorney General Response to the Motion to Compel was also on file. The Judge wanted to set the case. I objected as no discovery was produced. The judge then allowed the defense attorneys to testify that the records in question were not in electronic format. The Judge began to question me as to the obligation of the state and to make a schedule to receive the discovery that I requested at 25 cents per page. I objected that 25 cents per page was a for profit price and in no way represents the clear intent of the sunshine law. I maintain that the records in question are created in electronic format and I should receive the documents in that format.

Upon the testimony of defense attorneys and the judges denial of my cross examination right I filed a Motion for Finding of Fact. The judge became very upset with me, and realizing that the hearing before this judge was less than impartial I was forced to bring into question the veracity of the Courts Record.

The Official Court Record shows that on the 20th day of September 2001 the defendant did file a response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. On the 21st day of September 2001 the Court did file the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. The absolute verity of the Court's record has been brought into question in the allowing of a Response to a Motion to be filed before the filing of the Motion.

The Judge had many hypothetical questions to me as to how this could have occurred. My response was and is that it makes no difference as to why it occurred, but the fact it did occur shows the court's record does not speak absolute verity. If the court record does not speak absolute verity then the court is not a court of record. If the court is not a court of record then it has no subject matter jurisdiction. I filed the Motion to Transfer for Lack of Jurisdiction in open court.

The Trial Judge then took to make up hypothetical explanations as to how this could have occurred. I simply stated in open court that how or why does not make a difference the only issue is that the record does not speak absolute verity. The Judge continued to insist that I agree with her hypothetical explanation, and I would not. Judge then told me to wipe that smirk off of my face or she would have me arrested.

Upon leaving the court room on the insistence of the judge that she would not entertain any other argument, or motion at this time, and she would be the only one to schedule the next hearing. I left the court to speak with counsel for the defense. Halcomb was very upset with me. He accused me of threatening the defendant agency, He denied he knew his email address. He stated that if I wanted public records I would have to go to court to get them. He introduced for the first time that these records are maintained in the Secretary of States office. He effectively denied me access to public records again. He said "It would be a said day for the State of Missouri if I won."


(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 160 miles back to Jeff City a total of 320 at $.50/mile comes to $160.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 10 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $400.00. My driver spent 10 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $200.00. all total expenses for October 1, 2001 comes to $760.00.

July 27, 2001


I appeared in Cole County Court for Initial appearance, and for Order for Discovery, Motion to Recuse the Judge Kinder for Conflict of Interest.
Once again I was berated by the Judge Kinder for not noticing up the hearing on a law day. This was done informally in the hall way. I tried to intimate to the judge that his secretary had told me that law day was the 27th of July and not the 30th of July pursuant to local Court Rule. Judge Kinder appoints Judge Joyce to hear the cause. Attorney General's Office appears through Mr. Harris, Mr. Halcomb's supervisor. Mr. Harris "KNOWS NOTHING, AND CAN MAKE NO DECISIONS". Cause is heard at 2:00 pm. Judge refuses a discovery schedule. Discovery to proceed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule. Judge Joyce will be presiding in this action due to a "scheduling conflict" of Judge Kinder. Set for Status Hearing on October 1, 2001 at 10 am.
(Costs) Trip cost is $160.00 My cost 10 hours at $40.00/hour is $400.00 driver cost is 10 hours $20/hour=$200.00 total $760.00

June 4, 2001


I appeared in Cole County Court for initial appearance. The Court failed to notify me of any filings or for that matter whether service was done on the defendant. Having noticed the case up for hearing I had to show up and I did. I was thoroughly lectured on the need for law day. Law day is the one day a month that judges call all cases before them so that the courthouse looks very crowded and busy. While in fact the rest of the week very little is going on. Most Law days are on Monday, but the law day is left to the whims of the Judge. The calendar for the courts/judges are not provided. I have been informed by the court administrator that plans are that the calendar will be provided on the internet eventually. I would not count on it. Judge Kinder's Secretary told me that July law day would be the 27th.


(cost)I traveled 160 miles up and 160 miles back to Jeff City a total of 320 at $.50/mile comes to $160.00 dollars travel expense. I spent 10 hours of the day involved in court business at $40.00 per hour comes to $400.00. My driver spent 10 hours at $20.00/hour comes to $200.00. all total expenses for June 4, 2001 comes to $760.00.

EMail

Home

HOME ABOUT US HISTORY LAWS MOTIONS LINKS INTERNET SEARCH