IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY
STATE OF MISSOURI

Lee Allen Martin
Plaintiff,
VS.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE #01CV324209

Suggestions in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Continuance

Comes now the Plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, and does provide the following in Opposition to Defendant's eleventh hour Motion for Continuance.

  1. This action began on the 17th day of May, 2001.

  2. Defendant at no time requested Production of Documents from the Plaintiff.

  3. Defendant at no time requested interrogatories from the Plaintiff.

  4. Defendant at no time requested Admissions from the Plaintiff.

  5. Defendant complains that they have not completed deposition of Plaintiff. Plaintiff did attended scheduled deposition on the 21st day of May 2002 at the Attorney General's Office in the State Office Building at 147 Park Central Square Springfield Missouri on or about 10:00 AM. In fact Plaintiff was at the Office of the Attorney General before Counsel for the defendant arrived.

  6. Plaintiff at no time refused to be swore, but upon Ms. Sonntag's statement that she had forgot her oath a long time ago, tried to make the record show the fact of the statement. Further, Plaintiff has an obligation to make objections to any and all grounds for disqualification of the Court Reporter at the earliest time.

  7. Ms. Sonntag did disqualify herself from proceedings, per the attachment #1 of defendant's Motion for Continuance.

  8. Plaintiff has argued before the Honorable Court of the Possibility of disqualification of the court reporter to be used in deposition.
    1. The Plaintiff in his Motion to Suppress Notice of Deposition filed on or about the 4th day of February 2002 makes specific mention of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.05(d).
    2. Plaintiff on or about April 10, 2002 did file Motion to Suppress Notice of Deposition. In the Plaintiff Motion he does argue that he should be allowed to know the Court Reporter's name and affiliation prior to deposition. He specifically states Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.05(d).

  9. Plaintiff's intention to determine whether a conflict of interest existed upon court reporter was known to the defendant and their counsel.

  10. The Attachment #1 of Defendant Motion for Continuance is an affidavit of Ms. Debbie Sonntag. The affidavit which is neither wholly true or wholly false is a self notarized instrument in violation of RSMo 486.255.
    1. For the purposes of this chapter, a notary public has a disqualifying interest in a transaction in connection with which notarial services are requested if he is named, individually, as a party to the transaction.
    2. No notary who has a disqualifying interest in a transaction may legally perform any notarial act in connection with the transaction.
    (L. 1977 H.B. 513 § 13)
    Effective 1-1-78
    The self notarized affidavit of Ms. Sonntag goes to the material issue of the qualification of the Court Reporter in the proceeding, and does render the instrument invalid for the purposes proposed by the defendant. The self notarized affidavit does not function as an affidavit. Defendant's allegations are baseless and lacking foundation.

  11. Plaintiff states at no time was he ever "rude". The void affidavit specifically states that plaintiff and the Officer of the Court was having "small talk." Small talk by its very definition is not rude.

  12. Plaintiff has not resisted the taking of his deposition, only the manner in which the counsel for defendant has demanded that it be done. Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact Plaintiff has continually asked that the deposition be done by telephone. Plaintiff now states that more information as to the nature of the complaint, the cause of action, the electronic evidence that defendant seems to lack the due diligence to acquire on their own could be better served in phone deposition.

Wherefore, Plaintiff did attended the deposition as required by the statutes of the State of Missouri. Plaintiff at no time failed to cooperate with the defendant in the obtaining of a legal, fair, and unbias deposition as to the facts in the case before the Honorable Court. As the Supporting Affidavit provided by the defendant is a nullity. Plaintiff must ask the Court to find a lacking of good cause on the part of the defendant and deny the Continuance.


Respectfully Submitted

Lee Allen Martin
7050 County Road 2810
West Plains
Missouri 65775

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


I hereby certify this pleading was served upon all attorneys of record for each of the parties to this action and All parties not represented by counsel in the following manner:
[ ] By delivering a copy to them.
[ ] By leaving a copy at their office with the clerk.
[ ] By leaving a copy at them office with an attorney associated with them.
[ ] By mailing a copy to them as prescribed by law.
[ ] By faxing a copy to them.
______________day of __________________, ______

So certified: _____________________________

Lee Allen Martin