Lee Allen Martin Pro Se VS. Department of Revenue. et al Keith Halcomb Attorney | ) ) ) ) ) ) | CASE NO: 01cv324209 |
Comes now the plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, and does request that the honorable court correct the Court Record. Plaintiff makes this motion pursuant to RSM0 512.110.3 and Mo.S.Ct. Rule 81.12 c as the Missouri Courts have ruled in Hendershot v Minich 297 S.W. 2nd 403 and Karr and Conn v Cade School Coop of Drainage District App. 297 S.W. 730. Plaintiff states that it has long been held that the trial court has control over its official record and can amend said record to speak the truth.
1) Specifically, plaintiff requests that the official docket entry for the 1st day of October 2001 note that a hearing was held, all parties were present, argument was heard on legal issues, motions that were presented to the court, and any and all objections made before the court.
2) That the Entry for the 4th day of October 2001 only reflect the belated filing of Motions presented to the court on the 1st day of October 2001. That no hearing was held and that no parties were present.
3) That the entry of Appearance for Eric Kraus was belatedly filed only after Motion was made before court on the 28th day of November 2001.
4) That the entry date 27, July 2001 concerning the filing of Motions be removed as there were no motions filed in writing on said date. There was an oral motion for a discovery schedule which was denied. The court on the 27th day of July 2001 did issue an order that the local rules would apply as to notice of hearing.
Wherefore, the docket entry of 1st day of October 2001 has been removed, the entry for the 4th day of October 2001 does not speak to the facts, the entry of the 2nd day of October 2001 was a belated entry, and the entry of the 27th day of July 2001 is not accurate, plaintiff must request correction of the official record. Plaintiff must request relief from the court to correct its own record.
So certified: _____________________________
Lee Allen Martin