COMES NOW the Appellant/plaintiff, Lee Allen Martin, and does object to the failure of truth, accuracy, and veracity of the Record on Appeal that has been prepared by the 37^th Judicial Circuit Court for Howell County. Appellant brings this Objection pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.12(e) and 81.15(d). Appellant states the facts as follows:

1. On the 17^th day of May, on or about 1:00 PM, the Honorable Court of R. Jack Garrett, Presiding Judge of the 37^th Judicial Circuit, did take to hold a hearing in the above mentioned cause pursuant to the Order of the Missouri Supreme Court to Certify the Record on Appeal. Missouri Supreme Court Order dated 19^th day of April 1999.
2. The Honorable Judge R. Jack Garrett did take Judicial Notice of the facts contained in the official Trial Court Record. Specifically, the Counsel for the Director of Revenue, Rizwan Ahad, was allowed to represent the respondent. The Honorable Judge Garrett ignored motions to Withdraw filed by Mr. Ahad with the Trial Court, on the 12th day of March 1999 and ruled as moot on the 15th day of March 1999 by the Trial Court.
3. The Missouri Supreme Court on the 25^th of March 1999 did receive and sustain the Motion to Withdraw submitted to it by one Rizwan Ahad.
4. The Honorable R. Jack Garrett at the hearing held on the 17^th day on May in the above captioned cause did allow Mr. Ahad to represent the Respondent, Director of Revenue, after Mr. Ahad had been granted Motion to Withdraw by the Missouri Supreme Court.
5. Appellant believes that the appearance of Mr. Ahad on behalf of the Respondent on the 17^th day of May 1999 does make the hearing void. Appellant contends that once the Missouri Supreme Court sustains a Motion to Withdraw that said attorney should stay withdrawn.
6. Mr. Ahad did take to misrepresent his filings before the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. In that Mr. Ahad continuously insisted that the Motion he had filed with the Supreme Court was a Motion to Dismiss, and not the Motions To Withdraw that is maintained in the Official Record of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri in the above captioned cause.
7. The Honorable R. Jack Garrett did allow Mr. Ahad to appear on behalf of the respondent above and beyond the objection of the Appellant.
8. Appellant was denied a fair and impartial hearing as to the facts of the Appellant's Objection to the Preparation to the Record On Appeal in that the Honorable R. Jack Garrett could not be unbiased by being the trier of facts brought into question as to the conduct of his court.
9. Issues of Fact concerning the verity of the Court Record in light of the affidavits presented to the Court from one Mr. Robert Lee Martin, and Ms. Robin C. McDermott stands in complete and total contradiction from the findings of the trial court on the 17^th day of May 1999.
10. Ms. Barbara Jackson, Court Reporter Howell County Missouri, testimony is that Motions were heard on the 21^st day of September 1998. Ms. Jackson's testimony is that these motions were heard, just not on the Record. Ms. Jackson insists that she does not go on the record unless ordered by the Judge.
11. Ms. Barbara Jackson, Court Reporter Howell County Missouri, testimony is that Motions were heard on the 1^st day of March 1999, and that these motions were not made a part of the record.
12. Ms. Barbara Jackson, Court Reporter Howell County Missouri, testimony is that docket entry for the 21^st day of September 1998, is not in the Trial Judges handwriting and is not initialed by the trial judge. Ms. Jackson's testimony is that the initials were made by court personal but she could not identify whom.
13. Appellant does take to object to the Transcripts in that on page 8 lines 7 through 17 are not an exact verbatim recitation of the facts as they did occur on the 5^th day of October 1998. Appellant states that notice to the Court that he will appeal the Court’s Judgment and Order to Dismiss on the date would be appealed. At which time the Honorable R. Jack Garrett did allow fifteen days to file an amended petition.
14. Appellant does take to object to the Transcripts in that on page 16, line 17 through page 17 line20 of the official Transcript does not contain a very memorable statement made by the Honorable Trial Judge that being "When I dismiss something I expect it to stay dismissed!"

Wherefore for these reasons the Appellant must take to Object to the veracity of the record that is presented to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri for review in this cause. Further, the Appellant does request that the Missouri Supreme Court issue a finding of Law clarifying who is the attorney for the Respondent, in light of the appearance of Mr. Ahad as attorney for the Respondent on the 17^th day of May 1999, and whether said appearance does in fact render said hearing void. Appellant does state that if the Missouri Supreme Court feels that Due Process has been granted by the review of the record that the Trial Court held, and has certified, pursuant to the Hearing held on the 17^th day of May 1999, appellant will accept the Record on Appeal as filed with the Missouri Supreme Court. The appellant does ask in light of the above mentioned objections to the Record on Appeal that the he be given leave of the court to file a supplemental Record on Appeal, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.12(e) and Rule 81.15(d). Specifically the appellant asks:

1. That the notes of the Court Reporter Ms. Barbara Jackson,
2. The updated docket sheets that show the findings of the trial court concerning Mr. Ahad's Motion to Withdraw,
3. The Recording Log for the hearing held on the 17^th day of May 1999,
4. The Affidavits for Robert Lee Martin and Robin C. McDermott,

be supplemented to the Legal File. Further, the appellant does request pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Administrative Rule 4.19(2) that he be able to view the recording made of the hearing held on the 17^th day of May 1999, and that the Transcript for the hearing held on the 17^th day of May 1999 be provided to the Missouri Supreme Court before the Appeal be considered for review.

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 him/her;

( ) By leaving a copy at his/her office with the clerk;

( ) By leaving a copy at his/her office with an attorney associated with him/her;

(X) By mailing a copy to him/her, as prescribed by law;

( ) By faxing a copy to him/her

On this 25^th day of May 1999.

So certified: _____________________________

Lee Allen Martin

[Forum] [EMail] [Index] [Home]

Self Help Law Library

Case Law $7/Month 50 States + Fed
I use this service.

We push the limits on discount hosting!