(May 17, 1999)

THE COURT: We're on the electronic record in Division I of the Circuit Court of Howell County, Missouri. This is Case 398-699CC, a trial de novo for administrative action. The Movant is Lee Allen Martin, who is appearing pro se.

Is that correct, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, it is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you. And the State of Missouri is appearing through Rizwan Ahad, the Assistant Prosecuting Attorney of Howell County, Missouri.

Prior to going--We're doing this on the electronic record. And the reason we're doing this on the electronic record is because the court reporter--the official court reporter who normally takes my proceedings may be a witness in this matter, and I don't want her, nor does she want to be, nor should she be reporting a matter in which she may appear as a witness.

Now, the way I understand this situation, Mr. Martin, you have objected to Mr. Ahad appearing as counsel on this matter. And I'm going to give you an opportunity, now that we're on the record, to very briefly and to the point state what your objection is to his appearing.

It is my belief that he has the statutory responsibility and so forth to appear on a case like this on behalf of the Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, whomever it is. But I want to give you a chance to say what you want to say so that it will be on the record, so that if I'm wrong about that, then you can seek appropriate remedy.

What is your objection? I'll tell you, since we're going to be going back and forth quite a bit, I appreciate your standing to address the Court, I will not require that today. So both of you all may remain seated whenever you're addressing the Court.

MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Your Honor. On the 12th day of March, according to the certificate of service here, Mr. Ahad filed a motion to withdraw from this case and the Respondent in this case, the State of Missouri, as captioned by his caption here, or the Director of Revenue. The Supreme Court did grant Mr. Ahad's motion to withdraw, and they reappointed Mr. James A. Chenault, III, of the Assistant Attorney General's Department, who is presently the person that's handling the State's representation or the Director of Revenue's representation in this case.

And I believe that for him to be reappointed now without subject matter--in a court without subject matter jurisdiction would be inappropriate, Your Honor.

That's basically my position.

THE COURT: Thank you. What do you say about that, Mr. Ahad?

MR. AHAD: Well, Judge, we filed a motion to--

THE COURT: You may be seated, if you like.

MR. AHAD: Thank you. We filed a motion to dismiss basically for procedural reasons. When the case went up to the Supreme Court, they were still sending us all the filings. We filed that basically so that they wouldn't have to send that to us anymore.

I believe, in a case like this, once it is remanded back down to the circuit court the statute does kick back in and the prosecutor steps in.

THE COURT: What statute?

MR. AHAD: I don't have the statute number. That's what I was just going to get, but I just haven't had time to get it. There's a statute--a Missouri statute that states anytime the Department of Revenue is a party in a case, that the prosecutor of that county argues the case for them. I don't have the statute cite, but that is basically what it states.

THE COURT: All right. Are you seeking to appear on behalf of the State of Missouri?

MR. AHAD: Yes, I am, Your Honor. We would ask for an oral motion to be entered as counsel.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to let you enter.

MR. MARTIN: Your Honor, I would like to object to that. And I would like to, if I could, bring to the Court's attention the motion that was filed.

THE COURT: I'll take judicial notice of all matters that are in this file or the relevant court files.

Now, I understand this matter has been remanded back to me because of some objections that you have made to the preparation of the record on appeal. Is that--Is that correct, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: That's my understanding from the ruling of the Supreme Court.

THE COURT: Okay. What I think we'll do is, you've got--you've got a motion, or at least your objection has about seven--has about seven points to it. We're going to go down them one at a time here, and we're going to kind of do this in--There's different ways that we could do this, but we're going to kind of do it in a group discussion here to find out where we are.

All right. Now, with regard--Does everybody have their copy of objections? Do you have yours, Clerk? Do you have a copy of this objection?

THE CLERK: I do not have one up here.

THE COURT: Reporter, do you have a copy?

MS. JACKSON: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Are you both--Do you have your copy out there, Mr. Ahad?

MR. AHAD: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let the clerk have your copy. And go in my office and make a copy, Fern, for you and Barbara so we all know what we're talking about here.

Go off the record while we're doing that.

o0o

THE COURT: Okay. Fire the record back up. Okay. We're back on the record now. We were off the record to let some copies be made.

Now, what I'm--The purpose of this hearing today is to settle issues about the record on appeal. And what I want--The statement of facts in here is kind of--is a little bit hard to follow. What I want you to do, Mr. Martin, is go through here one at a time and tell me very--very much to the point what it is that you're objecting to about the record on appeal. And then we'll see where we need to be.

What's the first objection you have to the record on appeal?

MR. MARTIN: Well, the first objection, as stated in--in the official objection before the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, is that on page 40 of the legal file, there is a document called a motion to dismiss, which when the certified legal file--presumed legal file was presented to me, did not have a certification stamp on it and did not--did not have and maintain a correct and accurate file stamp.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, let's stop there. Let me look at that. Let me see that document. For the purposes of this hearing, this Court will take judicial notice of the official court file.

THE CLERK: Can we go off the record?

THE COURT: Yeah, just go off the record while you find it.

o0o

THE COURT: The clerk has called this motion dismiss to my attention. On the motion to dismiss that's in the official court file, there's a file stamp of December 21, 1998, with Fern Freeman Welker's name on it, and a handwritten addition by C.W. Is that the--I'll ask--Just to neaten everything up, I'll ask Barbara Jackson, the official court reporter; Cindy Weeks, Deputy Clerk; and Fern Freeman Welker, Clerk, to all raise your rights.

(Witnesses sworn.)

THE COURT: All right. Everybody says yes.

EXAMINATION BY THE COURT:

Q. Who is C.W. here?

A. I am, sir.

Q. That's Cindy Weeks speaking?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What does this handwritten stuff in here mean? Explain that to me, please.

A. The document had not been filed stamped; and when Mr. Martin brought that to our office's attention, then we stamped it on that date that I made the note.

Q. Okay. Was the--Does your docket sheet--your master docket sheet, or anything else, show when that motion was filed?

A. It was--Yes. That date that it's file stamped, it's shown on the docket sheet.

Q. So, you stamped it on December 21st, when Mr. Martin brought it to your attention, but it was actually filed--Oh. It was actually filed on December 21, 1998, but you stamped it on March the 16th to match the--

A. Yes, sir. The docket sheet. The judge's docket sheet.

THE COURT: All right. Fern, help me keep some notes here so we can work on this thing.

The Court will find--Now, let's look at the docket sheet. Do you have your--Do you have a copy of the docket sheet, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's look--

MR. MARTIN: I have a copy--I have the originals, and I had the copy in the legal file.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's go back and look on December--

EXAMINATION OF CINDY WEEKS BY THE COURT:

Q. Okay. On December the 21st, on the master docket sheet, it shows a motion to dismiss filed. That's the one that you later stamped on March the 16th; is that correct?

A. That's correct, Judge.

THE COURT: All right. The Court will find that the motion to dismiss in question was actually filed with the Court on December 21, 1998, but was not officially stamped filed by the clerk's office until March the 16th of 1999, when it was stamped with the December 21st date.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Is that what your testimony is, Ms. Weeks?

A. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. That's what the Court will find on that.

What is your next point, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Concerning Point No. 1, still there's a second document on page 53 of the legal file titled First Amended Petition For Trial De Novo From Administrative Action, which a similar action was done--

THE COURT: Okay. Let's find that. Just a minute.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Do you have recollection of this, Ms. Weeks?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was that the same--

A. It was the same thing.

Q. So it was filed on December the 21st, but not stamp filed. And when that was called to your attention on March 16th, is that when you then stamped it with the December--

A. I don't think it was December--I don't remember the date that I filed--

Q. Well, look at--look at the file here so we'll know for sure. We want to get this right.

A. But there were two documents done that way, sir.

Q. Pardon me?

A. There were two documents.

Q. Okay. Well, let's see if the other one--

THE CLERK: Do you have the date of that one?

THE COURT: Do you have your copy of this handy, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Yes, I do. I have it right here. I believe the date is October 15, 1998, that should have been the correct file stamp.

THE COURT: Show Ms. Weeks your copy, please. THE WITNESS: Right here. Right here.

THE COURT: Oh, you found it? Okay. This document, which is the First Amended Petition, is filed stamped October 15, 1998.

BY THE COURT:

Q. Ms. Weeks, what is your explanation of this now?

A. That that had been shown on the docket sheet at that date, but it had not been file stamped.

Q. So it was--If your docket sheet and your records show that this petition was actually filed on October the 15th, but was not--of '98, but was not stamped?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then when this was called to your attention on March the 16th, is that when you stamped it?

A. That's when I--Yes.

Q. But when it was actually stamped was March the 16th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the date was made October 15th, to match the date your other records show as filed?

A. And that's the docket sheet entry.

THE COURT: Okay. The Court will so find.

Okay. Now, let's--What's your next point, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Okay. My next point would be--under Point No. 2 would be that there was--okay, that there's no record, according to Ms. Jackson, for the hearing date of 9/21/99--'98 that should read, I believe. I think it says '99. That's probably a typo.

THE COURT: Happens even to the best of us; doesn't it. Okay. You're saying that there are dates of hearings that there wasn't anything on the record. Is that right?

MR. MARTIN: Well, I believe that we took up matters on the 21st day of September of 1998 that was heard on the record, and there was no record made of it or there was no record--no transcript presented.

EXAMINATION BY THE COURT:

Q. Mrs. Jackson--

A. Yes, sir.

Q. --you're the official court reporter, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you in court on September 21, 1998?

A. I was.

Q. And did you prepare the transcript on appeal that we're dealing with here, at least part of it?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What part did you prepare?

A. I prepared what Mr. Martin has requested, which included--in his request he included, I believe it's, five different dates. I prepared what I had on the record, but there are two of those dates that I told Mr. Martin were not heard on the record.

Q. Okay. On September the 21st, 1998, do you have any proceedings on the record that were not--that are not present in the transcript on appeal?

A. No, sir.

Q. On March the 1st of 1999, do you have any matters that were taken up on the record that you have not included within the transcript?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you have any independent recollection of those days?

A. What I have are notes that I made on the dockets from those dates. On September the 21st, I have a notation that it was to be placed on 10/5/98 law day.

Q. Are these personal notes, or are they record notes?

A. They're--I don't--I don't know what you classify them. They're my dockets from disposition in court.

Q. Are those done for your personal purposes, or are they done as part of the official record?

A. It would almost be both. I retain copies of them--

Q. Okay.

A. --forever for my records.

Q. Okay. They're kept in your custody?

A. Yes.

Q. What about the March date?

A. On the March date, I show that there were rulings made on motions, but I have nothing that was placed on the record.

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Anything you want to ask her about, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Yes. I believe so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You may do so.

EXAMINATION BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. On the 21st day of September of 1998, you was present in court; is that right, Ms. Jackson?

A. Yes. That's what I answered the Judge, sir.

Q. Okay. I'm just making a further point. Now, I believe you stated that there was no matters heard on the record at that date?

A. There were matters heard on the record. I don't show any matters heard on Martin v. State of Missouri on that date.

Q. Okay. Just speaking as to Martin v. State of Missouri--

A. All right.

Q. --your testimony is that there was no matters heard on the record on September 21, 1998?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. I believe on--there's a docket entry for September 21, 1998. Are you aware of that?

A. No, sir, I'm not.

Q. If I was to read it to you, might that regurgitate a little memory here?

MR. AHAD: Judge, if he's going to read it to you--

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

MR. AHAD: I'm sorry. I'm going to object to that. If he's going to read it to her, I'd rather he show it to her.

THE COURT: What's the date? September--

MR. MARTIN: September 21, 1998.

THE COURT: The Court turned back to it. Why don't you show--Well, here's the official court file. Let me hand this to you. Ms. Jackson, you may come up--stand up here at the bench and look at this. That's the official court record that has that date on it.

Now, what do you want to ask her, Mr. Martin?

BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Do you--Do you notice the writing Michael Hutchings enter appearance for State?

A. I do.

Q. Did you hear that announced before the Court?

A. I have no knowledge of what I heard on that date. I do not take matters such as that down unless the judge instructs me to go on the record.

Q. Okay.

A. I was not so instructed.

Q. You was not so instructed. Would you recognize the handwriting?

A. This is a docket sheet in a court file. I have no connection with a docket sheet in a court file.

Q. Would you recognize the Honorable Judge's writing?

A. I would recognize the writing, yes, sir.

Q. Does that look like the Honorable Judge's writing?

MR. AHAD: Judge, just for the record I'm going to object to foundation. But--

THE COURT: Okay. Objection overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: The writing that appears here on September the 21st does not appear to be his handwriting, but it is a court official's handwriting made at his direction, I would assume.

BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Okay. Would you recognize the initials then on that, by any chance?

A. Are you speaking of what appears here after the word "pretrial"?

Q. That's what I'm speaking to, yes.

A. I don't recognize that.

Q. So, that--Would you--Would you say that was the Honorable Judge's initials there?

MR. AHAD: Judge, I would object. She said she didn't recognize those initials.

THE COURT: Well, I'll let her answer this question.

THE WITNESS: May I say something?

THE COURT: Just answer his question. Does that--Does that look like my initials?

THE WITNESS: Not in your handwriting.

THE COURT: Okay. Any other questions?

MR. MARTIN: Yes.

BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Ms. Jackson, do you have any physical infirmities?

A. Not that I'm aware of, sir.

Q. Do you ever make a mistake?

MR. AHAD: Judge, I'm going to object to that.

THE WITNESS: I certainly do make mistakes.

THE COURT: Oh, just a minute. I'll sustain that objection. It's not a proper form of cross-examination.

MR. MARTIN: Okay.

BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Have you ever been--Have you ever been diagnosed with anything that might incapacitate you in your official duties?

A. No, sir.

Q. Are you on any prescription medication?

A. No.

MR. AHAD: Judge, I'm going to object to the relevance of this.

THE COURT: Be sustained. Ms.--

BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Have you--

THE COURT: Just a minute. Ms. Jackson, do you know of any physical, mental, pharmaceutical or other condition you have that affects your capacity to perform your official duties?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. You may go ahead now, Mr. Martin.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You're welcome.

BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Have you reviewed any filings here concerning this other than right now? I mean, it's on the record that you've already reviewed this and you had this objection before, correct, right now? The objection that's filed in the Supreme Court as to the transcript?

THE COURT: Are you asking--Restate your question. I don't understand the question.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Excuse me, Your Honor.

BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Have you reviewed this petition prior to this day, or have you reviewed this official court file in any way prior to this date?

A. The answer to your first question, I did not review the objections before just a few moments ago. I have no connection with the official court file that's in the circuit clerk's office. I have no part of that.

Q. Okay. So then your answer--

THE COURT: Let me--Let me ask a question. Just a minute.

EXAMINATION BY THE COURT:

Q. Whenever you learned that there was an objection to the transcript, did you review to--did you conduct some kind of a review to determine whether there were any omissions or mistakes in your transcript?

A. When I received the letter request--

Q. Isn't that what you're asking, Mr. Martin?

A. Yes, Your Honor.

Q. Okay. Go ahead.

A. When I received the letter request for the transcript from Mr. Martin, he stated the dates that he believed there were hearings heard. I researched my records, and then I responded to Mr. Martin by letter the fact that I did not find matters on the record on those two dates, but I did find matters on the record on the remaining dates. He asked, by letter, that I review my file again. Which I did. But I did not have matters on the record on my log book on those two dates.

Q. When you reviewed your records after he made these requests, did you find any mistakes in the transcript that you had filed with the courts? Did you find any changes that needed to be made?

A. Well--Okay. First of all, I don't file the transcript with the court.

Q. Preparation of transcript. The transcript that you prepared--the portion of the transcript that you

prepared--

A. Yes.

Q. --have you reviewed that at some time since Mr. Martin made his objection, to satisfy yourself as to whether there are any errors or omissions?

A. Yes. When I received the second letter from him.

Q. Okay. And what did you find?

A. I found nothing on the record on the dates of September and March 1.

THE COURT: Okay. What else, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: I would only ask one other thing, Your Honor.

EXAMINATION RESUMED BY MR. MARTIN:

Q. Do you remember being present in court and a hearing being held on September the 21st of 1998, and March the 1st of 1999?

A. I was present in court. These are my dockets from those dates, and that's my handwriting on them.

Q. Okay. Do you remember motions being heard? Do you remember the Plaintiff, me at that time, being present in court and speaking?

A. Yes, I do.

MR. MARTIN: All right. I think that'll be it, Your Honor, for me.

THE COURT: Be seated, ma'am.

THE WITNESS: May I say something?

THE COURT: What?

THE WITNESS: I do not take matters on the record unless the Court tells me to go on the record. That's when I take matters on the record.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. The Court is going to find that there are--that the official court reporter does not have any records of any proceedings on the record on the dates of 9/21/98 or 3/1/99.

What's your next point, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: My next point, Point 3, is on page 38 of the legal file. There's a motion for nunc pro tunc to correct the court record, which was heard on March the 1st of 1999 and summarily overruled by the Court. I assume that's already been taken up, though, and--

THE COURT: All right. The Court will speak through its records. And there appear to be no other recordings of that proceeding.

All right. What next, sir?

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Motion for re-taxation was also brought before the Court on March the 1st of 1999, page 12 of the legal file. It was taken up and summarily overruled.

THE COURT: Okay. The Court will find there's no further record on that. What next?

MR. MARTIN: Okay. I have the affidavits of Robert Lee Martin and the affidavit of one Robin C. McDermet, which speak for themselves and have been incorporated as part of the official court--Supreme Court record.

THE COURT: Are they--I don't--Are they in the transcript on the Supreme Court? Are you asking that they should be?

MR. MARTIN: No. They were incorporated in this pleading right here that we're addressing right now that's before you.

THE COURT: Okay. And what are you asking me to do? That page seems to be missing in my copy here. Are those--Are those affidavits only filed with this motion?

MR. MARTIN: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And what are you asking for them--to be done with them?

MR. MARTIN: There seems to be some contradiction in the recall of Ms. Jackson in her testimony and the recall of these people as to the happenings on them dates.

THE COURT: Let me--Okay. Let me look here at it. The Court considers the affidavit of Robert Martin, the Court considers the affidavit of Robin McDermet and makes them a part of the proceedings today. They're in the official court file, and I've already taken judicial notice of that. I will weigh those along with other matters that I've considered. And I'd just make a finding that there is no official court record on those--of any proceedings on those dates, that these affidavits are in contradiction--apparent contradiction to the records of this Court and the testimony of the official court reporter. I find that an official record does not exist as to proceedings on the record those days. Those affidavits will be part of today's proceedings.

All right. What next?

MR. MARTIN: Your Honor, there are other problems with the transcripts that have not been addressed because the transcripts have not been filed with the Supreme Court. If you'd like to take them up at this moment, I'd be happy to take them up with you right now.

THE COURT: Be more specific. Maybe I'm--I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're saying.

MR. MARTIN: It seems--My problem with this small transcript, which I assume that you have the originals before you, according to the Supreme Court--

MS. JACKSON: Are you asking me?

MR. MARTIN: I'm speaking to His Honor.

MS. JACKSON: All right.

THE COURT: Okay. I have--Yes, I have that here in the court file. Go ahead now and say what you want to.

MR. MARTIN: Until--As--My reading of Rule 81 is, I'm not allowed to bring up actual objections to this until after--till within 15 days after filing this. And this has not been filed until it's going to be certified by Your Honor. All right. Now, if you'd like for me to bring up--

THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's appropriate--I don't think it's--I don't think I can.

MR. MARTIN: I believe that we've covered all the bases here then, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, what--What my intention is, is I am going to--I'm going to make an order that I have reviewed and that I certify this transcript. The individual signings that I have made on this record today is so that, if there's something that I'm wrong on or something you want to question, then there's a record here to do that. And then when things get in a time sequence, I have to take them up within whatever that procedural time sequence is.

Is there anything further that you want to call to my attention to this point?

MR. MARTIN: No. I've already told you that I have problems with the transcripts other than the two dates that we've already mentioned and brought up. And--

THE COURT: All right. Are those problems as to the accuracy of this transcript? Because what I'm called upon to do now is to certify as to the accuracy of this transcript to the Supreme Court. If the things that you're talking about are matters that I need to hear before I can certify this--to the accuracy of this, maybe you should tell me. I don't--I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. What are the other problems that you have with this?

MR. MARTIN: Well, it seems to me that there were some--there was statements made by the Court that have been deleted, and there's also been actual changes in the timing and the way the conversations with the Court and the Plaintiff/Petitioner, at that time, are set out. And I would specifically, first of all, address page 8 of the transcript.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MARTIN: Line--I believe it starts at about line 6 and goes to line 17. And that does not seem to be a verbatim recall of what actually transpired in court on that--on said date, October the 5th.

EXAMINATION OF BARBARA JACKSON BY THE COURT:

Q. Mrs. Jackson, did you prepare the dialogue that exists on this transcript?

A. I prepared this. This is my copy.

Q. I'm showing you the--I'm showing you the original of the record on appeal transcript.

A. Yes, I did prepare that.

Q. Was this prepared verbatim from what took place in court?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Did you make any deletions or additions?

A. I did not.

Q. Did the Court give you any instructions, or did anyone give you instructions, commission you or direct you to make any changes, alterations, additions, or deletions?

A. No, sir.

Q. To your knowledge, has the--To your knowledge, has the Court ever seen this before today?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. During the course of the preparation of this transcript, did anyone from the clerk's office, the prosecutor's office, Mr. Martin, or the Court, or anyone discuss with you any of the preparation of the transcript issues?

A. None.

Q. Was a transcript prepared in accordance with your oath of office?

A. Yes.

Q. Was the transcript prepared absolutely in accord with the restrictions, regulations, and rules for official court reporters?

A. Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Martin, I understand and respect that you are testifying from your recollection where you doubt the accuracy of this. Do you have any other evidence or any other basis other than your independent recollection as to the linguistics? Do you have any other evidence that the transcript is not accurate?

MR. MARTIN: Do I have--

THE COURT: What I'm understanding you to say, sir, is that this doesn't sound like the way you remember it happening. I understand you're saying that.

MR. MARTIN: Okay.

THE COURT: Now, having heard that, do you have any evidence there's been any changes, do you--any witness that somebody told her to change something, or any records of any kind that contradict the official version other than just your independent recollection?

MR. MARTIN: Not at the moment, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What else would you call to my attention about this transcript, sir?

MR. MARTIN: On the 1st day of February, 1999.

THE COURT: Now, where are you--where are you referring to here?

MR. MARTIN: Let me get to it here, and I'll give you a page number.

THE COURT: Let's see. I don't think we'll need Mrs. Weeks anymore. Is that--Those dates, is that the only thing we needed her for?

MR. MARTIN: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may return to your office.

MR. MARTIN: I believe it's on page 16.

THE COURT: Page 16? Now, you're referring to the transcript on appeal, right?

MR. MARTIN: That's correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MARTIN: Approximately line 16 to 17 --Well, really in between the Court's statements here from line 14 of page 16 on to line 20 of page 17. There seems to be missing in here a statement made by the Court that I vividly remember, and I believe others that were witnesses here vividly remember. The Court made a statement that said--where the Court said, "When I dismiss something, I expect it to stay dismissed." I don't see that in the transcript. And it brings in question, to me, the authenticity of the complete transcript.

THE COURT: I see.

EXAMINATION OF BARBARA JACKSON BY THE COURT:

Q. Mrs. Jackson, does your record reflect any statement other than what's in this official transcript?

A. No, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any other evidence or any other information other than your recollection or the recollection of others as to that, Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Not at the moment, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else that you would call to my attention?

MR. MARTIN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have anything further you want to say, Mr. Ahad?

MR. AHAD: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Is everybody ready for us to go off the record?

MR. AHAD: The Department is, Judge.

THE COURT: Mr. Martin?

MR. MARTIN: Once again, I would--I would object to the State's representation or the Department's representation of this matter.

THE COURT: All right. That's noted. Anything further?

MR. MARTIN: No. That'd be it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. We'll be off the record.

o0o