IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI Honorable Rex M. Burlison, Judge. ) Cause No CR00642

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI Honorable Rex M. Burlison, Judge. ) Cause No CR00642"

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI Honorable Rex M. Burlison, Judge STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ERIC GREITENS, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Cause No. -CR00 ) TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING March, 0 HON. ROBERT DIERKER MS. KIMBERLY GARDNER Circuit Attorney's Office Market Street St. Louis, MO 0 on behalf of the State of Missouri; MR. JAMES G. MARTIN HON. JACK F. GARVEY MR. EDWARD DOWD Carey, Danis & Lowe DOWD BENNETT LLP Forsyth Blvd. #00 Forsyth Blvd. #00 St. Louis, MO 0 St. Louis, MO 0 MR. SCOTT ROSENBLUM Rosenblum Schwartz & Fry 0 South Central Avenue #0 St. Louis, MO 0 on behalf of the Defendant. JENNIFER A. DUNN, RPR, CCR # OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER CITY OF ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

2 (The following proceedings were had in open court:) 0 0 THE COURT: Court calls Cause Number -CR00. State of Missouri versus Eric Greitens. I became aware sometime yesterday that we had a hearing today. I'm not sure who noticed this up. MR. GARVEY: Judge, it was us. Just for housekeeping, just to set out what's what and where where. Today we would like to have a hearing on our motion to advance the trial date. On Monday we have set for a hearing our motion to dismiss based on the misinstructing of the Grand Jury, our motion to disqualify the special prosecutor, although I don't know whether that's necessary any more, we understand that he might have removed himself from the case. So if that's the case, there will be no hearing on that. And then that's -- those are the motions that will be heard on Monday. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GARVEY: Today it's just the motion to advance the trial date. THE COURT: And there was a motion regarding waiver of jury, is that a Monday item you say? MR. GARVEY: I think we notified the Court he is going to waive his right it a Grand Jury, the governor will, and we will, if the Court would like, whatever the

3 0 0 Court's schedule, he would be appearing to waive the jury trial, we're planning on doing that on just whatever day the trial is, the bench trial, and then you can put him on the record to waive it. THE COURT: And there's been a filing by the State in that regard? MS. GARDNER: Yes, there has, your Honor. THE COURT: Are the parties prepared to hear that today? MR. GARVEY: We can set that on Monday, Judge. MS. GARDNER: We're prepared to hear that today, the motion to the waiver of jury trial and the motion for shortened time. I think we're prepared to hear that today. MR. GARVEY: Judge, we haven't responded to their objections to the motion to waive a jury trial. THE COURT: I'm not sure the State has a right to object to that. MR. GARVEY: That's the thing, Judge. THE COURT: I'm not sure your client has an absolute right to waive a jury. MR. GARVEY: That is correct, Judge. THE COURT: As long as we know that the Court's going to have the final say in that. I don't care

4 0 0 if we hear it today or Monday, but neither side has an absolute -- I don't think the State has a right to object, and I don't think your client has an absolute right to waive. MR. GARVEY: We understand, Judge. We would like Monday then to argue that motion. MS. GARDNER: Your Honor, I'm asking today because also we have issues with deposition notices being served on potential witnesses yesterday without notice, and we're trying to shorten time for motion to quash subpoenas because we had original dates that were set in preparation for trial, and I think this issue needs to be spoken to today. We cannot wait for that. So I think the motion for shortened trial, as well as a motion to waive a jury trial needs to be addressed today, not Monday. MR. GARVEY: Judge, our client is going to -- is going to present himself in front of the Court to have a hearing and you will inquire to him whether or not he has been adequately informed and adequately advised that he can waive his right to a jury trial. The State has no standing to challenge that. However, the Court does have a huge role in deciding whether or not he can waive his right to a jury trial. They have filed this response, frankly, we haven't

5 0 0 even really given it any time because we didn't think they had any standing to challenge it at all. We're not prepared today to argue that motion. We will be prepared on Monday to argue that motion. THE COURT: Well, as we speak this matter is set for trial by jury, and all subpoenas and all actions should be directed towards the present status of this case. I will give the defense until Monday to present whatever evidence that the defense wants to present in light of Rule, which makes all criminal cases triable by a jury. But as we proceed from now until the Monday hearing, I would suggest all parties to assume this is a trial by jury. MR. GARVEY: Thank you, Judge. THE COURT: So we'll finish hearing that on Monday when you all are prepared. Yes, sir. MR. DIERKER: Your Honor, the circuit attorney alluded to the need to hear a motion to quash subpoenas and deposition notices on the victim and another witness, and we have filed a motion to shorten time, so we did notice that up for Monday morning, and I wanted to be clear that I did tell counsel we were going to be ask to be able to present those motions on Monday. THE COURT: The motion to quash, I assume Mr. Simpson's here on that.

6 0 0 MR. DIERKER: Right. THE COURT: Today. MR. SIMPSON: I am not here specifically on that motion, Judge. I am here for when the Court takes up the request to advance the trial setting to be heard on that issue. THE COURT: Well, if this motion, I assume the one you're talking about was just handed in chambers. MR. DIERKER: Right. THE COURT: Okay. o'clock Monday. MR. DIERKER: That's what we're requesting. MR. BENNETT: No problem. THE COURT: Okay. So that leaves us to moving up the trial date. MR. GARVEY: Yes, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GARVEY: If I may, Judge. I appreciate the Court taking the time on this issue. I know this is an extraordinary -- THE COURT: Hang on a second. I'm sorry. MR. GARVEY: We're aware this is an extraordinary request to make of the Court, especially after a scheduling order has been entered for the May th trial date. However, I think the Court will agree this is an

7 0 0 extraordinary case never seen before. We have a lot of parts moving in this case. We start off, first, with the House is moving along with their investigation. We feel it best a quick resolution of this case here in the city will help the House and the State of Missouri and the citizens of this state to get moving on and get the business of Missouri moving on. Second, we have what is going on down here. There will be absolutely no prejudice to the parties if this trial date is moved up. We will be ready on the date we are requesting, April nd. The State, at most, has three witnesses that they are going to call. It's going to be a very brief and short trial. In addition, the deposition of Mr. Tisaby was taken this week. Now, some background is necessary here. Mr. Tisaby is the chief inspector and the chief investigator on this case. Frankly, he's the only investigator on this case. He has been signed up by the Circuit Attorney's Office to investigate this case. He reports only to circuit attorney, Ms. Gardner, in this case. When his deposition was taken, he admitted and told us under oath a lot of things that shows that the State is ready for this trial in that they don't have much for this trial. On page of his deposition, and I have a full

8 0 0 copy of it here for the Court so you can follow along. Mr. Tisaby is asked: But you have not seen any alleged picture? "ANSWER: No, I have not. I don't think anybody has. "QUESTION: And you did complete a thorough investigation and have not found anybody that has seen any alleged picture?" Correct. That was his answer. He was also asked: "QUESTION: So your testimony is you're unaware of anybody that has made any effort to locate any alleged photograph? "ANSWER: Not that I know of." He's not aware of anyone looking for this photo. "QUESTION: Are you aware of anybody else who is making any efforts to locate any alleged photograph?" Personally I do not. He was asked: How about not personally? I mean, I am not sure what you mean by personally, I do not. I'm asking for any knowledge you have at all. Have you heard that anybody is trying to locate the photograph that allegedly was taken? "ANSWER: I have not.

9 0 0 "QUESTION: Have you heard -- have anybody who is trying to find a transmission of the alleged photograph? "ANSWER: I have not. "QUESTION: Have you talked to any witness that has told you that any alleged picture was transmitted as alleged in the indictment?" His answer was: Neither K.S. or J.W. have told me as such. "QUESTION: Are you aware of any evidence that there is any picture that was transmitted as alleged in the indictment? "ANSWER: Am I aware of any? "QUESTION: Yes. Are you aware of any evidence? "ANSWER: Not that I know of. "QUESTION: And finally, okay, and so you never found evidence of a photograph, correct? "ANSWER: No, sir." Now, Judge, the reason I went through all that is that is the case there. The Court is aware of the elements in this case. Mr. Tisaby, the only investigator, the chief inspector in this case, testified under oath that's what they have in this case. Which is virtually nothing. They have no expert ready to testify. They have

10 0 0 0 nothing ready to go in this case, which will make this a very short case to try, and a bench trial will make it even shorter, cutting down the resources of this Court to be used. There is no prejudice to either side in moving up this court date to April nd. We respect the Governor of Missouri, and we feel very strongly that this case needs to be ended, especially in light of the lack of evidence that has been testified to by Mr. Tisaby. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Garvey. Chief. MR. DIERKER: Your Honor, you're aware of a glitch in the filing of the memorandum in opposition, so I'm going to re-file that with some revisions so that we avoid unnecessary issues. You know, the defense strategy throughout this case has been to try to abort the case on some kind of quasi summary judgment basis and have the Court make a ruling on the facts of the case without a trial. And, you know, the case is -- there is, at a minimum, a strong circumstantial case that the defendant is guilty, and the State is entitled and is indeed obligated to continue to review the facts of the case to ensure that it is proceeding with a case that is meritorious.

11 0 0 And I would add that the scheduling order on which the State has relied sets a deadline for disclosure of experts, the engagement of experts is ongoing, and given that the defendant had exclusive control of the best evidence in this case for three years, the State's task is made that much more difficult. So I think that the efforts of the defense, and while I understand their efforts to abort a trial by irregular means are ingenious, they're without merit, and I don't intend to give an opening statement in the guise of responding to their motion to expedite the trial. The Court expedited the trial as it was, and the State was put to quite a bit of pressure to respond to the May setting, and I think that the public interest and importance of this case warrants at least some deliberation in preparation and we agreed to a scheduling order and the Court entered it, and now the defense thinks it's to their advantage to throw that overboard, and I can understand why they think that, but I don't think that would be appropriate. And I would also say they represent the Governor of the State of Missouri. We represent the People of the State of Missouri. And we think the People and the victim are entitled to a trial that is presented carefully and deliberately. So we see absolutely no reason to expedite

12 0 0 the trial on the basis they're suggesting. THE COURT: Thank you, Chief. Response. MR. GARVEY: Judge, it was their investigator, their only investigator, who has been put in charge of this case to seek out that evidence. He is admitting under oath and on the record that's it. That's all they have. And with that in mind, then we're ready, and I believe the State is ready to proceed, and we should be able to advance this case in light of those admissions made by their investigator. THE COURT: All right. MS. GARDNER: Your Honor, can I respond to that? THE COURT: Sure. MS. GARDNER: Your Honor, when we talk about this investigation, Mr. Tisaby was hired to do specific things on this case, as well as other issues that I cannot discuss in open court. So, on this case, he was tasked with finding two individuals; the victim in this case, and other witnesses in this case, and that is it. And Mr. Tisaby, that was his only task, and those witnesses and victims went into the Grand Jury and presented testimony that was enough to secure an indictment on the invasion of privacy felony offense as

13 charged. 0 0 So, you know, when the other side talks about what evidence I have, they don't know what evidence I have. They know right now what I've turned over, and we'll continue to turn over discovery as needed as we get it. So I think when you talk about the investigator, the investigator had a specific purpose, the investigator was not in Grand Jury. He was to find people and that was his job in this task, but we have a victim here and the victim has -- needs their day in court, and I think we have to look at an expedited trial date affects the victim. There is a victim. THE COURT: Ms. Gardner, I am not going to make a decision of trial setting based on substantive evidence in this case that has been presented in a motion. So your point's well taken. Mr. Simpson, did you have -- want to be heard on this? MR. SIMPSON: Briefly, your Honor, Scott Simpson, and I represent the victim in this case. The points I would like the Court to consider when moving up this trial setting is that my client is a full-time student, employed full time, as well as a single mother, and she -- if the trial is moved into April, she will be in a position where her school will be in its last full month as they lead into finals. Adding the trial and the deposition and all of

14 0 0 those on an expedited fashion I think would impose a hardship upon her, and she has rearranged her schedule and her life to make sure that this May trial date works. So we would ask the Court to consider the hardship on the victim as it makes its decision. Thank you. THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Simpson. MR. GARVEY: Judge, if I may, just two things. Ms. Gardner said we don't know the evidence she has. That's very disturbing because we should know. THE COURT: Mr. Garvey, at this point, as I say, I'm not going to make decisions on trial settings based on the degree and weight of evidence that is known at this point. That's just not -- that's just not going to go into the forum. MR. GARVEY: Judge, that is not forwarded to you on the basis to argue the merits of the case, but only to show their evidence in this case. It's a subterfuge to say they need more time. We're ready, they're ready. There is really no reason to delay this case. And under the extraordinary circumstances of who our client is, that's what we're asking for. I did not mean to invade the province of the Court and argue this case on this case, they were examples of how they are ready. Mr. Tisaby has testified. In the deposition, Ms.

15 0 0 Gardner has never instructed me as far as what investigative steps I am doing. I report to her and things that I need. As far as the Grand Jury, which she says he wasn't involved with. She and I don't talk about it and don't discuss it. I am trying to work this case as independently as possible. So we're getting mixed messages here. I only bring this to the Court's attention regarding the evidence that she says we don't know what she has because we should know what she has under the rules of discovery, and if there's something being withheld, that's very disturbing. Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. Most important in this case and in all trials is the stability and predictability of a trial setting. I advanced this case at the request of the defendant and set a date over the State's objection. The fact that there are things that happen west of here that have occurred in the interim, it does not affect my trial setting decision. I will not change the trial setting that may create -- that -- based on an advantage or disadvantage that may be perceived. The case is set for the th of May. That's the court date. That's the trial date. That's regardless of what is going on west of here. I am going to do all I can to keep anything outside of this courtroom that goes on away from this case. And so I'm not influenced about anything

16 other than the fact that I gave an early trial setting, that's the trial setting you get, that's the one we'll keep. Anything further? MR. MARTIN: Thank you for your time. MR. GARVEY: Thank you. MR. SIMPSON: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: Court will be in recess. (The hearing was concluded.) 0 0

17 0 CERTIFICATE I, Jennifer A. Dunn, Registered Professional Reporter and Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that I am an official court reporter for the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis; that on March, 0, I was present and reported all the proceedings had in the case of STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, vs. ERIC GREITENS, Defendant, Cause No. -CR00. I further certify that the foregoing pages contain a true and accurate reproduction of the proceedings. "/s/jennifer A. DUNN, RPR, CCR #" 0

18 MR. BENNETT: [] / MR. DIERKER: [] / // /0 0/ MR. GARVEY: [] / // // // // // //0 // / / MR. MARTIN: [] / MR. SIMPSON: [] / / / MS. GARDNER: [] / // / / THE COURT: [] / /s/jennife R [] / 00 [] / [] / 0 [] / 0 [] / th [] / / -CR00 [] // / 00 [] / 0 [] // [] // [] /0 nd [] /0/ [] / / 0 [] / 0 [] / / / [] / [] / [] / A able [] // abort [] 0/ / about [] // / // / / / absolute [] advised [] // /0 / affect [] absolutely / [] / affects [] / / accurate [] after [] /0 / actions [] agree [] / / add [] agreed [] / / Adding [] all [] / / / / addition [] /0/ / // addressed /0 [] / 0/ adequately / [] /0 / /0 / admissions / [] /0 / admitted / [] / alleged [] admitting // [] / // advance [] // /0/0 // //0 allegedly advanced [] / [] / alluded [] advantage / [] / along []

19 A along... [] // also [] //0 / although [] / am [] / //0 / / // / / another [] / answer [] // // // // / any [] // // // // // // /0/ // anybody [] // // // anyone [] / anything [] / / / appearing [] / appreciate [] / appropriate [] /0 April [] /0/ / April nd [] / 0/ are [] // //0 // /0/ / / / / argue [] // // / as [] ask [] // / asked [] / //0 / / basis [] asking [] 0/ // / / / assume [] be [] // became [] / / attention because [] [] / // attorney [] // //0 / Attorney's been [] [] / //0 / // Avenue [] 0/ / 0/ avoid [] / 0/ / aware [] before [] // / // behalf [] /0/ // // being [] 0/ //0 away [] believe [] / / bench [] B /0/ background BENNETT [] / [] / based [] best [] / // bit [] / Blvd [] // brief [] / Briefly [] / bring [] / Burlison [] / business [] / C call [] / calls [] / can [] / /0/0 // / / / cannot [] / / care [] / carefully [] / Carey [] /

20 C circuit [] control [] case [] // / cases [] / / copy [] /0 // / Cause [] // correct [] // circumstan // / ces [] / CCR [] /0 counsel [] / circumstant / / ial [] court [0] Central [] 0/ Court's [] / citizens [] // CERTIFICAT / / E [] / city [] / courtroom Certified [] // [] / / / CR00 certify [] clear [] [] / // / // challenge client [] create [] [] / // / / / criminal [] chambers / /0 [] / /0 cutting [] change [] complete 0/ / [] / D charge [] concluded / [] / Danis [] charged [] consider [] / / /0 date [] chief [] / /0/0 / / contain [] // / /0 /0 /0 0/ continue [] 0/ / 0/ / / / / / / dates [] / day [] / / deadline [] / deciding [] / decision [] / / / decisions [] / defendant [] / / 0/ / / / defense [] // 0/ / / degree [] / delay [] / deliberately [] / deliberatio n [] / deposition [] / // // / / did [] // // / didn't [] / DIERKER [] / difficult [] / directed [] / disadvanta ge [] /0 disclosure [] / discovery [] / / discuss [] / / dismiss [] / disqualify [] /

21 D effort [] disturbing / [] / efforts [] /0 // do [] / // either [] / 0/ / elements / [] / does [] else [] / / / employed doing [] [] / // ended [] don't [] 0/ // engagemen // t [] / // enough [] /0 / / ensure [] // 0/ / / entered [] / / DOWD [] / / / entitled [] down [] 0/ /0/ / DUNN [] ERIC [] // // / / especially E [] / early [] 0/ / even [] EDWARD [] /0/ / evidence [] / /0/ /0/ // / / / / / / / examples [] / exclusive [] / expedite [] / / expedited [] / /0 / expert [] / experts [] / / extraordina ry [] / // /0 F fact [] / / facts [] foregoing 0/0 [] / 0/ Forsyth [] far [] // // forum [] fashion [] / / forwarded feel [] / [] / 0/ found [] felony [] // / frankly [] file [] // 0/ front [] filed [] / //0 Fry [] filing [] / /0/ full [] final [] / / / finally [] / / / finals [] full-time / [] / find [] further [] // // finding [] G /0 finish [] GARDNER / [] / first [] /0 / / follow [] // / GARVEY [] following / [] / 0/

22 G GARVEY... [] /0 gave [] / get [] / // / getting [] / give [] //0 given [] // glitch [] 0/ go [] 0/ / goes [] / going [] // // // / / 0/ / / / / / governor [] / 0/ / Grand [] // / // GREITENS [] / // guilty [] 0/ guise [] /0 /0/ // //0 // /0 // he's [] // hear [] // // / heard [] // H // had [] / / // hearing [] // // // //0 handed [] // / // Hang [] / /0 help [] happen [] / / her [] hardship / [] / / / / // has [] here [] have [] // haven't [] // // // he [] // // / // / / huge [] hereby [] / / I him [] // I'm [] / himself [] // // //0 hired [] / / 0/ his [] / // / // I've [] // / // importance / [] / HON [] important // [] / Honor [] impose [] // / / indeed [] 0/ 0/ / independen / tly [] / / / indictment Honorable [] / [] / / House [] / // individuals housekeepi [] / ng [] / influenced how [] [] / / informed / [] /0 However [] ingenious // [] /

23 I irregular [] /0/ inquire [] / // / is [] // inspector issue [] // [] / // /0/ / / / instructed issues [] / [] / /0/ judgment intend [] / [] 0/ /0 it [0] JUDICIAL interest [] it's [] [] / / // jury [] interim [] / // / / // invade [] item [] // / / // invasion [] its [] // / / //0 investigate / / [] / / J investigatio // J.W [] / n [] / just [] JACK [] // // / investigativ // JAMES [] e [] / // / investigator / JENNIFER [] / / [] / // / K / / / K.S [] / / job [] keep [] / / / / / Judge [] / involved [] // KIMBERLY / // [] / kind [] 0/ know [] // // / 0/ 0/ // // // / knowledge [] / known [] / L lack [] 0/ last [] / lead [] / least [] / leaves [] / life [] / light [] /0/ /0 like [] / // /0 LLP [] / locate [] // / long [] / look [] /0 looking [] / lot [] / / LOUIS [] // / / // / Lowe [] / M made [] // /0 make [] /0/ 0/ 0/ / / / makes [] /0/

24 M making [] / March [] // Market [] / MARTIN [] / matter [] / may [] // / // / /0 / May th [] / me [] / / mean [] /0 /0 / means [] / memorand um [] 0/ merit [] / meritorious [] 0/ merits [] month [] / / messages more [] [] / // might [] / / morning [] mind [] / / most [] minimum / [] 0/ / misinstructi mother [] ng [] / / motion [] MISSOURI [0] / motions [] // // // moved [] /0/ /0 / / / moving [] / // mixed [] // / /0/ MO [] /0 // MR [] // // Monday /0/ [] /0 // // / /0/ 0/0 // / // / // / // Mr. [] /0 / 0/ / / /0 Mr. Garvey [] 0/ /0 Mr. Simpson [] / / Mr. Simpson's [] / MS [] //0 / / / much [] // my [] / / N necessary [] / / need [] / / / needed [] / needs [] // 0// neither [] // never [] // / no [] // // // // 0/ / / / not [0] nothing [] /0/ notice [] // noticed [] / notices [] // notified [] / now [] // /0 / / Number [] /

25 O // o'clock [] / /0 / oath [] / // open [] / // object [] opening [] // /0 objection opposition [] / [] 0/ objections order [] [] / // obligated / [] 0/ original [] occurred / [] / other [] off [] / / offense [] / / // Office [] our [] / // // official [] / // /0 okay [] out [] / //0 / // outside [] / / / over [] one [] / // / / ongoing [] overboard / [] / only [] P // page [] / page [] / pages [] / parties [] // / parts [] / people [] / / / perceived [] /0 personally [] / // photo [] / photograph [] / // // picture [] // // Plaintiff [] // planning [] / point [] /0 / point's [] / / problem [] points [] / /0 proceed [] position [] // / proceeding possible [] [] 0/ / proceeding potential s [] / [] / / predictabili /0 ty [] Professiona / l [] / prejudice prosecutor [] / [] / 0/ province [] preparation / [] / public [] / / prepared purpose [] [] / / // put [] / // / / / present [] Q // // quash [] // /0/ presented / [] / quasi [] / 0/ / QUESTION pressure [] [] / / // privacy [] //

26 Q QUESTION... [] /0 // quick [] / quite [] / R re [] 0/ re-file [] 0/ ready [] /0/ /0/ // / / / really [] // rearranged [] / reason [] /0 / / recess [] / record [] // regard [] / regarding resources / [] / [] 0/ / / respect [] Rule [] regardless 0/ / [] / respond [] rules [] Registered / / [] / / ruling [] relied [] responded 0/ / [] / S removed responding [] / [] / said [] report [] response / / [] / say [] reported [] / // / review [] / reporter [] 0/ / // revisions / // [] 0/ says [] reports [] Rex [] / // / right [] schedule represent // [] / [] / // / / // scheduling / // [] / reproductio /0/ / n [] / / /0 / school [] request [] ROBERT [] / // / Schwartz / role [] [] / requesting / SCOTT [] [] / ROSENBLU /0 / M [] /0 / resolution / second [] [] / RPR [] //0 / secure [] / see [] / seek [] / seen [] // / served [] / set [] / /0/0 // / / sets [] / setting [] // / / / / / // settings [] / she [] / / // // / /

27 S so [] she... [] some [] / / short [] 0/ /0/ 0/ shorten [] / /0/0 something shortened [] /0 [] / sometime / [] / shorter [] sorry [] 0/ /0 should [] South [] // / // speak [] show [] / / special [] shows [] / / specific [] side [] / /0/ / / specifically signed [] [] / / spoken [] Simpson [] / / ST [] / / // / // Simpson's // [] / stability [] single [] / / standing sir [] [] / // / start [] / state [] State's [] / / statement [] /0 status [] / steps [] / strategy [] 0/ Street [] / strong [] 0/ strongly [] 0/ student [] / subpoenas [] /0 // substantive [] / subterfuge [] / such [] / suggest [] / suggesting [] / summary [] 0/ sure [] // //0 / / T taken [] // / / takes [] / taking [] / talk [] / // talked [] / talking [] / talks [] / task [] / / / tasked [] /0 tell [] / testified [] /0/ / testify [] / testimony [] / / than [] / Thank [] / 0/0 0/ // / // / Thanks [] / that [] that's [] their [0] // / / / // / / / then [] // // there [] // // //

28 T there... [] 0/ 0/ / / / there's [] //0 they [] // // // / / / // / / / / / they're [] // / thing [] /0 things [] / / // / think [] // // // // // / / / / / /0 / thinks [] / this [] thorough [] / those [] // /0 / / three [] // through [] /0 throughout [] 0/ throw [] / time [] //0 //0 / / / / / Tisaby [] // // 0/0 / / / today [] // // // // // // told [] // / towards [] / TRANSCRIP T [] / transmissio n [] / transmitted [] / / triable [] /0 trial [] trials [] / true [] /0 try [] up [] / 0/ // 0/ //0 trying [] /0/ /0/ /0 // upon [] turn [] / / us [] / turned [] // / used [] TWENTY [] 0/ / V TWENTY-SE COND [] versus [] / / two [] very [] /0 /0/ / 0// /0 U victim [] unaware [] / / / under [] / // / / / / / / / / understand / [] / victims [] // / / virtually [] unnecessar / y [] 0/ W until [] // wait [] /

29 W weight [] waive [] / // well [] // // // // // / / / waiver [] went [] // /0 want [] / / were [] wanted [] // / / wants [] / / west [] warrants [] / / / was [] what [] wasn't [] // / //0 we [] // we'll [] // // / / // we're [] / // / //0 what's [] // / // whatever / [] / / // / when [] week [] // / / / // /0/0 /0 / where [] witness [] / / /0/ / witnesses whether [] [] / // / / / which [] / /0/ work [] 0// / / works [] while [] / / would [] who [] // // // // // /0 / why [] / / /0 will [] // // Y / / // years [] // / // Yes [] / /00/ // 0/ / / yesterday / [] / / / / you [] withheld [] you're [] /0 // without [] 0/ your [] // // // 0/ / / / / //

UNITED STATES * 4:17-MC-1557 * Houston, Texas VS. * * 10:33 a.m. JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE * September 13, 2017

UNITED STATES * 4:17-MC-1557 * Houston, Texas VS. * * 10:33 a.m. JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE * September 13, 2017 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES * :-MC- * Houston, Texas VS. * * 0: a.m. JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE * September, 0 APPEARANCES: MISCELLANEOUS HEARING

More information

WIL S. WILCOX, OFFICIAL FEDERAL REPORTER

WIL S. WILCOX, OFFICIAL FEDERAL REPORTER 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 WESTERN DIVISION 4 THE HON. GEORGE H. WU, JUDGE PRESIDING 5 6 Margaret Carswell, ) ) 7 Plaintiff, ) ) 8 vs. ) No. CV-10-05152-GW ) 9

More information

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * Timberline Four Seasons * WS-C * * * * * * * * *

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * Timberline Four Seasons * WS-C * * * * * * * * * PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * Robert And Janet Deal v. * Timberline Four Seasons * -0-WS-C Utilities, Inc. * * * * * * * * * * David And Jan Rosenau v. * Timberline

More information

mg Doc Filed 05/10/18 Entered 05/17/18 11:47:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

mg Doc Filed 05/10/18 Entered 05/17/18 11:47:19 Main Document Pg 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Pg 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Case No. 09-50026-mg IN RE:. Chapter 11. MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY,. (Jointly administered) et al., f/k/a GENERAL. MOTORS CORP.,

More information

JANICE COLEMAN, CSR 1095, RPR OFFICIAL FEDERAL COURT REPORTER (313)

JANICE COLEMAN, CSR 1095, RPR OFFICIAL FEDERAL COURT REPORTER (313) EXHIBIT 3 Trial transcript excerpt in which US attorney and prosecutor Melissa Siskind and presiding Judge Victoria Roberts misrepresent the content of 26 U.S.C. 6020(b) in open court during the trial

More information

JANICE COLEMAN, CSR 1095, RPR OFFICIAL FEDERAL COURT REPORTER (313)

JANICE COLEMAN, CSR 1095, RPR OFFICIAL FEDERAL COURT REPORTER (313) EXHIBIT 11 Trial transcript excerpt in which prosecutor Melissa Siskind misrepresents the content of 26 U.S.C. 6020(b) in open court during the second trial of Doreen Hendrickson. This is followed by the

More information

The False Lawsuit Claim That Our Refunds Were Made In Error

The False Lawsuit Claim That Our Refunds Were Made In Error The False Lawsuit Claim That Our Refunds Were Made In Error In the complaint in 2006 by which the bogus lawsuit was launched asking Judge Nancy Edmunds to order my wife, Doreen, and I to testify at the

More information

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA MEETING OF MAY 31, 2017

VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA MEETING OF MAY 31, 2017 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA MEETING OF MAY, 0 AGENDA 0 STEPHEN P. CLARK CENTER COMMISSION CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM, ND FLOOR NW st Street Miami, Florida Wednesday May, 0 0:00 A.M.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EFiled Oct 19 2012 1136AM EDT Transaction ID 47152282 Case No. 7409 VCL IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EORHB, INC., a Georgia corporation, and COBY G. BROOKS, EDWARD J. GREENE, JAMES

More information

JANICE COLEMAN, CSR 1095, RPR OFFICIAL FEDERAL COURT REPORTER (313)

JANICE COLEMAN, CSR 1095, RPR OFFICIAL FEDERAL COURT REPORTER (313) EXHIBIT 14 First, a trial transcript excerpt in which Robert Metcalfe admits that the Examination Report he presented as evidence supporting his Complaint in United States v. Peter and Doreen Hendrickson,

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 0TH JUDICIL CIRCUIT IN ND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORID CSE NO. -C-0 BNK OF MERIC, N.., sbm BC Home Loans Servicing LP, Plaintiff, vs. SSET CUISITIONS & HOLDINGS TRUST DTED MY 0, d/b/a

More information

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HEARING TRANSCRIPT * * * * * * * * *

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * HEARING TRANSCRIPT * * * * * * * * * PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * KENTUCKY FUEL CORPORATION * --COAL-SC-GI * * * * * * * * * * HEARING TRANSCRIPT * * * * * * * * * BEFORE: MICHAEL A. ALBERT, Chairman

More information

CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 111 NW 1 Street, Commission Chambers Miami-Dade County, Florida Thursday, April 28, 3:30 p.m.

CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 111 NW 1 Street, Commission Chambers Miami-Dade County, Florida Thursday, April 28, 3:30 p.m. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NW Street, Commission Chambers Miami-Dade County, Florida Thursday, April, 0 @ :0 p.m. VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING 0 BOARD MEMBERS (Present) Commissioner Jose

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 12, 2014 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 12, 2014 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 12, 2014 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES GODSPOWER Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. F-67377 David Bragg,

More information

THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT CALENDAR IS FLORIDA BAR V.BEHM. [INAUDIBLE] >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> GOOD MORNING. FIRST, MAY I PLEASE THE COURT, I WOULD

THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT CALENDAR IS FLORIDA BAR V.BEHM. [INAUDIBLE] >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> GOOD MORNING. FIRST, MAY I PLEASE THE COURT, I WOULD THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT CALENDAR IS FLORIDA BAR V.BEHM. [INAUDIBLE] >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> GOOD MORNING. FIRST, MAY I PLEASE THE COURT, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR AFFORDING ME THE PRIVILEGE OF APPEARING

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Docket Nos. CA CA (RJL) : : : : : : : : : : LARRY E. KLAYMAN, ET AL.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Docket Nos. CA CA (RJL) : : : : : : : : : : LARRY E. KLAYMAN, ET AL. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LARRY E. KLAYMAN, ET AL. v. Plaintiffs, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL. Defendants................. Docket Nos. CA- CA- (RJL) October, 0 p.m. TRANSCRIPT

More information

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Sherri T. Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Sherri T. Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA GERALD YARBROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

More information

Excerpts From Kara Andrews Deposition Transcript February 24, 2017

Excerpts From Kara Andrews Deposition Transcript February 24, 2017 Case 6:-cv-048-CEM-KRS Document 1-73 Filed 11/30/ Page 1 of 8 PageID 87 Excerpts From Kara Deposition Transcript February, Case 6:-cv-048-CEM-KRS Document 1-73 Filed 11/30/ Page 2 of 8 PageID 88 Case 6:-cv-048-CEM-KRS

More information

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Deavers, 2007-Ohio-5464.] COURT OF APPEALS MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO -vs- Plaintiff-Appellee LANCE EDWARDS DEAVERS, AKA, TONY CARDELLO Defendant-Appellant

More information

PRESIDING JUDGE FREMR: [9:32:20] Good morning, everybody. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the case of The Prosecutor

PRESIDING JUDGE FREMR: [9:32:20] Good morning, everybody. The situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the case of The Prosecutor ICC-0/0-0/0-T-0-Red-ENG CT WT 0--0 /0 SZ T Trial Hearing (Open Session) ICC-0/0-0/0 0 0 International Criminal Court Trial Chamber VI Situation: Democratic Republic of the Congo In the case of The Prosecutor

More information

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas. No CR. ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 16, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01511-CR ANTHONY SHANE KILLEBREW, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On

More information

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC. * COAL-SC-GI * * * * * * * * *

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC. * COAL-SC-GI * * * * * * * * * PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON * * * * * * * * * BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC. * --COAL-SC-GI * * * * * * * * * CHESTNUT LAND HOLDINGS, LLC * --COAL-SC-GI * * * * * * * * * KENTUCKY

More information

Case No. SCSL T THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SPECIAL COURT V. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR FRIDAY, 27 FEBRUARY A.M. TRIAL TRIAL CHAMBER II

Case No. SCSL T THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SPECIAL COURT V. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR FRIDAY, 27 FEBRUARY A.M. TRIAL TRIAL CHAMBER II Case No. SCSL-00-0-T THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SPECIAL COURT V. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 00.0 A.M. TRIAL TRIAL CHAMBER II Before the Judges: Justice Richard Lussick, Presiding Justice Teresa

More information

The Courts Are Closed

The Courts Are Closed The Courts Are Closed 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 MR. SCHULZ: We expected for the next line and final line of inquiry that MR. Becraft would be here but he needed to leave to take MR. Benson to the airport. Let me just

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE, A.D. 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2006 BETWEEN: LAURIANO RAMIREZ Appellant AND THE QUEEN Respondent BEFORE: The Hon. Mr. Justice Mottley President The Hon. Mr. Justice

More information

September 10, 1998 N.G.I.S.C. Biloxi Meeting. CHAIRMAN JAMES: With that, I'll open it up to. COMMISSIONER DOBSON: Mayor Short, you just mentioned

September 10, 1998 N.G.I.S.C. Biloxi Meeting. CHAIRMAN JAMES: With that, I'll open it up to. COMMISSIONER DOBSON: Mayor Short, you just mentioned September 0, N.G.I.S.C. Biloxi Meeting 0 CHAIRMAN JAMES: With that, I'll open it up to questions from commissioners. Commissioner Dobson? COMMISSIONER DOBSON: Mayor Short, you just mentioned the money

More information

20 South Second Street 8026 Woodstream Drive, NW Fourth Floor Canal Winchester, OH Newark, OH 43055

20 South Second Street 8026 Woodstream Drive, NW Fourth Floor Canal Winchester, OH Newark, OH 43055 [Cite as State v. Meek, 2009-Ohio-3448.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- DAVID MEEK Defendant-Appellant JUDGES: Hon. Julie A. Edwards,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NUMBER 09-CV KMW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NUMBER 09-CV KMW 0 TRILOGY PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NUMBER 0-CV-0-KMW Plaintiffs SB HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al. Defendants MOTION HEARING

More information

>>>THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE FLORIDA BAR V. JOSE CARLOS MARRERO. COUNSEL? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONORS. IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS

>>>THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE FLORIDA BAR V. JOSE CARLOS MARRERO. COUNSEL? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONORS. IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS >>>THE NEXT CASE ON THE DOCKET IS THE FLORIDA BAR V. JOSE CARLOS MARRERO. COUNSEL? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONORS. IF IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS JENNIFER FALCONE, I'M REPRESENTING THE FLORIDA BAR

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 11/22/10 P. v. Muhammad CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

No CR No CR. FREDDY GONZALEZ, Appellant. vs. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee APPELLANT S BRIEF

No CR No CR. FREDDY GONZALEZ, Appellant. vs. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee APPELLANT S BRIEF No. 05-12-00071-CR No. 05-12-00072-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 06/27/2012 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk FREDDY GONZALEZ, Appellant vs.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Taylor, 2009-Ohio-2392.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 91898 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIAM TAYLOR

More information

Superior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL FACT PATTERN. Mary Peabody v. Virgil Goodman

Superior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL FACT PATTERN. Mary Peabody v. Virgil Goodman Superior Court of New Jersey Essex Vicinage ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOCK TRIAL FACT PATTERN Mary Peabody v. Virgil Goodman Table of Contents Section Page Number(s) Law Day Fact Pattern 3 Instructions for Teachers

More information

Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. V. Robert Tepper SC

Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co. V. Robert Tepper SC The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

ESCRIBERS, LLC 700 West 192nd Street, Suite #607 New York, NY 10040

ESCRIBERS, LLC 700 West 192nd Street, Suite #607 New York, NY 10040 0 KNOX COUNTY, ss. CIVIL ACTION EDWARD HARSHMAN, Plaintiff, VS. SHEILA HARSHMAN, Defendant. STATE OF MAINE DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT NO. VI DOCKET NO. ROCDC-FM-0-0 APPEAL NO. KNO--0 DISCOVERY CONFERENCE

More information

NORMAN HICKS - October 4, 2011 Cross-Examination by Mr. Barrow

NORMAN HICKS - October 4, 2011 Cross-Examination by Mr. Barrow NORMAN HICKS - October 4, 2011 Cross-Examination by Mr. Barrow 91 1 A. Not that I know of, no, sir. 2 Q. And I believe you testified that you could have 3 collected that charcoal lighter fluid and taken

More information

Putting Together a FCRA Punitive Damages Case Against a Debt Buyer. Len Bennett Penny Hays Cauley

Putting Together a FCRA Punitive Damages Case Against a Debt Buyer. Len Bennett Penny Hays Cauley F1 F1 Putting Together a FCRA Punitive Damages Case Against a Debt Buyer Len Bennett Penny Hays Cauley Where to start? Putting Together a Brim Credit Reporting Case Part 1 Getting to Trial Be Patient Brim

More information

COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Reversed and remanded

COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Reversed and remanded COURT OF APPEALS KNOX COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- MICHAEL MAYO Defendant-Appellant JUDGES Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle

More information

Valuable Secrets to Defending Debt Collection Lawsuits

Valuable Secrets to Defending Debt Collection Lawsuits Valuable Secrets to Defending Debt Collection Lawsuits Creditors will aggressively pursue you. The Terry Law Firm will aggressively defend you. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SUED BY A DEBT COLLECTOR, YOU CAN WIN! David

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Nieves, 2010-Ohio-514.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92797 STATE OF OHIO vs. CARLOS NIEVES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

More information

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1996 ROBERT EUGENE CASE STATE OF MARYLAND

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 1996 ROBERT EUGENE CASE STATE OF MARYLAND REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1547 September Term, 1996 ROBERT EUGENE CASE v. STATE OF MARYLAND Murphy, C.J. Kenney, Byrnes, JJ. Opinion by Murphy, C.J. Filed: November 26, 1997

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY. Court of Appeals No. WM Appellee Trial Court No. [Cite as State v. Robbins, 2012-Ohio-3862.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WM-11-012 Appellee Trial Court No. 10 CR 103 v. Barry

More information

1 NEW JERSEY STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD 2 PUBLIC HEARING x 5 IN RE: : 6 CERTIFICATE OF NEED

1 NEW JERSEY STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD 2 PUBLIC HEARING x 5 IN RE: : 6 CERTIFICATE OF NEED 1 NEW JERSEY STATE HEALTH PLANNING BOARD 2 PUBLIC HEARING 3 4 ------------------------------------------x 5 IN RE: : 6 CERTIFICATE OF NEED APPLICATION FOR : 7 PARTIAL TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF : 8 HOBOKEN

More information

Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine

Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine Find more easy-to-read legal information at www.ptla.org Important Note: This is very general information about home mortgage and foreclosure rules in Maine. It is not

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO CA APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ATTALA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI E-Filed Document Jun 30 2016 11:18:49 2015-CA-01772 Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI BROOKS V. MONAGHAN VERSUS ROBERT AUTRY APPELLANT CAUSE NO. 2015-CA-01772 APPELLEE APPEAL

More information

PREPARING FOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION BEFORE FINRA

PREPARING FOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION BEFORE FINRA PREPARING FOR ARBITRATION ARBITRATION BEFORE FINRA Introduction This paper is meant to be used as an informal supplement to the chapter on Preparing for Arbitration: A Plaintiff Lawyer s View, 1 and will

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2016 EXHIBIT J

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/ :50 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2016 EXHIBIT J FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/05/2016 04:50 PM INDEX NO. 652528/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/05/2016 EXHIBIT J Page 1 1 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 3 COUNTY OF NEW YORK 4

More information

Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine

Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine Home Mortgage Foreclosures in Maine Find more easy-to-read legal information at www.ptla.org Important Note: This is very general information about home mortgage and foreclosure rules in Maine. It is not

More information

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION 447, : on Behalf of Itself and All : Other Similarly Situated : Shareholders of inventiv : Health, Inc., : : Plaintiff, : : vs.

More information

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR 2 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR 2 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR 2 PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION 4 CASE NO: 50 2008CA 020182XXXXMB Division: AW 5 HSBC BANK, USA, AS TRUSTEE

More information

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 14CA3613 KHADEJA S. AVERY, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 14CA3613 KHADEJA S. AVERY, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY [Cite as State v. Avery, 2015-Ohio-4251.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 14CA3613 vs. : KHADEJA S. AVERY, : DECISION

More information

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212)

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 3 BEACON ASSOCIATES LLC I, et al., 4 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 14 Civ. 2294 AJP 6 BEACON ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CORP.,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No WDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 HELEN LEWANDOWSKI AND ROBERT A. LEWANDOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DECEASED HELEN LEWANDOWSKI, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-11-00186-CR Ramiro Rea, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-DC-10-301285,

More information

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also

More information

Chapter 3 Preparing the Record

Chapter 3 Preparing the Record Chapter 3 Preparing the Record After filing the Notice of Appeal, the appellant next needs to specify what items are to be in the record (the official account of what went on at the hearing or the trial

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT MUSTAFA A. ABDULLA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D16-2606 [July 5, 2017] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth

More information

mg Doc 1150 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 12/18/18 10:39:13 Main Document Pg 1 of 20 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

mg Doc 1150 Filed 11/30/18 Entered 12/18/18 10:39:13 Main Document Pg 1 of 20 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Pg of 0 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE:. Case No. 0-00-mg. MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY,. Chapter et al., f/k/a GENERAL. MOTORS CORP., et al,. (Jointly administered).

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as State v. Calhoun, 2009-Ohio-6097.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92103 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. WILLIAM CALHOUN

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. August 23, 2010 v. Emergency Motion for TRO CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. August 23, 2010 v. Emergency Motion for TRO CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant. 0:: 0 0 RHONDA EZELL, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Case No. :0-cv-0 Plaintiffs, Chicago, Illinois August, 00 v. Emergency Motion for TRO CITY OF CHICAGO,

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2012 J-S70010-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD JARMON Appellant No. 3275 EDA 2012 Appeal

More information

Case 1:15-cr RMB Document 353 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 1

Case 1:15-cr RMB Document 353 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 353 Filed 11/20/17 Page 1 of 1 Boston Brussels Chicago Dallas Düsseldorf Frankfurt Houston London Los Angeles Miami Milan Munich New York Orange County Paris Rome Seoul

More information

Nos CR & CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. ANTHONY CHARLES GARRETT, Appellant

Nos CR & CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. ANTHONY CHARLES GARRETT, Appellant Nos. 05-11-00304-CR & 05-11-00305-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 8/10/11 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk ANTHONY CHARLES GARRETT, Appellant v. THE

More information

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April 18, 2018

No. 1D On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April 18, 2018 FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL LEO C. BETTEY JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-0064 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. John H. Skinner, Judge. April

More information

Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAD UNREPORTED

Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAD UNREPORTED Circuit Court for Prince George s County Case No. CAD16-38895 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2259 September Term, 2017 JEAN MEUS SR. v. LATASHA MEUS Reed, Friedman, Alpert,

More information

Eyler, Deborah S., Leahy, Alpert, Paul E., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned)

Eyler, Deborah S., Leahy, Alpert, Paul E., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned) Circuit Court for Talbot County Case No. 20-K-15-010952 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1226 September Term, 2016 DAMAR A. RINGGOLD v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Leahy,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 11, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 11, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs May 11, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DWAYNE TYRONE SIMMONS Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marshall County No. 15813

More information

LOCAL LAWYER UNDER FIRE

LOCAL LAWYER UNDER FIRE LOCAL LAWYER UNDER FIRE Wyoming Tribune-Eagle (Cheyenne, WY) April 4, 1999 Dana Biebersmith CHEYENNE -- A dark cloud of suspicious activity hovers over a Cheyenne divorce attorney already facing two malpractice

More information

Case 1:14-ml RLY-TAB Document 2659 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 7006

Case 1:14-ml RLY-TAB Document 2659 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 7006 Case 1:14-ml-02570-RLY-TAB Document 2659 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 7006 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION IN RE: COOK MEDICAL, INC., IVC FILTERS

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 22, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 22, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 22, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. EARL D. MILLS - July 5, 2005 Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No.78215

More information

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Tyson, 2009-Ohio-374.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- FRANK EUGENE TYSON Defendant-Appellant JUDGES Hon. W. Scott Gwin,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville July 24, 2018

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville July 24, 2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville July 24, 2018 09/05/2018 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DURWIN L. RUCKER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Cheatham County

More information

The Continuing Legal Education Society of Nova Scotia Insurance Law Seminar (September 10, 1993) "How Valuable is the Actuarial Report?

The Continuing Legal Education Society of Nova Scotia Insurance Law Seminar (September 10, 1993) How Valuable is the Actuarial Report? The Continuing Legal Education Society of Nova Scotia Insurance Law Seminar (September 10, 1993) "How Valuable is the Actuarial Report?" In dealing with this topic, I will start by giving you a brief outline

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOHN BRADLEY PETERS, SR., Appellant No. 645 WDA 2012 Appeal from

More information

You Could Get Money From a New Class Action Settlement If You Paid for Medical Services at a Michigan Hospital From January 1, 2006 to June 23, 2014.

You Could Get Money From a New Class Action Settlement If You Paid for Medical Services at a Michigan Hospital From January 1, 2006 to June 23, 2014. United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Michigan You Could Get Money From a New Class Action Settlement If You Paid for Medical Services at a Michigan Hospital From January 1, 2006 to

More information

WILLIAM BAMBECK MARY BETH BERGER

WILLIAM BAMBECK MARY BETH BERGER [Cite as Bambeck v. Berger, 2008-Ohio-3456.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 89597 WILLIAM BAMBECK PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. MARY BETH

More information

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT E-Filed Document Jul 30 2015 11:00:44 2015-KA-00218-COA Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JOE M. GILLESPIE APPELLANT V. NO. 2015-KA-00218-COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE BRIEF

More information

If you owned property repossessed by Anheuser-Busch Employees Credit Union, you could get valuable benefits from a class-action settlement.

If you owned property repossessed by Anheuser-Busch Employees Credit Union, you could get valuable benefits from a class-action settlement. TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR ST. LOUIS CITY, MISSOURI If you owned property repossessed by Anheuser-Busch Employees Credit Union, you could get valuable benefits from a class-action settlement.

More information

CASE NO: 154/2010 DATE HEARD: 19/10/10 DATE DELIVERED: 22/10/10 NOT REPORTABLE WALTER SISULU UNIVERSITY

CASE NO: 154/2010 DATE HEARD: 19/10/10 DATE DELIVERED: 22/10/10 NOT REPORTABLE WALTER SISULU UNIVERSITY IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE MTHATHA) CASE NO: 154/2010 DATE HEARD: 19/10/10 DATE DELIVERED: 22/10/10 NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: ZUKO TILAYI APPLICANT and WALTER SISULU UNIVERSITY

More information

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT [Cite as State v. Draper, 2011-Ohio-1007.] STATE OF OHIO, JEFFERSON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 10 JE 6 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, - VS - O P I N I O N THEODIS DRAPER,

More information

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT x x. U.S.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT x x. U.S. 1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No. 09-50026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Debtor. - - - - - - - - - - - -

More information

Real Estate Private Equity Case Study 3 Opportunistic Pre-Sold Apartment Development: Waterfall Returns Schedule, Part 1: Tier 1 IRRs and Cash Flows

Real Estate Private Equity Case Study 3 Opportunistic Pre-Sold Apartment Development: Waterfall Returns Schedule, Part 1: Tier 1 IRRs and Cash Flows Real Estate Private Equity Case Study 3 Opportunistic Pre-Sold Apartment Development: Waterfall Returns Schedule, Part 1: Tier 1 IRRs and Cash Flows Welcome to the next lesson in this Real Estate Private

More information

: : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : QUION BRATTEN, :

: : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : QUION BRATTEN, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : No. CR-1402-2011 : vs. : CRIMINAL DIVISION : : QUION BRATTEN, : Appellant : 1925(a) Opinion OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER IN COMPLIANCE

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. --o0o--

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. --o0o-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA --o0o-- BERENICE THOREAU DE LA SALLE, ) Case No. :0-cv-00-MCE-KJM ) Plaintiff, ) Sacramento, California ) Wednesday, February, vs. ) :0 A.M.

More information

THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning

THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9. and a hearing concerning Citation Authorized: June 8, 2017 Citation Issued: June 21, 2017 Citation Amended: February 19, 2018 THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c. 9 and a

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 25 MDA 2014

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No. 25 MDA 2014 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICHARD CLARK STEWART Appellant No. 25 MDA 2014 Appeal from the

More information

ALLETE, Inc. Moderator: Al Hodnik October 29, :00 a.m. CT

ALLETE, Inc. Moderator: Al Hodnik October 29, :00 a.m. CT Page 1, Inc. October 29, 2010 9:00 a.m. CT Operator: Good day, and welcome to the Third Quarter 2010 Financial Results call. Today's call is being recorded. Certain statements contained in the conference

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

smb Doc Filed 11/25/15 Entered 11/25/15 12:57:22 Exhibit 39 Pg 1 of 22 EXHIBIT 39

smb Doc Filed 11/25/15 Entered 11/25/15 12:57:22 Exhibit 39 Pg 1 of 22 EXHIBIT 39 Pg 1 of 22 EXHIBIT 39 Pg 2 of 22 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 1 ---------------------------------x In Re: BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES LLC, Debtor. ---------------------------------x

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Jonathan Grossman 154452 Staff Attorney Sixth District Appellate Program 100 N. Winchester Blvd., Suite 310 Santa Clara, CA 95050 (408) 241-6171 Attorney for Reginald Dewayne Ferguson IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

More information

No CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. EDUARDO ESCOBAR GARCIA, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. EDUARDO ESCOBAR GARCIA, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee No. 05 10 01122 CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS EDUARDO ESCOBAR GARCIA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 203d Judicial District Court of Dallas

More information

EXHIBIT 3 PROVIDENCE, SC. RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREE COALITION, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. C.A. No. PC

EXHIBIT 3 PROVIDENCE, SC. RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREE COALITION, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. C.A. No. PC STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. RHODE ISLAND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREE COALITION, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. GINA RAIMONDO, in her capacity as Governor of the State of Rhode Island, et al, C.A. No. PC

More information

SUMMARY OF YOUR OPTIONS AND THE LEGAL EFFECT OF EACH OPTION APPROVE THE

SUMMARY OF YOUR OPTIONS AND THE LEGAL EFFECT OF EACH OPTION APPROVE THE Manwaring v. The Golden 1 Credit Union NOTICE OF PENDING CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT READ THIS NOTICE FULLY AND CAREFULLY; THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS! IF YOU HAD A CHECKING

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2012

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2012 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2012 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TERRANCE GABRIEL CARTER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marshall County No. 2011-CR-44

More information

The Florida Bar v. Alan Ira Karten

The Florida Bar v. Alan Ira Karten The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those

More information

RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** **

RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** RENDERED: AUGUST 30, 2002; 10:00 a.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-002226-MR JAMES ROBINSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 30, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. SCOTT G. CLEVENGER Appeal from the Circuit Court for Grainger County No. 4190 O. Duane

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. :-mj-0000- ) v. ) ) January, 0 SHAWNA COX, ) ) Defendant. ) Portland,

More information

DEMOTT BANKRUPTCY GUIDE. 10 Steps. to rebuilding your financial life BY RUSSELL A. DEMOTT

DEMOTT BANKRUPTCY GUIDE. 10 Steps. to rebuilding your financial life BY RUSSELL A. DEMOTT DEMOTT BANKRUPTCY GUIDE 10 Steps to rebuilding your financial life BY RUSSELL A. DEMOTT Table of Contents The Initial Consultation 3 The Client Questionnaire 4 Documents 5 The Intake Interview 8 Case Preparation

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Braden v. Sinar, 2007-Ohio-4527.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CYNTHIA BRADEN C. A. No. 23656 Appellant v. DR. DAVID SINAR, DDS., et

More information