FROZEN FIEFDOM 

ORDER FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON DECEMBER 8, 2008

UPDATE:  December 8, 2008.  Here's how it went:

1.  I phoned the number which had been given to me, and connected with court staff at 8:25 AM local time in Juneau, from California.   

2.  I spoke with an assistant to the Judge, was transferred to another, and asked permission to record the hearing, and if it was allowed.  Staff spoke with the Judge, and replied that the procedure is that I would have had to have made a written request, at least 24 hours in advance, stating that I wanted to record the proceedings.  I didn't know about that rule or procedure, so I asked if exceptions would be allowed, if I used the recording for my own reference only.  Staff was uncertain, but said that I could ask the Judge once the hearing began.  I asked if taking notes was allowed, and Staff said yes.   I chose to not ask permission to record the session, as the Judge was prompt, efficient, courteous, and clear, in their directing of the hearing, and it lasted about seven (7) minutes total.  Obviously, some of the terms and procedures which were outlined by the Judge are unfamiliar to me, and I shall have many questions for the Family Law Self Help Center office staff, and the clerical Court staff.  

3.  The Judge selected March 13, 2009 as the date for the next hearing.  The Judge  asked Mr. Grant if a full day would be adequate, and I was also asked if that would be adequate time.  I deferred to the Judge, and stated that I could schedule a full day for the hearing.   The phone connection was a bit garbled on my end at times, and I will have to confirm all dates with the Court staff.  If I heard correctly, all Witness paperwork needs to be filed by January 30, 2009, and any changes or removal of Witnesses has to be submitted by February 27, 2009. 

4.  The Judge announced that any Exhibits pertaining to this case shall be submitted at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; I am to use Letters to identify mine, and Mr. Grant and party are to use Numbers.   

5.  Mr. Grant asked a few questions relating to using evidence from a website, and transferring it to paper, and some other roundabout statements which I'm not sure what he was asking; due to the poor connection and his wording.  The Judge appeared to understand what he was saying, and if I heard correctly, stated that website material could be used, if I agreed that such words were mine.   It also sounded to me, that this particular issue of website material being used is new territory for the Judge.  

6.  Mr. Grant also asked the Judge to order the removal of material from my website, and if I heard correctly, he was possibly requesting that the Judge order that my website be removed from the internet.  He used the words "embarrassing" and "dangerous", but I didn't hear exactly what he said or how he used those words while talking about this website.   The Judge stated that he would have to file a Motion on this subject, so that I would have time to compose a reply, etc.

7.  I don't recall hearing the Judge ask if there were any questions, although I have many.  I didn't know if it was appropriate, or the time to ask what happened to my Motions of October 2, 2008, and  November 7, 2008, so I didn't say anything.  

8.  At some point, there was a mention by the Judge of the upcoming report by the Child Custody Investigator, and I heard what sounded like Mr. Grant saying something, and the Judge replied "good."  

9.  The Judge made a closing announcement, and said "thank you."   I believe I might have blurted out a "that's it?"  as it certainly was my thought.  I also said "thank you", and hung up.  

________________________________________________ 

Below is an Order which I received on December 1, 2008.  I have marked out the names of the court staff, the appointed child custody investigator, and the Judge, as I still have an elevated level of respect and appreciation for the legal system, and legal processes, and some staff. 

At this time, these people whose names I have chosen to mark out, appear to be doing their jobs in a professional manner,  and I want the keep them out of the shared spotlight.  

I am puzzled as to the wording of this Order, especially as to the first statement pertaining to the word "evidence" and "a significant change in circumstances" is up for review also; I'm certain the Judge will clarify what is meant by that.  Nor do I like the sound of "until Ms. Rose obtains mental health treatment."

Say?  That entire sentence sounds unusually worded, and I don't see any mention of my evidence that many have made false statements. 

The next sentence "Ms. Rose is, however, entitled to an evidentiary hearing and she has also moved to modify custody."  

Really?  I don't see anywhere in my paperwork where I asked to modify custody, and have written in my second Motion which I filed on November 7, 2008 on Page 1 of 2, Item B. "I absolutely object to any modifications being made to the original Child Custody Agreement as signed in 2006 until a full hearing with the being materials being presented and verifiable facts being offered as evidence by both sides can be reviewed by a Judge."  (A typo was on the papers filed, with an extra "being" in the sentence.)

I'm certain the Judge will clarify for me during the hearing, where I wrote that statement, or shall correct themself.  I am unfamiliar with these legal documents, and it is highly possible that I made a mistake somewhere.   

The second Motion I filed on November 7, 2008, might not be considered an actual Motion, but I'll post it in a separate section.  In that batch of paperwork, I have written an Order for the Judge to sign which required Eric William Swanson / Paul H. Grant to obtain a True and Certified Copy of this alleged LAPD Missing Persons Report bearing my name and photo, which they and others claim was filed by Anna Kathryn Sanders, and perhaps others. 

As of December 3, 2008; I have not received any reply from Eric or Mr. Grant about this Motion, and the Judge has not signed the Order I have submitted requesting they produce the Official LAPD report. 

Seemed logical to me that having an actual and factual Official LAPD MP report in the courtroom for all to review, would be much more useful than the written and verbal statements of several persons; all with conflicting versions.  

And what would everyone have left to say, when the LAPD report comes up with "Nay"?  

And there is still the question of:  What happened to my original Motion filed on October 2, 2008 entitled "Justification for Denial of Visitation"?   Do Motions just die, if no one bird dogs them?   How unusual that I started the ball rolling with that Motion, and somehow all this braying and barking by the opposition has drowned out my questions, and they are left unanswered, and without a hearing.  Perhaps First In, First Out, isn't standard court procedure; bypassing Motions doesn't sound quite right, either.  

I'm looking forward to hearing what the Judge has to say, and I'll learn much about the workings of the legal system.