o

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PAULDING COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

MrCHAEt t.

LOWE I PLA! NT I E'f , CASE NUMBER 08-CV-1124

... :. r: -I l ,." ...:

VERSUS

ELISA L,

SMITH,
DEFENDANT.

::z: ): -< f ..,... :=:x .. 0 <#:"

2;J
;.r:
n r-

::;JI':;;;: "
r-

l'!!r

;:: ., .... "

-,

.. :.

MO'l'ION TO SET ASIDE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND RENEWAL OF UQUEST FOR RULE nfELVE SANCTIONS

THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HEARD BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMBS R. OSBORNE, APPROXIMATELY 3:30 P.M., COUNTY COURTHOUSE, COMMENCING AT 2011, AT PAULDING GEORGIA.

APRIL 6,

DALLAS,

PAULDING COUNTY,

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF MARTIN E. VALBUENA ATTORNEY AT LAW ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT PRO SE

GAYLE C. LAUGHRIDGE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER PAULDING JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT:

PRO C BED I N G S ALL RIGHT. I'LL CALL THIS CASE WHICH IS

LOWE VERSUS LOWE. I BELIEVE, MS.

IT IS CASE NUMBER 08-1124. LOWE, YOU HAVE REQUESTED THAT YOU DO

WANT TO HAVE THE COURT REPORTER TAKE THIS DOWN. AND, MR. VALBUENA, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE DECLINED TO LOWE IN THIS

SHARE WHICH MEANS THE EXPENSE WILL BE ON MS. CASE. IS THAT CORRECT? MR. VALBUENA: YES, SIR.

TH! COURT: CUSTOMARY,

ALL RIGHT.

MADAM COURT REPORTER,

AS

IS

IF YOU WILL MAKE WHATEVER ARRANGEMENTS OR LOWE.

DISCUSS THE FEE AT THIS TIME WITH MS. (WHEREUPON, THE COURT: PROCEED.

A DISCUSSION WAS HELD orF THE RECORD.) ALL RIGHT. MS. LOWE, I'LL LET YOU

YOU HAVE FILED A MOTION TO SET ASIDE MOTION FOR

NEW TRIAL AND RENEW A REQUEST fDR RULE TWELVE SANCTIONS BASED ON THE CONTINUING FRAUD COMMITTED BY ATTORNEY MARTIN E. VALBUENA. SO I'LL ALLOW YOU TO PRESENT ANY ARGUMENT OR

OTHER MATTERS AT THIS TIME IF YOU'D LIKE. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: BASICALLY I THINK MAINLY MY I HAD

PLEADINGS SUM UP MOST OF MY PROBLEM WITH THIS.

SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE JANUARY 6TH HEARING WHERE JUDGE BALDWIN WITH THE COWETA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT WAS CLEAR THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THAT IT WAS CORRECT FOR ANOTHER COURT TO BE TAKING JURISDICTION WHEN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THEY HAD NOT RELEASED IT. I DO KNOW THAT ON FEBRUARY 17TH IN MR. VAL8UENA'S

RESPONSE HE SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT TOUCH THE JURISDICTION ISSUES ANY LONGER BECAOSE THIS CASE WAS OVER, LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT. 6T". AND I WOULD

THE CASE HAPPENED ON JANUARY IT

THE FINAL ORDER WAS SIGNED HERE ON JANUARY 5TH I

WAS FILED LATE IN THE DAY ON JANUARY 5TH

,

DID NOT EVEN IN 11TH OR

HAVE THE ORDER WHEN WE WENT TO COURT THE NEXT DAY. FACT, 12". ALSO, I HAD ASKED FOR
--

IT WAS ONLY FAXED TO ME,

I BELIEVE,

JANUARY

HE HAD SAID SOMETHING TO THE

EFFECT OF I COULD NOT COME TO ANOTHER COURT AND BASICALLY TELL ON ANOTHER SUPERIOR COURT. WAS TRYING TO DO. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT I OF COURSE,

I HAD BEEN SAYING THIS,

SINCE THE JURISDICTION AND VENUE THING SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND I HAD ASKED HIM TO LOOK INTO IT ON A

PLEADING THAT I ALSO FILED A COpy WITH THIS COURT ON NOVEMBER 15, 2010, ASKING HIM TO PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS

BECAUSE I FELT LIKE I WAS NOT GETTING ANY HELP IN THIS COURT, I SUPPOSE. I DO HAVE A COpy OF THOSE TRANSCRIPTS.

CAN I SUBMIT THOSE AS EVIDENCE? THE COURT: VALBUENA, IF YOU'LL SHOW THEM FIRST TO MR.

WHATEVER IT IS YOU WANT TO TENDER. YES. IN FACT, I'VE GOT YOU A

DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: COpy (PRESENTING).

1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. VALB: A MOTION

I GUESS,

JUDGE,

DON'T UNDERSTAND AT AND WE

fOR NEW TRIAL INTRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE,

WOULD OBJECT TO THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE. THE COURT: PROCEEDING? WHAT IS IT? IT'S A TRANSCRIPT fROM WHAT

IS IT A PROCEEDING IN THIS COURT? MR. VALBUENA HAD COMMENTED ON

DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE:

THAT IN HIS RESPONSE TO MY MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE COURT: EXHIBIT? WELL, WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT IS THE

IT'S A TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT PROCEEDING? OF THE FEBRUARY 17TK

DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE:

PROCEEDING HE IS SPEAKING OF. MR . VALBUENA: IN COWETA COUNTY.

THE COURT:

IN COWETA COUNTY? YES, SIR.

DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

I WILL NOT ADMIT ANY DON'T THINK THEY'RE THEY MAY BE RELEVANT

TRANSCRIPTS OF OTHER COURTS AS I

RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE. TO ANY PROCEEDINGS THERE. RIGHT,

DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: AGREE. DOING,

AND I WOULD ALMOST I WAS LOOKING AT JUST

IT WAS FUNNY WHEN I WAS AGAIN, THE NEW EVIDENCE.

AND THEN WHEN I READ MORE I FELT LIKE IT MAY BE

CLEARLY THE RESPONSE TO MY MOTION,

NECESSARY rOR ME TO COMMENT OR TO PROVE MY CASE ON THE ITEMS THAT HE'S POINTED OUT. DO IT? IS THAT NOT THE WAY I SHOULD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

I CAN'T RBALLY TBLL YOU HOW TO DO IT

OTHER THAN I'LL ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE SUBJECT TO ANY OBJECTIONS THAT MAY BE FORTHCOMI NG. ANY FASHION THAT YOU'D LIKE. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOMB: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I WAS SO YOU MAY PROCEED IN

SAYING THAT IN THE PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF THAT HIS CONTENTION WAS THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE ANYMORE BECAUSE THAT CASE WAS OVER. AGAIN, IT WAS BECAUSE I HAD MR. VALBUENA

BEEN ASKING FOR THIS FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

HAD FILED A MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE THAT PUT THIS CASE OFF FROM NOVEMBER 22NO UNTIL JANUARY 6TH BY FILING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE HE HAD FILED WITH ANOTHER CASE ALMOST A YEAR PRIOR TO THIS. OFF. THAT'S WHY IT LOOKED LIKE I WAS ON THIS COURT TO ANOTHER COURT. TO STOP IS, I GUESS,
-

BUT ANYWAY,

SO THE CASE KEPT GETTING PUT

I WAS NOT TELLING

I WAS TRYING TO GET THIS BUT

WHAT I'M GETTING AT ON THAT.

WHAT HE DID SAY IN THE TRANSCRIPT WAS THAT IT WAS OVER AND THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THE PAULDING COUNTY THING. ALSO, IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT I SHOWED UP WITH AN WHAT I SAY ABOUT THIS WHEN THE EX PARTE

ATTORNEY ON THE FIRST DAY OF COURT. IS THAT DAY IN COURT ON APRIL 1, ORDER WAS ISSUED,

2008,

I HAD GOTTEN OUT OF JAIL ON THE 28TH THIS WAS THE FIRST AND LAST TIME I SHE fILED NO ADMISSION WITH THIS

IT WAS THE WEEKEND.

EVER MET DAWN BALLARD.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

COURT.

I THINK THERE'S EVEN A NOTE ON THE CLERK'S FILE "CARE OF DAWN, NO REPRESENTATION."

THAT SAYS,

AND IF MR.

VALBUENA WAS SO SURE THAT SHE WAS MY

ATTORNEY THEN I BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD HAVE SENT HER A COpy OF THE RULE NISI THAT HE SENT TO ME TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS LATER AFTER THIS CASE HAD BEEN HEARD AND THERE WAS AN ORDER ISSUED ON IT WHICH RETURNED MY CHILDREN TO ME AND SAID THAT THE ONLY OTHER STIPULATION WAS THAT THE VISITATION WAS TO RETURN AS IT WAS BEFORE AFTER HE WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL. SO I THOUGHT THIS CASE WAS OVER. BACK. I GOT MY CHILDREN

AND HE STATES THAT I DID NOT SUBMIT ANY PL&ADINGS

--

OR ANSWER ON THAT CASE UNTIL JULY 19TH

I BELIEVE HE SAYS THE AND

IT WAS ACTUALLY JULY 14TH IS THE CORRECT DATE,

THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE I HAD BEEN ISSUED THIS RULE NISI. AND I NISI. DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. IT JUST SAID RULE NO

THERE WERE NO CHILDREN'S ELECTIONS ATTACHED,

INFORMATION. AND AGAIN, WELL, I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE -A LOT CONFUSED BECAUSE I HAD JUST

NOT A LITTLE BIT,

BEEN SERVED ON MAY 27TH WITH A MOTION TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER IN COWETA COUNTY THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED IN DECEMBER Of 2008 WHICH DISMISSED MIKE'S CUSTODY CLAIM THAT HE STARTED IN JANUARY OF 2004. WAS CONFUSED. ALL THESE DATES GET CONFUSING. SO I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27TH

I I

HAD A MOTION TO SET ASIDE FILED MY ANSWER,

IN

COWETA SERVED ON MAY

AND I ASKED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HIS MOTION

ON THAT.

AND WE WENT TO COURT IN OCTOBER,

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER WAS DENIED. BEFORE THAT COURT I ASKED MARTIN, IN
I

IN MEDIATION THE DAY

SAID, "WHAT IF YOU GET

CUSTODY OF THE KIDS

PAULDING COUNTY AND THE JUDGE IN COWETA

GRANTS YOUR MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT COUNTY? ME WAS, SURE WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?" "THE JUDGE

AND HIS STATEMENT TO I'M NOT

IS GOING TO PRO NONC TONC IT," "TO THE DATE OF THE

IF I'M SAYING THAT RIGHT,

HEARING."

SO HE SEEMED TO ALREADY HAVE PLANNED OUT WHAT IT. AND WHEN IT WAS DENIED, I'M

WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH NOT SURE

IF THAT WAS A SHOCK OR IF THAT'S I'M NOT SURE. WITH THE CONFUSION,
I

HOW IT WAS

PLANNED.

ANYWAY,

WHEN THE RULE NISI WAS

FIRST

FI LED HERE THAT IS WHEN WAS THE FIRST PLEADING.

FILED MY

PLEADINGS.

THAT

AND THE LAW STATES THAT A DEFENSE PERSON OR IMPROPER VENUE

OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE

IS WAIVED IF NEITHER MADE BY MOTION NOR INCLUDED IN A RESPONSIVE 9-11-12. PLEADING AS ORIGINALLY FILED. BY THAT'S O.C.G.A. YOU ARE

PLEADING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE,

NOT RAISING ANY DEFENSE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE PERSON OR IMPROPER VENUE. AND THEN WHEN A PERSON WAIVES THOSE ISSUES NOT " RAISED IN THE

OBJECTIONS.

PLEADINGS ARE TRIED OR EXPRESSED OR COMPLIED CONSENT OF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE PARTIES,

THEY SHALL BE TREATED IN ALL RESPECTS AS THEY

HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS. ALSO, IN THE U.C.C.J.E.A. IF A COURT

--

THERE WOULD

HAVE BEEN REALLY NO REASON FOR DAWN TO RAISE A DEFENSE OF JURISDICTION OR VENUE, AND HERE IS WHY. BECAUSE TEMPORARY

EMERGENCY JURISDICTION CAN BE OETAINED BY COURT IF THERE IS TRULY AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WHICH THERE WAS NOT ANY THEIR COMPLAINT

AND THEY DID NOT PROVE THAT IN ANY WAY. WAS FULL OF FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS. THOSE,

AND I CAN ENUMERATE

BUT I BELIEVE I'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST. BUT

SO A COURT CAN TAKE THAT EMERGENCY JURISDICTION, IF THEY FIND OUT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER COURT THAT'S EXERCISING JURISDICTION THEN THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM. THERE HAS TO BE COMMUNICATION OF THE COURTS, WAS NOT,

WH ICH THERE

WHICH IS WHAT I CONSISTENTLY ASKED FOR. I BELIEVE IT'S TAYLOR V.

--

THERE'S A COURT CASE,

KURL

(PH)-- I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT HERE WITH ME DONE BASICALLY THAT. JURISDICTION.

THAT THEY HAD

A COURT HAD TAKEN TEMPORARY AND THEY DENIED IT.

AND HE FILED AN APPEAL,

THEY SAID THEY CAN HAVE THE TEMPORARY JURISDICTION BUT IT'S ONLY FOR A LIMITED TIME NOT TO EXCEED NINETY DAYS.
THEREfORE,

IF I GOT MY CHILDREN BACK AND I WENT HOME AND AND NINETY DAYS WAS THE

EVERYTHING RETURNED AS NORMAL,

MAXIMUM OF TEMPORARY JURISDICTION THIS COURT COULD HAVE HAD, WHY WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN ANY PLEADINGS FILED?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ALSO,

DURING THE TIM8,

THE TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS APRIL In UN IL THE TIME HE HE HAD I

IN-BETWEEN THE TIME THAT FILED HIS RULE NISI,

TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS,

WITHDRAWN AS MIKE'S ATTORNEY FOR A BOUNCED CHECK, BELIEVE,

WITHDRAWN AS

HIS ATTORNEY,

AND THEN HE CAME BACK I DIDN'T

AND WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE SAME CASE NUMBER. UNDERSTAND THAT,

BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S DIFFERENT FOR ME IN AND

COWETA COUNTY TO HAVE TO PAY NEW FEES OR WHATNOT.

JUST KEEP THIS THING LIKE WE HAVEN'T SKIPPED A BEAT WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS CASE HAD COMPLETELY CHANGED. MIKE HAD MOVED TO FLORIDA. RESIDENT OF DALLAS. HE WAS NO LONGER A AND SO

I WAS BACK IN COWETA COUNTY,

COWETA COUNTY HAD STILL NOT RELEASED THE JURISDICTION. THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAD ALL CHANGED. MY BOYS HAD ELECTIONS, PROPER.
I

NOW,

I UNDERSTAND THAT

BUT I

FEE LIKE THE JURISDICTION IS

FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE REMANDED TO THE COWETA

COUNTY COURT WHERE THE JURISDICTION HAS NEVER BEEN RELEASED. ALSO, IN THE FEBRUARY TRANSCRIPTS THEY MAKE MENTION THIS GOES TOWARDS THE FRAUD, I THAT 2005 IN FACT, AND
COURT

OF THE 2005 ORDER.

SUPPOSE.

THEY MAKE MENTION OF THE FRAUD ORDER. IT WAS NEVER AGREED ON.

ORDER WAS NEVER FILED.

I HAVE A COpy OF ALL OF THE DRAFTS OF THAT ORDER. WHAT MR. VALBUENA AND MR.
LOWE
PRESENTED TO THIS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

STATING THAT

IT WAS AN ORDER THAT WE HAD LIVED BY WAS THE

VERY FIRST DRAFT SENT BY MIKE'S ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME. I'VE GOT NOTES MARKING THEM UP SAYING, YOUR USE OF THE WORD JOINT CUSTODY. THAT," ETC., KNOW I ETC., AND I "I DON'T LIKE

THE JUDGE DIDN'T SAY I

DID OBTAIN A COpy OF THOSE. BUT I

CAN'T SUBMIT THOSE, ALSO.

DO HAVE A COpy OF THOSE

TRANSCRIPTS, SUBMITTED.

IT'S EASIER TO READ THAN WHAT THEY'VE

BUT HE HAS CLAIMED TO COWETA COUNTY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN A RESPONSIVE BRIEF TO THE COWETA COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT THAT WE HAVE LIVED BY JUDGE SMITH'S ORDER FROM MARCH OF 2008 UNTIL DECEMBER OF 2008. AND I ASKED

HIM IN MEDIATION IF WE HAD REALLY LIVED BY THE COURT'S ORDER FROM MARCH APOLOGIZE, WHY
---

EXCUSE ME

--

FROM APRIL OF 2005,

fROM APRIL OF 2005 UNTIL DECEMBER OF YOU KNOW,

'08 THEN

AND,

WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WE WERE CHILD SUPPORT, AND

LIVING BY THEM WHEN VISITATION,

IT CAME TO CUSTODY,

I ASKED IN MEDIATION,

"THEN WHY WAS

I ARRESTED

ON AN EX PARTE ORDER IF WE WERE LIVING BY ALL THESE THINGS IN MARCH OF 200S?/I MR. VALBUENA; POINT. MS. JUDGE, I'M GOING TO OBJECT AT THIS

LOWE HAS FILED A MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL WITH

SOME OTHER NAMES BY IT WHICH BASICALLY HAS TO POINT OUT THAT THE COURT HAS ERRED AND TELL THE COURT WHY IT HAS ERRED AND ASK THE COURT TO CORRECT ITS ERROR. AND YET I

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HEAR A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT MEDIATION, SAID IN PLEADINGS,

ABOUT WHAT WAS

ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN COWETA COUNTY,

BUT I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE THE COURT HAS ERRED, WHY THE COURT HAS ERRED, AND THE CORRECTION FOR THE ERROR. IRRELEVANT TO THIS

AND I THINK ALL OF THE OTHER STUFf IS MOTION. THE COURT: FAR. WELL,

I'LL CONSIDER WHAT SHE HAS SAID SO

I'LL LET HER START OVER AGAIN AND GO FORWARD FROM

HERE IF SHE HAS ANYTHING ELSE SHE NEEDS TO TELL ME. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE; THE ERROR
--

THANK YOU.

WHAT I'M SAY ING

AND THE REASON I WAS GOING THERE IS BECAUSE I

WAS RESPONDING TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN IN HIS RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS BACK TO ME ON THIS. NEEDED TO TOUCH ON IT. I SO THAT'S WHY I
--

FELT LIKE I

FEEL LIKE

I THINK THIS COURT

ERRED BY NOT COMMUNICATING WITH THE COWETA COUNTY COURTS. AS MUCH AS I PLEADED IT, AND I KNOW THAT I PROBABLY DROVE I

EVERYONE CRAZY,

BUT I NEVER GAVE UP MY CLAIM ON THAT. I JUST WANTED IT TO BE OKAY AND

DID IT EVERY TIME. EVERYONE TO SEE.

AND THAT'S WHY I COUNTY BECAUSE I

FILED THAT IN NOVEMBER IN COWETA I DIDN'T

FELT LIKE IE' SOMEONE CALLED

KNOW HOW THAT WENT,

BUT I FELT LIKE IF SOMEONE CALLED THEN I

Y'ALL WOULD UNDERSTAND AND SOMEBODY WOULD LISTEN TO ME. UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN WAY ABOUT PRO SE LITIGANTS,

PEOPLE PROBABLY FEEL I CAN'T RUN UP

BUT I CAN TELL YOU

11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25

ATTORNEY'S BILLS.

AND I THINK MY TOTAL IS AT ABOUT

$32,000.00 RIGHT NOW THAT I'VE BEEN FIGHTING THIS MAN FOR TEN YEARS, AND I HAVE NO MORE MONEY TO SPEND ON IT. SO

I'VE SPENT ALL MY TIME RESEARCHING THIS,

SO I JUST FELT I

LIKE I WASN'T BEING LISTENED TO BECAUSE I WAS PRO SE. UNDERSTAND, MORE MAJOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MA'AM. BUT

BUT I JUST FELT LIKE I NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING

ANY RESPONSE? YOU'RE ALLOWED TO, MR. VALBUENA:

YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO RESPOND, MR. VALBUENA.

JUDGE,

I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT -BUT

NOT TO REITERATE TOO MUCH WHAT'S ALREADY IN MY BRIEF, THIS ACTION WAS FILED MARCH 4TH

AND AT THAT TIME WE DID

OBTAIN AN EX PARTE ORDER GRANTING THE FATHER TEMPORARY CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OR CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. AT THE END OF THAT ORDER IT SAYS, AND

"A TEMPORARY HEARING 2008, TO DETERMINE

SHALL BE HELD AT 9:00 A.M. ON APRIL 1,

WHETHER THE PRAYERS REQUESTED IN PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHALL BE GRANTED." THEN WE CAME: ON APRIL 1sT AND HAD THAT TEMPORARY HEARING. THAT'S WHEN DAWN BALLARD APPEARED FOR MS. LOWE.

AND SHE DRAFTED THAT ORDER, ON IT. HEARING.

RAISE ANY

AND THEN THE COURT SIGNED orF

SO THAT'S THE ORDER COMING OUT OF THE TEMPORARY MS. BALLARD,

SHE

AS AN ATTORNEY,
WANTED

HAD THE ABILITY TO SHE CHOSE

DEFENSES

TO AT THAT TIME.

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

NOT TO.

MS.

BALLARD,

AS MS.

LOWE'S ATTORNEY,

COULD HAVE

FILED AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND AN ANSWER, NOT TO. SHE PREPARED THAT ORDER,

AND SHE CHOSE AND THEN

PRESENTED IT,

NOBODY FILED AN ANSWER OR ANY OTHER RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS. MS. LOWE WAS SERVED ON MARCH 28TH THE TIME FOR

FILING THEM EXPIRED THIRTY DAYS LATER WITH AN EXTRA FIFTEEN DAYS, FORTY-FIVE DAYS LATER. LOWE FILED ANYTHING, IT WAS WELL OVER TWO
JUST LIKE

YEARS BEFORE MS.

SHE SAID,

BECAUSE THE CASE WAS SET BACK DOWN FOR A SECOND TEMPORARY HEARING WHEN THE CHILDREN ELECTED TO LIVE WITH THE FATHER. I DON'T SEE ANY SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED THAT SHE WAIVED HER OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE VENUE IN THIS CASE. IN MY BRIEF I TALK ABOUT SUBJECT I DON'T

MATTER JURISDICTION AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION. THINK THOSE ARE AT ISSUE. HAS ANY APPLICATION HERE.

I DON'T THINK THE U.C.C.J.E.A. AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS THE MOTHER SO

FILED THE HOME STATE OF THE CHILDREN WAS HERE.

HAD JUST LEFT THE STATE WITHIN SEVERAL DAYS OR WEEKS. THERE'S NO REASON THAT APPLIES EITHER. I DON'T THINK THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING HER OBJECTION TO VENUE EACH TIME THAT SHE HAS RAISED IT, THE COURT HAS ISSUED ORDERS ON IT. BEEN OVER AND DONE WITH, CORRECTLY,

AND

AND WE THINK THAT IT'S

AND THE COURT RULED TO BEGIN WITH

AND IT'S IN OUR BRIEF THE CASE LAW AND THE LOWE HASN'T

REASONS WHY THAT GO BEYOND THAT THAT MS.

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17

RAISED TODAY. THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING FURTHER, YES, SIR.

MA'AM?

DBFENDANT SMITH-LONE:

HE DOES SPEAK ABOUT I WANTED TO GO THE ORDER

THAT I WAS PROPERLY SERVED ON MARCH 28TH

JUST REAL QUICK AND TELL YOU THE DATES OF THAT. WAS SIGNED ON MARCH 4TH I WAS UN-NOTIFIED.

r BROUGHT AND

THE KIDS BACK TO MIKE TO HAVE THEM FOR SPRING BREAK. BEFORE THAT I HAD THEM HERE ANOTHER WEEKEND, ONLY A THREE-WEEK PERIOD HERE. A WEEKEND. I WAS ARRESTED ON MARCH 25TH WITHOUT SERVICE, NOTICE OF ANY KIND. UP FROM SCHOOL. I WAS ARRESTED.

SO THERE'S

HE HAD THEM FOR A WEEK AND

WITHOUT

MY KIDS WERE PICKED

I WAS HELD IN JAIL FOR FOUR DAYS AND AND AS I WAS SITTING

EXTRADITED BACK TO PAULDING COUNTY. IN THE HOLDING CELL.

HOURS HAD GONE BY AND A SHERIFF

THE

WALKED IN THE DOOR AND SERVED ME WITH THESE PAPERS.

ADDRESS THAT WAS PUT ON THE

SUMMONS FOR ME WAS JAIL.

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT TO SERVE ME OTHERWISE. AGAIN, WEEKEND. I WAS SERVED ON THE 28TH THERE WAS THE

THANK THE LORD FOR MY MOTHER BECAUSE SHE WAS

CALLING TO TRY TO fIND AN ATTORNEY TO HELP ME DURING THIS TIME. RIGHT. SO SHE CALLED THIS LADY. SHE SHOWED UP. AND I AND HE'S DO NOT SEE

THERE WAS NO ENTRY OF ADMISSION,

HOW IT CAN BE THAT I ACQUIESCED TO THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION WITHOUT THAT.

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LIKE

IT'S ALSO MENTIONED IN THE PLEADINGS THAT THEY FELT THEY SAID IT'S NOT A IT SHOULD BE DIRECTED MORE

TOWARDS VENUE. IT THE MOTIONS

AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT I DID CALL

--

ON THE FINAL HEARING IT SAYS SECOND

MOTION rOR DEMAND AND STAY OF TEMPORARY HEARING DUE TO IMPROPER VENUE. ENOUGH. IT IS ALSO INDICATED THAT THE CASES THAT WERE rILED IN COWETA OR PAULDING WERE NOT IDENTICAL CASES PURSUANT TO A 9-6-5, I BELIEVE, STATUTE. AND I WANTED TO SAY THE IS THE IT SAYS HE HAS CLAIMED THAT I HAVEN'T SAID VENUE

STATUTORY LAW FOR THE CHILD CUSTODY CASES U.C.C.J.E.A.,

AND IT DOESN'T SAY IDENTICAL CASES.

SIMULTANEOUS CASES WHICH INVOLVE THE SAME SUBJECT AND THE SAME CHILD. ALSO, SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IDENTICAL. A NEW PIECE or EVIDENCE, WHICH I FELT IN ASKING

FOR A MOTION TO SET ASIDE WHEN A NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE COMES ABOUT, I HAVE RECORDS FROM THE PAULDING COUNTY

SCHOOL SYSTEM WHERE MIKE WAS WORKING WHERE HE ACTUALLY EITHER RESIGNED OR WAS LET GO AND ALLOWED TO RESIGN ON FEBRUARY 28TH HE WAS BEING EVICTED FROM HIS HOUSE, AND

THE LAST DAY TO MOVE OUT WAS APRIL lOT". HR. VALBUENA: JUDGE, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO

THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE THAT HASN'T ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT. DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I WAS

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SUPPOSED TO DO TODAY. THE COURT: HEARSAY TODAY. WELL,

I APOLOGIZE IF IT'S NOT. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T TELL ME ANY

IF YOU HAVE SOME TESTIMONY OR IF YOU HAVE I'LL LET YOU PRESENT THOSE. I DO HAVE CERTIFIED DOCUMENTS. IF YOU'LL SHOW WHATEVER IT IS I'LL SEE IF THERE'S

ADMISSIBLE DOCUMENTS,

DEFENDANT SMITH-LONE: THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

YOU THINK YOU HAVE TO MR. ANY OBJECTION. DEFENDANT SMITH-LONE: THE COURT: NORMALLY,

VALBUENA,

lPRESENTING). REPORTS OR DOCUMENTS THAT ARE

PREPARED BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT IN COURT ARE SUBJECT TO AN OBJECTION, AMONG OTHER THINGS, OF HEARSAY. AND

THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING OR PART OF WHAT HE'S SAYING. MR. VALBUENA: WELL, I GUESS, JUDGE, THE OTHER PART I

WOULD BE SAYING,

TOO,

IS THAT THESE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE

DEAL WITH THE MERITS o r THE CASE. MS.

LOWE IS OBJECTING TO IT BECAUSE SHE CONSENTED.

DAY WE HAD THE HEARING, CUSTODY.

SHE CONSENTED TO THE CHANGE or

AND ALL WE HAD A HEARING FOR IN FRONT OF YOU HOW THE

BACK IN NOVEMBER WAS HOW MUCH VISITATION, VISITATION WAS GOING TO GO ABOUT, SUPPORT.

AND THE AMOUNT OF CHILD I DON'T

SO IF THE DOCUMENTS DEAL WITH THAT,

UNDERSTAND HOW SHE CAN CONSENT TO IT IN NOVEMBER AND THEN CHALLENGE IT ON APPEAL. THE COURT: WELL, LET ME SEE IF THERE'S SOME NON-

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HEARSAY

--

IF I CAN'T LOOK AT THEM BASED ON THAT,

TH8N

THAT RENDERS MOOT ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS.

SO DO YOU HAVE

SOME DOCUMENT THAT IS PREPARED BY YOU OR IS THIS ALL STUFF PREPARED BY OTHER -DEPENDANT SMITH-LOWE: COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM. THE COURT; HEARSAY? MR. VALBUBNA: THE COURT: YES, JUDGE. I'LL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION. DID I SAY THAT RIGHT, THAT THE NOT FROM DO YOU OBJECT TO THAT DOCUMENT BASED ON NO, SIR, THIS IS BY PAULDING

ALL RIGHT.

DEFENDANT SMI'l'H-LOWB:

DOCUMENTS ARE FROM PAULDING COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, ME? DID I SAY THAT CORRECTLY? THE COURT: I HEARD YOU SAY THAT. OKAY.

DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE: THB COURT: I

I WAS JUST MAKING SURE.

DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY DID YOU SAY IT SOUNDED LIK8 IT WAS
--

IT CORRECTLY OR NOT. UNDERSTAND THE WORDS,

I COULD

IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE

DBFENDANT SMITH-LOWE:

THAT YOU WEREN'T CONSID8RING THAT OR HE WASN'T SAYING THAT WAS HEARSAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT THAT'S MADE UP BY ME. IT'S THEIR DOCUMENTS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE. WELL, THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR

DBFENDANT SM1TH-LOWE: THB COURT: ALL RIGHT.

17

1 2 3

PATIENCE.

AFTER REVIEWING THE FILE AS WELL AS THE I WILL FIND THAT THERE'S NO MERIT IN

ARGUMENT MADE TODAY,

THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR RENEWAL OF REQUEST FOR RULE TWELVE SANCTIONS.

5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HERE? LOWE, IT.

AND,

MR.

VALBUENA,

IF YOU'LL DRAW UP AN ORDER DENYING LOWE.

THOSE MOTIONS AND SUBMIT THAT TO MS. MR . VALBUENA: THIS BEFORE TODAY, MS.

LOWE AND I DISCUSSED PREPARING

-

BASIC ORDERS THAT JUST SORT OF

- I

WOULD PREPARE ONE THAT DENIED IT; THAT GRANTED IT. THB COURT: ALL RIGHT.

SHE WOULD PREPARE ONE

MR. VALBUENA:

I'VE DONE THAT,

BUT SHE HASN'T SEEN

I'VE JUST GIVEN IT TO HER NOW. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT (REVIEWING DOCUMENTS). ALL

RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO FILE THIS WITH THE CLERK, IF EITHER

OF

AND THAT YOU WANT A

WILL CONCLUDE THE HEARING TODAY. COpy OF THE ORDER,

YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP BEFORE YOU

LEAVE AND GET A COPY FROM THE CLERK. OTHERWISE, IF YOU WANT TO SERVE A COpy OF THAT ON MS. MR. VALBUENA.

THAT'LL BE UP TO YOU, DEFENDANT SMITH-LONE:

CAN SHE CERTIFY THAT COpy

THE COURT:

SURE. OKAY. BUT

DEFENDANT SMITH-LOWE; THE COURT:

SHE MAY HAVE TO DO IT DOWNSTAIRS,

18