FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 431 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2018

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/01/ :24 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 431 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/01/2018"

Transcription

1 1 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM : PART X LAWRENCE KINGSLEY 3 Plaintiff 4 - against W. 106TH ST. CORP X Defendant W. 106TH ST. CORP. 9 Third-Party Plaintiff 10 - against - 11 LAWRENCE KINGSLEY as Voluntary Administrator of the 12 Estate of LINDA SCHOENER, 13 Third-Party Defendant X 15 Index No / Centre Street New York, New York 16 April 23, B E F O R E : 18 HONORABLE SHLOMO S. HAGLER, Justice 19 A P P E A R A N C E S: 20 Plaintiff Pro Se 21 By: LAWRENCE KINGSLEY 22 Attorney for the Defendant 23 ADAM LEITMAN BAILEY PC One Battery Plaza 18th F1 24 New York, NY By: VLADIMIR MIRONENKO, ESQ DEBRA SMITH, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 1 of 23

2 2 1 THE COURT: Kingsley versus 300 West 106th 2 Street Corporation, the index number is of 2015, 3 and it's Mr. Lawrence Kingsley, K-I-N-G-S-L-E-Y. 4 (Mr. Mironenko appears telephonically.) 5 THE COURT: Mr. Mironenko? 6 MR. MIRONENKO: Yes. 7 THE COURT: Hi, it's Judge Hagler and I have we' 8 Mr. Kingsley in my robing room and re on the record. 9 There is a court reporter in the room. 10 MR. MIRONENKO: Understood. Hi, Judge. 11 THE COURT: How are you? I was led to 12 believe that the ex parte judge, Justice Kornreich, 13 indicated that I should have a phone conference with 14 the parties. 15 MR. MIRONENKO: Yes, that's correct. 16 Essentially, the judge referred us back to you, of 17 course, only ruling on what's going to happen today 18 with the deposition, but otherwise for any other issues 19 referring us back to you. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 MR. MIRONENKO: I was directed that we call 22 together with Mr. Kingsley, although I understand that 23 Mr. Kingsley set it upon himself to go back and set 24 this up, which is absolutely fine, I am here. 25 THE COURT: So, you are ready to proceed now? 26 MR. MIRONENKO: Yes. 2 of 23

3 3 1 THE COURT: So whoever wants to speak can 2 speak regarding any issue. 3 MR. KINGSLEY: Very simple, Your Honor. 4 We had another EBT today with a witness in 5 Boston. Mr. Mironenko disrupted the deposition again 6 for the fourth time. There have been two subpoenaed 7 depositions that he failed to attend and two that he 8 has disrupted. 9 When you get the paper transcript, you will 10 see that the deposition began and Mr. Mironenko would 11 not let us proceed. He insisted we see the ex parte 12 judge. She wrote out an order that is e-filed and THE COURT: Does anyone have a copy? I was 14 on the bench and the reason I couldn't take it was 15 because I was doing my calendar. 16 Any time you do depositions, please avoid 17 Mondays because I am usually here in the building and I 18 will come down to make a ruling, as I had in the past, 19 and also if I have a vacation day, we will let you 20 know. 21 So far you picked the vacation day one time 22 and you picked the Monday. Let me just read the order. 23 Mr. Kingsley gave me an order of Judge Kornreich. Let 24 me just read it first. It's dated today, obviously. 25 Let me read it into the record. 26 "After listening to the parties, the 3 of 23

4 4 1 plaintiff pro se admits that not all of the deposition 2 testimony can be heard in New York, although the court 3 stenographer in Boston is transcribing everything. 4 Defendant objects to continuing with the faulty video 5 connection. The Court suspended the deposition at this 6 point. 7 Justice Hagler will rule on whether there 8 will be further EBT and the adjourn date. The parties 9 will call Justice Hagler's chambers to arrange a 10 conference call." 11 I am glad I read it in the record, now that 12 explains everything. Here is your copy back. 13 Thank you, Mr. Kingsley, for that copy. 14 (Handing.) 15 MR. KINGSLEY: Very simply, Your Honor, we can' 16 can't have these connection problems again. We can't 17 have disruption again. What I will propose to you is a 18 deposition in Boston that I attend personally, 19 Mr. Mironenko can get a video connection going so he 20 could come with me, he could get an audio connection, 21 but I think we could sit with the witness in Boston THE COURT: Why can't you get the witness 23 here? 24 MR. KINGSLEY: She has filed an affidavit 25 saying there is hardship about coming. 26 THE COURT: Meanwhile, it's not working. I 4 of 23

5 5 1 can't allow you both -- you would have to pay for his 2 flight, you would have to pay for -- you know what the 3 expense would be, to have an attorney go to Boston? Is 4 it worth the effort? 5 MR. KINGSLEY: You are saying I should pay 6 for him? 7 THE COURT: Yes because that's the 8 requirement. You can't require someone to go to a 9 different state without you paying the cost, and that 10 may be prohibitive. I'm not sure if it's affordable 11 and I would not order that. 12 First of all, that would be my last option of 13 all the options that I have. The better option is 14 videotaped deposition. I had informed you the last 15 time we were here present in court that the better 16 approach is there are professionals, you can hire 17 videographers. I used to do them myself many, many 18 years ago. I couldn't do it myself. I hired someone 19 to do it and they know what they're doing. 20 It's set up. It works. You can even do it 21 through Skype. There is so many ways you can do it 22 now. I am not proficient, I probably could not set it 23 up. You are probably more proficient than I am doing 24 this technological feat. The better approach is just 25 go to an expert and they have these special deposition 26 rooms that set up by these technological companies and 5 of 23

6 6 1 it's set up just for this. You could look them up. 2 I am not advising you where to go, it's not 3 my business, but I'm sure counsel has the resources to 4 provide them if you would like and I don't think you 5 would want them because you may be suspect so you may 6 want to do your own research, and I am not giving you 7 any at all because I know of none. It's been a long 8 time since I have done one. 9 So that may be the best option for you is to 10 get a professional that knows what they're doing and, 11 quite frankly, they're not usually set up through a 12 Wi-fi connection, they're usually set up through a 13 secure connection and through a hub of some sort and, 14 therefore, there is uninterrupted and clear video and 15 sound. That's what their business is. 16 You may not be able to afford that, that's 17 one. And, two, to go to Boston means you have to pay 18 for all the expenses attendant to the transportation. 19 MR. KINGSLEY: Your Honor, when you get the 20 paper transcript, you will see that there wasn't a 21 question of the expertise or equipment, it was a 22 connection that was a problem. To avoid that, I 23 proposed to the other side that we conduct a deposition 24 at the premises where there is a secure network that's 25 very adequate. 26 I use it all the time. The landlord has been 6 of 23

7 7 1 there plenty of times. I think that would be the 2 easiest and cheapest -- 3 THE COURT: No. Either you do it here in 4 you' court or re doing with a professional videographer 5 or you are going to go to Boston because it's not 6 working. My court attorney had experienced it one 7 time, Judge Kornreich experienced it another time. So 8 far it's two, you can't get strike three. 9 There's two options now you have. One is to 10 do it with someone that is an expert, hire, retain an 11 expert to do it or you pay the expenses or you waive 12 the deposition of that affiant, that witness. 13 MR. KINGSLEY: we' Well, I guess we'll have to go 14 to a room here that has a professional THE COURT: So you are going to hire a 16 professional? Not through the Wi-fi of the Court 17 because it's not working. I know that there is 18 connection problems occasionally. It happens to 19 everyone. It's a Wi-fi system, it's not a secure 20 system that is set up for a connection to Boston. It's 21 for jurors, quite frankly. 22 MR. KINGSLEY: I propose to get a court 23 reporter who has a room with a Wi-fi with a broadband 24 connection that would be suitable for the resumption of 25 the deposition. 26 THE COURT: I am not letting you resume 7 of 23

8 8 1 unless you get a professional or you go to Boston. We 2 tried the Wi-fi. It's not going to work. We tried it 3 twice already. 4 MR. KINGSLEY: The professional would be at 5 their location, not here, at their location. 6 THE COURT: You need to notice a deposition 7 with a professional that's going to do the video. You 8 can't do it alone anymore because you already failed 9 twice. There's expenses of counsel, there's also 10 judicial resources. We have seen it twice now. My 11 court attorney saw it, Judge Kornreich saw it. The 12 last time surprisingly it did work when I was there and 13 I went to see it myself. 14 MR. KINGSLEY: Well, Your Honor, I think you 15 will agree that even here in your courtroom sometimes 16 words are repeated, maybe I spoke too quickly with the 17 ex parte judge. 18 THE COURT: Sir, I was glad it wasn't me that 19 was there, I was glad it was a third-party neutral, 20 Judge Kornreich, who happens to be fabulous Judge and 21 is retiring soon. She has no axe to grind, she knows 22 nothing about the case except what you showed her, and 23 she made an independent determination that the quality 24 of the video presentation was not good so that she 25 suspended -- that's her words -- the deposition. 26 MR. KINGSLEY: She turned to Mr. Mironenko 8 of 23

9 9 1 first who, of course, gave a very prejudicial report. 2 THE COURT: Judge Kornreich has been on the 3 bench for decades. She's experienced. She doesn't 4 listen to one side. I don't listen to one side. It 5 doesn't matter who goes first, who goes second. There 6 are two ears for a reason. You listen to two parties. 7 I listen to you. I make this agreement. 8 As a matter of fact, quite frankly, 9 Mr. Mironenko objected to your videotaped deposition 10 and I granted it. And the last time I was there, I 11 allowed you to continue the deposition because it was 12 fine. So every time I have been on the case so far, 13 you've gotten the deposition and I allowed you to 14 continue, but thus far, the past history, absent my own 15 observation, was two out of three times it failed. 16 You had another judge who sits on the 17 commercial division who is well regarded who is one of 18 the better judges -- and they're all good in Supreme 19 Court -- make this ruling. I don't doubt it and I will 20 ratify her decision and I will abide by it. 21 So the next step is -- and I am not going to 22 repeat it anymore -- is that you have two options. One 23 is you get a professional videographer that has a 24 dedicated line so that the video lead from Boston to 25 here is uninterrupted and is clear and you can hear and 26 see the witness. That's the purpose of a deposition. 9 of 23

10 10 1 It's unfair to do that. Or you pay for the expenses of 2 Mr. Mironenko to go to Boston and have a deposition 3 there. 4 Three, you waive the deposition. 5 I am not allowing anything else. 6 MR. KINGSLEY: We will take the first option, 7 Your Honor, but -- 8 THE COURT: And I need you to do this. To be 9 very clear, you need to serve another notice pursuant 10 to the Uniform Court Rules that states the name of the 11 professional. Do so in a timely and reasonable manner 12 to give notice to Mr. Mironenko and, obviously, your 13 witness as well, that this person will be conducting 14 the deposition under the conditions I stated. 15 It's got to be professional. You give the 16 name. I also want you to describe in the notice how 17 the deposition will take place and what type of 18 equipment is going to be used as well as what type of 19 internet connection or like the connection you are 20 using because thus far we have had problems. I don't 21 want to continue with those problems. 22 It's for your own benefit. It will probably 23 cost you more doing it twice or three times because you 24 have to pay for the court reporter as well. So if you 25 do it right the first time, it will cost you less. 26 MR. KINGSLEY: Yes, Your Honor. 10 of 23

11 11 1 THE COURT: And my court attorney reminded me 2 the section of the Uniform Court Rules is MR. KINGSLEY: If you look at paragraph 3 of 4 that ruling, Your Honor, it permits more than one 5 camera. We would like to have a camera in Boston and 6 the New York camera. 7 THE COURT: I am not commenting on that. 8 Whatever the rules require and the expert permits it, I 9 have no problem. I am not getting into the details, I 10 choose not to, I am only giving you a general 11 parameter. Follow I am not an expert, I don't 12 know how it's set up and I will not say a word. 13 MR. KINGSLEY: We will certainly get an 14 expert. We will have one in Boston and one in New 15 York. 16 THE COURT: Just follow I am not 17 getting into the nitty gritty of those details. It's 18 not within the ken of my knowledge. I am not a 19 professional videographer, I am not telling you how to 20 set it up, I don't know how, I just know you have to 21 follow the rules and you have to make sure that you 22 have an expert, a videographer, and you have to put it 23 in writing within a reasonable time prior to the 24 continuation of the deposition and hopefully that would 25 end this problem. 26 MR. KINGSLEY: Would one week suffice in 11 of 23

12 12 1 terms of notification? 2 THE COURT: Counsel? 3 MR. MIRONENKO: May I just say a few things? 4 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 5 MR. MIRONENKO: Thank you. 6 Number one, I just want to point out that 7 this is now the third time. The first time we waited 8 for over two hours, Mr. Kingsley was unable to proceed 9 with the deposition of Ms. Levine and on his own went 10 on the record and suspended the deposition. 11 He then misrepresented to the Court that he 12 had some other device that allegedly if we would have 13 waited longer would have been able to connect, although 14 he never mentioned the existence of that device during 15 the deposition and on his own suspended it and we 16 wasted over two hours. 17 The second time he appeared for the 18 deposition of Mr THE COURT: I am going to bring the phone a 20 little closer and make it a little louder, this way we 21 can get it down. 22 You can continue, Mr. Mironenko. 23 MR. MIRONENKO: Thank you, Judge. 24 The second time we appeared for the 25 deposition of Mr. Lorelli, L-O-R-E-L-L-I. It took 26 Mr. Kingsley over two and a half hours to properly set 12 of 23

13 13 1 up that deposition. When Your Honor appeared, it was 2 beyond 11:30 in the morning, I believe, and we had just 3 started -- 4 MR. KINGSLEY: Objection. 5 MR. MIRONENKO: -- so we had another two and 6 a half hours -- 7 THE COURT: You don't have to object. You 8 will get your opportunity later to speak. 9 MR. MIRONENKO: Today, over continuing 10 objections that Mr. Kingsley has defaulted and waived 11 his rights, we appeared in good faith. Instead of 12 noticing the deposition for 9:00 a.m., Mr. Kingsley has 13 now noticed the deposition for 10:00 a.m. presumably to 14 give himself an extra hour to set up. We appeared. 15 Mr. Kingsley was unable to proceed. 16 With respect to these allegations that I 17 somehow prejudiced the other judge, I will just say 18 that look at the order, it's says very clearly 19 Mr. Kingsley admits that the deposition was unable to 20 be conducted properly. So he admitted that there were 21 problems with the connection to the judge and the 22 judge, therefore, has no choice but to suspend the 23 deposition. 24 We have now spent another long period of time 25 attempting to, in good faith, to do everything we can 26 do, stand by and cooperate with Mr. Kingsley, and I 13 of 23

14 14 1 would just say that Your Honor was very clear in the 2 order that directed Mr. Kingsley to set everything up, 3 bear all the costs and make sure it's done properly and 4 I really don't think that the presence of an expert 5 will fix the issue of the internet connection. 6 THE COURT: I dealt with that. I told him 7 that he cannot rely upon the Court's internet, he must 8 have a professional bring in a secure line so that it 9 does not repeat again. I heard you and I agree with 10 you. It's failed twice and I won't allow it again. 11 You're correct. 12 MR. MIRONENKO: Thank you, Judge, and I would 13 make an application for our attorneys fees incurred-- 14 THE COURT: That you have to do in writing as 15 a motion because I can't deal with that. That's 16 without prejudice to any costs you are seeking today. 17 You must make a motion and put him on notice. 18 MR. MIRONENKO: Understood. 19 THE COURT: So what I am doing now, to be 20 perfectly clear, this is the final, the last 21 opportunity that Mr. Kingsley is going to have to 22 obtain the deposition of these out-of-state witnesses. 23 It must be done pursuant to , it must 24 be done by a professional, and it must be done on 25 notice to all parties and the witness, describing and 26 giving the names of the professional and the equipment 14 of 23

15 15 1 and how it's going to be conducted and it must state 2 that it will not rely upon a Wi-fi connection in the 3 court and they will set up a secure connection 4 independent of the Wi-fi in this building, which can be 5 irregular at times as I experienced, as my court 6 attorney experienced, as well as Judge Kornreich 7 experienced. 8 How much notice do you need, counsel? 9 MR. MIRONENKO: I would just say it's not 10 really a matter of how much notice I need, I'm prepared 11 for the deposition. I prepared twice for it. I am 12 ready to go. week' 13 THE COURT: He asked for a week's notice. 14 MR. MIRONENKO: I would just request it be 15 done on a day that's mutually convenient for both of 16 us. 17 THE COURT: I also direct you not to do it on 18 Monday anymore and not to do it on a holiday. Call my 19 clerk to determine whether or not a holiday or a day 20 that I'm off because I don't like giving my cases to 21 third party. I was required to do so because I was on 22 vacation that day. Please do not do so on a vacation 23 day and on a Monday because Monday is my conference 24 calendar day. 25 I am lucky I am able to do it now. Just by 26 sheer luck we finished a little earlier, I was able to 15 of 23

16 16 1 talk to you now. Normally I am on the bench all day. 2 MR. KINGSLEY: This was to be day by day, 3 Your Honor, but I've always cooperated with him about 4 his schedule. 5 THE COURT: Do you want to get a date now or 6 you need to speak to the witness? 7 MR. KINGSLEY: I have to get my expert. 8 THE COURT: If you have a problem, you can 9 contact the Court, we will do a phone conference if you 10 can't agree. Hopefully you will be able to agree. 11 But, again, please don't do the deposition on a Monday 12 or a holiday, Jewish holiday as well as any day that 13 I'm on vacation because I would like to be the judge 14 that's presiding over the case. I don't like to have 15 my colleagues come in when it's not necessary. 16 MR. KINGSLEY: I would expect to give him a 17 week's notice. 18 THE COURT: Mr. Mironenko, is a week's notice 19 fine? 20 MR. MIRONENKO: Yes, a week's notice is 21 absolutely fine but I just don't want to get into a 22 situation week' where he insists on proceeding on a week's 23 notice on a date I have a trial scheduled or something 24 else. 25 THE COURT: You will have to have a mutual 26 convenient date. Thank you. 16 of 23

17 17 1 Anything else, Mr. Kingsley, you wanted to 2 say? 3 MR. KINGSLEY: Well, just very quickly, Your 4 Honor. I object to his recitation of the facts about 5 the time. He's clearly exaggerating. 6 THE COURT: It doesn't much matter because 7 two times you couldn't go forward. 8 MR. KINGSLEY: Well, the one with Mr. Lorelli 9 went fine, you will get a paper transcript from today, 10 you will see the witness was able to hear us. We got 11 started, Mr. Mironenko disrupted the deposition. 12 THE COURT: Judge Kornreich -- wait a minute, 13 please don't go over ancient history. Judge 14 Kornreich's ruling is going to be good law and it's 15 going to be ratified and I will abide by her rulings. 16 I am not going to second guess another colleague and a 17 Judge that I admire very much. 18 MR. MIRONENKO: If we could just touch on one 19 other issue briefly. It also deals with depositions. 20 I will try to be very brief.. 21 THE COURT: Yes, because we only have about 22 five minutes left in this session. 23 MR. MIRONENKO: I think maybe it will save us 24 a lot of time. Mr. Kingsley also requested a we' 25 deposition of our client, which re ready, willing 26 able to provide a witness. 17 of 23

18 18 1 The last time we were before Your Honor on 2 motion practice on February 20th, Mr. Kingsley made an 3 oral application requesting that Your Honor direct that 4 a specific individual appear. 5 THE COURT: Your Honor denied that. 6 MR. MIRONENKO: You ruled that that is 7 absolutely not proper, that Mr. Kingsley does not get 8 to pick the person, and that we are able to provide 9 someone with personal knowledge and if that's not 10 sufficient, then Mr. Kingsley can get a second THE COURT: That was my ruling. Let's move 12 on. Mr. Kingsley, one at a time, please, because the 13 court reporter can't pick it up. 14 Start again because there was an 15 interruption. 16 MR. MIRONENKO: Sure. The last time on 17 February 20th, Mr. Kingsley made an oral application 18 with respect to the deposition of the defendant for a 19 specific individual to be provided. 20 Your Honor ruled on the record that 21 Mr. Kingsley does not get to select the individual, 22 that defendant gets to supply a witness and only if 23 that witness is shown to lack knowledge of the fact, 24 then Mr. Kingsley can seek someone else. 25 Mr. Kingsley now also has a written motion 26 seeking the exact same relief pending before Your Honor 18 of 23

19 19 1 returnable on June 5th. 2 I have suggested that Mr. Kingsley should 3 withdraw that motion because Your Honor has made your 4 position very clear on that issue and also directed on 5 February 20th that Mr. Kingsley finish his depositions 6 of the two out-of-state witnesses by March 30th, which 7 he's failed to do, and finish the deposition of our 8 client by April 30th, which he's now also going to fail 9 to do. 10 So I don't want to get into a situation where 11 he fails to even attempt to schedule the deposition of 12 our client until June 5th just so he can ask Your Honor 13 the exact same thing that he's already asked and what 14 Your Honor has already ruled on. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Kingsley? 16 MR. MIRONENKO: We're ready, willing and able 17 to schedule the deposition of our client and to supply 18 a witness. 19 MR. KINGSLEY: On February 20th, Your Honor, 20 you said you could not make a ruling because you had to 21 read the motion which was pending, motion 17, which has 22 a lot of documentation about the subpoenas that he 23 failed to respect, about the various orders, and it's 24 more than just one witness, it's three witnesses 25 besides the client that we need to depose. we' 26 You haven't ruled on that and re awaiting 19 of 23

20 20 1 your decision on motion THE COURT: I am going to rule that you 3 should have -- other than individual, the petitioner 4 will have a deposition. If you need a second person, 5 we will deal with it then. I want you to go forward, I 6 don't want to stop deposition testimony. So you can 7 provide a witness. If you need another witness 8 including the one they want, we will deal with that in 9 June if we need to. 10 MR. MIRONENKO: Your Honor, if I can just 11 quote from the transcript of February 20th. 12 Mr. Kingsley is absolutely stating a falsehood because 13 you absolutely ruled THE COURT: I remember ruling, that's 15 correct. 16 MR. MIRONENKO: On Page 26, you said "You are 17 not entitled to your witness, you are entitled to 18 someone that has knowledge and" THE COURT: Counsel, I already made my 20 ruling, let's move on. 21 MR. MIRONENKO: Thank you. 22 THE COURT: Anything else? 23 MR. KINGSLEY: You are saying that I cannot 24 get the person requested in motion 17 unless THE COURT: I didn't say that. I said first 26 you have to go forward with a person that they choose. 20 of 23

21 21 1 If it's insufficient and you have good reason for that 2 particular witness, I will deal with it in June. 3 MR. MIRONENKO: I have attempted that twice, 4 Your Honor, with the subpoenaed witness and she 5 didn't -- no one came. 6 THE COURT: Mr. Kingsley, it's in June. I 7 will deal with it. You want me to deal with it now? 8 MR. MIRONENKO: He's trying to get you to 9 jump the gun. 10 THE COURT: I am not jumping the gun, I want 11 you to move on, this is an old case. 12 MR. KINGSLEY: I would like to wait until you 13 rule on that. 14 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley, telling 15 me what do. I appreciate that but it doesn't work that 16 way. 17 MR. KINGSLEY: I didn't mean THE COURT: I understand you didn't mean 19 disrespect, but, quite frankly, I may not be wearing 20 the robe today because I took it off because it's hot, 21 but, nonetheless, the robe I wear. 22 I am ordering that the deposition of the 23 defendant go forward with someone that he selects. I 24 will deal with motion sequence number 17 at a later 25 time, correct. I don't want to obstruct and to delay 26 the deposition testimony more than necessary. 21 of 23

22 22 1 MR. KINGSLEY: Can I wait until you rule on 2 that motion? 3 THE COURT: No. 4 MR. KINGSLEY: So that should be noticed 20 5 days -- 6 THE COURT: Work it out with Mr. Mironenko, I 7 don't really care, I Just want it done soon. This is a index number. It's three years old. I want to 9 make sure that the case moves a little faster. It's 10 too slow. 11 MR. MIRONENKO: Mr. Mironenko is the one 12 holding you up. 13 THE COURT: The record will speak for itself. 14 Anything further because now it's about two 15 minutes to one? 16 MR. KINGSLEY: I would like to get out of 17 your way, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: You are not in my way, I just 19 have to have to close down because it's lunch time 20 soon. 21 MR. KINGSLEY: I will wind it up, Your Honor. 22 I just want to say, though, that when you get the paper 23 transcript, you will see Mr. Mironenko is not stating 24 the facts correctly. 25 THE COURT: The record will speak for itself. 26 I agree with you. 22 of 23

23 23 1 MR. KINGSLEY: When you see motion 17, you 2 will see I did try already twice to get, A, 3 non-specified witness from the defendant -- 4 THE COURT: So that means I have done you a 5 favor today. That means -- 6 MR. MIRONENKO: That's a complete lie. 7 THE COURT: It doesn't really much matter. 8 To be very clear, I am directing the parties to conduct 9 the deposition of defendant. The defendant will choose 10 the witness. I am not ruling on motion sequence number until I get it. In the meantime, do the deposition 12 of someone that defendant selects. 13 Thank you. Have a good day. The record is 14 closed. 15 * * * * 16 It is hereby certified that the foregoing is 17 record. a true and accurate transcript of the stenographic DEBRA SM H, 21 Official Cou t Reporter of 23

/10/2007, In the matter of Theodore Smith Associated Reporters Int'l., Inc. Page 1419

/10/2007, In the matter of Theodore Smith Associated Reporters Int'l., Inc. Page 1419 1 2 THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 In the Matter of 5 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. 6 THEODORE SMITH 7 Section 3020-a Education Law Proceeding (File

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Docket No. CR ) Plaintiff, ) Chicago, Illinois ) March, 0 v. ) : p.m. ) JOHN DENNIS

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2012 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2012

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/07/2012 INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/07/2012 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0/0/0 INDEX NO. /0 NYSCEF DOC. NO. - RECEIVED NYSCEF: 0/0/0 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY - CIVIL TERM - PART ----------------------------------------------x

More information

PAGES: 1-24 EXHIBITS: 0. Sanjeev Lath vs. City of Manchester, NH DEPOSITION OF PATROL OFFICER AUSTIN R. GOODMAN

PAGES: 1-24 EXHIBITS: 0. Sanjeev Lath vs. City of Manchester, NH DEPOSITION OF PATROL OFFICER AUSTIN R. GOODMAN 1 PAGES: 1-24 EXHIBITS: 0 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH SS SUPERIOR NORTH DOCKET NO. 216-2016-CV-821 Sanjeev Lath vs., NH DEPOSITION OF This deposition held pursuant to the New Hampshire Rules of

More information

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 1 IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AFFINITY WEALTH MANAGEMENT, : INC., a Delaware corporation, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action : No. 5813-VCP STEVEN V. CHANTLER, MATTHEW J. : RILEY

More information

Testimony of Detective Jimmy Patterson (2)

Testimony of Detective Jimmy Patterson (2) Testimony of Detective Jimmy Patterson (2) THE COURT: Mr. Mosty, are you ready? 20 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Well, that 21 depends on what we're getting ready to do. 22 THE COURT: Well. All right. Where 23

More information

Curtis L. Johnston Selman v. Cobb County School District, et al June 30, 2003

Curtis L. Johnston Selman v. Cobb County School District, et al June 30, 2003 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2 ATLANTA DIVISION 3 JEFFREY MICHAEL SELMAN, Plaintiff, 4 vs. CASE NO. 1:02-CV-2325-CC 5 COBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 6 COBB COUNTY BOARD

More information

1 2 THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 3

1 2 THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 3 1 2 THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 3 4 In the Matter of 5 THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v 6 THEODORE SMITH 7 Section 30-a Education Law Proceeding (File#

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) THE HONORABLE NEIL V. WAKE, JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Joseph Rudolph Wood III, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV --PHX-NVW Phoenix, Arizona July, 0 : p.m. 0 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE

More information

CASE NO.: BKC-AJC IN RE: LORRAINE BROOKE ASSOCIATES, INC., Debtor. /

CASE NO.: BKC-AJC IN RE: LORRAINE BROOKE ASSOCIATES, INC., Debtor. / UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Page 1 CASE NO.: 07-12641-BKC-AJC IN RE: LORRAINE BROOKE ASSOCIATES, INC., Debtor. / Genovese Joblove & Battista, P.A. 100 Southeast 2nd Avenue

More information

Page 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA

Page 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA Page 1 STATE OF ALASKA, Plaintiff, vs. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 3AN-06-05630 CI VOLUME 18 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS March 26, 2008 - Pages

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2014

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2014 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/06/205 05:25 PM INDEX NO. 652382/204 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 264 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/06/205 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: CIVIL TERM : PART 39 3 ----------------------------------------X

More information

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG, JUDGE

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG, JUDGE 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG, JUDGE 4 -------------------------------) ) 5 Espanola Jackson, et al., ) ) 6 Plaintiffs, ) ) 7

More information

GAnthony-rough.txt. Rough Draft IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 2 FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

GAnthony-rough.txt. Rough Draft IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 2 FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA Rough Draft - 1 GAnthony-rough.txt 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND 2 FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 ZENAIDA FERNANDEZ-GONZALEZ, 4 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 5 vs. CASE NO.:

More information

AMSTERDAM & 76th ASSOCIATES, LLC and IBEX CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants X IBEX CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

AMSTERDAM & 76th ASSOCIATES, LLC and IBEX CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants X IBEX CONSTRUCTION, LLC, 0 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS : CIVIL TERM : PART ---------------------------------------------X MANUEL BERMEJO, Plaintiff, -against- Index No. /0 AMSTERDAM & th ASSOCIATES,

More information

Marc James Asay v. Michael W. Moore

Marc James Asay v. Michael W. Moore 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION IN RE SPRINGFIELD GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION ) ) ) ) CASE NO. -MC-00 SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 0 JULY, TRANSCRIPT

More information

>> PLEASE RISE. >> FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IS NOW IN SESSION. >> WE NOW TAKE UP THE SECOND CASE ON OUR DOCKET WHICH IS MEISTER VERSUS RIVERO.

>> PLEASE RISE. >> FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IS NOW IN SESSION. >> WE NOW TAKE UP THE SECOND CASE ON OUR DOCKET WHICH IS MEISTER VERSUS RIVERO. >> PLEASE RISE. >> FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IS NOW IN SESSION. >> WE NOW TAKE UP THE SECOND CASE ON OUR DOCKET WHICH IS MEISTER VERSUS RIVERO. >> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, LYNN WAXMAN REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff, : -against- : U.S. Courthouse Central Islip, N.Y. REHAL, :

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff, : -against- : U.S. Courthouse Central Islip, N.Y. REHAL, : UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X JESSE FRIEDMAN, : Plaintiff, : CV 0 -against- : U.S. Courthouse Central Islip, N.Y. REHAL, : : TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a Federal agency,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, a Federal agency, 0 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No. -cv-0-wyd-kmt ROCKY MOUNTAIN WILD, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, vs. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, a

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RACHELI COHEN AND ADDITIONAL : PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN RIDER A, Plaintiffs, : -CV-0(NGG) -against- : United States

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 NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS ANNUITY : FUND and NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS : PENTION FUND, on behalf of : themselves and all others : similarly situated, : : Plaintiffs,

More information

DISCIPLINARY HEARING COMMISSION OF THE 13 DHC 11

DISCIPLINARY HEARING COMMISSION OF THE 13 DHC 11 1 NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING COMMISSION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR 13 DHC 11 E-X-C-E-R-P-T THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, ) ) PARTIAL TESTIMONY Plaintiff, ) OF )

More information

ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KEN ANDERSON VOLUME 2

ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KEN ANDERSON VOLUME 2 CAUSE NO. 86-452-K26 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff(s) Page 311 VS. ) WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS MICHAEL MORTON Defendant(s). ) 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION

More information

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FORSYTH COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FORSYTH COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA 0 0 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FORSYTH COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD of ETHICS, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO: 0CV-00 ) TERENCE SWEENEY, ) Defendant. ) MOTION FOR COMPLAINT HEARD BEFORE HONORABLE

More information

Page 280. Cleveland, Ohio. 20 Todd L. Persson, Notary Public

Page 280. Cleveland, Ohio. 20 Todd L. Persson, Notary Public Case: 1:12-cv-00797-SJD Doc #: 91-1 Filed: 06/04/14 Page: 1 of 200 PAGEID #: 1805 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 EASTERN DIVISION 4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5 6 FAIR ELECTIONS

More information

>> ALL RISE. HEAR YE HEAR YE, HEAR YE. THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEAD, DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU

>> ALL RISE. HEAR YE HEAR YE, HEAR YE. THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEAD, DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU >> ALL RISE. HEAR YE HEAR YE, HEAR YE. THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEAD, DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 744 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 1 03/13/2017

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/13/ :17 PM INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 744 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 1 03/13/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 744 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 1 03/13/2017 1 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY CIVIL TERM PART 54 3 --------------------------------------------X SAMSON LIFT TECHNOLOGIES

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 CIM URBAN LENDING GP, LLC, CIM URBAN : LENDING LP, LLC and CIM URBAN LENDING : COMPANY, LLC, : : Plaintiffs, : : v CANTOR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SPONSOR,

More information

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY

1 STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY 1 STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY 2 MILWAUKEE BRANCH OF THE NAACP 3 VOCES DE LA FRONTERA, RICKY T. LEWIS, JENNIFER T. PLATT, JOHN J. WOLFE, 4 CAROLYN ANDERSON, NDIDI BROWNLEE, ANTHONY FUMBANKS,

More information

Lucious Boyd v. State of Florida

Lucious Boyd v. State of Florida 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

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 3 J.F., et al., ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) 3:14-cv-00581-PK ) 5 vs. ) April 15, 2014 ) 6 MULTNOMAH COUNTY SCHOOL ) Portland, Oregon DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 0--PHX-GMS Phoenix,

More information

Page 1. Case 1:09-cv CKK Document 48-3 Filed 04/12/11 Page 1 of 129

Page 1. Case 1:09-cv CKK Document 48-3 Filed 04/12/11 Page 1 of 129 Case 1:09-cv-02030-CKK Document 48-3 Filed 04/12/11 Page 1 of 129 Page 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 2 - - - 3 COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC: 4 RELATIONS, : : 5 Plaintiff,

More information

STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO, NEVADA TRANSCRIPT OF ELECTRONICALLY-RECORDED INTERVIEW JOHN MAYER AUGUST 4, 2014 RENO, NEVADA

STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO, NEVADA TRANSCRIPT OF ELECTRONICALLY-RECORDED INTERVIEW JOHN MAYER AUGUST 4, 2014 RENO, NEVADA STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO, NEVADA TRANSCRIPT OF ELECTRONICALLY-RECORDED INTERVIEW JOHN MAYER AUGUST, RENO, NEVADA Transcribed and proofread by: CAPITOL REPORTERS BY: Michel Loomis

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA I N D E X T O W I T N E S S E S TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al : : CASE NO. v. : :0-CR-00 : DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, : et al : FOR

More information

A P P E A R A N C E S FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. DIRRELL S. JONES (BY TELEPHONE) ASSISTANT DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL State Bar of Texas Office of the Chief

A P P E A R A N C E S FOR THE PLAINTIFF: MR. DIRRELL S. JONES (BY TELEPHONE) ASSISTANT DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL State Bar of Texas Office of the Chief CUSE NO. 380-01407-2013 COMMISSION FOR LWYER )( IN THE DISTRICT COURT DISCIPLINE, )( )( Plaintiff, )( )( VS. )( 380th JUDICIL DISTRICT )( TY CLEVENGER, )( )( Defendant. )( COLLIN COUNTY, TEXS ---------------------------------------------------------------

More information

American Legal Transcription 11 Market Street - Suite Poughkeepsie, NY Tel. (845) Fax: (845)

American Legal Transcription 11 Market Street - Suite Poughkeepsie, NY Tel. (845) Fax: (845) Exhibit A Evid. Hrg. Transcript Pg of UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------- In Re: Case No. 0-000-rdd CYNTHIA CARSSOW FRANKLIN, Chapter White Plains,

More information

Case 1:14-cv LAK-FM Document Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:14-cv LAK-FM Document Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case :-cv-0-lak-fm Document 0- Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------X : VRINGO, INC., et al., : -CV- (LAK) : Plaintiffs, :

More information

EXHIBIT 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. LIST INTERACTIVE LTD., d/b/a Uknight Interactive; and LEONARD S.

EXHIBIT 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. LIST INTERACTIVE LTD., d/b/a Uknight Interactive; and LEONARD S. EXHIBIT 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. -CV-000-RBJ LIST INTERACTIVE LTD., d/b/a Uknight Interactive; and LEONARD S. LABRIOLA, Plaintiffs, vs. KNIGHTS

More information

Interview being conducted by Jean VanDelinder with Judge Robert Carter in his chambers on Monday, October 5, 1992.

Interview being conducted by Jean VanDelinder with Judge Robert Carter in his chambers on Monday, October 5, 1992. Kansas Historical Society Oral History Project Brown v Board of Education Interview being conducted by Jean VanDelinder with Judge Robert Carter in his chambers on Monday, October 5, 1992. J: I want to

More information

>> THE NEXT CASE IS STATE OF FLORIDA VERSUS FLOYD. >> TAKE YOUR TIME. TAKE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

>> THE NEXT CASE IS STATE OF FLORIDA VERSUS FLOYD. >> TAKE YOUR TIME. TAKE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> THE NEXT CASE IS STATE OF FLORIDA VERSUS FLOYD. >> TAKE YOUR TIME. TAKE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. >> GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

More information

Case 2:13-cv RFB-NJK Document Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 85. 2:13-cv RFB-NJK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Case 2:13-cv RFB-NJK Document Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 85. 2:13-cv RFB-NJK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case :-cv-00-rfb-njk Document - Filed // Page of :-cv-00-rfb-njk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, vs. Plaintiff, INTELIGENTRY, LIMITED, et al., Defendants.

More information

CAPITAL RECORDS, INC., ET AL., ) CV. NO NG PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) COURTROOM NO. 2 NOOR ALAUJAN, ET AL., ) 1 COURTHOUSE WAY

CAPITAL RECORDS, INC., ET AL., ) CV. NO NG PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) COURTROOM NO. 2 NOOR ALAUJAN, ET AL., ) 1 COURTHOUSE WAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ) CAPITAL RECORDS, INC., ET AL., ) CV. NO. 0--NG PLAINTIFFS ) VS. ) COURTROOM NO. NOOR ALAUJAN, ET AL., )

More information

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 126 Filed: 05/19/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1995

Case: 1:14-cv Document #: 126 Filed: 05/19/16 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1995 Case: :-cv-0 Document #: Filed: 0// Page of PageID #: 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION HEATHER WRIGHT, CAROLE STEWART, JEANETTE CHILDRESS, ROBERT JORDAN,

More information

5 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO Case No: SC JUDGE RICHARD H. ALBRITTON, JR / 7

5 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO Case No: SC JUDGE RICHARD H. ALBRITTON, JR / 7 1 1 2 3 BEFORE THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION 4 5 INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 04-239 Case No: SC05-851 6 JUDGE RICHARD H. ALBRITTON, JR. --------------------------------------/ 7 8 9

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR-0-2027-JF ) 5 Plaintiff, ) ) San Jose, CA 6 vs. ) October 2, 200 ) 7 ROGER VER, ) ) 8

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) 1:09-CV-13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) 1:09-CV-13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.) RIBIK ) ) VS. HCR MANORCARE, INC., et al. ) ) ) :0-CV- ) ) ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA ) OCTOBER,

More information

>> ALL RISE. [BACKGROUND SOUNDS] >> SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING. >> WE'RE IN PLANK V. STATE.

>> ALL RISE. [BACKGROUND SOUNDS] >> SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING. >> WE'RE IN PLANK V. STATE. >> ALL RISE. [BACKGROUND SOUNDS] >> SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING. >> WE'RE IN PLANK V. STATE. >> GOOD MORNING AND MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS COLLEEN

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE. August 19, No STAN SMITH, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

IN COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE. August 19, No STAN SMITH, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 19, 1997 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See 808.10 and RULE 809.62, STATS.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN JOSE DIVISION 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR-0-2027-JF ) 5 Plaintiff, ) ) San Jose, California 6 vs. ) May 2, 2002 ) 7 ROGER VER,

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MICHAEL GARBOWSKI and STEPHEN ) BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Themselves ) and All Others Similarly Situated, ) Plaintiffs, v. ) TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS,

More information

Norman Blake McKenzie v. State of Florida SC >> THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S AGENDA IS MCKENZIE VERSUS STATE. >> MR. QUARLES LET'S HEAR ABOUT

Norman Blake McKenzie v. State of Florida SC >> THE NEXT CASE ON THE COURT'S AGENDA IS MCKENZIE VERSUS STATE. >> MR. QUARLES LET'S HEAR ABOUT 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

* EXCERPT * Audio Transcription. Court Reporters Certification Advisory Board. Meeting, April 1, Judge William C.

* EXCERPT * Audio Transcription. Court Reporters Certification Advisory Board. Meeting, April 1, Judge William C. Excerpt- 0 * EXCERPT * Audio Transcription Court Reporters Certification Advisory Board Meeting, April, Advisory Board Participants: Judge William C. Sowder, Chair Deborah Hamon, CSR Janice Eidd-Meadows

More information

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/16/ :25 AM

FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/16/ :25 AM FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 11/16/2016 09:25 AM STATE OF NEW YORK CICERO TOWN COURT COUNTY OF ONONDAGA INDEX NO. 2016EF4347 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/16/2016 TOWN OF CICERO, Petitioner, MOTIONS

More information

Case 3:10-cv GPC-WVG Document Filed 03/07/15 Page 1 of 30 EXHIBIT 5

Case 3:10-cv GPC-WVG Document Filed 03/07/15 Page 1 of 30 EXHIBIT 5 Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 388-4 Filed 03/07/15 Page 1 of 30 EXHIBIT 5 Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG Document 388-4 Filed 03/07/15 Page 2 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT

More information

INTERVIEW OF: TIMOTHY DAVIS

INTERVIEW OF: TIMOTHY DAVIS INTERVIEW OF: TIMOTHY DAVIS DATE TAKEN: MARCH, TIME: : A.M. - : A.M. PLACE: HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON BILL FRANCE BOULEVARD DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA APPEARANCES: JONATHAN KANEY, ESQUIRE Kaney & Olivari,

More information

UNOFFICIAL/UNAUTHENTICATED TRANSCRIPT. [The Military Commission was called to order at 1457, MJ [COL POHL]: Commission is called to order.

UNOFFICIAL/UNAUTHENTICATED TRANSCRIPT. [The Military Commission was called to order at 1457, MJ [COL POHL]: Commission is called to order. 0 0 [The Military Commission was called to order at, January 0.] MJ [COL POHL]: Commission is called to order. All parties are again present who were present when the Commission recessed. To put on the

More information

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Plaintiff, Defendant. hearing before the Honorable Daniel C. Moreno, one of

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT. Plaintiff, Defendant. hearing before the Honorable Daniel C. Moreno, one of STTE OF MINNESOT DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, v. Chrishaun Reed McDonald, District Court File No. -CR-- TRNSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Defendant. The

More information

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2 HARRISBURG DIVISION

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2 HARRISBURG DIVISION 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 2 HARRISBURG DIVISION 3 TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al., : CASE NO. Plaintiffs : 4:04-CV-02688 4 vs. : DOVER SCHOOL DISTRICT, : Harrisburg,

More information

INTERVIEW OF: CHARLES LYDECKER

INTERVIEW OF: CHARLES LYDECKER INTERVIEW OF: CHARLES LYDECKER DATE TAKEN: MARCH 1, TIME: :0 P.M. - : P.M. PLACE: BROWN & BROWN 0 SOUTH RIDGEWOOD AVENUE DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 1 1 --0 1 1 APPEARANCES: JONATHAN KANEY, ESQUIRE Kaney &

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA................ TAMMY KITZMILLER; BRYAN and. CHRISTY REHM; DEBORAH FENIMORE. and JOEL LIEB; STEVEN STOUGH;. BETH EVELAND; CYNTHIA

More information

[The R.M.C. 803 session was called to order at 1406, MJ [Col PARRELLA]: The commission is called to order.

[The R.M.C. 803 session was called to order at 1406, MJ [Col PARRELLA]: The commission is called to order. 0 0 [The R.M.C. 0 session was called to order at 0, January 0.] MJ [Col PARRELLA]: The commission is called to order. I'll note for the record that it doesn't appear any of the accused are here. So all

More information

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN, LTD. Tel: (757) Fax: (757)

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN, LTD. Tel: (757) Fax: (757) 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 3 4 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) 6 ) CRIMINAL ACTION v. ) NO. 00-0284 (MJJ) 7 ) PAVEL IVANOVICH

More information

>> ALL RISE. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. THE LAST CASE THIS WEEK IS CALLOWAY V.

>> ALL RISE. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. THE LAST CASE THIS WEEK IS CALLOWAY V. >> ALL RISE. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> GOOD MORNING TO BOTH OF YOU. THE LAST CASE THIS WEEK IS CALLOWAY V. STATE OF FLORIDA. >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS SCOTT SAKIN,

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. : : :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. : : : 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRISBURG DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. v. MURRAY ROJAS -CR-00 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS JURY TRIAL TESTIMONY

More information

Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO CACE (07) Defendants. / DEER VALLEY REALTY, INC., Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO.: CACE (07) Defendants.

Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO CACE (07) Defendants. / DEER VALLEY REALTY, INC., Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO.: CACE (07) Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPLEX LITIGATION UNIT JOHN TAGLIERI, Plaintiff, -vs- CASE NO. 0- CACE (0) SB HOTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC, etc., et al., Defendants.

More information

Case Name: R. v. Koumoudouros. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Branita Koumoudouros. [2005] O.J. No Certificate No.

Case Name: R. v. Koumoudouros. Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Branita Koumoudouros. [2005] O.J. No Certificate No. Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Koumoudouros Between Her Majesty the Queen, and Branita Koumoudouros [2005] O.J. No. 5055 Certificate No. 68643727 Ontario Court of Justice Hamilton, Ontario B. Zabel J. Heard:

More information

) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETI'S. 2 SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT (Consolidated CA No ) 3

) COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETI'S. 2 SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT (Consolidated CA No ) 3 )0001 1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETI'S 2 SUFFOLK, ss SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT (Consolidated CA No. 02-1296) 3 4 JAMES M. HOGAN, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 VS. 6 THE ROMAN CATHOLIC 7 ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, a

More information

2 THE COURT: All right. Please raise your. 5 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 THE COURT: All right, sir.

2 THE COURT: All right. Please raise your. 5 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 THE COURT: All right, sir. 38 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 2 THE COURT: All right. Please raise your 3 right hand. 4 CHARLES BRODSKY, 5 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 6 THE COURT: All right, sir. You may take 7

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : CR--0 : -against- : United States Courthouse SALVATORE LAURIA, : : Brooklyn,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re Estate of JOSEPH G. BERG, JR., Deceased. LUCILLE WOLCOTT and LAWRENCE BERG, Petitioners-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED March 13, 2007 v No. 272255 Bay County Probate Court

More information

: : : : : : : : : HONORABLE ANA C. VISCOMI, J.S.C.

: : : : : : : : : HONORABLE ANA C. VISCOMI, J.S.C. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION, CIVIL PART MIDDLESEX COUNTY DOCKET NO. MID-L-- (AS) APP. DIV. NO. JOHN BURTON, v. Plaintiff, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CORP., et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT

More information

UNOFFICIAL, UNEDITED, UNCERTIFIED DRAFT

UNOFFICIAL, UNEDITED, UNCERTIFIED DRAFT 0 THIS UNCERTIFIED DRAFT TRANSCRIPT HAS NOT BEEN EDITED OR PROOFREAD BY THE COURT REPORTER. DIFFERENCES WILL EXIST BETWEEN THE UNCERTIFIED DRAFT VERSION AND THE CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT. (CCP (R)() When prepared

More information

(Caers - Cross) (Caers - Redirect)

(Caers - Cross) (Caers - Redirect) (Caers - Cross) 0 0 gynecomastia, correct? THE COURT: Do you need a hard copy? Why don't you give him a hard copy. A No, no, that's -- Q I can shorten this up, Your Honor. A That's incorrect. Q I will

More information

Please rise. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session. All who have cause to plea, draw near, give attention, and

Please rise. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session. All who have cause to plea, draw near, give attention, and Please rise. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. The Supreme Court of Florida is now in session. All who have cause to plea, draw near, give attention, and you shall be heard. God save these United States, the

More information

Condcnsclt! Page 1. 6 Part 9. I don't think I could have anticipated the snow. 7 and your having to be here at 1:30 any better than I did.

Condcnsclt! Page 1. 6 Part 9. I don't think I could have anticipated the snow. 7 and your having to be here at 1:30 any better than I did. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND STATE OF MARYLAND, V. ADNAN SYEO, BEFORE: Defendant. Indictment Nos. 199100-6 REPORTER'S OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS (Trial on the Merita) Baltimore.

More information

CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH 3 PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT. Special Prosecutor On behalf of the State of Wisconsin. 15 LEONARD D. KACHINSKY 16 * * * * * * * *

CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH 3 PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT. Special Prosecutor On behalf of the State of Wisconsin. 15 LEONARD D. KACHINSKY 16 * * * * * * * * : ' [ I _: l-' I I -' STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT BRANCH MANITOWOC COUNTY STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF, vs. BRENDAN R. DASSEY, DEFENDANT. DECISION Case No. 0 CF 0 DATE: MAY, 00 BEFORE: Ron. Jerome

More information

Please let us known your intentions

Please let us known your intentions Mark DeCoursey Please let us known your intentions Degginger, Grant Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:35 PM To: Carol DeCoursey , "Gabel,

More information

UNOFFICIAL/UNAUTHENTICATED TRANSCRIPT. [The R.M.C. 803 session was called to order at 1602, MJ [Col SPATH]: These commissions are called to order.

UNOFFICIAL/UNAUTHENTICATED TRANSCRIPT. [The R.M.C. 803 session was called to order at 1602, MJ [Col SPATH]: These commissions are called to order. 0 [The R.M.C. 0 session was called to order at 0, February.] MJ [Col SPATH]: These commissions are called to order. All parties present before the recess are again present. Defense Counsel, you may call

More information

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/25/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/25/2016

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/25/ :37 PM INDEX NO /2009 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/25/2016 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 0//0 0: PM INDEX NO. 0/00 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 0 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 0//0 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK : CIVIL TERM : PART ------------------------------------------x

More information

Case 1:06-cv WYD-MJW Document 150 Filed 09/12/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 110

Case 1:06-cv WYD-MJW Document 150 Filed 09/12/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 110 Case 1:06-cv-01135-WYD-MJW Document 150 Filed 09/12/08 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 558 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 2 Civil Action No. 06-cv-01135-WYD-MJW 3 ALLSTATE INSURANCE

More information

Mark Allen Geralds v. State of Florida SC SC07-716

Mark Allen Geralds v. State of Florida SC SC07-716 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

AT THE BEGINNING, DURING OR AFTER. SO IF IF SOMEONE IS STEALING SOMETHING, AS YOUR CLIENT HAS BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE, AND IS CAUGHT AND IN THE

AT THE BEGINNING, DURING OR AFTER. SO IF IF SOMEONE IS STEALING SOMETHING, AS YOUR CLIENT HAS BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE, AND IS CAUGHT AND IN THE >>> THE NEXT CASE IS ROCKMORE VERSUS STATE OF FLORIDA. >> YOU MAY PROCEED. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, MY NAME IS KATHRYN RADTKE. I'M AN ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER AND I REPRESENT

More information

Attendees: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana-GAC Rudi Vansnick NPOC Jim Galvin - RySG Petter Rindforth IPC Jennifer Chung RySG Amr Elsadr NCUC

Attendees: Pitinan Kooarmornpatana-GAC Rudi Vansnick NPOC Jim Galvin - RySG Petter Rindforth IPC Jennifer Chung RySG Amr Elsadr NCUC Page 1 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Charter DT Meeting TRANSCRIPTION Thursday 30 October at 1300 UTC Note: The following is the output of transcribing from an audio recording

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE. ) Case No.: 3:17-CR-82. Defendant. )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE. ) Case No.: 3:17-CR-82. Defendant. ) IN THE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. HEATHER ANN TUCCI-JARRAF, ) ) Defendant. ) ) APPEARANCES: ) Case No.: :-CR- ) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE

More information

2 CASE NAME: PRECISION DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS. 3 YURI PLYAM, ET AL. 4 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011

2 CASE NAME: PRECISION DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS. 3 YURI PLYAM, ET AL. 4 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 1 1 CASE NUMBER: BC384285 2 CASE NAME: PRECISION DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS. 3 YURI PLYAM, ET AL. 4 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 5 DEPARTMENT 17 HON. RICHARD E. RICO, JUDGE 6 REPORTER: SYLVIA

More information

COPYING NOT PERMITTED, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION (D)

COPYING NOT PERMITTED, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION (D) 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 DEPARTMENT 85 HON. JAMES C. CHALFANT, JUDGE 4 5 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, ) ) 6 PETITIONER, ) ) 7 VS. ) NO. BS136663

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Volume Pages - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Before The Honorable Vince Chhabria, Judge EDWARD HARDEMAN, Plaintiff, VS. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. C -00

More information

Ramsey media interview - May 1, 1997

Ramsey media interview - May 1, 1997 Ramsey media interview - May 1, 1997 JOHN RAMSEY: We are pleased to be here this morning. You've been anxious to meet us for some time, and I can tell you why it's taken us so long. We felt there was really

More information

Harry Franklin Phillips v. State of Florida

Harry Franklin Phillips v. State of Florida 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

Warfield Raymond Wike v. State of Florida

Warfield Raymond Wike v. State of Florida 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case :-cv-00-tds-jep Document Filed 0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA JOAQUIN CARCAÑO, et al., ) :CV ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) ) PATRICK McCRORY, in

More information

Teresa Plenge Selman v. Cobb County School District, et al July 1, Page 1

Teresa Plenge Selman v. Cobb County School District, et al July 1, Page 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 2 ATLANTA DIVISION 3 JEFFREY MICHAEL SELMAN, Plaintiff, 4 vs. CASE NO. 1:02-CV-2325-CC 5 COBB COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 6 COBB COUNTY BOARD

More information

Cardinal Bernard F. Law - Day 6 10/16/2002

Cardinal Bernard F. Law - Day 6 10/16/2002 \ Pagel 1 OF MASSACHUSETTS 2 COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX 3 GREGORY FORD, et al., Plaintiff, 4 Superior Court vs. Civil Action 5 No. 02-0626 BERNARD CARDINAL LAW, a/k/a, 6 CARDINAL BERNARD F. LAW, Defendants. 7...

More information

The Law Society of Alberta Hearing Committee Report

The Law Society of Alberta Hearing Committee Report The Law Society of Alberta Hearing Committee Report In the matter of the Legal Profession Act, and in the matter of a hearing regarding the conduct of Mary Jo Rothecker, a member of the Law Society of

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FREEDOM WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT S. MUELLER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. - May, 0 :0 a.m. Washington, D.C.

More information

OPEN NINTH: CONVERSATIONS BEYOND THE COURTROOM WOMEN IN ROBES EPISODE 21 APRIL 24, 2017 HOSTED BY: FREDERICK J. LAUTEN

OPEN NINTH: CONVERSATIONS BEYOND THE COURTROOM WOMEN IN ROBES EPISODE 21 APRIL 24, 2017 HOSTED BY: FREDERICK J. LAUTEN 0 OPEN NINTH: CONVERSATIONS BEYOND THE COURTROOM WOMEN IN ROBES EPISODE APRIL, HOSTED BY: FREDERICK J. LAUTEN 0 (Music.) >> Welcome to another episode of "Open Ninth: Conversations Beyond the Courtroom"

More information

Chief Justice Mogoeng: Good morning Ms De Klerk. When did you work for the first time?

Chief Justice Mogoeng: Good morning Ms De Klerk. When did you work for the first time? Judicial Service Commission Interviews 7 October 2016, Afternoon Session Limpopo Division of the High Court Interview of Ms M C De Klerk DISCLAMER: These detailed unofficial transcripts were compiled to

More information

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS *

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS * COMMONWELTH OF MSSCHUSETTS Volume: Pages: - Exhibits: None BRISTOL, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPRTMENT OF THE TRIL COURT * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COMMONWELTH OF MSSCHUSETTS * * vs. * * RON HERNNDEZ

More information