Telephone conversation with: Karen at Superior Court, indicated that court reporter said that there is nothing more to report for the day requested, will get an affidavit.The court reporter, Carol J. Jordan, will be committing perjury if she signs that affidavit. Here is twhat the minute order said for that date:
REVIEW OF SUPPORT & RECEIPT OF REPORTMs. Jordan turned in a transcript that started with this:
11/16/2004 - 8:30 AM DEPT. 6
HONORABLE WILLIAM M. KELSAY, PRESIDING
CLERK: JANET GARLAND
REPORTER: CAROL JORDAN
BAILIFF: MIKE RAINS
[AngryMom] PRESENT WITH COUNSEL JENNIFER GRAY, ESQ..
[George AngryDad] PRESENT IN PROPRIA PERSONA
COUNSEL/PARTIES ADDRESS(ES) THE ISSUES NOW BEFORE THE COURT.
THE COURT ADVISES IT IS IN RECEIPT OF DR. BRET JOHNSONS REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS.
PENDING THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THE COURT TEMPORARILY ADOPTS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF DR. BRET JOHNSON RE TIMESHARE AND ITEMS 12 THROUGH 22 OF SAID RECOMMENDATIONS SHALL ALSO BE IMPLEMENTED, EFFECTIVE 11/17/04.
THE CURRENT ORDER FOR SUPPORT SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT PENDING FURTHER HEARING AND JURISDICTION IS RESERVED TO RETROACTIVELY MODIFY SUPPORT.
NEXT COURT DATE:
THIS MATTER IS SET FOR EVIDENTIARY HRG RE REPORT/RECOMMENDATIONS ON 01/21/05 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 6.
RESPONDENT TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY DR. JOHNSONS WITNESS FEES.
1 SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA; NOVEMBER 16, 2004Normally, a court transcript starts with the introduction and identification of the parties, and a statement of the issues to be heard. Obviously, the above transcript is from a continuation of an earlier proceeding that morning. Ms. Jordan is refusing to provide the transcript of the earlier proceeding.
2 --- 0---
3 THE COURT: Going back to [AngryDad], [Case number], do we
4 have a date?
5 DR. BERENGE: Yes, we do, your Honor. It's
6 January 21st. Bret will be available. Dr. Johnson will be
7 available. Is that going to be at nine a.m?
8 [Proceedings unrelated to this matter are not
10 THE COURT: Sorry, what?
11 THE CLERK: It's January what?
12 DR. BERENGE: 21st.
The transcript did include an explanation of why I had to pay Bret Johnson's bill:
THE COURT: I can't deal with the issue of whether or not she's capable of earning money today. Don't normally the parties share in this expense?In other words, the custom of the local family court is to force fathers to pay for expert witnesses to testify against him. Judge Kelsay did not agree with that custom, but he ordered me to pay anyway.
[Discussion between Court and Clerk held off the record.]
THE COURT: The one that asked for them to testify. Why would that be the case? Maybe the doctor is wrong. Just throwing something out logically to the staff.
THE CLERK: I'm just telling you what he normally does. You do what you want to do.
THE COURT: So it's customary that the person that requests the party
MS. GRAY: That is true.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to follow local legal custom since I'm not here to make waives. Not big waives, Ms. Parry.
All right. So I gather, sir, you're stuck with the bill of the doctor to testify since that's the practice of this court.
THE RESPONDENT: I'm to pay because I'm the one who objected to his report?
THE COURT: You know what, Dad? Don't debate it with me.
THE RESPONDENT: No. I'm just asking for the rationale. That's all I'm asking.
THE COURT: That's evidently the rationale that I've heard, yes; and that's what is the practice of this court; and I'm just visiting, okay.
DR. BERENGE: It's not because dad objected to the report that he's paying; it's because father's requesting him to be present at the hearing.
THE COURT: Well, sure. You know, Dr. Berenge, you're not going to get any better position with me; and I just think you're just wonderful. I just want you to understand that. Of course, he wants the doctor here because he objects to the content of his report; and how can he challenge it with him absent? Really, think about it. Let's end this.
I've made the order. But there's good reason why maybe both parties should pay. See, it didn't get any better. That's all.