was aware. I was present for the hearing and during it I stated that there never was a con- sent judgment entered in the case. • Judge Green threatened me with jail at one point during the hearing in an attempt to further coerce me into not stating the truth about the material facts of the case because those facts were a direct contradiction to the fraud he was committing. He specifically men- tioned my sons, who he knew I was the sole custodian and provider for, stating that they would not have a parent if he put me in jail. Neither Judge Green, Attorney Bob Hamilton, or Mr. Voytas’s representation, Jack Cavanaugh, were able to provide any kind of rational response to me saying the judgement they were suggesting I entered into by consent didn’t exist. Links
Certified Transcript of 5/25/23 Hearing Corresponding Audio of 5/25/23 Hearing
• On page 21, lines 7-25, of the transcript from the 05/25/23 hearing, Judge Green acknowl- edged that all parties had signed an agreement to allow Attorney Bob Hamilton access to view the home and then said he would be “adding another paragraph” to the already- signed document. Judge Green stated that the paragraph he was adding, which was not agreed to or consented upon by The Parties when the document was signed, was to en- sure that no one could distort that everyone was in agreement to the orders and judgement he entered on 04/28/23. However, as evidenced by the audio and transcript from that hearing, Judge Green announced he was adding that paragraph after the docu- ment was signed, knowing that what he was claiming in that paragraph was precisely opposite of what I a ffi rmed during the hearing about never having entered into a con- sent judgement regarding my marital property with Mr. Voytas. • Later the same day I emailed Judge Green, Attorney Bob Hamilton, and Attorney Jack Ca- vanaugh a copy of the writ petition I filed with The Missouri State Court of Appeals (see links below). A “writ” is a unique, and rarely granted motion, filed with The Higher Courts in situations that require extreme judicial relief if they meet very specific criteria. These motions are most often denied, which was what happened to the one I filed as it was denied without hearing the very next day (05/26/23). The Higher Courts are not required to provide an explanation or “findings of fact and conclusions of law” related to the denial of a writ. Note that because my writ petition was drafted prior to the day it was filed (05/25/23), nothing that transpired during the May 25th 2023 hearing could be included. I knew by this point in time that what was needed was Federal Criminal Relief which is why I also submitted these documents to The U.S. Attorney’s O ffi ce for The Eastern District of Missouri.
Links Petition For Writ Of Prohibition filed on 05/25/23 and denied on 05/26/23. Exhibit Book Corresponding with Writ of Prohibition filed on 05/25/23.
32
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online