2014-03-27 ODC Hearing Transcript - 2

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
366
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
IN RE:
JOYCE NANINE MCCOOL
FILE NUMBER: 13-DB-059
The hearing resumed in the above captioned
matter on Thursday, March 27, 2014, at
Associated Reporters, Incorporated, 2431 South
Acadian Thruway, Suite 550, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70808, beginning at 9:50 A.M.
BEFORE:
Susan Erkel
Certified Court Reporter
In and For the State of
Louisiana
ASSOCIATED REPORTERS, INC.
(225) 216-2036
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
367
A P P E A R A N C E S
FOR THE OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL:
LOUISIANA ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD
DEPUTY DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
4000 S. SHERWOOD FOREST BOULEVARD
SUITE 607
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70816
(225) 293-3900
BY: DAMON S. MANNING, ESQ.
FOR THE RESPONDENT, JOYCE NANINE MCCOOL:
RICHARD L. DUCOTE, ESQ.
4800 LIBERTY AVENUE
FLOOR 3
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15224
(412) 687-2020
HEARING COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
JANE R. GOLDSMITH, ESQ., CHAIR
VIRGINIA G. BENOIST, ESQ., LAWYER MEMBER
ROBERT NELSON, PUBLIC MEMBER
(225) 216-2036
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
368
I N D E X
PAGE
CAPTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
APPEARANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
PROCEEDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371
EXAMINATION OF JOYCE NANINE MCCOOL. . . . . . 374
ODC EXHIBITS:
20 LIST OF STIPULATED FACTS (LABELED AS
APPENDIX A). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
21 NANINE MCCOOL VERSUS THE HONORABLE
DAWN AMACKER, 2014-11360, DIVISION G,
22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, FILED
MARCH 24, 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437
22 STROSCHER VERSUS STROSCHER, 845 SO.2D 518
(LA. APP., 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
1 MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE JUDICIAL DATA
PROJECT CONTAINING THE CASE OF RAVEN
SKYE BOYD MAURER VERSUS MICHAEL T. BOYD,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI (VIA
INTERNET). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2 MICHAEL T. BOYD VERSUS RAVEN SKYE BOYD
MAURER, IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF MARION
COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, ORDER OF RECUSAL
(225) 216-2036
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
369
DATED JANUARY 24, 2013. . . . . . . . . . . 56
3 "OPERATION #SAVE VICTORIA" ONLINE PETITION
ADDRESSED TO JUDGE DAWN AMACKER OF THE ST.
TAMMANY PARISH FAMILY COURT. . . . . . . . 56
4 CHANCERY COURT CASES LINK, MARION COUNTY
MISSISSIPPI, DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2014,
DETAILING EVENTS IN BOYD VERSUS BOYD, CASE
NUMBER 46-2006-0136-G.. . . . . . . . . . . 56
5 KEISTER VS. KEISTER, 22ND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT, MOTION TO RECUSE, FILED
MAY 31, 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
6 BOYD VERSUS BOYD, CHANCERY COURT OF MARION
COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, ORDER RESCINDING
CONTEMPT ORDER FILED OCTOBER 9, 2012.. . 56
7 RESPONDENT'S LETTER TO MISSISSIPPI
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE DATED
JUNE 13, 2012 (SEALED). . . . . . . . . . . 56
8 MISSISSIPPI COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL
PERFORMANCE, LETTER TO RESPONDENT DATED
OCTOBER 16, 2012 (SEALED). . . . . . . . . 56
9 CURRAN, ET AL VS. ALESHIRE, ET AL,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO REOPEN AND LIFT STAY.. . . . 57
10 T.D. VERSUS F.X.A., FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF
(225) 216-2036
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
370
APPEAL, LOUISIANA, 2013-CU-0453. . . . . 57
11 RESPONDENT'S LETTER TO OFFICE OF SPECIAL
COUNSEL DATED MARCH 29, 2013 (SEALED). . 56
12 JUDGE DAWN AMACKER'S CURRENT LIST OF
ACCOMPLISHMENTS (VIA INTERNET AT
JUDGEDAWNAMACKER.ORG). . . . . . . . . . . 163
13 KEISTER VS. KEISTER, 22ND JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ST.
TAMMANY, 2010-14558, PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF
HEARING HELD ON MARCH 27, 2012. . . . . . 469
14 DEPOSITION OF HONORABLE DAWN AMACKER. . . . . 477
15 BOYD VERSUS BOYD, IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF
MARION COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
16 EMAIL RE GUARDIAN AD LITEM JAMES JOHNSON
DATED AUGUST 24, 2011. . . . . . . . . . . 499
17 EMAIL TO RAVEN BOYD FROM ALEXANDER
IGNATIEV DATED JULY 21, 2011. . . . . . . 505
18 BOYD VERSUS BOYD, IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF
MARION COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, PARTIAL
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HELD ON AUGUST
16, 2011.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
REPORTER'S PAGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
(225) 216-2036
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
371
P R O C E E D I N G S
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. We're ready to get started.
Let's go ahead and make appearances for
the record.
MR. MANNING:
Damon Manning on behalf of the Office
of Disciplinary Counsel.
MR. DUCOTE:
Good morning. Richard Ducote, counsel
for Respondent, Ms. McCool who is present.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
And I'm Jane Goldsmith. I'm here with
my Committee, Virginia Benoist and Robert
Nelson. And I think we're ready to begin.
MR. DUCOTE:
Before we start, I had filed with the
Board and I don't know if the Committee
has gotten a copy of my Second
Supplemental Memorandum.
MR. NELSON:
I've seen it.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. I do have copies if I'm --
MS. BENOIST:
(225) 216-2036
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
372
One page?
MR. DUCOTE:
It's a two page --
MR. NELSON:
It's two pages.
MR. DUCOTE:
Second supplemental. Well actually
it's two pages. Second Supplemental
Memorandum and I do have copies of the two
Mississippi cases --
MR. NELSON:
I've seen that one.
MR. DUCOTE:
-- that are referenced, Blakeney
versus Warren County and the guardian ad
litem case, the Mississippi guardian ad
litem case, S.G. versus D.C. So I do have
copies of those that I would like to pass
out as well. Additionally, we had taken
our binders back so we could redact the
names of the kids from the binders and we
have some of those. The rest of them are
on their way so don't -- if we could do
that at the end.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
(225) 216-2036
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
373
Okay.
MR. DUCOTE:
And I think Mr. Manning had Ms. McCool
on --
MR. MANNING:
Yes. And I have redacted those names
from ODC's Exhibit Book. I believe that
the names may appear in the formal charges
or pleadings that might be in the record
already filed and so I don't know if we
discussed that last time or not. I will,
if the Chair directs or if you want to
take that up with me too, I can file
something that I'm sure would be
unopposed, to have someone at the Board
just go through and redact those names
from what's already filed into the record.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
That would be fine.
MR. MANNING:
Okay. We are prepared at this time to
pick up and conclude, hopefully, without
too many more of these, the examination of
respondent, Ms. McCool.
NANINE MCCOOL, having been duly sworn
(225) 216-2036
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
374
testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. MANNING:
Q. Ms. McCool, do you still have your
copy of the stipulations that we were kind of
going through when we were here last time? If
not, I may have a copy.
A. Sorry.
Q. That's okay.
A. No.
Q. I'll let you look at this one and I'll
look at this one.
A. Sure.
Q. Okay. You'll remember that was
attached originally as an appendix to your
pre-hearing memorandum. That's why it says
"Appendix" on there. And according to my
notes, Ms. McCool, we left off at Stipulation
number 47. And that's where we will pick up.
A. Okay.
Q. And just to reset very briefly, the
way that I was -- the way that you and I were
doing this was I was reading through the
stipulations, the factual stipulations that
we've agreed to. Reading them into the
transcript on the record and then alerting you
(225) 216-2036
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
375
as when I'm actually discussing a stipulation
or reading a stipulation as opposed to there
are some questions that I have about other
facts that are not stipulated to. So I will
continue to make sure that I differentiate
between those so that hopefully I'll keep the
same format. Stipulation number 47 says:
"On the website
www.thepetitionsite.com" and it has the
rest of the website name there,
"Respondent posted and/or promoted an
article entitled 'Help get Justice for'"
and it lists the minor's first names,
"wherein she provided information about
sealed Mississippi proceedings and asked
readers to sign their online petition and
to call the Judge's directly to voice
their outrage."
Do you still support that stipulation?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Stipulation number 48 and I
will ask you as we discuss that, in the binder
in front of you, this one refers to ODC
Exhibit 12(B) as in "boy" so if you could look
at that. That's the one that we're going to
(225) 216-2036
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
376
be talking about. 12B.
Stipulation 48 says, "On the website" and
it's eyesonline.com, "On August 17, 2011,
Respondent posted an article entitled,
'Justice for'" and again it lists the first
names of the minor children. That's the
stipulation so I have some questions, some
follow up questions for you about that, about
that stipulation before we continue on with
the factual stipulation. Let me first ask
you, Ms. McCool, did you write this article?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you need a moment just to kind
of look through it. It's similar to other
articles and blogs that we've seen before.
But again, this article as others discusses
allegations of sexual abuse of Raven's minor
children, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it discusses Judge Deborah
Gambrell, the Chancellor in Mississippi. It
discusses her handling of the case?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And we're picking up with that
stipulation now, 48. And then in quoting it
(225) 216-2036
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
377
says, "While referencing Judge Gambrell,
Respondent stated, let's turn this around and
be (minor's name) hero. Please sign the Care2
petition and continue to call Judge Gambrell
to ask her why she is unwilling to afford the
minor children simple justice. You can sign
the petition and lend your voice to this cause
here or you can contact directly."
Then the stipulation goes on to say,
"Respondent then listed the name and contact
information for Judge Gambrell, Judge Amacker,
their staff and the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Respondent ended the article by stating, call
the Louisiana Supreme Court and tell them you
want the law to protect these girls," and it
lists the phone number 504-310-2300.
The stipulation concludes with, "Ask about
the writ pending that was filed by Attorney
Nanine McCool on Friday, August 12th, 2011."
Do you still support that stipulation today?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. A couple of questions about
this particular stipulation. Number one, was
this posted at a time when the writ that you
filed on behalf of your client with the
(225) 216-2036
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
378
Louisiana Supreme Court, was that still
pending at the time you posted this article?
A. Yes.
Q. And you then do acknowledge that your
article encourages people to make direct
contact with the Louisiana Supreme Court to
ask them about the writ while it was still
pending for their consideration?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Turn to the next exhibit which
is ODC 12(C). This does not pertain to any
stipulation, Ms. McCool. I'm going to have
you look at ODC 12(C). You'll see that it's
dated Thursday, August 25th of 2011. And it's
the Sheep Free Zone. I think we established
earlier that that's your blog site or one of
your blog sites?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And it's an article entitled,
"Justice for" and then it lists the first
names of the two minor children. Did you
draft, write this particular blog?
A. I did.
Q. And you'll notice at the bottom of the
second page, you'll see that it says posted by
(225) 216-2036
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
379
Nanine McCool at 8:13 a.m.; do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. I'm going to ask you some
questions about this particular article or
blog, if you will. As with the article we
just looked at, this blog also discusses
allegations of sexual abuse, the sexual abuse
of Raven's minor children, correct?
A. It does.
Q. And this blog or article also
discusses Judge Gambrell's handling of this
case?
A. I'm sure it does.
Q. On the first page, I think if you look
down the second to last paragraph --
A. Yes.
Q. -- it references Judge Deborah
Gambrell.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's information that you placed
in this article?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. This article was posted August
(225) 216-2036
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
380
25, 2011. Raven's case was still pending
before Judge Gambrell at the time this article
was posted?
A. I believe that they had a final --
they had a judgment, but if you mean pending
as in the case, the custody was never done,
no.
Q. Okay. And there were other matters
that we appealed in that at or around this
time also, correct?
A. At around it, yes. I'm not sure where
in the sequence that she was able to file her
motion for -- her notice of appeal, but yeah.
Q. Okay. So to the extent that your
article tells people or encourages them to
contact Judge Gambrell, that's because she was
still involved in this case or would be in the
future at that time, correct?
A. I would assume.
Q. Well --
A. I'm trying to -- I'm sorry. I haven't
looked at this in a long time, but I would say
by the date, you know, clearly we were -- what
was the question?
Q. Posted August 25th, 2011.
(225) 216-2036
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
381
A. I'm sorry. Ask me the question again?
Q. When you posted this article, "Justice
for" listing the minor children and discussing
this case, my question was, was that case
still pending before Judge Gambrell at that
time?
A. Yes.
Q. And the paragraph below referencing
Judge Gambrell, it also references Judge Dawn
Amacker and the case that was filed or pending
and/or stayed in Louisiana in the 22nd
Judicial District, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that case was still, if you will,
pending or stayed pending and/or on appeal at
the time you posted this article?
A. Yes.
Q. The article also, Ms. McCool, links to
the audio recordings that we've talked about
before where Raven had recorded an interview
or a question and answer session with her
minor children?
A. Well the only thing I object to is the
interview or the question and answer, but,
yes, it did link to the audio of the children
(225) 216-2036
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
382
disclosing. Voluntarily disclosing.
Q. And that was audio that Raven took
using her cell phone to audio record the
children talking about these matters, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And again, and not to belabor,
but the reasons that a lot of these questions
sound the same is because they are the same
questions, but we're looking at different
articles and different postings and blogs and
different petitions that were filed by you on
different days. So if you will bear with me
just for purposes of completion of the record.
You will see that just below the links to
the audio recordings it says:
"Now consider that no Judge has ever
heard those recordings. Why? Because for
4.5 years the Judge's have simply refused
to do so. On August 16th, 2011, Judge
Deborah Gambrell in the Chancery Court of
Marion County Mississippi once again
refused to admit all of Raven's evidence
including these recordings and ordered
that (the minor children) have visits with
their father in the house where they both
(225) 216-2036
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
383
report having been molested by their
father in the past."
Ms. McCool, you would agree that we have
already established the fact that that is a
false statement, correct? That those
recordings were not refused or excluded by
Judge Gambrell at the August 16th hearing
because they were never offered at the August
16th hearing; is that true?
A. Well, I had an opportunity to review
the transcripts from the August 16th hearing
which refreshed my memory about why Raven
believed at this point in time that she had
offered those into evidence and that was
because she had provided them to the guardian
ad litem and she had provided them to her
attorney, neither of whom on the day of the
trial brought them to court and she was quite
upset about it and there was actually a
discussion on the record about it.
Q. So her own attorney did not bring the
recordings to that August 16th hearing?
A. Nor did the guardian ad litem who she
was under the understanding was responsible
for taking all the evidence and then bringing
(225) 216-2036
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
384
it to court.
Q. And having reviewed the transcript of
that hearing you saw and can tell us today
that no one offered, formally offered those
recordings into evidence at the August 16th
hearing; is that correct?
A. That is -- at the August 16th hearing,
no.
Q. No, that's not correct or no, no one
offered them?
A. I'm sorry. No, they weren't offered.
I apologize.
Q. That's okay. On page two of the Sheep
Free Zone blog the -- around the middle of the
page, again that's where the discussion of the
alleged sexual abuse takes place in this blog
and then right around the middle of the page
it says, "Or by ? call the Judge's and let
them know." It was you that made that
statement in this blog, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was you that listed the Judge's
and some of their staff and the Louisiana
Supreme Court names and contact information,
correct?
(225) 216-2036
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
385
A. Well, yes.
Q. In your blog?
A. Yes. But I listed the contact
information that's publicly online.
Q. I understand that. But my question is
you, whether it was copied and pasted or
whether you typed it out new, you included
that contact information in this particular
blog that we're looking at?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you included it right after
discussing the allegations of sexual abuse of
minor children?
A. Yes.
Q. In cases that were still pending
before Judge Gambrell and Judge Amacker?
A. Yes.
Q. And in a matter where there was a writ
still pending at the Louisiana Supreme Court?
A. Yes.
Q. And you encouraged people to call
those Judges and the Supreme Court and inquire
about that matter, correct?
A. And let them know that they were
horrified, yes.
(225) 216-2036
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
386
Q. Ms. McCool, do you agree with the
statement that Judge Gambrell felt your
actions and possibly actions of others, but
we're talking about you now -- that Judge
Gambrell felt your comments, your actions
somehow violated the previous order of her
court, the order of seal or the consent
judgment? I'm not asking you if you violated.
I'm asking do you agree that Judge Gambrell
felt you may have violated that order?
A. I think she --
MR. DUCOTE:
She wasn't subject to that order.
That's irrelevant.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
You can answer.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. I think she testified to that. So,
yes, I would agree she said that.
Q. (By Mr. Manning) If you would, turn
back in your exhibit book to ODC Exhibit 8.
The Show Cause Order issued by Judge Gambrell.
A. 8?
Q. 8. Yes, ma'am. Do you have that?
A. Yes, I do.
(225) 216-2036
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
387
Q. You'll see that on September the 14th
of 2011, Judge Gambrell signed this order
commanding you to appear before the Chancery
Court of Marion County, Mississippi on October
the 5th of 2011 at 9:00 a.m., right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you'll see that on the
first page it says in her order "to show cause
as to why you should not be held in contempt
of this Court's prior orders by disclosing
information from a sealed Chancery Court file
or in the alternative, to disclose how audio
transcriptions came into your possession after
they were placed under seal by the Chancery
Court of Marion County, Mississippi on May
22nd, 2008 by court order, as well as an
agreed order executed on the 2nd day of
September 2008."
And if you look at the second page of
Judge Gambrell's order it says, "That it has
come to this Court's attention that the
protected audio recordings are being
disseminated via social media network." Did I
read that accurately from her order?
A. Yes.
(225) 216-2036
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
388
Q. And you did in fact receive a copy of
her order, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you received it I think by regular
mail?
A. Yes.
Q. You were not served with it either
through process service or by certified mail?
A. Correct.
Q. And it is your firm belief that you
were never properly served with this show
cause order as such that you felt obligated to
actually appear in Mississippi for this
hearing?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And you did not appear?
A. I did not.
Q. All right. Do you know if Raven or
anyone else received a similar so cause order?
MR. DUCOTE:
Objection, the relevance to any of
this. I mean Judge Gambrell's already
testified an order to that effect that she
had no jurisdiction over her. So whether
or not Raven appeared or anything else is
(225) 216-2036
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
389
not relevant here.
MR. MANNING:
Well, Ms. McCool is representing Raven
in related proceedings in Louisiana.
Raven was her client. Ms. McCool was
intimately familiar with the details of
the Mississippi proceedings and in fact
has the complete record which she scanned
and provided access to in electronic
format to Raven as we've heard testimony
about the first day. So while we're
talking about an exhibit that is already
in evidence, my question merely, and I
won't belabor it is, did her client in the
Louisiana proceedings, to her knowledge,
receive a similar Show Cause Order to
appear before Judge Gambrell?
MR. DUCOTE:
It's still not relevant.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
If you know you can answer.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. I really don't remember. What I
remember is that Raven received an order
directed to me, but that might be -- I mean
(225) 216-2036
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
390
that's just memory. I really don't remember.
Q. (By Mr. Manning) Do you know if Raven
attended the Show Cause Hearing before Judge
Gambrell?
MR. DUCOTE:
Same objection.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. I have no memory of her attending.
Q. (By Mr. Manning) Okay. Turn to the
next exhibit, ODC 9. This actually is
Stipulation No. 49 and I'll read the
stipulation. It is: "On October the 6th of
2011, Judge Gambrell signed an order of
contempt stating that --
MR. DUCOTE:
I'm sorry. It's not ODC 9?
MR. MANNING:
Yes, ODC 9.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. The order but that's not the
stipulation.
MR. MANNING:
No, no. I'm sorry. The stipulation
number is 49. The exhibit is ODC 9.
MR. DUCOTE:
(225) 216-2036
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
391
Okay.
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. So the order -- on page two of the
order it says:
"It is therefore ordered that the
said Joyce Nanine McCool is in contempt of
this Court for having failed to appear or
respond and is hereby placed into the
custody of the Sheriff of Marion County,
Mississippi for a period of 10 days where
she shall remain until further order of
the Court."
Do you still stand by that stipulation,
that actual stipulation as this is what in
fact Judge Gambrell ordered on that day?
A. That's -- this looks like the copy of
the order that I actually received in the
mail.
Q. Okay. So this was mailed to you
regular mail also?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. There is one of your exhibits
and I believe that it is Respondent's Exhibit
B and it's on page two but that supports the
next stipulation we'll talk about. It's
(225) 216-2036
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
392
Stipulation No. 50. It says: "That on
October 9th of 2012, Judge Gambrell signed an
order rescinding the contempt order against
Respondent. That's true also, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Stipulation No. 51. The order
rescinding contempt order stated:
"That personal service of process was
insufficient of the said Joyce Nanine
McCool and though violation of this
Court's order relating to disclosure of
audio transcriptions may have taken place,
the Court is without authority to hold
said Joyce Nanine McCool in contempt of
this Court."
Do you still agree with that stipulation?
A. I agree that's what it says.
Q. Do you agree that she issued that
order on that date?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. That's obviously the content of the
order.
Q. Stipulation No. 52 says, "In September
of 2011, Judge Gambrell filed a disciplinary
(225) 216-2036
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
393
complaint against Respondent." That's ODC
Exhibit 1.
A. I agree.
Q. Okay. And just for the record, you're
also aware that Judge Gambrell sent in also
supplemental letters in that complaint process
which were previously identified at ODC 10
with attachments 10(A) and 10(B).
Stipulation 53, Ms. McCool, it says,
"Judge Amacker has also provided information
in connection with ODC's investigation."
A. I'm aware of that now.
Q. Okay. Stipulation 54: "Respondent is
a Louisiana licensed attorney who practices in
the 22nd Judicial District where she has and
had other cases pending before Judge Dawn
Amacker"?
A. Yes. With the clarification that I do
not currently or should not currently have any
cases pending before Judge Amacker.
Q. Okay. That's a correct statement as
we sit here today?
A. Right. I do practice in the 22nd.
Q. Okay.
A. And I have had cases pending before
(225) 216-2036
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
394
her.
Q. Until recently?
A. Until about a year ago.
Q. Okay. The next stipulation is
Stipulation 55 and I'll tell you, Ms. McCool,
it references or is supported by ODC Exhibit
13(A). And the stipulation says, "On May 13th
of 2012, Respondent filed an expedited
consideration, requested motion to recuse
Judge Amacker in the matter of Elizabeth
Varley Keister versus Robert Scott Keister?
A. I think the date's wrong. I think
it's May 31st.
Q. You're correct. It is May 31st. So
unless my copy has a typo, if the stipulation
itself says May 13th, let that be corrected.
The date is May 31st and that's reflected on
ODC 13(A). So with the correction of that
date, --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that stipulation is true, correct?
A. True.
Q. Okay. Now let me ask you some
questions about this. We're moving away from
stipulated facts now. One of the reasons, Ms.
(225) 216-2036
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
395
McCool, that you filed this Motion to Recuse
Judge Amacker in the Keister matter was you
sought Judge Amacker's recusal because of her
participation in the disciplinary complaint
against you?
A. Because I received another letter from
you in May which disclosed a greater extent of
her participation that I wasn't aware of, yes.
Q. Okay. And I understand you may --
A. That was part of the reason.
Q. Right. And let's be clear. I
understand you had other reasons and so I'm
asking specifically, at least one of those
reasons was based on Judge Amacker's
participation by providing information to ODC
during our investigation of the complaint?
A. Yeah. You sent me correspondence in
May. I can't remember the exact date that I
received that from you and that was when I
became aware. And I think in response to you
I expressed my concern that I was responding
to complaints that seemed to be coming from
Judge Amacker rather than Judge Gambrell and
asked whether or not she had filed a complaint
against me.
(225) 216-2036
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
396
Q. Turn to ODC Exhibit 13(B), the very
next exhibit. Still referencing the Keister
matter.
A. 13(B) you said?
Q. B as in "boy". Yes, ma'am.
A. Got it.
Q. That is the Order of Recusal signed by
Judge Amacker on June 5th of 2012. Do you
have that before you?
A. I do.
Q. And I know when Judge Amacker
testified she read her reasons for recusal
into the record. I will ask you just maybe
just scan that and you'll see her reasons for
recusal?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. If you would, turn to ODC
Exhibit 13(C). This is in the Cullen matter
and this now gets us back onto Stipulation of
Fact No. 56, which is, "On June 28th of 2012,
the Respondent filed a Motion to Recuse Judge
Amacker in the matter of Scott Edward Cullen
versus Kristiann Marie Probst Cullen wherein
she stated, 'the Court has voluntarily and
expressly admitted its extreme bias and
(225) 216-2036
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
397
conflict in recusing itself in two other
cases, which grounds are equally applicable in
the case at bar.'" Did I read that correctly?
A. You did.
Q. Okay. And did you draft this Motion
to Recuse?
A. I did.
Q. That's your signature on the signature
line on there?
A. It is.
Q. Ms. McCool, do you admit today that
your statement, "The Court has voluntarily and
conflict in recusing itself in two other
cases," do you admit today that that is a
false statement?
A. No.
Q. Can you point back to the Keister
Order of Recusal at 13(B) and show us anywhere
in this Order of Recusal where there is an
expressed admission of extreme bias or
prejudice against you?
A. She voluntarily recused herself.
Q. Your Motion says that there was an
express admission of extreme bias. Those
(225) 216-2036
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
398
words have meanings and I'm asking you since
we have the order to look at, can you show us
an expressed statement of extreme bias or
prejudice against you?
A. As I explained in my -- and I don't
know how else to say this. I'm not trying to
be difficult, but I filed (redacted per
Chair's order) because of this very issue.
And in that I explained that when I -- you
don't have the Motion for Recusal in front of
you. And in that Motion for Recusal I listed
the specific reasons why I believed she was
biased against me. And when she voluntarily
recused herself I took that as an admission to
those facts because she did not deny them.
And the way I understand the law, when a
Judge recuses herself or himself, they are
required to -- I mean I guess a Judge can't
recuse themselves just because there's an
appearance of impropriety. A Judge can only
recuse him or herself if they have an actual
bias. And when she did not respond or say the
allegations are absolutely false, but I'm
going to recuse because out of an abundance of
caution, I took her voluntarily (sic) decision
(225) 216-2036
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
399
to recuse as her admission that she was
acknowledging that she had an extreme bias
against me, which I had experienced firsthand.
Q. Well, I said that there was no need to
do this, but maybe there is. The Recusal
Order in Keister at 13(B) that Judge Amacker
has identified and signed says, "The Court
hereby voluntarily recuses itself due to the
possibility that the Judge may be called as a
witness in the proceedings referenced by
counsel, and out of an abundance of caution
and to avoid the appearance of impropriety,
the matter shall be referred to another Judge
of the District Court for trial through the
random process of assignment in accordance
with the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure, Article 253.1." That's all the
order says.
A. Yes. But she --
Q. And so I'm not going to -- I'll ask
one more time. Can you point to any statement
made by the Judge in this order that in your
mind was an express, your words not mine, an
express admission of extreme bias and
conflict?
(225) 216-2036
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
400
A. The Court hereby voluntarily recuses
itself.
Q. Well that's you're -- that's still
your belief today that that --
A. There is no other reason for her to
voluntarily recuse herself unless she has a
bias against me. It's there.
Q. You are a candidate for the bench
right now?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're familiar with the Code of
Judicial Conduct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're familiar with the Canon
that requires Judge's to even avoid the
appearance of impropriety?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And you don't think that
that's what Judge Amacker's handwritten
reasons for recusal addresses?
A. She says she may be called as a
witness in proceedings -- what does it say --
referenced by counsel?
Q. And out of an abundance of caution and
to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
(225) 216-2036
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
401
A. Correct. So at the time that she
signed it, there are actually two different
proceedings that she could have been
referencing and I don't know there was this
one, right, because I had just gotten your
letter. But there was also the complaint that
I filed against another counsel based on
events that took place in Judge Amacker's
court room which also prompted me to be
extremely concerned about the way Judge
Amacker was responding to me in Court, which
concerns I put in my complaint to the ODC.
So when she says that she's a witness in
proceedings referenced by me, she doesn't say
proceedings against me. She says referenced
by me. So I'm not sure if she's talking about
your proceedings and I don't know if she's
talking about my proceedings. I know that the
proceedings that I referenced, she was
extremely hostile to me in the court room.
And I know that she was extremely hostile in
the things she was saying in the letter from
you. So I mean she was essentially calling me
a liar.
So when she said that she voluntarily
(225) 216-2036
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
402
recused herself based on me making those
specifics allegations in my motion, yes, I
understood that to mean that she was admitting
what I put in my pleading because generally
speaking, if you file a pleading and someone
does not expressly deny those allegation,
they're considered admitted.
Q. Turn if you will to ODC Exhibit 13(D).
This is the order from the Cullen matter.
We're just looking at your motion and again,
Judge Amacker identified this as her order
that she signed. It says in open Court on
June 28th of 2012. And it says, "The Court
hereby voluntarily recuses" -- first, let me
stop for a minute. The order that we're
looking at, other than the stuff that's lined
out and the handwritten stuff on here, did you
prepare this order?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was filed along with the motion
at the time you filed this into the
proceedings?
A. Yes. I actually filed this when I was
in Court.
Q. Okay. So you would acknowledge that
(225) 216-2036
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
403
Judge Amacker or someone on her behalf at her
instruction crossed out certain things that
you had prepared in the order that you filed
with the Court?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And that Judge Amacker, because
she's identified it as her handwriting, hand
wrote in specific reasons for her recusal?
A. I was there when she wrote that.
Q. And that was not based on the language
that you had pre-selected and placed in the
order itself, correct?
A. The only language that's in this order
gives her two options. So one is to
voluntarily recuse herself, which by doing so
is an admission that she has a bias or a
conflict such that she acknowledges she cannot
be impartial. The other one is her saying I
don't agree with counsel that I have a bias
and so I'm going to put this in front of
another Judge for them to decide whether or
not I've demonstrated actual bias such that I
should not hear this case.
She chose option A which to me says, yes,
she's right; I have a bias against her
(225) 216-2036
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
404
therefore I must recuse myself.
Q. Okay. The Judge's order at ODC 13(B)
says, "The Court hereby voluntarily recuses
itself due to the possibility that the Judge
may be called as a witness in proceedings in
which counsel for mover is a party and out of
an abundance of caution and to avoid the
appearance of impropriety, the matter shall be
referred to the Judge of Division K in
District Court." And not withstanding what
you've just said, again, this is very similar
language to the first order that we looked at.
Is there anything in here you can tell us
other than your subjective belief to show us
where -- because these are your words, Ms.
McCool, that the Judge "expressly admitted
extreme bias or prejudice or conflict against
you?" Expressly.
A. Yes, expressly.
Q. What does expressly mean to you?
A. Without a doubt. Clearly.
Q. In writing --
A. Unequivocally.
Q. -- since we're looking at a written
document.
(225) 216-2036
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
405
A. I don't mean in writing. I mean
unequivocally, without question.
Q. And so it's your testimony that
because she did not deny, specifically deny
the things you said in your motion that she
has expressly admitted them even though she
wrote out her reasons for recusal?
A. She says, "May be called as a witness
in proceedings in which counsel is a party"
and I know what she's saying about me in those
proceedings which are clearly biased. Yes, I
believe that's her admitting that she has an
extreme bias against me. She has called me a
liar in correspondence to you and I took that
to be fairly biased against me.
Q. Right.
A. Not to mention I was in Court on the
day that she signed this and she was really
hostile, as in made a point of dressing me
down in front of the entire courtroom because
I had waited till the day of to file the
motion refusing --
Q. The day of what?
A. The day of the hearing that prompted
this motion. Refusing to acknowledge that the
(225) 216-2036
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
406
conflict was hers, not mine, and that I am
bound by my client's to say to them, these are
your choices: you can either keep me as your
attorney and stay in this courtroom and
probably lose because the Judge has already
admitted she has a conflict with me. You can
fire me and hire another attorney; or you can
-- we can ask to recuse her and she may or may
not do it although she's already done it twice
before. That's exactly the conversation I had
with this client before I walked into the
courtroom and the client waited till the day
of to tell me, yes, I want to do that.
And so I am bound by what my client wants
me to do. And when I walked into the
courtroom, rather than Judge Amacker having
already done this for me because it's her
bias, not mine. It's hers. She's the one
with the conflict. And instead of her doing
it in her own motion, which she actually did a
year later where she had to sua sponte recuse
herself from anything that was in her court
that was pending, she made me go in there;
file this motion; and then dress me down in
front of everyone for waiting till the last
(225) 216-2036
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
407
minute even though I am bound by what my
client wants.
Q. Why, since you had filed the earlier
motion to recuse her in May, why did you wait
until June to file the second motion?
A. Because it's -- my client. I
represent clients. The bias was not against
the client or their case. It was against me.
So it put me in this really awkward position
of, okay, if I file this Motion to Recuse,
it's going to -- you're going to get a delay
in your case. You're going to be switching to
another Judge. I don't know how that Judge is
going to respond to having this case dumped on
her. It introduces all of this uncertainty
into the case and it delays it at the same
time.
It's not my call to just tell my clients,
look, I'm recusing -- I'm going to recuse
Judge Amacker from everything. I have to ask
my clients, "What is your preference?" And
some of them chose to, at least two, two now,
have chosen to not go with me and plenty
others refuse to hire me because of the
conflict. Didn't want to have anything to do
(225) 216-2036
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
408
with it. Can't say as I blame them.
Q. ODC 13(E) Exhibit and it pertains to
Stipulation of Fact No. 57.
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. Which says, "On January the 3rd, 2013,
Respondent filed a Motion to Recuse Judge
Amacker in the matter of Becky Nevle Russell
versus Timothy Russell wherein she again
stated, 'The Court has voluntarily and
conflict in recusing itself in several other
cases, which grounds are equally applicable in
the case at bar.'" First, did I read that
correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you file this Motion to
Recuse?
A. I did.
Q. Is that your signature on the motion?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's basically a quote from the
language we read from the other motions as
well, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And I'm going to ask again,
(225) 216-2036
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
409
probing yet another file today, everything
that you know today, having heard Judge
Amacker's testimony, having looked at the
orders of recusal where she hand wrote in her
reasons, do you admit that this is a false
statement? That Judge Amacker has never
expressly admitted extreme bias and conflict
against you in a recusal?
A. No. I don't admit that it's a false
statement.
Q. I just have just a few more questions,
Ms. McCool and then I'll --
A. And just to point out on this Motion
to Recuse --
Q. Uh-huh (affirmative).
A. -- the Judge did not voluntarily
recuse herself in this motion. She set it for
hearing in front of another Judge even though
there was no difference between the last four
that I had filed and yet nothing was
different.
Q. Don't you argue that's what she should
have done?
A. No. She set this in front of another
Judge.
(225) 216-2036
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
410
Q. Right.
A. That's not what -- she should have
recused herself the minute this got filed.
She should have just signed it because she had
already done that in four prior cases. She
admitted that she had some problem with me,
which was this potential witness in a
proceeding in which I was a party which was
still pending. So there was no difference.
And yet rather than recuse herself which I had
assured this client -- now this hasn't not
even gone in front of her yet. I mean this
was a brand new case. I assured him, I said
it's a formality. She's going to recuse
herself because she's never seen this before
and in fact she didn't and that client fired
me because she sat on it -- she sat on it for
a month.
I filed it on January 3rd. She did not
deny the Motion to Recuse until the end of the
month after she wrote to you as a matter of
fact. And then she set it for a hearing in
front of another Judge with two weeks so I had
to continue it because I couldn't get prepared
in that short of time. So the client didn't -
(225) 216-2036
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
411
- the client fired me. That is what prompted
me to file (redacted) against her. Right
there because why would she recuse herself on
her -- voluntarily, without a hearing in the
four prior cases and then nothing's different.
Nine months goes by and the case is still
pending and then won't recuse herself from
this one and puts us through the extra step of
having to go in front of another Judge and try
to prove, which is almost nearly impossible to
do, although I thought I had it in the bag on
this one, to prove actual bias.
Q. Were you forum shopping when you were
seeking to recuse her from this case?
A. How could I forum shop? There are two
judges in the 22nd.
Q. Were you wanting all your cases then
allotted to the other Judge and not Judge
Amacker?
A. How could I do that? It was her
conflict. It was her bias and it hurt my
practice not to be able to practice in front
of her.
Q. Well I recall Judge Amacker, part of
her testimony on day one of this hearing was
(225) 216-2036
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
412
that at some point she became concerned that
maybe it was forum shopping and maybe that was
part of the reason for delay or for setting
matters for hearing; you just disagree with
that?
A. I think the term she used was
cherry-picking. Absolutely false. And I
would challenge you or her to bring anything
that shows any evidence that I cherry-picked
anything. I am a family law attorney. More
than 75 percent of my practice is family law.
I am passionate about family law as you can
see by how upset I get. And there are two
family law judges in St. Tammany.
There is no way that it is beneficial to
me to have one of those judges bias and
hostile towards me, calling me a liar to the
ODC, sending them information without me
knowing about it while I'm in her courtroom.
That is in no way, shape or form anything that
I would want or would have invited or has done
anything but make my life more difficult. So
to say that I'm forum shopping is -- it's
ridiculous.
Q. But you've acknowledged that you did
(225) 216-2036
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
413
not file all the motions to recuse her on the
same day in all of the matters pending?
A. In every case that was actually
active, that anything was going on in the
case, right? So there were many cases in her
court where I was still attorney of record but
they were dormant. There was nothing going on
in them. Like this is custody so they never
really end. But there was, you know, a lot of
those for me were closed cases.
Every time -- the four cases I initially
recused her from were four cases that were
active in her court. I had other cases in
Judge Devereux's court, but those were the
four cases that were active in her court;
Keister, Maurer, Mediamol (spelled
phonetically) and Cullen. Each one of those,
I had to seat each one of those clients down,
at in my office and very humiliated, had to
tell them the Judge in Division L clearly has
a problem with me. I now know she has a
problem with me and these are your options and
--
Q. Did you tell them --
A. -- it's up to you.
(225) 216-2036
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
414
Q. Did you explain to them what you felt
her issue with you was?
A. At the -- I was guessing.
Q. You didn't know it had to do with your
internet postings and comments and things made
about Raven's case?
A. I honestly wasn't sure if that was it.
I didn't know if it had to do with that
necessarily or if it had to do with the
(redacted) thing. I'm sorry. I shouldn't
have said her name. Can we take her name out
of it?
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. That'll be fine.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. I'm sorry. And the complaint I filed
against another attorney which went on in
Amacker's court. So I wasn't really sure.
And I was still -- if you read my complaint to
the ODC, you will see how I was struggling
with it and how I was trying to figure out why
she was so hostile to me because you know I
thought pretty highly of Judge Amacker. Even
with my criticism of her, I thought pretty
highly of her. And I wanted to believe in her
(225) 216-2036
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
415
and I wanted to believe that she was a good
Judge. Every Judge has a bad day. Every
Judge makes mistakes.
So I was still struggling to justify how
she was behaving towards me the whole time I
was in her courtroom. So, no. All I could
tell me client's was I have this letter from
the ODC. Looks like she doesn't think very
highly of me. I, you know, you have these
options. We can recuse her. You can fire me
and hire another attorney or we can just stay
in here and we're probably going to lose.
Q. (By Mr. Manning) How many, if any, of
the Motions to Recuse actually got set for a
hearing for another Judge?
A. Before Russell? Before this one?
Q. Dealing with Judge Amacker. Your
efforts to recuse Judge Amacker?
A. Up to what date?
Q. Up until today.
A. Oh.
Q. From the time all this stuff came
about; the Raven Maurer case up until today?
A. So those first four I filed as they
came up, as hearings came up I filed these as
(225) 216-2036
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
416
one. Then there was a period, for whatever
reason, either my cases did not -- I actually
turned away clients if they were already in
Division L and I said you just don't want that
headache or whatever. I didn't have cause to
file a Motion to Recuse her. I did not appear
in her court.
The last time I appeared in her court on
anything other than a Motion to Recuse her was
actually in Keister on a divorce rule which
was a nightmare. It was a divorce rule and
she was so horrible to me somebody actually
remarked to me that she clearly didn't like
me, when I was leaving. That was the last
time I was ever in front of Judge Amacker for
anything other than to file a Motion to
Enroll.
Q. That wasn't my question and it's my
fault I'm sure. My question is how many of
your Motions to Recuse Judge Amacker got set
for hearing before some other Judge? The
motion that you filed to recuse her.
A. This one. This Russell one was the
first one that she set. All the others she
voluntarily recused herself. There were four.
(225) 216-2036
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
417
Q. Okay. Who heard the Motion to Recuse
in the Russell matter?
A. It was moot because my client fired
me.
Q. Did any of the matters go to a hearing
before another Judge on your Motion to Recuse
Judge Amacker?
MR. DUCOTE:
At any time up until today?
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. At any time up until today?
A. No, because this was what happened.
She refused to recuse herself in Russell. It
really upset me. I filed (redacted) with the
(redacted).
MR. MANNING:
And we're not supposed to be -- you
were here for the first day and we're not
supposed to be -- there's been a ruling by
the Chair --
THE WITNESS:
You asked me the question.
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. Okay. But we're not supposed to be
referencing matters that are protected under
(225) 216-2036
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
418
the law as privileged.
A. But this is the answer to your
question. I filed a (redacted) a week -- I
filed a (redacted) on April 1st and within a
very short period after that, I received 16 or
17 sua sponte recusals on her motion on
anything that was still assigned to her docket
where I was attorney of record. All of those
cases were dormant. Nothing had gone on in
those cases over the last -- maybe one,
Keller, there might have been a motion.
Something in Keller that was very -- I don't
know. But nothing had gone on that required
my appearance or required me to do anything at
all. She sua sponte recused herself from
everything.
Now in October of 2013 I took a case that
was already in her court room. It was rather
complex but it was very serious. The first
thing we filed was a protective order which
was in the Juvenile Court and there was
juvenile proceedings separate from the
protective order, but it was also in Judge
Amacker's court on custody and had been in her
court for about four years. Well I
(225) 216-2036
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
419
automatically -- I knew they were going to all
intersect. I filed a Motion to Enroll and to
Recuse her simultaneously in the custody
proceeding.
Rather than recuse herself she -- she, on
her own motion, set my Motion to Enroll in
front of another Judge. Not my Motion to
Recuse her, the Motion to Enroll. She filed
it, not the other party. The other party did
not object to me enrolling. She did.
Q. Before which Judge was that set?
A. That was -- I think it was Division A.
Childress.
Q. And did you all have a hearing on that
motion?
A. On my Motion to Enroll? Yes.
Q. And what was the outcome?
A. Yes. I was allowed to enroll.
Q. And does the case remain before Judge
Amacker?
A. No. She had to recuse herself. And
it delayed that case a month and a half.
Q. Do you take any responsibility for the
delays that are now happening in these cases
you're telling us about?
(225) 216-2036
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
420
A. How can it be my responsibility?
Q. Ms. McCool, do you --this is -- and
all the questions are important, but listen
carefully with this one. This is something I
really want to know your thoughts on. Do you
admit today that you used the internet and
social media to try and influence Judge
Gambrell and/or Judge Amacker's rulings in
pending cases?
A. No. I admit that I advocated as a
member of the public to have the Judges look
at the law -- look at the evidence; apply the
law before they made a decision so that it
would protect these two little girls. That's
what I did.
Q. Well --
A. And whatever their decision was, as
long as it was based on the evidence and the
law, I was good with it.
Q. On March the 20th of 2012 you gave a
sworn statement to my office, to me.
A. Which -- what was it?
Q. In this matter.
A. The deposition in this.
Q. Right.
(225) 216-2036
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
421
A. Correct.
Q. And we talked about this and that's at
ODC Exhibit 18 and I'll read the questions and
answers, but beginning on transcript page 78
I'm asking a question at the bottom, when you
get to line 23, I make a statement to you to
elicit your response. And I say, "I think
this whole campaign was an effort to influence
one or both of these Judges." And on page 79
you respond, "But to influence them to do
what?" My question, "To either consider this
evidence or to --" and then you say, "I will
agree with that." And I say, "Okay." And you
say, "I will not deny that. I will -- it was
a campaign to influence the judges to apply
the law and look at the evidence, definitely."
And then I said, "Through social media?" And
you said, "Yes, through whatever means
available."
A. Yes. Absolutely. That's what I just
said.
Q. Weren't there issues of evidence and
admissibility that had been ruled upon or were
pending before these Judges at that time?
Yes?
(225) 216-2036
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
422
A. At what time? I'm sorry.
Q. At the time when you were filing these
petitions and postings these blogs and making
the tweets?
A. Are you asking me if there were issues
of evidence pending before them?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. We were encouraging -- we wanted
the Judges to look at the evidence.
Absolutely.
Q. And you believed up to that point that
the Judges had refused to look at certain
evidence, right?
A. I know for a fact they did.
Q. Okay. So you turned to social media
and the internet to try to influence the
Judges to look at the evidence that you wanted
them to look at?
A. I just wanted them to look at all the
evidence.
Q. The evidence that your client in
Louisiana and Raven who was not your client in
Mississippi wanted the Judges to look at?
A. That's not what that says. That says
look at the evidence.
(225) 216-2036
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
423
Q. What evidence?
A. That's what that says.
Q. What evidence, the recordings?
A. Whatever evidence was available.
Q. The recordings?
A. Whatever evidence was available.
Q. The recordings? That's one of the
things you wanted them to look at?
A. Sure. Yes. It was a part of the
evidence that we wanted them to look at.
Q. And the journal?
A. Yes. Absolutely. They should have
looked at the journal.
Q. Okay.
A. Disgraceful.
Q. And there had been at least one ruling
or at least a temporary ruling excluding the
journal at one point by Judge Gambrell because
she found out there were two journals and she
wanted to see both journals, right? You heard
her testimony.
A. I did. And I have to tell you I've
never seen that rule of evidence anywhere. My
understanding is the rule of evidence is if
it's helpful to the Judge to make a ruling and
(225) 216-2036
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
424
you can authenticate it, it's admissible.
Q. Okay. But you're --
A. This idea that you can't admit one
without the other, I've never seen that in the
Code of Evidence.
Q. You don't agree with that, but you're
aware that today, at least now you're aware
that was her ruling? That's what she said her
reasons for that ruling was.
A. And what I said in the petition was
that through the use of one technicality or
another, the evidence was excluded and that's
exactly what happened.
Q. So at least one of the reasons for
this internet and social media campaign was to
try to get Judge Gambrell to change her mind
and look at the things that she had --
A. No.
Q. -- chosen not to?
A. Just like you said -- just like you
just asked me, we made this while it was still
pending. And then when she denied it we
wanted the Supreme Court to consider the fact
that none of this evidence had ever been
considered and these children weren't being
(225) 216-2036
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
425
protected. Yes.
Q. So that was one of the reasons for the
writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court?
A. Well the reason for the writ with the
Supreme Court, the Louisiana Supreme Court was
yes, to get relief through the Court. That's
the process. But, yes, did we want to bring
the Court's attention to the fact that this is
an ongoing problem that we all talked about
how we want to protect children but when it
comes to the courtroom it's like a game of
hide the ball and all the different tricks and
technicalities that they use to keep this
evidence out. You know you keep referring to
these proceedings as if -- and you should read
the entire transcript from that hearing. It's
disgraceful.
Q. And while the writ was pending at the
Supreme Court you encouraged people to call
them also?
A. Yes. To let them know that they were
concerned because it's a Policy Court.
Q. Do you still think that's appropriate
conduct today for an attorney to encourage
people to contact a Court and ask them and
(225) 216-2036
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
426
voice their opinions about pending cases?
A. To -- yes. I do.
Q. Okay. And do you think it's perfectly
okay, even today, for you to encourage that
and to solicit that?
A. Yes. They're elected officials. They
are responsible -- they are responsive and
responsible to the people they serve. And if
they don't know that people aren't concerned
-- The Supreme Court is a Policy Court. It
responds to things that they believe are
important social trends. So, yes, I do
believe it's important that the Supreme Court
be aware that this is an important issue for
people in the community. And the number that
was provided is the Clerk of Court's number.
Q. Are you -- let me ask you this. Are
you a part of any online petitions or social
media efforts today in any pending matters
that encourage people to call Judges or call
Courts?
A. I don't believe so. I mean I sign
petitions all the time but I don't know if
there are any that are --
Q. Would you hesitate to take the lead
(225) 216-2036
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
427
role in the this type of thing again in a case
in the future if you had these same concerns?
MR. DUCOTE:
Objection to term "type of thing". I
think that's a --
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. If you believed that evidentiary
rulings are incorrect and are that maybe if
you believe that children involved in
proceedings are being placed at risk because
of rulings you disagree with, would you turn
to social media or the internet to --
A. You're mischaracterizing the issue.
Q. I'm just asking a question.
A. And you're mischaracterizing the
issue. In your question you're saying if I
disagree with a ruling. I disagree with
rulings all the time, but if the Judge follows
the law and applies the evidence and abides by
the rules, then, I say it all the time --
well, you know as long as we get fair -- as
long as it's fair, there's room for
disagreement. I don't mind losing for the
right reasons. I don't like losing for the
wrong reasons.
(225) 216-2036
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
428
But when you're talking about children
who's their only source of protection -- they
are out of options and the only tool that can
protect them is the justice system, then the
justice system should abide by the law; and
they should follow the rules; and they should
have -- why, if you're someone who can protect
a child, why would you err in any other
direction other than to consider all of the
evidence that's available so that you can make
sure that you're not missing anything. We
didn't request any particular outcome in that
case, in the case we're talking about. We
only asked --
Q. You didn't? You all didn't seek to
have the father's visitation removed?
A. In the petition?
Q. In the proceeding?
A. I wasn't involved in the proceedings.
I was involved in the petition. And in that
petition the only thing we were seeking was,
in my mind, justice. Look at the evidence.
Just look at. How could you just look at it
and just not be concerned about what's going
on with these little girls.
(225) 216-2036
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
429
I mean the evidence -- I have never had
more evidence of sexual abuse in any other
case than this one. And it had been available
to them since 2007. From 2007 and through one
artifice or another they excluded the
evidence. Refused to allow Raven to put that
evidence in either through her attorney's;
through the guardian ad litem who weren't
qualified to do the job; who were hostile;
they had hearings and conference -- Judge
Gambrell admitted to having a conference in
chambers on July 20th and I have evidence of
what went on in that conference and it wasn't
housekeeping.
Q. Do you --
A. And it was all not according to law.
It violated Mississippi's laws. They ignored
the law and in those instances the Judge's are
not affording justice. So what do you do?
Q. Ms. McCool, please don't take -- I
don't know what evidence you all had or didn't
have. And I have told you before and I'll make
this statement on the record, none of what we
are here doing today at ODC is intended to
make light of any of the allegations that are
(225) 216-2036
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
430
pending in that case. Those are awful,
horrendous allegations when you're dealing
with children. That being said, you also know
that the matter was turned over to law
enforcement. And at some point in time the
father was indicted but then the whole matter
was dropped and he was never prosecuted or
found guilty or convicted, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. By law enforcement?
A. Yes.
Q. And whether you think they were
qualified or not, one or more guardian ad
litem's were charged with investigating the
allegations of abuse, correct?
A. That's a compound question and I'm
struggling with part of it.
Q. I said one or more of the guardian ad
litem's were charged with the responsibility
of investigating the allegations of sexual
abuse in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. John Smallwood is one of them.
A. Yes. Not properly trained to do an
investigation of a case involving sexual
(225) 216-2036
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
431
abuse. Under Mississippi law not properly
qualified to do that job.
Q. Ms. McCool, are you aware that the
online petition and/or some or maybe all of
the blogs and articles can still be accessed
online even today?
A. Yes.
MR. MANNING:
Madam Chair, before -- and I just have
maybe two or three other questions, but
before I forget, we went through the
factual stipulations. They were earlier
filed with the Board into the record but
as an Appendix, but not put into evidence.
So I've labeled that as ODC Exhibit 20 and
it's these.
MR. DUCOTE:
I think it's either the same ones that
were attached to my pre-hearing memo if
I'm correct.
MR. MANNING:
Yes. I've labeled them. You'll see
at the top because they were attached,
it's Appendix A and these are the
stipulations 1 through 57.
(225) 216-2036
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
432
MR. DUCOTE:
Correct.
MR. MANNING:
And I would offer them into evidence
at this time.
MR. DUCOTE:
No objection.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I'm sorry.
MR. MANNING:
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to
interrupt. I offered the stipulations
that we just went through 1 through 57
into evidence and there was no objection.
MR. DUCOTE:
Those are the same ones that I
attached to my pre-hearing memo.
MR. MANNING:
Yes.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay.
MR. MANNING:
And I had provided you all with copies
at the first hearing and I can get
additional copies we need to.
(225) 216-2036
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
433
MR. DUCOTE:
And they again are included -- they're
exactly the same document that is attached
to my pre-hearing memo which you have
copies of.
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. Okay. Ms. McCool, Monday of this week
you sued Judge Amacker seeking a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary injunction
against her?
A. I did.
Q. And --
MR. DUCOTE:
I'm going to object to the relevance
of this. I don't know if we're going to
want to attempt to litigate that in this.
I don't know if they allege that there's
some impropriety with that then there
should be a new charge filed or something,
but I will object to the --
MR. MANNING:
It all should be considered as part of
the ongoing pattern if there is to have
been found that Ms. McCool engaged in
misconduct, then one of the ABA standards
(225) 216-2036
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
434
as an aggravating factor is a pattern and
practice of that conduct.
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. And the only other question I think I
had for her at the time is didn't you also in
that petition for a temporary restraining
order again reference your having filed things
against her that we are referring to in these
proceedings as matters that are privileged and
protected by law?
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. Let me object again for several
reasons. First of all, counsel says well
we're offering this as part of a pattern
of misconduct. Well that's uncharged
misconduct. That is if they contend that
that pleading was some sort of violation
of the Rules of Professional Conduct then
that should be the subject of another
proceeding, not this proceeding.
Second of all, the ruling as to what
was admissible in this hearing for the
purposes of this hearing has nothing to do
with whether or not anything that was
plead in this petition was proper or
(225) 216-2036
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
435
improper. And it then takes us down
another road about trying to litigate what
this separate proceeding is which is a
tangential matter to this. It's not
relevant.
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. Well what is relevant is isn't it also
true that you are still referring to making
allegations in your petition that Judge
Amacker has previously, expressly admitted
bias and prejudice against you?
MR. DUCOTE:
Well again, let me object.
MR. MANNING:
Wouldn't it --
MR. DUCOTE:
This would be a new --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Wait. One at a time. I'm sorry.
MR. DUCOTE:
This would be a new charge apparently
that isn't before this Committee.
MR. MANNING:
It isn't.
MR. DUCOTE:
(225) 216-2036
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
436
What's before this Committee is the
formal complaint, the formal charges that
were filed. This was not part of that.
If they think this is something that they
need to pursue then they ought to pursue
it as a separate charge or something if
they intend to do that. But to just kind
of grab this on and say oh, here's
something new we want to attack you for
without any type of notices involved.
MR. MANNING:
Well the Respondent is specifically
charged in the formal charges with making
false statements in motions to recuse and
specifically, part of those false
statements is the representation that
Judge Amacker has expressly admitted
extreme bias and prejudice in other orders
of recusal which is just not borne out by
the record. That same type of reference
is made in this petition. It was just
filed this week so I wouldn't have known
about it before this week. I'm not adding
it on as an additional charge. I'm not
asking you to find an additional act of
(225) 216-2036
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
437
misconduct.
It could be considered as an
aggravating factor under the ABA standards
if in fact that is found to be misconduct.
If it's not misconduct then it has no
relevance. If it is, the relevance would
be as a continuation of the pattern and of
the mental element that goes along with
the conduct that we're here discussing
today.
MR. DUCOTE:
Well, it's not relevant.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. We're going to let it in only
for the limited purpose of whatever
relevance it has in relation to these
proceedings, but obviously not as a new
charge or to prove new conduct against Ms.
McCool. So for that limited purpose I'll
allow it.
MR. MANNING:
It is -- it's been labeled as ODC
Exhibit 21 and I'll offer it into evidence
at this time.
MR. DUCOTE:
(225) 216-2036
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
438
Over my objection. And now that it's
in, I think the Committee ought to read
this and see that it doesn't say what
counsel represented.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Do you have copies for us?
MR. MANNING:
And I redacted the reference to
matters that were already under an order.
They're redacted already.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Thank you.
MR. MANNING:
What I was referencing to, just to
respond to Mr. Ducote's charge is under --
MR. DUCOTE:
Just as a point of fact.
MR. MANNING:
I'm sorry. In response to Mr.
Ducote's claim that I misrepresented what
was in the pleading, in paragraph 14 it
says, "Due to Judge Amacker's arbitrary
failure to recuse herself in the
proceeding despite the prior voluntary
admission of bias against the plaintiff."
(225) 216-2036
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
439
That was what I was referring to as her
continuing with the suggestion that there
was some expressed voluntarily admission
which Judge Amacker's orders clearly do
not support. This -- and I don't have any
other -- I have maybe one other question
about this.
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. Ms. McCool, what's the status of this
petition today?
A. I don't know. I haven't had time to
check in on it.
Q. Has it been set for a hearing or has
there been an ex parte order granted?
A. Not that I'm aware of, but I've been
fairly busy and my help was out sick yesterday
so the office was unattended. And I just want
to say that my statement here in 14 says that
her prior voluntary admission of bias against
the plaintiff. When she -- the law is very
clear that when a judge voluntarily recuses
themselves, this is admission of bias because
they are not allowed to just recuse themselves
based on an appearance of impropriety.
I realize that Judge Amacker is trying to
(225) 216-2036
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
440
rely on that, but I think clearly if she was
concerned about an appearance of impropriety
that same appearance would still exist. It
would have existed well before I filed the
first motion. It would have existed when I
filed Russell and she refused to recuse
herself. And she has now demonstrated clear
bias every time she sets one of my Motions to
Enroll before another Judge on her own motion
because the implication is clearly that I am
doing it for an improper purpose and that is
demonstrated actual bias.
Q. Ms. McCool, other than as you've
already explained to us your position that
when she did not specifically deny the
allegations of bias that you take that as an
admission. And I'm paraphrasing greatly, but
that I believe was part of your response.
Other than that belief that you hold, can you
tell us at any specific point in time or on
any record or in any order where Judge Amacker
has herself admitted bias against you?
A. Wait. Ask me the question again?
Q. Can you point us to an order or a
transcript or any evidence, your documentary
(225) 216-2036
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
441
evidence --
A. As a matter of fact I could.
Q. Tell us about it.
A. There was a proceeding in October.
Q. Of what year?
A. Of 2013. And I happened to be at
Court that day on another matter with another
client standing in the atrium speaking with my
client. Another person walked over to us, a
woman who knew my client who I knew through,
just barely, through another organization.
That woman came over, spoke to my client,
chatted with the three of us about what we had
done in Court and that she was about to go
into Amacker's Court. Conversation probably
lasted five minutes. That client then --
Judge Amacker's Court opened after lunch. She
said oh, I got to go and she ran off and we
left.
When she went into that courtroom during
the proceeding, an attorney who was present
not in her capacity as attorney but as a
witness for the opposing party told Judge
Amacker that that attorney had seen the client
speaking to me in the atrium which prompted
(225) 216-2036
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
442
Judge Amacker, and I have the transcripts, to
go on about how there had been this history of
attorney's filing motions just for the purpose
of recusing the Judge. And she was clearly
referring to me and she was clearly expressing
a very low opinion of me on the record to
these people and whomever else happened to be
in the courtroom. So, yes. I would say that
is an obvious expression of bias against me.
And actually the transcript itself is -- I
mean her conduct is reprehensible.
Q. Is that what you're referring to like
in Section 19 when you refer to Judge
Amacker's admitted and now firmly established
bias against plaintiff?
A. Paragraph?
Q. 19.
A. Yes. Well that and along with her
setting my Motions to Enroll. Mr. Manning,
the Judge is supposed to be the impartial
trier of fact in family. We don't have juries
so they are the fact finders. They're
supposed to be impartial. They do not have
standing to file any motion in a proceeding
because they're not supposed to have an
(225) 216-2036
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
443
interest in the proceeding. So every time
Judge Amacker sets my Motions to Enroll -- and
I'm emotional.
You have a constitutional right to your
attorney of choice and there are very few
limitations on that. She keeps citing this
case that I wish I could cite off the top of
my head that has absolutely nothing to do with
the situation, the facts and circumstances in
which I'm enrolling in cases. She cites this
case as grounds for why she, herself, can set
a Motion to Enroll in front of another Judge.
That is her suggesting, by the very act of
doing it, that she believes that I am
enrolling for an improper purpose. It is
bias, Mr. Manning.
Q. In your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. Last question unless your response
elicits some follow up questions. Have you
ever been disciplined by any Court for openly
questioning the integrity of the judiciary?
MR. DUCOTE:
Objection to the form of the question.
Courts can't discipline attorneys.
(225) 216-2036
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
444
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. Sanctioned, reprimanded publicly in
writing through any order or opinion?
A. I think there was a comment from the
First Circuit in Stroscher because I was in
court one day listening and -- God, I wish I
knew which Judge that was. And the Judge made
the comments on the record that were very, in
my opinion, they were problematic because they
attacked and blamed a victim of domestic
violence for her situation. It was very much
a blaming comment if I remember correctly.
And I made that comment in my brief saying
that the Judge's -- the judiciary becomes
something either inadvertent or willing
participant in the perpetration of domestic
violence and the First Circuit chastised me
for saying that about the court system.
Q. You said that was in Stroscher?
A. I believe that was. This was a long
time ago.
Q. I understand. And I have it and
you're right, it was a long time ago. It was
in 2003. And --
A. Was it 2003?
(225) 216-2036
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
445
Q. This can maybe help with your
recollection in the opinion issued by the
First Circuit in that matter. They
referenced, and I'll just read because it's
very brief, it says, "The acrimony in this
bitter dispute is evident. However, the
language of Ms. Barton's brief is
inappropriate." Ms. Barton was your client?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were involved in writing the
brief to the First Circuit in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. And signed off as one of the counsel
on that brief?
A. I did.
Q. It says, "However, the language of Ms.
Barton's brief is inappropriate, discourteous
and insulting. In the interest of judicial
efficiency, we decline to return Ms. Barton's
brief. However we grant the Motion for
Sanctions and order that footnote 1 on page 4
of the entire conclusion on page 23 of Ms.
Barton's brief be stricken. In representing
their clients, attorneys must act within the
bounds of professionalism. We condemn this
(225) 216-2036
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
446
sort of unprofessional conduct evidenced in
the brief submitted to this Court. It is
clearly inappropriate and unprofessional
for..." and it lists counsel including you,
Ms. Nyman I think was your maiden name.
A. Maiden name, yes.
Q. "...to utilize Ms. Barton's appellate
brief as a platform for casting aspersions on
the integrity of the Family Court and the
judiciary." Do you recall that language in
this opinion?
A. I don't recall it exactly, but I don't
doubt that that's what it says. You have the
language that they're affronted by?
Q. It says the language, yes. "The
language Mr. Stroscher objects to is contained
in a footnote and in the brief's conclusion.
In the footnote, Ms. Barton offers her
thoughts on the equities of rule day in Family
Court and the "so-called 'consent' judgments"
that are sometimes entered on rule day. Ms.
Barton's conclusions consist of three
paragraphs on the topic of domestic violence
and her belief that those who commit domestic
violence continue to do so through the Court
(225) 216-2036
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
447
System "with the full weight of the judicial
system behind them."
A. Yes.
Q. Those are comments you made in a
brief?
A. They are.
Q. And you were reprimanded by the First
Circuit for having made those comments?
A. Yes, I was.
MR. MANNING:
I would like to go ahead and identify
and mark this as ODC Exhibit 22 and offer
this.
MR. DUCOTE:
I object to the relevance. She has
already admitted --
MR. MANNING:
I'm offering the First Circuit's
opinion labeled as ODC 22 into evidence at
this time.
MR. DUCOTE:
I object to relevancy. She admitted
it.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Let it be entered.
(225) 216-2036
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
448
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. And just again let the record reflect
that the reference to our Respondent is
through her maiden name which was Ms. Nyman?
A. Correct.
Q. N-Y-M-A-N?
A. Correct.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Are you done?
MR. MANNING:
Oh, yes. I thought you all were still
reading so you could rule on the exhibit.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
That's fine. The exhibit can come in.
MR. MANNING:
Yes. ODC is done and we'll tender Ms.
McCool at this time.
MR. DUCOTE:
Can we take a five minute break?
MS. GOLDSMITH:
We can.
MR. MANNING:
And ODC has no other witnesses so once
Ms. McCool's testimony is completed our
case will be rested.
(225) 216-2036
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
449
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Thank you.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MS. GOLDSMITH:
We're back on the record. Mr. Ducote?
EXAMINATION BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Ms. McCool, when you started off your
testimony you discussed your education and
your decision to go to law school in the
following year Coast Guard Service; can you
tell the Committee what it was in your life
that prompted you to make the career choice
that you made?
A. To become an attorney?
Q. Yes.
A. I had -- wow. I've always been
passionate about justice and I think serving
in the Coast Guard made me care deeply about
this country. I mean I joined the Coast Guard
because rather than kill people you got to
save people. You know I think it was a
natural development of the whole theme of my
life. I had a wonderful father and my mom,
she's a good person, but she was violent as a
child so I had to overcome a lot of issues
(225) 216-2036
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
450
having to do with domestic violence from a
child's perspective. And so I think it was a
natural evolution that I became involved with
trying to assist victims of domestic violence
as a non-legal advocate. And I saw the way
they were treated in court and it was very
disturbing.
They were often blamed. They were often
told or asked questions on the record about
what -- you know they must have done something
to instigate it; and why don't you stop
provoking him; and you know that you do these
things that's going to cause him to get angry
and I was really disturbed by it. I actually
considered going into social work, but I
realized I don't really have the patience for
social work. So natural evolution, I applied
to law school and when I went to LSU there
wasn't a specific program or an internship for
domestic violence. They have one now. I'm
kind of jealous that they get to do it now,
but I didn't.
And then when -- and that was the whole
purpose of me going to law school is so that I
could represent primarily children. I wanted
(225) 216-2036
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
451
to do that. I didn't realize going into law
school how difficult that would be so it
evolved into wanting to represent victims.
And then once I got out and started
practicing, you know I realized that you know
I've evolved and it's a family issue. I had a
lot of preconceived notions before I actually
got in the field and started practicing and
all.
And so I've always cared deeply about
children and about fairness in that you know
I've always thought that the law was the way
-- you know this is a country based on the
rule of law. I'm sorry to preach, but if we
ignore the law then we don't live in a country
based on the rule of law. It doesn't matter
how many laws we have on the books if we don't
abide by them, if we don't apply them, they're
irrelevant. So I always thought the legal
system was you know the most noble branch of
government and I wanted to be a part of it.
Q. So what age did you leave home?
A. I was 16.
Q. And what were the circumstances of
your leaving home?
(225) 216-2036
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
452
A. My mother was violent and my dad
worked a lot to support us. He was a school
teacher and he had a second job so he wasn't
home a lot to protect us. When he was there
he would protect me, but he wasn't there a
lot. So I just -- I dropped out of high
school and got a job and had an apartment and
you know was working two jobs actually and all
my friends were getting married and I knew I
didn't want to get married. So I realized I
wanted to go to college, but I couldn't afford
to go to college and one of my girlfriend's
brother's was in the Coast Guard and he told
me you know that I could actually go and not
kill people, but save people so I joined the
Coast Guard.
Q. Now if we could jump ahead to the end
of Mr. Manning's testimony regarding the
Stroscher case and he talked about a footnote
that the First Circuit disagreed with and said
what they said. Do you recall what it was
that you observed in Court that prompted that
footnote?
A. Yes. It's been a long time. What I
remember is I was there on something else. I
(225) 216-2036
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
453
think it was Judge Ledet's court, but I really
don't remember. Big courtroom. It was rule
day. Calling cases. People were standing up
and there was a case having to do with -- I
think it might have been a protective order.
It might have been something else, but the
woman was unrepresented and she was trying to
tell the Court why she needed the relief she
was asking for. And I just remember that the
Court was very rude to her and said things
that I felt -- I like the Judge.
I remember the Judge and I liked the Judge
and I was disappointed in what the Judge said.
But it was essentially the Judge was
reflecting what I considered a myth that ran
rampant in the judicial system that women
bring these allegations to get some advantage
in custody and that's where they start from.
They start from that presumption rather than
starting from the unbiased, open-minded
perspective of well maybe they're bringing it
to get an advantage in custody, but maybe they
really need help. Let me hear. Let me
listen. And whatever the Judge said and I
don't remember. I wrote it down. I literally
(225) 216-2036
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
454
wrote it down on my pad of paper and made a
note of it. I think because I was in the
midst of writing that brief and I realized
that it was -- I felt like it demonstrated the
problem that we had in the case we were taking
up on appeal, but I wrote it down. I don't
remember it. I mean I wish I had my brief.
Q. Okay. And did the First Circuit refer
that matter, the brief, to the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel or Bar complaint or
anything like that?
A. No.
(Off the record.)
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. So there were no disciplinary
complaints or anything that came out of the
issuance --
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now I want to go first to the
recusals and the charge that you made false
statements in the Motions to Recuse Judge
Amacker about Judge Amacker's admission of
bias against you. Now at any time did anybody
ever file an Article 863 Motion against you
alleging that anything that you ever put in a
(225) 216-2036
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
455
pleading, in the recusal motions, and that's
Article 863 under the Code of Civil Procedure,
was a violation of that rule?
A. No.
Q. And Judge Amacker already testified
that she never filed any sort of complaint
against you?
A. No.
Q. And there were never any sanctions
under Article 863 of the Code of Civil
Procedure because of that, correct?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not
anybody ever made a Bar complaint against you
with the ODC specifically about what you said
in the Motions to Recuse Judge Amacker?
A. Other than Judge Amacker?
Q. Well Judge Amacker says she never
filed a Bar complaint against you.
A. Okay. Then, no. No formal complaint
other than what Judge Amacker provided to the
ODC.
Q. Okay. And now are you aware of the
provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure
that specifically govern recusal of judges,
(225) 216-2036
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
456
specifically Articles 151 through 158 of the
Code of Civil Procedure?
A. I am familiar with them.
Q. Okay. And are you aware of the First
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Slaughter
versus Board of Supervisors of Southern
University at 767 So.3d 465 (2011) which is in
the supplement brief, it says quote, on page
470 and 471, "A judge is presumed to be
impartial. The grounds for recusal enumerated
in Article 151 are exclusive and do not
include a "substantial appearance of the
possibility of bias" or even a "mere
appearance of impropriety" as causes for
removing a judge from presiding over a given
action. Article 151 requires a finding of
actual bias or prejudice, which must be of a
substantial nature and based on more than
conclusory allegations" for a judge to be
recused?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with the case of In
Re LeMoine, 686 So.2d 837, Louisiana Supreme
Court and the case of Southern Casing of
Louisiana, Inc. versus Houma Avionics at 809
(225) 216-2036
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
457
So.2d 1040, another Louisiana Supreme Court
case that said that a judge can only
voluntarily self-recuse for legally compelling
reasons or simply because she believes that
she cannot fairly and impartially judge a
matter before her?
A. Yes.
Q. Now are you familiar with the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,
Article 155, 156 that provides that when a
judge is presented with a Motion to Recuse
they have one of two choices?
A. I am.
Q. And the choices being they can
voluntarily recuse themselves based on the
Motion or refer the matter to another judge to
have a hearing on the recusal?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now prior to you filing the
Motion to Recuse Judge Amacker in the Keister
case, did Judge Amacker ever just sua sponte,
voluntarily recuse herself from any case that
you had?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now at the time that you filed
(225) 216-2036
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
458
the Motion to Recuse Judge Amacker in Keister
had Judge Amacker been involved in activities
relative to your license that you were not
aware of?
A. At the time I filed the Motion to
Recuse her?
Q. Yes. Prior -- let me back up a little
bit. Prior to your filing the Motion to
Recuse Judge Amacker in the Keister case had
you --
A. I didn't know --
Q. Wait. Let me rephrase the question.
When did you find out that Judge Amacker had
been engaged, first of all, in having these
phone -- this phone call to Judge Gambrell in
Mississippi, communicating with the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel?
A. Well when I got the first notice from
the ODC about Judge Gambrell's complaint I of
course read it and I saw that she referenced
Judge Amacker and I think I noticed the Judge
Gambrell cc'd Judge Amacker. I don't remember
that or noticing that. But I didn't give it
much weight. I just assumed that Judge
Amacker would -- I just didn't give it much
(225) 216-2036
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
459
weight and even if they had a conversation I
just assumed so what. I was more concerned
about Judge Gambrell's complaint which I
responded to.
And then I had cases active in Judge
Amacker's court and I didn't think anything of
her activity. I didn't know that she was as
involved in this complaint -- I didn't. The
first time I became aware that she was very
involved in this complaint was in the ODC's
second letter to me in May of 2012 where every
allegation is "Judge Amacker says". Judge
Amacker says you've been untruthful. Judge
Amacker says that's not true.
Q. Okay.
A. That was the first indication I had
that she was very involved in the complaint.
I had not realized it up until that point.
Q. Okay. Now there is in ODC Exhibit 3 a
letter to you from the ODC dated April 25th,
2012.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It does not reference any
communications from Judge Amacker, correct?
A. Well it does. It says -- it doesn't
(225) 216-2036
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
460
reference any communications with Judge
Gambrell, but it does say that -- it says
Judge Amacker, according to Judge Amacker this
statement is also untrue. According to Judge
Amacker this is a misstatement of the law. I
mean this is the letter of April 25th, 2012.
This is when I became aware of how involved
she was in this case and this was actually a
short time after I had been in her courtroom,
maybe the month before -- it was a month
before and I was prompted to express my
concern about her conduct towards me at that
time in a complaint I filed to the ODC against
an attorney.
Q. Now if you could go to ODC 12, it's a
letter from Judge Amacker dated March 28th,
2012.
A. Yes.
Q. And she's testified that she never
filed a complaint against you.
A. That's correct.
Q. But it references the complaint that
Judge Gambrell filed and then adds a lot of
information. Do you see that exhibit?
A. I do.
(225) 216-2036
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
461
Q. Okay. When did you first see this
letter from Judge Amacker?
A. Honestly, I just read it two days ago,
but I knew it was in the exhibit list. But
the first time I became aware of it was
because of the ODC's formal charges and it
being included as an exhibit.
Q. Okay. So before it was included as an
exhibit in preparation for this hearing had
you ever seen a copy of the March 28th, 2012
letter from Judge Amacker to Mr. Manning?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now on March 28th, 2012 were you -- as
of March 28th, 2012 had Judge Amacker recused
herself from any cases?
A. No.
Q. And was this prior to your filing a
Motion to Recuse her in the Keister case?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now when you read ODC 12, do
you see any evidence of bias and prejudice
against you?
A. She says that my statements are a
mischaracterization -- a misstatement of the
law and mischaracterization of what occurred
(225) 216-2036
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
462
which I consider her essentially calling me a
liar. She also says, and I find this
statement really interesting based on what had
happened the day before in her courtroom.
She says, "Her statement on page two of
the same blog is untrue when she references
the child at issue and says, states, "I just
ignored her." She denies that that's the case
and yeah, I think the letter definitely
demonstrates a lot of negative perception of
me and my integrity and my character.
Q. Now when were you last in court with
Judge Amacker before March 28th, 2012?
A. March 27th, 2012.
Q. And what were you in court on on March
27, 2012?
A. It was a compliance hearing we had on
the Keister case. We had been in court on
March 7th on my Motion to Compel discovery
that had been outstanding for months and
months. The opposing counsel and I, it's been
a very, very contentious case. And on March
7th we were there all day and ultimately Judge
Amacker did rule in our favor, but even then I
was concerned at how far she let opposing
(225) 216-2036
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
463
counsel go and how far she let opposing
counsel to drag it out and then would not
award my client the attorney's fees that were
made necessary solely by what I felt and what
I think the record reflects is a completely
frivolous argument by opposing counsel because
she had failed to produce discovery for
months.
It had propounded in September of the
prior year. It had been outstanding for
months and months. She admitted in an email
that she hadn't provided it. She had still
not provided it when we were in court on March
7th and the Judge finally -- I really felt
like Judge Amacker was saying at the time, I
have no other choice but than to grant this
Motion to Compel because you know there's no
way not to. And on that date she gave the
party, the opposing party, the attorney's
client until March 27th in order to produce
all of the discovery. And the practice is
that if the information is not produced by the
compliance date and we're forced to return
then attorney's fees are routinely awarded in
Judge Amacker's court.
(225) 216-2036
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
464
Q. Okay.
A. Which is what she did.
Q. Now when you went into court on March
27th --
Q. -- did Judge Amacker at any time say,
Ms. McCool, I am concerned about -- you don't
know what I'm doing behind the scenes, but I
have concerns to avoid the appearance of
impropriety, I'm going to recuse myself --
A. No.
Q. -- from this? Okay. Now was there
anything else that happened with the other
attorney in the case that you thought maybe
should merit some concern from Judge Amacker
about the way attorney's comport themselves in
her court?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened?
A. Well on March 27th, opposing counsel
stopped me in the crowded atrium. She was
upset with me and she repeatedly called me a
"freak" over and over again. Stood in my face
and she jabbed at me in the chest, hitting me
right here (indicating). And then when we
(225) 216-2036
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
465
were actually sitting in the courtroom the
Judge was not on the bench but her staff was
sitting there. The Judge was in the back.
She, opposing counsel, called me a "bitch".
And then when the court recessed for lunch and
we had to come back because opposing counsel
would not agree to anything, as I was leaving
the Courthouse I inadvertently had to pass
opposing counsel and her client in the hallway
and opposing counsel, because I wouldn't speak
to her any more because she was being so
verbally abusive, she was trying to talk to
me, but I didn't want to engage and she picked
her fist up and threatened to strike me. And
I, because of my background and the violence
as a child, that's a trigger for me.
And you know I think I've dealt with a lot
of those issues through therapy and the like,
but it's still a trigger. It's very -- it
upset me. So when we came back after the
recess, Judge Amacker asked us to go in to
Chambers and in Chambers I described to Judge
Amacker what opposing counsel had done because
by this time I was so uncomfortable and Judge
Amacker just ignored it. She chastised us
(225) 216-2036
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
466
both as if -- and opposing counsel admitted
that she called me a "freak". She denied
calling me a "bitch", but she did demonstrate
to Judge Amacker how she had raised her fist
because -- and how she was so angry with me
because I wouldn't talk to her and she really
wanted me to talk to her. And Judge Amacker
didn't do anything about it and I was stunned.
I just -- I was stunned.
And then she told us, after we had been
there all day on a completely different issue,
the compliance hearing was there -- opposing
counsel admitted that they still hadn't
produced everything and Judge Amacker said
that she was going to give them another
chance. And I asked Judge Amacker if she was
going to at least give us some attorney's fees
because I had been there all day and my client
has to pay me to be there all day. And she
said no. And then she kicked us out of her
Chambers.
And when we went on the record, I wanted
to put on the record my objection to her not
granting attorney's fees under the facts. I
wanted to make the record and she wouldn't let
(225) 216-2036
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
467
me speak. She interrupted me. And then she -
- and there was -- there was plenty of people
in the courtroom. She even referenced them in
the transcript. Mr. Jim Morman (spelled
phonetically), she referenced him. He was
standing there along with several other
people, other attorney's who I know and she
preceded to say to both of us, not
distinguishing me from opposing counsel and
chastised us both as if I had engaged in
inappropriate conduct when opposing counsel
hadn't even accused me of improper conduct.
She had only admitted her own.
And Judge Amacker did nothing and then
kicked us out of the courtroom. She
literally, while I was trying to speak, said
you can leave now and she indicated to her
bailiff to have her bailiff come over as if if
I didn't leave he was going to either
physically escort me from the court room or
have me arrested so I left.
Q. Okay. I'm going to tell you what I
marked as Exhibit K 13 and I'll ask you what
that is. R 13 rather.
A. That's the transcript of the
(225) 216-2036
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
468
proceedings on March 27, 2012.
Q. Is that in the Keister case following
when you went back on the record after the
attorney called you a "bitch" and a "freak"
and raised her fist to punch you?
A. Yes. And it's not the entire
transcript. It's just a relevant portions,
but, yes.
Q. And that was why it's Judge Amacker's
bias; would it be on that day?
A. Yes. And you know the thing in the
back where I was trying to talk to her and I
said to her you know that I object to Your
Honor ignoring counsel's conduct when she's
admitted to it and Judge Amacker interrupted
me and this became -- it stuck out to me later
that she said I don't agree that I am ignoring
you counsel by being here all day and doing
all of these things. I mean I can read what
she said. But the fact that she said, "We
disagree on whether or not the Court at three
o'clock having dealt with this and many other
matters all day long has ignored you. I
disagree with that statement."
Q. When you were referencing her ignoring
(225) 216-2036
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
469
you was about what?
A. I said -- I said, well -- I said and
Your Honor then I would like to make on the
record that I object to the fact that this is
being ignored. That Mrs. (redacted), the
opposing counsel's conduct is being ignored
and even though she admitted to her conduct in
your Chambers and now my client has to pay for
me to be here all day again. And I'm sorry.
I understand you have a lot more important
things to do than this, so do I. And then the
opposing counsel starts cutting me off and --
Q. So that's all reflected in the
transcript?
A. Yes.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. I'd offer, introduce and file
into evidence R 13.
MR. MANNING:
No objection other than let the record
reflect that it's apparently just a
partial transcript.
MR. DUCOTE:
Right. It's a partial of the relevant
portions.
(225) 216-2036
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
470
THE WITNESS:
I can provide the entire transcript if
that's more acceptable.
MR. MANNING:
As R 13?
MR. DUCOTE:
And there are copies of R 13.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Now were you present when Judge
Amacker's deposition was taken in this case on
January 22, 2014?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall her demeanor and her
attitude during the course of the deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you believe that that evidenced
bias and hostility towards you as well?
A. Yes. That was my perception.
MR. DUCOTE:
I'll mark for identification
Respondent's Exhibit 14, that being the
deposition of Judge Amacker taken on
January 22, 2014 in this case with
redacted from that any reference to the
proceedings that the Committee already
(225) 216-2036
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
471
decided would not to be discussed in this
case.
MR. MANNING:
I object to that. I don't know the
purpose for offering Judge Amacker's
deposition transcript. She appeared. She
testified. If there was something in
there that she -- that they wanted to try
to impeach her on or to refresh her on it
would have been appropriate to do it while
she was here to explain. Now that she is
not here to explain I think it's improper
and irrelevant and not appropriate to put
it into evidence. So on those grounds I
do object.
MR. DUCOTE:
I think there are two parts of it.
First of all, this isn't solely for the
purposes of impeachment in the way that
the deposition is normally used in this
proceeding. Furthermore, this Committee
is aware that the Code of Evidence doesn't
strictly apply here.
Second of all, I think it's very
important for the Committee to see Judge
(225) 216-2036
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
472
Amacker's demeanor, attitude, refusal to
answer questions in the course of the
deposition; to have two attorneys
constantly objecting who had no standing
to object to questions that were asked of
her. Her evasiveness. The hostility
that's evident even on the cold transcript
and the fact that she herself would never
take a position that Ms. McCool had ever
violated any rules of professional
responsibility. So I think it's
admissible as any of the other exhibits.
MR. MANNING:
And again, I object. I mean she was
here. She testified live. The purpose of
her coming live was so that you could see
her demeanor, her tone. And you did. And
you heard her testimony and you heard her
answer questions. And if they wanted to
point out some contradictory testimony or
demeanor or change in posture then the
time to do that is when she's testifying,
not to wait till she's gone and then offer
her transcript later for some purpose that
is too late.
(225) 216-2036
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
473
I mean if they wanted to call her back
and impeach her, if that' what their
intent is then I think that's what they
should have done, but they did not do
that.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
We're going to allow it. But if you
feel like it's going beyond -- I'll allow
it for the limited purposes that you've
stated, that there's something you want --
you know the transcript speaks for itself.
It says what it says.
MR. DUCOTE:
That's correct.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
But if it goes beyond that you are
free to object and we'll address that at
the time.
MR. DUCOTE:
Now I'm not going to address anything
other than putting it in evidence at this
point for the Committee's consideration.
MR. MANNING:
And that's why I feel it's
inappropriate. He's just offering it up
(225) 216-2036
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
474
and saying, here read it, but the Judge
testified. You heard her testify.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
You're offering the entire transcript?
MR. DUCOTE:
The entire transcript, absolutely
because -- and again, first of all, we
have evidence clearly of some serious
credibility issues from Judge Amacker who
says that she never talked to Judge
Gambrell about filing a complaint against
Ms. McCool and Judge Gambrell says yes she
did.
And that's one thing, but what's so
compelling about the entire deposition,
Judge Amacker brings two attorneys and the
attorney's are objecting and constantly
over my objection they're directing her
not to answer questions. She's very
evasive. I had to repeatedly ask her
questions and it's the whole
characterization and there has almost been
an aura and maybe perhaps presumptively,
rightfully so that when Judge's come to
proceedings such as this that there's some
(225) 216-2036
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
475
deference given to them. And this
deposition so clearly shows the level of
hostility, lack of credibility,
evasiveness, defensiveness on Judge
Amacker's part that I think it's
substantive evidence supporting Ms.
McCool's conclusions about her express
bias because I think the express bias is
represented in the deposition.
MR. MANNING:
And that's what they should have
brought out when the Judge was here to
defend and explain. And he asked whatever
questions he wanted to ask of the Judge
while she was here. And if she
demonstrated those things then you all saw
it and if she didn't then you saw her
demeanor and are here to judge her
credibility. But now to say she's gone
and she can't explain. I can't ask her.
I don't even know what it's about. He
says the whole thing 'indicates'.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I did not realize it was the entire
transcript.
(225) 216-2036
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
476
MR. DUCOTE:
Because it has to be taken as a whole.
When you have two attorneys representing a
Judge --
MR. MANNING:
I thought there was one attorney there
during the time she was being deposed.
Not two. The other associate was not --
MR. DUCOTE:
But again --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Let's go off the record for one
moment.
(Off the record.)
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. Thank you. We just wanted to
discuss this issue. Is it my
understanding, Mr. Ducote, you want to
admit the entire deposition transcript of
Judge Amacker?
MR. DUCOTE:
Yes.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Are you going to question Ms. McCool?
MR. DUCOTE:
(225) 216-2036
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
477
No.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
You just want to submit it for this
Committee's consideration?
MR. DUCOTE:
Yes.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Then we'll allow that.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. Thank you. This is
Respondent's Exhibit 14 with three copies
as well.
THE COURT REPORTER:
Mr. Ducote, you're going to submit the
original into the record?
MR. DUCOTE:
Yes. The original is -- are we
keeping that separately? Okay. So the
original is marked in blue ink. Are these
the record copies?
THE COURT REPORTER:
Yes. Thank you.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Now at any time after you received the
order recusing Judge Amacker from Keister
(225) 216-2036
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
478
where she added the word "voluntary" and then
added that language about may be a witness in
a proceeding in her handwriting and you
subsequently filed the other recusal motions
that are contained both in your Exhibit R 5,
those being the Motions and Orders for Judge
Amacker's recusal in Respondent's cases, that
actually includes motions that were not
included in ODC's Orders of Judge Amacker
recusing herself?
A. Yes, I think.
Q. Okay. So just to be clear -- so Judge
Amacker signs the order in Keister?
A. Yes.
Q. Adding the language she added?
A. Yes.
Q. And you subsequently filed the motions
that are complained of by the ODC where you
say that she expressly admitted bias and
prejudice and you filed a number of those,
correct?
A. Right. And just to clarify, I filed
two almost simultaneously.
Q. Right.
A. I filed Keister and Maurer, the
(225) 216-2036
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
479
adoption, like within a day of each other.
Q. Okay.
A. And the language in those sort of
dovetail about -- they aren't exactly the same
because they were different concerns, but they
don't say -- the Maurer one doesn't say
anything about prior orders.
Q. When was the first time that you
learned that somebody concluded that you had
violated the Rules of Professional
Responsibility or Professional Conduct or that
you're assertion that Judge Amacker had
expressly admitted bias was somehow a problem?
A. So it's almost a year later.
Q. And how was it that you learned that
that was somehow a problem?
A. Through the ODC's letter to me in I
want to say May of 2013.
Q. Okay. So when you would file these
motions to recuse where you would use that
language --
Q. -- did Judge Amacker ever convey to
you, Ms. McCool, you file these things saying
I expressly admitted bias, but this isn't
(225) 216-2036
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
480
correct. I'm just voluntarily recusing myself
to avoid the appearance of impropriety or
anything like that?
A. No. And I would think that
particularly in Cullen since I was actually
there in court before her that she would have
made that absolutely clear to me, but she did
not.
Q. Okay. All right. Now --
A. And Cullen had the language that she
had previously admitted bias. That might have
been the first one that said that she had
previously admitted bias then that would be
Cullen and I was there. I was physically in
court.
Q. Okay. And she didn't mention
anything?
A. Not that she disagreed with what was
in my pleading.
Q. All right. Now let's go to
Respondent's Exhibit R 3 which is the Save
Victoria website and R 10 which is the First
Circuit's opinion in the case of T.D. versus
F.X.A. What's the connection between those
two?
(225) 216-2036
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
481
A. Victoria is the child that was the
subject of the litigation in T.D. versus
F.X.A.
Q. Okay. And the First Circuit's ruling
speaks for itself and references the online
issues involving that particular case,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was it that Judge Amacker did
to that mother in that case in response to
that stuff being online?
A. The mother was ruled into court
ostensibly on a contempt rule by the father.
The mother was led to believe that Judge
Amacker was going to hear from the child who
was 16 I think at the time. It might have
been 15. Instead when the mother and the
child got to court the child was taken into
the back room. Judge Amacker modified custody
and granted the father sole custody. Didn't
allow the mother to say good-bye to the
daughter. The father, as the First Circuit
points out, was not very much involved with
the child's life throughout her life and Judge
Amacker did not allow that mother or that
(225) 216-2036
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
482
daughter to say good-bye to one another and
then the daughter spent the night in the
mental hospital because the father put her
there and the next morning the daughter was
put on a plane to some boarding school and the
mother for a long time didn't know where her
daughter was and was not allowed to have any
contact with her.
Q. And was there some incarceration of
the mother as well?
A. My understanding of the mother was
that Judge Amacker put the mother in jail
right on the spot that day; that she was taken
into custody and put in jail.
Q. And this was based on substantial part
because the mother had posted stuff online
criticizing --
A. That was the -- I think in that case
there was that petition, the Save Victoria
petition. And then there was also some other
advocacy from a radio show I believe.
Q. Okay. Now -- obviously the First
Circuit's opinion speaks for itself, but did
the First Circuit find any -- give Judge
Amacker any support for her opinions about
(225) 216-2036
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
483
what should happen to people who criticize her
online?
A. Not that I recall. I recall the
opinion being fairly harsh.
Q. On?
A. Judge Amacker.
Q. Now there was a question about whether
you had signed the Save Victoria petition?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And did you actually sign the
Save Victoria petition?
A. I didn't.
Q. Okay. And the exhibit and it's
actually our exhibit.
A. Yes.
Q. The printout has -- and the printout
is a little confusing. It has something about
your name on there somehow. Can you explain
that?
A. So I or someone at my office printed
that. Probably me. And it's an online
petition and it's the Change.org website in
which if I go to that website it automatically
logs me in because you have to have a password
to have created any kind of activity in there.
(225) 216-2036
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
484
So you have to have a password to sign
petitions. So when we printed it, it overlaps
the panes on the website. So the one that I
printed, it overlapped the pane on the far
right hand side with the center pane and so
that my picture that appears all the way up at
the right hand corner appears to be right
underneath the signed part. But in fact, I
did not sign the petition. I didn't know
about that petition until after it was closed
which was why I was surprised when in
testimony last time it came out that I had
allegedly signed it because I had no memory of
signing it.
Q. Okay. So -- but again, that petition
is not part of the allegations in this case
against you?
A. No.
Q. And that petition was included as an
exhibit in connection with the case just to
show what the law is concerning online
criticism of Judge's and Judge Amacker's
attitude toward it?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you recall in her deposition Judge
(225) 216-2036
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
485
Amacker, as she did in here, was critical of
her conclusion that you were involved in the
Save Victoria website because of that comment?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now the issue of what you were
asking people to do in your blog, your
article, the petitions, etcetera, vis-a-vis
the Courts, did you ever ask, suggest,
encourage, condone, solicit, direct anybody to
give information or evidence to any of the
courts that was outside of the pleadings, the
proffers, the evidence or anything substantive
in those cases?
A. No.
Q. And --
A. And for the record, I would say that I
would not condone such a thing.
Q. Okay. And can you explain the
difference between that and what it is that
you were doing?
A. I was merely advocating that the
judges abide by the law and look at the
evidence. We put so much emphasis on outcomes
and the public relies on the outcome in cases.
We need to be able to rely on outcomes. But
(225) 216-2036
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
486
when it's become increasingly difficult in
this case is that the underlying process is
not considered and so when you have an
underlying process that does not adhere to the
law, does not abide by the rules of civil
procedure, does not abide by the rules of
evidence, it doesn't even abide by due
process, then the outcome is entirely
unreliable and yet people are bound by those
outcomes. Children's lives are affected by
those outcomes. And once a Judge rules, if
the outcome is based on something other than
the law then it's not justice. And so I was
advocating for justice. And all I wanted and
all anybody that signed that petition wanted
is that justice prevailed. That the decision,
whatever it was, be based on the evidence and
the law and procedure and due process. That's
all we wanted. And that's all we ever
advocate for, ever.
Q. Now did you ever encourage or suggest
or direct or solicit or endorse or condone or
facilitate the notion that anybody, any member
of the public, you, anybody else, anybody on
the petition, any of your blog readers,
(225) 216-2036
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
487
anybody that read your article send to the
courts what evidence you wanted the court to
hear?
A. No. It's very clear. Just the
evidence.
Q. Okay. Did you ever tell or direct
anybody hey, take these video, these audio
tapes that the judges didn't hear and you send
them to the judges and tell them you want them
to hear them?
A. No. That's not proper.
Q. Did you ever direct people to send
documents to the court --
A. No.
Q. -- or anything like that?
A. No. And I want to make clear that the
audio -- the purpose of the audio was for
people to understand that this wasn't just a
mother being outrageous and unreasonable and
making things up and blowing things out of
proportion. If you listen to that audio and
it wasn't the most compelling evidence that
existed, but if you listen to the audio it was
clear that something was going on. It was
clear that these children are voluntarily
(225) 216-2036
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
488
discussing this game of butts and wee-wee's.
They played it with their daddy and what they
have to do and they raise their shirt up and
they rub their titties together.
Well the purpose of the audios were for
people to realize, hey, maybe the judges need
to look harder at this and they certainly need
to consider whatever evidence there is before
they just pass on it. If we discussed when I
-- we discussed the point that those audios
might become inadmissible because we put them
out in the public. But because they weren't
the most compelling evidence that existed in
the case, you know I thought it was worth
taking that risk.
Q. And the audios that were online, where
did you get those from?
A. Raven had provided them to me way
early in the case. They were one of the first
things that she had collected. It was the
first indication she had that something was
wrong. And when she came to me early and I
don't remember -- I think it was somewhere in
late 2007, she played them to me. She gave
them to me so that I could listen to them so
(225) 216-2036
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
489
she could convince me that something was going
on. She was so concerned.
Q. Did you go and get those specific
audios out of some sealed file in Mississippi?
A. No. At the time that she gave them to
me they had -- I know that they had never been
offered into evidence because she was so
frustrated that she couldn't get her
attorney's -- her attorney's kept discouraging
her from bringing the evidence. They told her
that it was a mistake and that she shouldn't
bring it up.
Q. And do you recall Judge Gambrell's
testimony that references tapes being in the
record before another Judge, but she didn't
listen to them?
A. I do remember that.
Q. Okay. And do you know if those are
the same tapes or different tapes or you don't
know?
A. I would assume, but I don't know.
Q. Okay. Now have you ever practiced law
in Mississippi?
A. No.
Q. Did you have any actual involvement in
(225) 216-2036
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
490
the case in Mississippi?
A. No.
Q. Did you file any pleadings in
Mississippi?
A. No.
Q. In the Mississippi case?
A. No.
Q. Did Mississippi, as a matter of law,
have any jurisdiction over you whatsoever
relative to your conduct in this case?
A. No.
Q. Were you ever made a party to any
proceedings in Mississippi prior to the entry
of the consent order to seal the records?
A. No.
Q. Now were you ever made a party at all
at any time in Mississippi?
A. No.
Q. Now when this contempt proceeding had
been filed against you for supposedly
violating some known order, was there an order
entered in Mississippi that had any effect on
you whatsoever?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Now did you ever take the
(225) 216-2036
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
491
position -- did you -- when you got this order
finding you in contempt and ordering you to be
arrested by this Judge in Mississippi when you
were not even subject to that court's
jurisdiction under any theory of law, did you
convey that to any authorities in Mississippi
that this Judge had done this and that you
hade been made a party?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And after you conveyed that to
some authority in Mississippi, what happened
to that order to hold you in contempt?
A. It was vacated.
Q. Now how long was there this order for
your arrest in effect before it was vacated?
A. About a year.
Q. Now have you ever gone to Mississippi?
A. Yes.
Q. For what reasons?
A. Drive through it and then I actually
turned 50 in that year and we actually went to
the casino and spent the night.
Q. And during the time you were in
Mississippi did you have any concerns that you
--
(225) 216-2036
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
492
A. I refused to drive. I had someone
else drive me because I was afraid that I
would get pulled over and be arrested.
Q. Did anybody ever apologize to you and
say well you know, we really didn't have any
authority to issue a warrant for your arrest?
A. No. And I'll tell you for about a
month after I got the notice in the mail I was
afraid that the Sheriff was going to -- well
the Sheriff comes to my office very often
anyway to give me service. But every time he
came after that I was a little worried they
were coming to arrest me. It took two or
three months for that to wear off.
Q. And from whom did you receive the
order vacating your contempt finding and your
arrest which is Exhibit R 6?
A. Who did I receive it from? That same
authority that I reported to.
Q. Was it from Judge Gambrell?
A. No.
Q. And what was the authority that
actually sent you that order?
A. It's the Mississippi Judicial
Commission I think is what it's called.
(225) 216-2036
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
493
Q. Now Judge Gambrell testified that the
-- can I address that point? Judge Gambrell
testified with no objection that she had had a
conversation and she named the specific person
with the Mississippi Commission of Judicial
Performance and she testified about her
discussion with him and then that she entered
the order and I just asked her who sent her
the orders. Okay.
Now Judge Gambrell testified that on July
20, 2011 there was simply a little conference
held for some housekeeping matters and that it
wasn't anything substantive; do you recall
that?
A. I do.
Q. That was her testimony?
Q. Was that indeed the case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. I'm going to show you what I've
marked as R 15 and ask you if you can identify
this?
A. This is the temporary order that Judge
Gambrell references in her testimony.
Q. Okay. Now this is a temporary order
(225) 216-2036
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
494
that supposedly came out of something on July
20, 2011 that was just a little housekeeping
matter?
A. Well depending on what point in her
testimony, yes.
Q. And what actually happened on July 20,
2011 as a result of this conference which
wasn't on the record, wasn't based on any
evidence being considered or anything else?
A. Well I want to put into context that
at this point, July 20, 2011, there had been a
pending motion to terminate Michael Boyd's,
the father's rights for almost a year and
there was a hearing, a trial set for August
16th pending or they set it that day. I think
the original trial was supposed to be July 20,
2011, but the mother had just given birth so
it was supposed to be continued. Nothing was
supposed to happen on July 20, 2011.
And the father, even though the mother is
alleging sexual abuse and saying that his
rights need to be terminated because he
sexually abused his daughters, the Judge, off
the record, without any evidence taken on the
record, issues this order that the visitation
(225) 216-2036
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
495
of July 22, 2011, which is in two days, shall
commence Friday at 3:00 p.m. to Sunday, July
24, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. at the home of the
father under the supervision of his mother,
the father's mother, and the next supervised
visitation period of August 5th to 7th, 2011
shall commence that Friday at 6:00 until
Sunday at 6:00. These are overnight visits at
the home of the father under the supervision
of the mother of the father; and thereafter,
the plaintiff shall be entitled, and that
would be the plaintiff being the father, shall
be entitled to an unrestricted standard
visitation schedule of every other weekend
commencing at 6:00 on Friday until 6:00 on
Sunday until further order of this court. And
then the question is why have a trial? That
was my question any way.
And then she also, without any opportunity
for the mother to oppose or put on evidence
contrary, she ordered that mother pay
$1,000.00 to the Marion County Chancery Clerk
of Court as additional guardian ad litem fees
within 30 days or prior to the trial date of
this matter. And I also point out that the
(225) 216-2036
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
496
person serving as the guardian ad litem at
that time wasn't even qualified to be a
guardian ad litem.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. All right. I offer to
introduce and file into the record R 15.
MR. MANNING:
No objection.
MR. DUCOTE:
Here's the original and I have copies.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. And one other thing, Judge Gambrell
said that this was a consent agreement that's
why she entered it is that the parties
consent, but the back page shows that it says
approved to form only. It is not a consent
agreement. It doesn't say consent and it's
not signed as a consent.
Q. Okay. What is your basis for -- who
was the guardian ad litem at that time?
A. I think Jim Johnson.
Q. And what is your basis for asserting
that Mr. Johnson was not qualified to be the
guardian ad litem for the children in
Mississippi in that case?
(225) 216-2036
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
497
A. Because he had not gotten the required
training like we're all required to get
training every year to maintain our license
and he was required to get the training in
order to be qualified as a guardian ad litem
and he had not gotten it and had not been
qualified as a guardian ad litem since the
time he was appointed.
Q. Okay. And what's your basis of that?
A. Actually, that wasn't discovered until
after the trial, but I want to say the
administrative body who manages the list of
approved guardian ad litem's responded to a
request by Raven and said that he was not
qualified.
Q. And so at the time that you were
criticizing what happened in the Mississippi
proceedings and talking about guardian ad
litem and all, there was documentation that he
was not even qualified?
A. Well at the time the criticism was
that he was not performing according to law.
He was not doing what the law required him to
do. I wasn't aware that he wasn't qualified
until after the trial.
(225) 216-2036
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
498
Q. Okay.
A. I don't think Raven was either.
Q. I'm going to show you what I marked
for identification as R 16 and ask you if you
can identify this?
A. There's an email here from Lisa Counts
who's the Deputy Director, Administrative
Office of Courts in Jackson, Mississippi and
she's saying that Mr. Johnson last completed
guardian ad litem training November 6th of
2009. Such training allowed Mr. Johnson to
act as guardian ad litem for one year. Mr.
Johnson's certification as guardian ad litem
expired on November 6, 2010. The AOC has no
documentation showing Mr. Johnson renewed his
guardian ad litem certification after November
6, 2010 pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated
Section 43-21-121 (2011).
MR. DUCOTE:
I would offer to introduce and file
into evidence R 16.
MR. MANNING:
I'm going to object as to I don't know
what relevance the guardian ad litem's
qualifications have as to the charges here
(225) 216-2036
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
499
today.
MR. DUCOTE:
Well --
MR. MANNING:
I'm sorry. Is that 17 or 16?
MR. DUCOTE:
16. The relevance being, first of
all, counsel throughout these proceedings
has made reference to the fact everywhere
that the guardian ad litem -- this was
gone over with Judge Gambrell. The
guardian ad litem found no evidence of
abuse. Judge Gambrell was talking about
the guardian ad litem, his view etcetera,
etcetera and to show that the guardian ad
litem wasn't even qualified and shouldn't
have even been the guardian ad litem
supports the reasonableness of what she is
complaining about online.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
That's fine.
MR. DUCOTE:
Thank you.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Now we heard a lot about -- oh, I'm
(225) 216-2036
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
500
sorry. You talked about this being a consent
agreement by Raven --
Q. -- Raven Maurer, Raven Boyd. And this
attorney was there representing her etcetera.
A. That's what Judge Gambrell testified
to.
Q. Right. And she talked about the
attorney. Ms. Boyd was represented by an
attorney.
Q. Etcetera, etcetera. Now do you have
any basis to believe that Judge Gambrell's
representation of this being a consent
agreement by Ms. Boyd's attorney was -- other
than the fact that it's not shown on the
temporary order that emanated from what she
described as simply a little housekeeping
conference was not entirely accurate?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'm going to show you what I've
marked for identification as R 17 and ask you
what that is?
A. That's an email that Raven forwarded
to me from her then attorney, Alexander
(225) 216-2036
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
501
Ignatiev. He sent it on July 21, 2011 and the
subject line is, "Yesterday's Conference".
And in it he says among other things, "Michael
is getting visitation this weekend, extended,
with his mom supervising at his residence in
Columbia." He goes on to say, "The reason for
this is twofold: first Hal Kittrell," who I
believe is the District Attorney in
Mississippi or in that Parish or County, "told
the guardian ad litem that the case should
never have been brought before the Grand Jury
and he implied that Elizabeth," the Assistant
D.A., I think, "did that as a favor to your
mother. Second, the appeal in Louisiana,"
which I think he meant to say the adoption
because there was no appeal pending in
Louisiana at that time. "The Judge threatened
to throw me in jail for contempt because I
pitched a fit in chambers. Hopefully, I have
not damaged my credibility with her because I
have other clients that need my services."
Q. And the Judge who he refers to as
"threatening to throw him in jail" because he
pitched a fit in chambers over the granting of
the visitation would have been whom?
(225) 216-2036
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
502
A. Judge Gambrell. He also says, "The
guardian ad litem has reported to the Court,"
who would be Judge Gambrell in Chambers, off
the record, "that there was no credible
evidence in his opinion that the father abused
the girls and that he will not interview the
girls," even though the law requires him to,
"because after reviewing the files and
existing interviews he feels that their
recollections are tainted/manipulated. He is
also not pleased that you are having the child
check in via cell phone or text every time
they go somewhere during the visitation with
Michael," which I would suggest to you is
testimony by the guardian ad litem that is not
supported by the record.
Q. Okay. So -- and we find it in our
memo, the case log, the second supplemental
memo, the Mississippi case law that says the
duties of the guardian ad litem are to look at
all the evidence, interview the child, report
to the Court all the evidence etcetera. We
have a guardian ad litem who's not qualified
who shouldn't have been the guardian ad litem.
We have this visitation granted without any
(225) 216-2036
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
503
kind of hearing and then Judge Gambrell
threatening to throw Raven's attorney into
jail because he objects to all of us.
In your view, is that something you think
the public should be concerned about?
A. Yes. I do.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. I offer to introduce and file
into evidence R 17.
MR. MANNING:
I object to R 17 as hearsay. It's
from one non-witness to another
non-witness. It may involve
attorney/client privileged communications
because the sender, Alexander Ignatiev, is
the attorney who was representing Raven in
the Mississippi proceeding and it's to
Raven his client. If it was provided to
Ms. McCool subsequently as Raven's client
she may have attorney/client privilege
concerns. Raven is the one who can waive
that. So there may be those concerns.
It's also hearsay and to the extent it
is allowed in I would certainly question
the weight that should be afforded to this
(225) 216-2036
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
504
hearsay statement.
MR. DUCOTE:
First of all, the fact may be allayed
with further foundation.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Who did you obtain this from?
A. Raven sent it to me.
Q. Okay. And did she have any problem
with your using it in connection with this
case?
A. I reached out to her current counsel
and asked her if she would ask Raven to -- if
it would be okay if I would use it. If she
would give me specific permission to use that
specific document and she did send an email
from Raven which expressly says that I can use
those -- that she waives -- that I can use
those documents. And if the panel needs them
I'm happy to provide them.
Q. And is this part of the basis for the
opinions that you have expressed online about
the propriety of the Mississippi proceedings?
A. Absolutely.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. And again the hearsay -- it's
(225) 216-2036
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
505
being offered for that purpose and the
hearsay rule isn't strictly applied in
this proceeding.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. We'll allow it.
MR. DUCOTE:
Thank you.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
We'll give it whatever weight it may
deserve.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Now referring to Respondent's Exhibit
R 1, that being the website of the Mississippi
College of Law, Judicial Data Project which
contained the entire brief and the Appellate
Court decision from the Mississippi Court of
Appeals regarding the finality of the order
that was appealed. Did you -- were you -- did
you put all this up online?
A. No.
Q. And was this readily available to
anybody who wanted to look at this online?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it still available online?
A. As far as I know.
(225) 216-2036
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
506
Q. Does it discuss all of the issues in
the case you've been talking about that
occurred in Mississippi?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it even mention the audio tapes
and the kid's names and everything else that
we've redacted from it?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. Okay. And then R 4, being the public
online Chancery Court Docket for Boyd versus
Boyd, how did you obtain that?
A. I went online.
Q. And does that in fact list all of the
pleadings that have been filed? Everybody's
name including the children's names and the
parents names and the Court's rulings,
etcetera?
A. It does. And I knew about that
website because of Raven. That was how Raven
would keep track of whether or not anything
had been filed in her case when she was
unrepresented because routinely things would
get filed but she wasn't noticed for it.
Q. Okay.
A. So I knew it because of her.
(225) 216-2036
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
507
Q. And I think Chancellor Gambrell
testified that after we took her deposition
she had this website taken down or this
information taken off line?
A. I believe so, yes. But it was there
the day of her deposition.
Q. Now you had talked about there being a
trial so to speak on August 16th of 2011 in
the Mississippi proceeding and there was
testimony from Chancellor Gambrell about the
"Good book/Bad book" evidence. And can you
describe what the "Bad book" refers to? That
concept of the "bad book"?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative). So that order
came out from Judge Gambrell on July 20th and
up to that point the girls, the children had
been asking their dad for I want to say at
least two years prior to that, not prior to
that date, prior to January of 2011 and
beginning in I think March of 2011, over
Raven's objections, the father was allowed
supervised visitation with the girls.
Supervised by his mother but not in his home.
I believe it was at -- but it wasn't in his
home. Wherever it took place it was not in
(225) 216-2036
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
508
his home. And that went on -- that supervised
visitation went on from March of 2011 until --
well that was what in place on July 20th.
The prior month the father had filed a
motion to normalize visitation, which was
asking for it to be unsupervised, but that had
not been set for hearing. And so on July 20th
the Court essentially granted his motion
without any hearing and the children were told
that they were going to have to go to their
father's house to visit with him in two days.
Like they were told that. And the oldest girl
who remembers the most was panicking. And so
her grandmother -- she wanted to journal. One
of her cousins was journaling and she wanted
to journal about what was going on because
she'd been telling people for years -- she
told everyone what was going on and no one was
listening to her so her grandmother bought her
a book. She asked for it.
Her grandmother actually bought her two
books and said why don't you write everything
that you love about your dad in this book and
everything that you don't like about your dad
in this book and that will help you. And
(225) 216-2036
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
509
(redacted) a day before -- I'm sorry. I'm
sorry. The oldest daughter through this book
-- I'm so sorry.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Take your time.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. And she put things in the good book
that were about food and you know fun things,
but in the bad book -- she labeled it good
book and bad book. And in the bad book she
wrote about what her father -- I must be
hungry.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Do you want to take a break?
THE WITNESS:
I think so. I'm sorry.
(Off the record.)
MS. GOLDSMITH:
We are back on the record.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Okay. So you were describing what was
in the "bad book" that the older child had
prepared that was the subject of the evidence
at issue in the August 16, 2011 proceeding in
the Marion County Mississippi Chancery Court.
(225) 216-2036
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
510
What was the content of that?
A. The child, the oldest daughter
described the game, butts and wee-wee's, that
her dad had taught her and her little sister
and what it involved and she drew pictures
expressing her feelings and she was -- I think
she was nine at the time when she drew this.
It was just very poignant because like a nine
year old, she was very conflicted. And she
loved her dad, but she wanted him to stop
doing what he was doing and she wanted -- she
felt uncomfortable for him and it was just
what she described and then how conflicted and
confused she was about all of her feelings.
And she was essentially begging to be kept
safe or begging to get her dad to stop. She
wanted him to stop.
Q. Okay. So what --
A. And she was afraid that it was going
to happen again.
Q. Okay. So what was the game -- the
actual activity. What was the significance of
the activity that was described in the book?
What was it?
A. She was describing the game of butts
(225) 216-2036
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
511
and wee-wee's that her dad taught her to play
with her and her sister. I think she
referenced in there how he played it with one
of his girlfriend's little girl's and that
they got mad and went away forever. She
talked about how bad it made her feel and how
her sister had reacted to it. And mostly that
she didn't want to go back to the house. That
that was where it had occurred repeatedly and
all of her memories of it were there and she
was afraid to go back there.
Q. Okay.
A. And she was afraid it was going to
happen again unless somebody was there to keep
her safe.
Q. So the purpose of the butts and
wee-wee game was that the father was playing
was what?
A. Sex. The sex he was -- he was having
them perform oral sex on him. He was
performing oral sex on them. He was -- you
know he was experiencing sexual gratification
with his children who were very young.
MR. MANNING:
Can I just ask for a point of
(225) 216-2036
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
512
clarification because I think it's
important? There's testimony now about
things as if they are proven facts and
again, as outrageous as the allegations
are and as awful as those allegations are
about the sexual abuse, I do want to make
sure the record reflects we're still
testifying about allegations and that
there even today has been no finding by
criminal or family court or otherwise that
that in fact did occur. And I think it's
important that we make that distinction
and if I'm speaking something that is not
factual I apologize.
But again, there is a lot of testimony
coming in now about very heart wrenching
details of things and as I sit here and
listen, it sounds as if they're proven
facts. This is testimony by Ms. McCool as
to her belief based on the things that she
had access to.
MR. DUCOTE:
Right. As I understand it, her
testimony is about the evidence that was
being presented. I mean I certainly agree
(225) 216-2036
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
513
to all the reasons that Ms. McCool has
been complaining about in public lately,
that this subject has never been
adjudicated and obviously a criminal
conviction is -- would require proof
beyond a reasonable doubt versus the
preponderance standard in the civil
proceeding. So counsel is right. There's
been no adjudication. And it's not --
what we're talking about is the evidence
that she was expressing concern about not
being considered in the whole gestalt of
what was happening in Mississippi and what
Judge Gambrell testified was and wasn't
done and what the record shows, etcetera,
etcetera. It is for that purpose.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
It's a good point.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. Maybe just to clarify, at the --
(redacted) creating that book was --
MR. DUCOTE:
Strike that.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. I'm sorry. The oldest child
(225) 216-2036
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
514
expressing herself in that book was evidence
of ongoing trauma. It was new evidence. It
wasn't you know -- what happens is you know
the court say oh, that's so old, you know, six
months ago. Well this was new evidence that
the child was still experiencing trauma and it
was based in conjunction with the order by
Gambrell, Judge Gambrell, to allow this
visitation in the home without a hearing, a
proper hearing on the record where evidence
would be admitted and testimony would be taken
by other than the attorneys.
That was what prompted the writ, the
emergency ex-parte petition in Louisiana
because if Mississippi wasn't going to protect
the children then under the UCCJEA Louisiana
could protect the children and that's why we
brought the petition in Louisiana. But first
Raven and her mother attempted to get the
guardian ad litem to take action in
Mississippi and attempted to have the District
Attorney accept the new evidence because
contrary to what Judge Gambrell testified to
that nol-prossed means that there's not
probable cause, the nol-prossed just means a
(225) 216-2036
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
515
declining to prosecute for any number of
reasons and it means that the case remains
open and that the new evidence can be taken
and if sufficient evidence actual accumulates
that the charges can be re-brought so long as
it's within the statue of limitations in
Mississippi.
So that was what the significance of the
book was, was that it was evidence of the
child's ongoing -- well at least the oldest
child's ongoing trauma.
Q. Okay. Now do you have a transcript of
the proceedings from Mississippi on August 16,
2011?
A. I do.
Q. Okay. And where did you obtain that?
A. Raven provided it and as I said, that
is still -- I still have access to it through
it Dropbox just for her attorney who I talk to
occasionally and that they occasionally ask me
for information.
Q. Okay.
A. I mean her attorney does.
Q. I'm going to show you Exhibit R 18 and
ask you to identify that?
(225) 216-2036
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
516
A. It's excerpts from the transcript of
the proceedings held on August 16, 2011 before
the Honorable Deborah J. Gambrell, Chancellor,
State of Mississippi, Raven Skye Boyd versus
Michael T. Boyd.
Q. And does this discuss the whole issue
of the books and the guardian ad litem and the
preparedness or lack of preparedness of her
own attorney and discussions about the online
issues etcetera?
A. This primarily addresses how hard
Raven and her mother tried to get the Court to
admit the evidence that (name redacted) book
that she had drawn and how it was ultimately
not admitted.
MR. DUCOTE:
I'd like to offer and introduce and
file into evidence R 18.
MR. MANNING:
What is it, 18?
MR. DUCOTE:
18.
MR. MANNING:
And the representation is this is no
longer from a sealed proceeding?
(225) 216-2036
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
517
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Did you obtain this from the sealed
case file itself? Did you go to Mississippi
to the Chancery Office and get this from the
file?
A. No. This is actually from the
appellate records. She took it up on appeal.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay.
MR. MANNING:
I have no objection other than
concerns about it reflecting proceedings
in a sealed matter. I'll leave that to
the Chair's discretion.
MR. DUCOTE:
And the name's are redacted, but to
that extent, the exhibits were introduced
by ODC concerning --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Wait. I'm sorry.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I have two people talking to me at
once. Okay. Go ahead.
(225) 216-2036
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
518
MR. DUCOTE:
All of the orders concerning the
recusal, I'm sorry. The warrants for Ms.
McCool's arrest, the vacating of that, the
order sealing the record, all of that
would be and I don't agree that those are
precluded, but those are all from the same
file. So I don't think we can cherry pick
which of that comes in, if any of it is to
come in. But furthermore, as I pointed
out in my brief and under Mississippi case
law, all the sealing of the record does is
prohibit the Chancery Clerk from giving
out copies if people go and say give me
part of that file. It does not preclude
the dissemination or the discussion of
documents that people have anyway without
going and getting it after it's sealed.
That's not what a sealed file is. So it's
already redacted --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I still think we want to be careful
when something is sealed. I think we
should be careful.
MR. DUCOTE:
(225) 216-2036
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
519
Sure. But the names are redacted and
again, for her to defend herself from
these charges that are premised on some
problem with what she's saying about a
record that is sealed, obviously she has
to be able to defend herself. And I don't
have a problem if anything from that
Mississippi record is sealed in this
proceeding from public view, but certainly
she should be able to use it as evidence.
(Committee members confer off the record.)
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Exactly what is the exhibit, Mr.
Ducote?
MR. DUCOTE:
It's R 18. It's excerpts from the
transcript of the proceedings on August
16, 2011 which was discussed by Chancellor
Gambrell in her testimony about what
happened there. There was testimony about
the "good book" and the "bad book" and all
of that. Judge Gambrell talked about the
ruling and why she ruled that way and this
is just the transcript of that part of the
hearing.
(225) 216-2036
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
520
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. We'll allow it, but I really
want to be very careful about what we're
letting in with regard to that proceeding.
But that's fine.
MR. DUCOTE:
Sure. And the names are redacted from
the transcript.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay.
THE WITNESS:
I just want to say that Judge Gambrell
testified that I was untruthful in how
this happened and that's why we wanted
this. She said in her testimony that when
Mr. Manning asked her, "Did you refuse to
admit this?" And she said, "No, that's
untruthful." And I believe that this
exonerates me.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. Now going back to the Keister matter
briefly, you testified that on March 27th you
had appeared before Judge Amacker in the
Keister matter and the transcript has been
admitted in evidence as R 13 and that you had
(225) 216-2036
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
521
an altercation with the opposing counsel in
that case and then we referenced the exhibit,
the letter from Judge Amacker to ODC dated the
next day. Did you take any action concerning
what the attorney did with you on March 27th
in the Keister case?
A. I did. The first time in my career I
filed a complaint against another attorney
because she threatened to strike me. I felt
like lots of her conduct had been
reprehensible but it's family law. But the
fact that she threatened to strike me I
thought was beyond the pale and I -- and it
really disturbed me. I actually had to have
some intensive therapy for a couple of weeks
because I had so much anxiety about
encountering her again. And so I filed a
complaint.
But also part of my concern which is
reflected in that complaint is how Judge
Amacker had responded that day. And I said in
the complaint to the ODC, kind of reaching out
for some sort of help and assistance or just
enlightenment, as to you know my concerns
about how Judge Amacker had handled it and how
(225) 216-2036
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
522
she had responded.
And I think you know looking back at it,
you know I've come a long way since a lot has
happened, but at the time, it still reflects
that I still consider her -- I still held her
in pretty high regard. I might have not been
happy with a lot of her decisions, but I still
held her in fairly high regard and was really
troubled by the way she had responded to me
and the things that she had said and not said
and done and not done. And then I think it
also reflects that I had no idea that she was
involved to the degree that she involved with
this complaint against me with the ODC and
that I was struggling to understand what she
was doing and why she was doing it.
Q. Okay. So at the time that you filed
this complaint against this other attorney,
had you filed any Motion to Recuse Judge
Amacker in the Keister matter or any other
ones?
A. No.
Q. I'm going to show you what I've marked
for identification as R 19 which purports to
be an ethical conduct complaint with the name
(225) 216-2036
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
523
redacted of the attorney when you filed a
complaint against her and ask you if you can
identify that?
A. Yeah. That is the cover sheet and my
signature and then -- I didn't include the
entire complaint because a lot of it had to do
with counsel, opposing counsel, and I didn't
want to --
Q. Okay. And so what is it that you
purport that this particular exhibit, R 19,
demonstrates concerning the allegations
against you in this case?
A. Well that I still was trying to see --
I was still trying to see Judge Amacker in the
best possible light and trying to understand
her conduct towards me you know as being
somehow justifiable and explainable and that
she was still -- you know that it wasn't
personal. I'm was still struggling to come to
terms with the difference between how she
seemed to treat everybody else in the court
room and the way she was treating me. It was
increasingly more and more hostile.
Q. Now had you known at the time that she
was so actively involved in the behind the
(225) 216-2036
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
524
scenes activity concerning Judge Gambrell
filing a complaint and her communications
unsolicited from the ODC about you, she's bad
mouthing you etcetera, would this have made
sense to you at the time?
A. Yes. I think I would have clearly
filed motions to recuse her much sooner and I
think I would have spared this client in
particular a lot of time, cost, and expense.
MR. DUCOTE:
I'd offer to introduce and file into
evidence R 19.
MR. MANNING:
And I object to R 19 as to relevance
and as to all the names are redacted. It
is a complaint against another attorney
and I have heard no testimony that it went
to charges or ever became public and it is
quite easy to refer back to another
Respondent exhibit transcript which
identifies the attorney against whom now
this complaint is filed. So for that
basis -- and I didn't object to the
testimony and I think that that covered
the grounds they intended to cover. But I
(225) 216-2036
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
525
do object to the document itself coming in
as an exhibit on those grounds.
MR. DUCOTE:
Well maybe if I could ask some further
questions.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. What was the outcome of the complaint
that you filed?
A. It was found to be -- they didn't
bring charges. It was -- I don't know if you
call it dismissed.
Q. Do you know if Judge Amacker was asked
about whether this occurred in her chambers?
A. I don't know.
Q. Or any investigation was done to the
same extent that you were apparently
investigated?
A. I wouldn't know. But it was very
disturbing to me that this -- and in her
response this attorney admitted that she
called me a "bitch". She denied calling me a
"freak" this time and she also described her
balling her fist. She accused me of extortion
in her sworn complaint to the ODC. She
admitted to a lot of things that I thought
(225) 216-2036
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
526
clearly were violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct. So I was deeply
disturbed that the ODC sent me back a letter
saying well, we don't feel like there are any
grounds for a complaint here.
But be that as it may, I did not object.
I didn't file -- I accepted it and that's not
the purpose of this. The purpose of this is
not to embarrass that other attorney in any
way, shape, or form. Really. But the timing
of this and the fact that the last page, the
last two pages are directly with regard to
Judge Amacker, you know, and with regards to
Judge Amacker, I am deeply concerned by her
handling of this matter. I struggled to
understand her position, objective, or intent
in her response both on and off the record.
Although I would like to believe she meant
well, considering how egregiously opposing
counsel behaved in front of her and the fact
that the opposing counsel admitted her
reprehensible behavior in the Judge's chambers
however, I cannot agree with Judge Amacker's
decision to chastise us both publicly and to
fail to make a distinction between our conduct
(225) 216-2036
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
527
before spectators or her decision not to
report conduct to the Bar. I'm not a crier
although you might not believe that today, but
I was in tears when I left the courtroom that
day. It was so humiliating to me the way I
was treated. And I don't cry.
Q. How long after this did you find out
how involved Judge Amacker was in the
complaint?
A. Well that was the really interesting
thing is that I was in court on the 27th.
Unbeknownst to me, on the 28th -- and on the
27th this occurred. On the 28th, I did not
know it, but I found out that Judge Amacker
then sent a letter to the ODC stating that
almost the same thing she said to me in Court
on the 27th, that she disagreed about my
characterization of ignoring. On the one hand
I said she took it as me saying she was
ignoring me although that's not what I said.
And then in her letter to the ODC she
disagrees that she ignored the oldest girl in
the Mississippi case.
And then I sent her a letter because you
know all of her talk about how she expects --
(225) 216-2036
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
528
you know she wants attorney's to reach out and
I wrote a letter about this incident and
expressed my concern that she would not allow
me to put this information on the record.
Q. What information did you want to put
on the record?
A. That we were -- that we were there on
a Compliance Hearing; that the other party had
not complied; that the Judge was denying
attorney's fees over our objection; and that
the other attorney had admitted to this
conduct in chambers and had actually engaged
in this conduct in chambers. I wanted it on
the record.
Q. And you're referring to what happened
in Court in the Keister case on March 27th?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you cc the other attorney on
your correspondence to Judge Amacker?
A. I did.
Q. And what was the response?
A. I got back that letter that Judge
Amacker refers to, the one that says this is
ex-parte communication. It was sent back
without being given to the Judge.
(225) 216-2036
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
529
Q. Okay. And was that the -- okay. I'll
refer you to the ODC Exhibit 11(A), that being
a letter to you -- do you have a copy of your
letter and response from Judge Amacker
regarding the March 27, 2011 or 2012 incident?
A. The copy? Which one?
Q. The letter that you sent to Judge
Amacker that you mailed to the other attorney
when you got the letter back from Judge
Amacker saying this is an ex-parte?
A. I thought I brought it today.
MR. DUCOTE:
I don't have any questions but I would
again offer to introduce and file into
evidence R 19 for the purpose that we
specified.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I'm inclined not to -- I mean we have
her testimony. I think that's sufficient
and because of my concerns about
confidentiality, I'm inclined not to admit
it as an exhibit.
BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. So are you saying that Judge Amacker
-- your letter to her complaining again about
(225) 216-2036
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
530
what the attorney did to you in connection
with the Keister case on March 27th even
though you cc'd to the attorney to be an
impermissible ex-parte communication?
A. Yes. She testified to the fact that
if she gets some ex parte communication her
secretary you know doesn't give it to her and
sends it back with a polite cover letter
saying you know this is -- please advise your
client or please don't -- that's how I got it
returned to me even though I actually provided
it to counsel and in fact, filed it in the
record just to be absolutely certain that I
would not be accused of ex parte
communication.
And in that letter I was -- I was
attempting to complete the record that I was
not allowed to complete in Court. And I was
also advising the Court, as is the practice,
that we would not be appearing. We were
withdrawing our remaining motion -- the
compliance hearing that had been set --
another compliance hearing I was indicating
that we had no intention of appearing and that
it could be withdrawn from the docket because
(225) 216-2036
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
531
I didn't see the point in having my client pay
more attorney's fees for me to show up if the
documents were not provided. They were either
going to be or not. And she sent it back as
ex parte and I actually -- the opposing
counsel has raised all kinds of heck over the
fact that it's in the record.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. I have no other questions. I
just wanted to make sure for the record
that exhibits R 1, R 2, R 3, R 4, R 5,
R 6 are in evidence as are R 9, R 10,
R 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 and that
-- that those are in evidence and that
R 7 and R 8 and R 11 are submitted as
offers of proof. And I think the record
actually reflects that.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. Thank you.
MR. MANNING:
I have just a few follow up questions.
EXAMINATION BY MR. MANNING:
Q. Ms. McCool, the exhibit -- you
testified about a complaint that you filed
against another unnamed attorney and about the
(225) 216-2036
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
532
incident that caused you to file the complaint
and that it was dismissed or no action was
taken by the Disciplinary Counsel. Just so
the record is clear, that complaint was not
handled by me?
A. No. It wasn't.
Q. Okay. You also testified about the
temporary order that is R 15 and that was in
Mississippi. That was the July 22, 2011
temporary order?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Yes, sir.
Q. This is the order that actually
prompted the online petition, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was within just a week or two
following this temporary order that you and
Raven and some others got together and came up
with this idea to start the online petition in
this case, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You also have introduced a partial
transcript from the August 16, 2011 conference
or hearing or whatever it was before Judge
Gambrell and it was identified as R 18?
A. It's the trial. Yes.
(225) 216-2036
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
533
Q. Okay. You have said in various online
blogs and articles that we looked at that
Judge Gambrell excluded the audio recordings
from evidence at this hearing. You
specifically referenced the August 16, 2011
hearing?
A. Correct.
Q. Does this transcript reflect that?
Can you point us anywhere in this transcript
where those audio recordings were offered or
where Judge Gambrell excluded the audio
recordings from evidence during this hearing?
A. Not directly.
Q. Is there some indirect -- did anyone
offer them into evidence at this hearing?
A. Indirectly, I remember at the time I
didn't have the transcript. I didn't get that
transcript till months later when Raven got --
she filed her appeal and she got her appeal on
the record for the appeal. But indirectly, as
Judge Gambrell repeatedly sort of circularly
argued in that hearing the guardian ad litem
was the depository of all of the evidence. He
was the investigatory arm of the Court. The
guardian ad litem was supposed to review all
(225) 216-2036
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
534
this evidence.
Raven had provided the guardian ad litem
all of her evidence months before and that
included the audio tapes. She included, as
she told me, she provided the audio. She
provided the videos. She provided all of the
therapist -- every single therapist these
children saw had said that the children were
reporting abuse.
Teachers. The children had reported to
teachers. The children had reported to the
physicians. Physicians had made reports to
DCFS because the children were reporting just
voluntarily talking about butts and wee-wee's
while they were being examined. And she had
provided all of that evidence to the guardian
ad litem. And yet on August 16th, not only
did her attorney not bring the evidence
because he admitted at the beginning of the
hearing that he wasn't prepared.
He re-admitted during the hearing that he
wasn't prepared. He admitted that he had
wanted to withdraw and the Judge -- that Raven
wanted him to withdraw. That they had a
difference of opinion about how the case
(225) 216-2036
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
535
should proceed and the Judge, Judge Gambrell,
would not let him withdraw even though Raven
wanted -- did not want his representation any
more. She was forced to proceed with this
attorney who said that he didn't agree with
her position as to how to proceed. They had
said on the record that they had discussed him
withdrawing during the July 20th hearing
without her present, to the Judge.
And so in that record it's clear
throughout that Raven is frustrated that she's
provided this evidence to people who are
supposed to represent her and ensure that the
record -- the decision that ultimately comes
out is based on the evidence and no one will
bring it. And they blame her. They literally
blame her for not having her evidence in
court. She's got an attorney who she's paying
thousands of dollars to represent her and
they're blaming her because their evidence
isn't in Court.
Q. Listen --
A. And in her mind, that meant that she
had offered her evidence and the Judge had
refused to look at it because the Judge was
(225) 216-2036
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
536
indifferent. I'm not going to let that "bad
book" in because you don't have the "good
book". Since you, Ms. Wanda Phillips, think
that the "good book" is irrelevant than the
"bad book" must be irrelevant too. That's
almost word-for-word what she says.
Q. Ms. McCool?
A. It's ridiculous.
Q. If Raven's attorney didn't bring the
audio recordings to the hearing that day, how
is that Judge Gambrell's fault?
A. How is it Raven's fault?
Q. Well you were the one that said Judge
Gambrell --
A. She --
Q. -- sorry. Let me ask the question.
A. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Q. You were the one that said during the
August 16th hearing Judge Gambrell excluded
all of Raven's evidence including these audio
recordings. And you just said they were not
even brought by Raven's attorney and offered
that day?
A. What is Judge Gambrell's primary
purpose? What is her -- what is she supposed
(225) 216-2036
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
537
to be doing?
Q. To consider evidence in the record.
A. No. She has to let it into the
record. She can't -- it has to be presented
to her and she has to decide whether or not it
will be admitted. It doesn't magically appear
there. But her primary -- the thing that is
her greatest obligation is to ensure that
children, any decision she makes regarding
children is in their best interest. And she
will not look at evidence of abuse.
If she's not even concerned that this
mother is saying I have all this evidence and
the guardian ad litem didn't bring it, doesn't
she have the discretion to say, you know, I'm
really concerned that you're saying there's
all this evidence and it's not here and your
attorney's admitted that he's not prepared and
I can tell he's not prepared because she says
so herself, "You're not prepared." And she
has the discretion to say you know what, we're
going to take a recess. You're going to go
get your evidence. You're going to come back
here in an hour or two hours and bring me that
evidence. The guardian ad litem is going to
(225) 216-2036
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
538
do his job. The guardian ad litem hasn't done
his job. You're going to do your job. She
has immense discretion. She exercises her
discretion to exclude the evidence. And she
doesn't require the guardian ad litem to do
his job.
Q. Do you agree that a Judge should
consider only evidence that's offered and
introduced into the record, into evidence and
things that are excluded or things that are
not offered the Judge should not be
considering those?
A. I believe that Judge's should abide by
the law and interpret the law to accomplish
their ultimate task. I can't find the right
word -- which is to ensure that justice is
done and that children, that every decision
they make is in the best interest of the
children and that must include protecting
children from abuse.
Q. And let me ask you this. Your blogs
and your petition, they do not say the
guardian ad litem was not qualified?
A. I wasn't aware of it at the time.
Q. They do not say the guardian ad litem
(225) 216-2036
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
539
didn't present evidence to the Court?
A. The Guardian ad --
Q. Right? Yes or no?
A. I can't answer the question because --
Q. Your blogs do not say that? You do
not attack the guardian ad litem. Your blogs
say Judge Gambrell excluded all of Raven's
evidence including these audio recordings at a
hearing on August 16th; isn't that what your
blog says? Yes or no?
A. It's a mischaracterization of the
facts.
Q. Is that what your blog says?
A. No. That isn't. If you understand
what a guardian ad litem does and understand
how Judge Gambrell pretty much characterized
his role, that he was the investigatory arm of
the Court and guardian ad litem is the Judge.
Q. Isn't is also true that since you read
the transcript that Raven's attorney did not
provide copies of this "good book" or drawings
or whatnot to opposing counsel before the
hearing? You read that, didn't you?
A. According to him and according to
Wanda they -- the book was provided
(225) 216-2036
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
540
electronically -- I'm sorry. She provided
that to the District Attorney. She provided
it to the guardian ad litem and in her mind
that meant the guardian ad litem was then
obligated to provide it to opposing counsel.
Now I don't know. I agree, Mr. Ignatiev, did
not do clearly what he was supposed to do
because Judge Gambrell said he didn't.
Q. And in the transcript, Judge Gambrell
expresses concern because the other attorney
says I don't have copies of what they're
trying to introduce right now. At least
that's what he claimed, right?
A. That's what he claimed.
Q. And Judge Gambrell expressed concern
that you're trying to introduce writings from
someone who is not even present to
authenticate or to answer -- she at least said
that in the transcript, right?
A. She did say that in the transcript.
Q. Okay. And you took that and
characterized that as Judge Gambrell excluding
evidence on one technicality or another?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Right? Not on the Code of Evidence as
(225) 216-2036
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
541
she said it was what her decision was based
on?
A. It isn't in the Code -- the things she
said -- there is nothing in the Code of
Evidence that says that if someone doesn't
bring one half of the issue then you can't
admit the other half. That's patently absurd.
Q. What about --
A. The Code of Evidence says that a
document that's submitted can be admitted if
it can be authenticated and it's not -- and it
has some bearing on the issues. I'm sorry.
I'm very tired.
Q. And the Code of Evidence requires us
as lawyers to provide opposing counsel copies
of things in advance that we intend --
A. No.
Q. -- to introduce into evidence, right?
A. I don't think the Code of Evidence
requires that.
Q. The Code of Civil Procedure. The law?
A. I think the rules of court which is
not law requires as a courtesy that you
provide it in advance. But are you telling me
that if you have compelling evidence that a
(225) 216-2036
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
542
child is being molested that you're going to
exclude that evidence because opposing counsel
didn't get a copy of it? Why doesn't she take
a 30 minute recess which happens all the time
in Family Court, give that evidence to
opposing counsel go look at it and tell me
what you think? She could have done that.
Q. We can move on --
A. What's more important?
Q. We can move on because what the
Committee will see when they read your
transcript at R 18 is that the Judge did
suggest, give copies to them now. We'll take
a break. They can read it and we'll revisit
this later. That's in there. What was and
wasn't done is in the transcript.
A. Yes. They can read the whole thing
and see how that went.
Q. Back to your answer that I
mischaracterized what you said, your Sheep
Free Zone blog, ODC 12(C), you say, "Now
consider that no Judge has ever heard those
recordings. Why? Because for 4.5 years the
Judge's have simply refused to do so. On
August 16, 2011 Judge Deborah Gambrell in the
(225) 216-2036
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
543
Chancery Court of Marion County, Mississippi
once again refused to admit all of Raven's
evidence including these recordings."
A. Correct.
Q. You said that?
A. I did say that.
Q. And this transcript does not support
your statement about Judge Gambrell because
the transcript doesn't show that they were
ever offered into evidence that day, correct?
A. Two things.
Q. Yes or no?
A. I don't agree with the way you're
characterizing the question.
Q. So your answer is "no" that the
transcript will read it and it'll say that
they were identified and offered into evidence
that day?
A. What the transcript will show with
regard to the "good book" and "bad book" --
that's the transcript you have.
Q. How about the audio? The audio
recordings. That's all I'm asking.
A. There is another passage in the
transcripts that had to do with the audio
(225) 216-2036
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
544
recordings, but because this directly
addressed something that Gambrell said on the
record the last time we were here that's why I
chose that. But I am more than happy to
submit the entire transcript from August 11,
2012 into the record because I think that
would be very enlightening about just how
poorly that entire matter was conducted.
Q. I'm going to try to conclude. But I'm
actually honestly confused right now and I
need for you to help me more than anyone else.
A. I will do my best.
Q. Okay. Did anyone at the August 16,
2011 hearing offer the audio transcripts into
evidence for Judge Gambrell? And that really
is a yes or a no.
MR. DUCOTE:
Well let me object because the
testimony was that those tapes, audio
tapes, had been in the record, but she
didn't listen to them.
MR. MANNING:
No, no. The testimony was they gave
them to the guardian ad litem.
MR. DUCOTE:
(225) 216-2036
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
545
I'm talking about Judge Gambrell's
testimony was that the prior Judge, that
those tapes were in the record but she
never bothered to listen to them.
MR. MANNING:
Can I make this simple?
MR. DUCOTE:
Yes.
MR. MANNING:
This lawyer, Ms. McCool, is charged
with soliciting others to have ex parte
communications with Judges in pending
cases. That's one of the things she's
charged with. And she's also charged with
in doing so, she's inciting their
reactions through false statements.
That's what she's specifically charged
with. And in this blog, ODC 12(C), that
was written by Ms. McCool and posted
online she says: "Listen to these
recordings." Here's a link to them.
They're both linked. Listen to these.
Okay. "And now consider that no Judge has
ever heard them." And one of the reasons
why is because at this August 16, 2011
(225) 216-2036
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
546
hearing Judge Gambrell "once again refused
to admit all of Raven's evidence including
these recordings." She's charged with
that being a false statement. And it is a
false statement and that's what she's
charged with.
But it goes further because when you
turn the page it says, "Are you
horrified?" Hey, if I'm reading this, I'm
horrified. Okay. But I'm an attorney and
I know what I can and can't do. But these
people that are reading these blogs are
not attorneys or certainly not all of
them. They're mothers and daughters and
friends and they said, 'with this
information are you horrified'? Call this
Judge and let her know. Call the Judge in
Louisiana and let her know. Call the
Louisiana Supreme Court. Here's the writ
I filed. Let them know. You can't do it.
It's prohibited by the rules and she's
specifically charged with it.
BY MR. MANNING:
Q. So the purpose of this question which
I thought we had an answer to last time, but
(225) 216-2036
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
547
I'm still confused is, did Raven, her
attorney, anyone else for that matter present
at the August 16th hearing before Judge
Gambrell, did anyone offer the audio
recordings into evidence at that hearing?
That's nothing more, nothing less. That's the
question.
A. This is how I'm going to answer your
question and I'm going to try to be very
clear. First and foremost, the petition and
my blogging, they're not articles that I'm
filing in court, right. I'm writing as an
individual --
MR. MANNING:
And I apologize for interrupting but
can you ask her to answer the --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. Can you --
MR. MANNING:
-- question before she explains?
MS. GOLDSMITH:
-- answer the question and then
explain your answer?
BY THE WITNESS:
A. I don't really know how to answer the
(225) 216-2036
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
548
question.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I agree it really is a "yes" or "no"
question. You can explain it.
BY THE WITNESS:
A. Well I guess strictly speaking the
answer is no. The reason I am struggling to
answer that question is because the evidence
was offered to the Judge through the guardian
ad litem. At least theoretically it would
have been if the guardian ad litem was doing
his job. The evidence was required to be
submitted first to the guardian ad litem.
That is what they were mandated to do.
Provide your evidence to the guardian ad
litem. Give it all to him and then the
guardian ad litem will review it. And the
guardian ad litem's role as Judge Gambrell
repeatedly says in that transcript, he's an
investigatory arm of the Court that requires
him to do certain things with regard to that
evidence. And he didn't do any of it. So
when Raven says I tried to get my evidence
admitted into Court. She said on the record,
I gave my evidence to the guardian ad litem.
(225) 216-2036
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
549
At that point, if Judge Gambrell had any
interest whatsoever in that evidence she could
have held her guardian ad litem accountable
and said I want that evidence. I want it
inventoried. I want to know what it was and
then we're going to have a hearing and we're
going to consider each piece of evidence. She
didn't do that.
So in Raven's mind and I agree with her,
that was Judge Gambrell not admitting evidence
that she knew was available to her because the
guardian ad litem had it and did not bring it
to Court even though he had it. So yes, you
have to understand the role of the guardian ad
litem in the case in order to understand that
question.
MR. MANNING:
No further questions.
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. Can I just follow up with a
couple of questions. I would call the
Committee's attention to the case, the
Mississippi guardian ad litem case that I
provided today in connection with the
second supplemental memorandum, S.G.
(225) 216-2036
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
550
versus D.C. And on page 10 of that
opinion --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
What exhibit number is this?
MR. DUCOTE:
It's not an exhibit. It's the case
that I filed when we started. I provided
two cases that are the cases referenced in
the supplemental memorandum.
EXAMINATION BY MR. DUCOTE:
Q. And I'm going to ask you, this is what
you're referring to in your description. Page
10, in the second column, head note 10, it
says, "In Mississippi, chancellors often
appoint guardians ad litem in cases involving
children who have not reached the age of
majority. While it is required that guardians
ad litem should be appointed in cases
involving allegations of child abuse, it is
also true that appointments are made under
numerous other circumstances such as contested
custody action. The role to be played by a
guardian ad litem is complex and not subject
to a simple universal definition.
Some circumstances require that a guardian
(225) 216-2036
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
551
ad litem serve as an arm of the court,
appointed to investigate and present to the
court all necessary and material information
which might affect the court's decision,"
citing the case of S.N.C. versus J.R.D. at 755
So.2 1077.
Now is it your understanding and as the
record reflects that that is the role that
Judge Gambrell appointed the guardian ad litem
to do as an investigative arm of the court, to
present to the court all necessary and
material information which might affect the
court's decision?
A. To be absolutely precise, she did not
herself appoint him, but that's how she
accepted it and identified him repeatedly on
the record. He was investigatory arm of the
court.
Q. Okay. And so what was the basis of
the statements that you made in your blog
about the -- what it was Judge Gambrell did or
did not do on that August 16, 2011?
A. The basis was that Raven had provided
her evidence repeatedly and Judge Gambrell
based on what happened in Court that day was
(225) 216-2036
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
552
aware that there was evidence that the
guardian ad litem had not brought to court and
made no effort to compel him to produce it or
to perform according to Mississippi law. And
my understanding -- Raven's understanding at
the time was she offered it and Judge Gambrell
refused it and blatantly rejected (name
redacted) -- I'm sorry -- the oldest child's
book.
Q. So at any time on your blog or your
postings or your writings, did you ever
knowingly make any false statements?
Q. No. Absolutely not. I tried very,
very hard to be as accurate and truthful as I
know to be because my credibility is
incredibly important to me and my integrity is
very important to me. And I tried very hard
to be fair to everyone, even people I don't
necessarily like, which would not include
anyone in this room.
Q. And just finally in regards to Judge
Amacker, did she ever hear -- did she ever
conduct an evidentiary hearing to consider the
evidence in the Louisiana case?
A. No. And in fact, I'm glad you asked
(225) 216-2036
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
553
this question because her testimony was that
she never got the opportunity or -- but the
fact of the matter is that she did. She had
the -- not only did she have the discretion to
hold an evidentiary hearing under the UCCJEA,
but we asked for relief under the Post
Separation Family Violence Relief Act which
we, under the law, Raven would have been
entitled to consideration. She would have
been entitled to relief under that statute
because of the facts. And Judge Amacker
refused to allow us that opportunity to put on
evidence. Just evidence. Not -- I mean just
evidence.
How do you make a conclusion that a child
is not in need of protection when the child is
within your jurisdiction and someone comes
into court claiming this child will not be
protected in their home state and the UCCJEA
gives you the authority to temporarily
exercise emergency jurisdiction to decide
whether or not this child should be protected.
If you had that discretion why wouldn't you at
least look at the evidence to decide whether
or not that party coming into court has got
(225) 216-2036
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
554
anything to support their position? Why not?
What is the harm, particularly if what you say
is the reason you want to be a Family Court
Judge is to protect children? It makes no
sense. And it is absolutely disingenuous for
her to suggest that she never ignored the
evidence when she refused to give us an
opportunity to even put the evidence into the
record.
MR. DUCOTE:
I have nothing further.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Thank you. Let's go off the record
for a minute.
(Off the record.)
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. We're going to go back on the
record. We just first wanted to thank
everyone for your attention, your
professionalism, your patience. We
appreciate it. We're going to take the
matter under advisement. We want to
consider all the testimony as well as all
of the exhibits. The Court Reporter has
indicated that she will have a transcript
(225) 216-2036
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
555
of today's hearing to everyone on or
before --
THE COURT REPORTER:
I have to turn it in here by April
10th. So it takes them a few days --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
So what do you think, the 15th?
THE COURT REPORTER:
Yes, ma'am.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. Give or take, a transcript to
everyone by April 15th. We're going to
ask for post-hearing briefs from each of
you. Do you want to give me some idea of
how much time considering you'll get the
transcript around mid-April, you would
like to have to draft those briefs? We're
pretty open.
MR. DUCOTE:
Twenty days? Thirty days?
MR. MANNING:
Thirty days.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
From?
MR. MANNING:
(225) 216-2036
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
556
From receipt of the transcript.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Okay. So why don't we say Friday, May
16th?
MR. MANNING:
Unless the transcript comes after
April 15th. If it comes before, what do
we do? Is it 30 days from when we get it?
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I mean as far as I'm concerned it
doesn't have to be -- we can you know -- I
just want to give -- I want a date so
you'll know. If you want to even say May
30th that's fine with me.
MR. DUCOTE:
That's fine.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
I just want a hard and fast date
instead of you know, relying on -- why
don't we say May 30th?
MR. DUCOTE:
Okay. And that'll be simultaneous
submissions?
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Yes. One brief, no replies, opposing.
(225) 216-2036
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
557
And I would appreciate it and I'm sure my
Committee would as well that it not be
overly long. I'm not going to give you a
page limit, but would ask that you take
that into consideration.
MR. DUCOTE:
Less than 17 pages?
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Any questions? Comments? I think
we're done.
MR. DUCOTE:
Let me just to be clear for the Court
Reporter, is there anything else that you
need from me? Any clarification of names
or you got the index with the exhibits?
MR. MANNING:
I would say for myself, and Ms. McCool
and Mr. Ducote, I know we all appreciate
your patience. It's been a long couple of
days and we all have had a lot to deal
with with us too in particular and a lot
of exhibits and a lot of testimony and
issues and it has been my experience one
of the smoothest hearings and --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
(225) 216-2036
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
558
Oh, that's good to hear.
MR. MANNING:
-- I appreciate it and thank you for
your patience and --
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Absolutely.
MR. MANNING:
-- volunteering for this.
MS. BENOIST:
Thank you all for being so prepared.
MS. GOLDSMITH:
Yes. Thank you.
MR. DUCOTE:
Thank you for your time and your
consideration.
(THE HEARING CONCLUDED AT 2:17 P.M.)
(225) 216-2036

IN RE: JOYCE NANINE MCCOOL
13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
$
$1,000.00 (1)
495:22
1
1 (6)
393: 2;431:25;
432:13;445:21;
505:13;531:11
10 (7)
391:10;393: 7;
480:22;531:12;
550: 1,13,13
1040 (1)
457: 1
1077 (1)
551: 6
10A (1)
393: 8
10B (1)
393: 8
10th (1)
555: 5
11 (2)
531:15;544: 5
11A (1)
529: 2
12 (3)
460:15;461:20;
531:13
12B (2)
375:24;376: 1
12C (4)
378:11,13;542:21;
545:18
12th (1)
377:19
13 (7)
467:23,24;469:18;
470: 5, 7;520:25;
531:13
13A (2)
394: 7,18
13B (5)
396: 1, 4;397:19;
399: 6;404: 2
13C (1)
396:18
13D (1)
402: 8
13E (1)
408: 2
13th (2)
394: 7,16
14 (5)
438:21;439:18;
470:21;477:11;
531:13
14th (1)
387: 1
15 (5)
481:17;493:21;
496: 6;531:13;532: 8
151 (3)
456: 1,11,16
155 (1)
457:10
156 (1)
457:10
158 (1)
456: 1
15th (3)
555: 7,12;556: 7
16 (18)
418: 5;451:23;
481:16;498: 4,21;
499: 5, 7;509:24;
515:13;516: 2;
519:18;531:13;
532:22;533: 5;
542:25;544:13;
545:25;551:22
16th (14)
382:19;383: 7, 9,
11,22;384: 5, 7;
494:15;507: 8;
534:17;536:19;
539: 9;547: 3;556: 4
17 (8)
376: 3;418: 6;
499: 5;500:22;
503: 9,11;531:13;
557: 7
18 (9)
421: 3;515:24;
516:18,20,22;
519:16;531:13;
532:24;542:12
19 (7)
442:13,17;522:24;
523:10;524:12,14;
529:15
1st (1)
418: 4
2
2 (1)
531:11
2:17 (1)
558:17
20 (7)
431:15;493:11;
494: 2, 6,11,16,19
2003 (2)
444:24,25
2007 (3)
429: 4, 4;488:24
2008 (2)
387:16,18
2009 (1)
498:11
2010 (2)
498:14,17
2011 (38)
376: 3;377:19;
378:14;380: 1,25;
382:19;387: 2, 5;
390:13;392:25;
456: 7;493:11;
494: 2, 7,11,17,19;
495: 1, 3, 6;498:18;
501: 1;507: 8,19,20;
508: 2;509:24;
515:14;516: 2;
519:18;529: 5;
532: 9,22;533: 5;
542:25;544:14;
545:25;551:22
2012 (19)
392: 2;394: 8;
396: 8,20;402:13;
420:20;459:11,21;
460: 6,17;461:10,13,
14;462:13,14,16;
468: 1;529: 5;544: 6
2013 (4)
408: 5;418:17;
441: 6;479:18
2014 (2)
470:11,23
20th (6)
420:20;429:12;
507:15;508: 3, 7;
535: 8
21 (2)
437:23;501: 1
22 (6)
447:12,19;470:11,
23;495: 1;532: 9
22nd (5)
381:11;387:16;
393:15,23;411:16
23 (2)
421: 6;445:22
24 (1)
495: 3
25 (1)
380: 1
253.1 (1)
399:17
25th (4)
378:14;380:25;
459:20;460: 6
27 (3)
462:16;468: 1;
529: 5
27th (11)
462:14;463:20;
464: 4,20;520:22;
521: 5;527:11,13,17;
528:16;530: 2
28th (9)
396:20;402:13;
460:16;461:10,13,
14;462:13;527:12,13
2nd (1)
387:17
3
3 (3)
459:19;480:21;
531:11
3:00 (2)
495: 2, 3
30 (3)
495:24;542: 4;
556: 8
30th (2)
556:14,20
31st (3)
394:13,14,17
3rd (2)
408: 5;410:19
4
4 (3)
445:21;506: 9;
531:11
4.5 (2)
382:18;542:23
43-21-121 (1)
498:18
465 (1)
456: 7
47 (2)
374:18;375: 7
470 (1)
456: 9
471 (1)
456: 9
48 (3)
375:21;376: 2,25
49 (2)
390:11,24
5
5 (2)
478: 5;531:11
50 (2)
392: 1;491:21
504-310-2300 (1)
377:16
51 (1)
392: 6
52 (1)
392:24
53 (1)
393: 9
54 (1)
393:13
55 (1)
394: 5
56 (1)
396:20
57 (3)
408: 3;431:25;
432:13
5th (3)
387: 5;396: 8;
495: 6
6
6 (4)
492:17;498:14,17;
531:12
6:00 (4)
495: 7, 8,15,15
686 (1)
456:23
6th (2)
390:12;498:10
7
7 (1)
531:15
75 (1)
412:11
755 (1)
551: 5
767 (1)
456: 7
78 (1)
421: 4
79 (1)
421: 9
7th (4)
462:19,23;463:14;
495: 6
8
8 (4)
386:21,23,24;
531:15
8:13 (1)
379: 1
809 (1)
456:25
837 (1)
456:23
863 (3)
454:24;455: 2,10
9
9 (5)
390:10,16,18,24;
531:12
9:00 (1)
387: 5
9th (1)
392: 2
A
ABA (2)
Min-U-Script Associated Reporters, Inc.
(504) 529-3355
(1) $1,000.00 - ABA

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
433:25;437: 3
abide (7)
428: 5;451:18;
485:22;486: 5, 6, 7;
538:13
abides (1)
427:19
able (5)
380:12;411:22;
485:25;519: 6,10
absolutely (15)
398:23;412: 7;
421:20;422:10;
423:12;443: 8;
474: 6;480: 7;
504:23;530:13;
540:24;551:14;
552:13;554: 5;558: 6
absurd (1)
541: 7
abundance (4)
398:24;399:11;
400:24;404: 7
abuse (16)
376:17;379: 7, 7;
384:16;385:12;
429: 2;430:15,21;
431: 1;494:21;
499:13;512: 6;
534: 9;537:11;
538:20;550:19
abused (2)
494:23;502: 5
abusive (1)
465:12
accept (1)
514:22
acceptable (1)
470: 3
accepted (2)
526: 7;551:16
access (3)
389: 9;512:21;
515:18
accessed (1)
431: 5
accomplish (1)
538:14
accordance (1)
399:15
according (8)
374:16;429:16;
460: 3, 4;497:22;
539:24,24;552: 4
accountable (1)
549: 3
accumulates (1)
515: 4
accurate (2)
500:19;552:14
accurately (1)
387:24
accused (3)
467:12;525:23;
530:14
acknowledge (3)
378: 4;402:25;
405:25
acknowledged (1)
412:25
acknowledges (1)
403:17
acknowledging (1)
399: 2
acrimony (1)
445: 5
act (5)
436:25;443:13;
445:24;498:12;
553: 7
action (5)
456:16;514:20;
521: 4;532: 2;550:22
actions (3)
386: 3, 3, 5
active (4)
413: 4,13,15;
459: 5
actively (1)
523:25
activities (1)
458: 2
activity (5)
459: 7;483:25;
510:22,23;524: 1
actual (9)
391:14;398:21;
403:22;411:12;
440:12;456:17;
489:25;510:22;
515: 4
actually (39)
372: 7;375: 1;
383:19;388:13;
390:10;391:17;
401: 2;402:23;
406:20;413: 3;
415:14;416: 2,10,12;
442:10;450:14;
451: 7;452: 8,14;
460: 8;465: 1;478: 8;
480: 5;483:10,14;
491:20,21;492:23;
494: 6;497:10;
508:21;517: 6;
521:14;528:12;
530:11;531: 5,17;
532:12;544:10
ad (68)
372:15,16;383:16,
23;429: 8;430:13,18;
495:23;496: 1, 3,20,
24;497: 5, 7,13,18;
498:10,12,13,16,24;
499:10,12,14,15,17;
501:10;502: 2,15,20,
23,24;514:20;516: 7;
533:22,25;534: 2,17;
537:14,25;538: 1, 5,
23,25;539: 2, 6,15,
18;540: 3, 4;544:24;
548:10,11,13,15,17,
18,25;549: 3,12,14,
23;550:15,18,23;
551: 1, 9;552: 2
added (3)
478: 1, 2,15
adding (2)
436:23;478:15
additional (4)
432:25;436:24,25;
495:23
Additionally (1)
372:19
address (3)
473:17,20;493: 2
addressed (1)
544: 2
addresses (2)
400:20;516:11
adds (1)
460:23
adhere (1)
486: 4
adjudicated (1)
513: 4
adjudication (1)
513: 9
administrative (2)
497:12;498: 7
admissibility (1)
421:23
admissible (3)
424: 1;434:22;
472:12
admission (12)
397:21,25;398:14;
399: 1,24;403:16;
438:25;439: 3,19,22;
440:17;454:22
admit (15)
382:22;397:11,15;
409: 5, 9;420: 6,10;
424: 3;476:19;
516:13;520:17;
529:21;541: 7;
543: 2;546: 2
admitted (40)
396:25;397:13;
402: 7;404:16;
405: 6;406: 6;
408:10;409: 7;
410: 6;429:11;
435:10;436:17;
440:22;442:14;
447:16,22;463:11;
466: 1,13;467:13;
468:15;469: 7;
478:19;479:13,25;
480:11,13;514:11;
516:15;520:25;
525:20,25;526:21;
528:11;534:19,22;
537: 6,18;541:10;
548:24
admitting (3)
402: 3;405:12;
549:10
adoption (2)
479: 1;501:15
advance (2)
541:16,24
advantage (2)
453:17,22
advise (1)
530: 9
advisement (1)
554:22
advising (1)
530:19
advocacy (1)
482:21
advocate (2)
450: 5;486:20
advocated (1)
420:10
advocating (2)
485:21;486:14
affect (2)
551: 4,12
affected (1)
486:10
affirmative (9)
408: 4;409:15;
464: 5;479:22;
493:17;500: 3,11;
507:14;532:11
afford (2)
377: 5;452:11
afforded (1)
503:25
affording (1)
429:19
affronted (1)
446:14
afraid (5)
492: 2, 9;510:19;
511:11,13
again (34)
376: 5,16;381: 1;
382: 6,21;384:15;
402:10;404:11;
408: 8,25;427: 1;
433: 2;434: 7,12;
435:13;440:23;
448: 2;464:23;
469: 9;472:14;
474: 7;476:10;
484:15;504:25;
510:20;511:14;
512: 4,15;519: 2;
521:17;529:14,25;
543: 2;546: 1
against (48)
392: 3;393: 1;
395: 5,25;397:22;
398: 4,13;399: 3;
400: 7;401: 7,15;
403:25;404:17;
405:13,15;407: 7, 8;
409: 8;411: 2;
414:17;433:10;
434: 8;435:11;
437:18;438:25;
439:19;440:22;
442: 9,15;454:23,24;
455: 7,14,19;460:13,
20;461:22;474:11;
484:17;490:20;
521: 8;522:14,18;
523: 2,12;524:16,21;
531:25
age (2)
451:22;550:16
aggravating (2)
434: 1;437: 3
ago (5)
394: 3;444:21,23;
461: 3;514: 5
agree (22)
383: 3;386: 1, 9,
19;392:16,17,18;
393: 3;403:19;
421:13;424: 6;
465: 7;468:17;
512:25;518: 6;
526:23;535: 5;
538: 7;540: 6;
543:13;548: 3;549: 9
agreed (2)
374:24;387:17
agreement (4)
496:13,17;500: 2,
15
ahead (4)
371: 4;447:11;
452:17;517:25
alerting (1)
374:25
Alexander (2)
500:25;503:15
allayed (1)
504: 3
allegation (2)
402: 6;459:12
allegations (19)
376:17;379: 7;
385:12;398:23;
402: 2;429:25;
430: 2,15,20;435: 9;
440:16;453:17;
456:19;484:16;
512: 4, 5, 8;523:11;
550:19
allege (1)
(504) 529-3355
(2) abide - allege

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
433:17
alleged (1)
384:16
allegedly (1)
484:13
alleging (2)
454:25;494:21
allotted (1)
411:18
allow (12)
429: 6;437:20;
473: 7, 8;477: 8;
481:21,25;505: 5;
514: 8;520: 2;528: 3;
553:12
allowed (7)
419:18;439:23;
482: 7;498:11;
503:24;507:21;
530:18
almost (7)
411:10;474:22;
478:23;479:14;
494:13;527:16;
536: 6
along (4)
402:20;437: 8;
442:18;467: 6
altercation (1)
521: 1
alternative (1)
387:12
although (5)
406: 9;411:11;
526:18;527: 3,20
always (4)
449:16;451:10,12,
19
Amacker (114)
377:11;381:10;
385:16;393:10,17,
20;394:10;395: 2,23;
396: 8,11,22;399: 6;
401:11;402:11;
403: 1, 6;406:16;
407:20;408: 7;
409: 6;411:19,24;
414:23;415:17,18;
416:15,20;417: 7;
419:20;433: 8;
435:10;436:17;
439:25;440:21;
441:24;442: 1;
443: 2;454:22;
455: 5,16,17,18,21;
457:20,21;458: 1, 2,
9,13,21,22,25;
459:12,13,14,24;
460: 3, 3, 5,16;
461: 2,11,14;462:13,
24;463:15;464: 6,15;
465:21,23,25;466: 4,
7,14,16;467:14;
468:15;470:22;
474: 9,16;476:20;
477:25;478: 9,13;
479:12,23;481: 9,15,
19,25;482:12,25;
483: 6;485: 1;
520:23;521: 3,21,25;
522:20;523:14;
525:12;526:13,14;
527: 8,14;528:19,23;
529: 4, 8,10,24;
552:22;553:11
Amacker's (24)
395: 3,14;400:19;
401: 8;409: 3;
414:18;418:24;
420: 8;438:22;
439: 4;441:15,17;
442:14;454:22;
459: 6;463:25;
468: 9;470:10;
471: 5;472: 1;475: 5;
478: 7;484:22;
526:23
among (1)
501: 3
and/or (5)
375:11;381:11,15;
420: 8;431: 4
angry (2)
450:13;466: 5
Annotated (1)
498:17
anxiety (1)
521:16
AOC (1)
498:14
apartment (1)
452: 7
apologize (4)
384:12;492: 4;
512:14;547:15
apparently (3)
435:21;469:21;
525:16
appeal (9)
380:13;381:15;
454: 6;501:14,16;
517: 7;533:19,19,20
appealed (2)
380: 9;505:18
Appeals (2)
456: 5;505:17
appear (8)
373: 8;387: 3;
388:13,16;389:17;
391: 7;416: 6;537: 6
appearance (13)
398:20;399:12;
400:16,25;404: 8;
418:14;439:24;
440: 2, 3;456:12,14;
464: 9;480: 2
appearances (1)
371: 4
appeared (4)
388:25;416: 8;
471: 6;520:23
appearing (2)
530:20,24
appears (2)
484: 6, 7
appellate (3)
446: 7;505:15;
517: 7
appendix (4)
374:14,16;431:14,
24
applicable (2)
397: 2;408:12
applied (2)
450:17;505: 2
applies (1)
427:19
apply (4)
420:12;421:15;
451:18;471:23
appoint (2)
550:15;551:15
appointed (4)
497: 8;550:18;
551: 2, 9
appointments (1)
550:20
appreciate (4)
554:21;557: 1,18;
558: 3
appropriate (3)
425:23;471:10,13
approved (2)
496:16;497:13
April (6)
418: 4;459:20;
460: 6;555: 4,12;
556: 7
arbitrary (1)
438:22
argue (1)
409:22
argued (1)
533:22
argument (1)
463: 6
arm (6)
533:24;539:17;
548:20;551: 1,10,17
around (6)
377: 2;380: 9,11;
384:14,17;555:16
arrest (5)
491:15;492: 6,13,
17;518: 4
arrested (3)
467:21;491: 3;
492: 3
article (27)
375:12;376: 4,11,
16;377:13;378: 2, 5,
19;379: 4, 5,10,23,
25;380: 2,15;381: 2,
16,18;399:17;
454:24;455: 2,10;
456:11,16;457:10;
485: 7;487: 1
articles (6)
376:15;382:10;
431: 5;456: 1;533: 2;
547:11
artifice (1)
429: 5
aspersions (1)
446: 8
asserting (1)
496:22
assertion (1)
479:12
assigned (1)
418: 7
assignment (1)
399:15
assist (1)
450: 4
assistance (1)
521:23
Assistant (1)
501:12
associate (1)
476: 8
assume (2)
380:19;489:21
assumed (2)
458:24;459: 2
assured (2)
410:11,13
atrium (3)
441: 8,25;464:21
attached (5)
374:14;431:19,23;
432:17;433: 3
attachments (1)
393: 8
attack (2)
436: 9;539: 6
attacked (1)
444:10
attempt (1)
433:16
attempted (2)
514:19,21
attempting (1)
530:17
attended (1)
390: 3
attending (1)
390: 8
attention (4)
387:21;425: 8;
549:22;554:19
attitude (3)
470:14;472: 1;
484:23
Attorney (57)
377:18;383:17,21;
393:14;406: 4, 7;
412:10;413: 6;
414:17;415:11;
418: 8;425:24;
441:21,22,24;443: 5;
449:14;460:14;
464:14;468: 4;
476: 6;500: 5, 9,10,
15,25;501: 8;503: 2,
16;514:22;515:19,
23;516: 9;521: 5, 8;
522:18;523: 1;
524:16,21;525:20;
526: 9;528:11,18;
529: 8;530: 1, 3;
531:25;534:18;
535: 5,18;536: 9,22;
539:20;540: 2,10;
546:10;547: 2
attorney/client (2)
503:14,20
attorneys (7)
443:25;445:24;
472: 3;474:16;
476: 3;514:12;
546:13
attorney's (16)
429: 7;442: 3;
463: 3,19,24;464:16;
466:17,24;467: 7;
474:17;489: 9, 9;
528: 1,10;531: 2;
537:18
audio (28)
381:19,25;382: 2,
3,15;387:12,22;
392:12;487: 7,17,17,
21,23;506: 5;533: 3,
10,11;534: 4, 5;
536:10,20;539: 8;
543:22,22,25;
544:14,19;547: 4
audios (4)
488: 5,10,16;
489: 4
August (30)
376: 3;377:19;
378:14;379:25;
380:25;382:19;
383: 7, 8,11,22;
384: 5, 7;494:14;
495: 6;507: 8;
509:24;515:13;
516: 2;519:17;
532:22;533: 5;
534:17;536:19;
539: 9;542:25;
544: 5,13;545:25;
547: 3;551:22
(504) 529-3355
(3) alleged - August

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
aura (1)
474:23
authenticate (2)
424: 1;540:18
authenticated (1)
541:11
authorities (1)
491: 6
authority (6)
392:13;491:11;
492: 6,19,22;553:20
automatically (2)
419: 1;483:23
available (8)
421:19;423: 4, 6;
428:10;429: 3;
505:21,24;549:11
Avionics (1)
456:25
avoid (6)
399:12;400:15,25;
404: 7;464: 9;480: 2
award (1)
463: 3
awarded (1)
463:24
aware (19)
393: 5,12;395: 8,
20;424: 7, 7;426:14;
431: 3;439:15;
455:23;456: 4;
458: 4;459: 9;460: 7;
461: 5;471:22;
497:24;538:24;
552: 1
away (3)
394:24;416: 3;
511: 5
awful (2)
430: 1;512: 5
awkward (1)
407: 9
B
back (29)
372:20;386:21;
396:19;397:18;
449: 5;458: 7;465: 3,
6,20;468: 3,12;
473: 1;481:19;
496:15;509:19;
511: 8,11;520:21;
522: 2;524:19;
526: 3;528:22,24;
529: 9;530: 8;531: 4;
537:23;542:19;
554:17
background (1)
465:15
bad (13)
415: 2;507:12,13;
509: 9,10,10,22;
511: 6;519:21;
524: 3;536: 1, 5;
543:20
bag (1)
411:11
bailiff (2)
467:18,18
ball (1)
425:12
balling (1)
525:23
Bar (4)
454:10;455:14,19;
527: 2
bar' (2)
397: 3;408:13
barely (1)
441:11
Barton (2)
445: 8;446:18
Barton's (6)
445: 7,17,19,23;
446: 7,22
based (20)
395:14;401: 7;
402: 1;403:10;
420:18;439:24;
451:13,16;456:18;
457:15;462: 3;
482:15;486:12,17;
494: 8;512:20;
514: 7;535:15;
541: 1;551:25
basically (1)
408:21
basis (8)
496:19,22;497: 9;
500:13;504:20;
524:23;551:19,23
bear (1)
382:12
bearing (1)
541:12
became (8)
395:20;412: 1;
450: 3;459: 9;460: 7;
461: 5;468:16;
524:18
Becky (1)
408: 7
become (3)
449:14;486: 1;
488:11
becomes (1)
444:14
begging (2)
510:15,16
begin (1)
371:15
beginning (3)
421: 4;507:20;
534:19
behalf (3)
371: 7;377:25;
403: 1
behaved (1)
526:20
behaving (1)
415: 5
behavior (1)
526:22
behind (3)
447: 2;464: 8;
523:25
belabor (2)
382: 6;389:14
belief (6)
388:10;400: 4;
404:14;440:19;
446:24;512:20
believes (2)
443:14;457: 4
below (2)
381: 8;382:14
bench (2)
400: 8;465: 2
beneficial (1)
412:15
Benoist (3)
371:14,25;558: 9
best (4)
523:15;537:10;
538:18;544:12
beyond (4)
473: 8,16;513: 6;
521:13
bias (47)
396:25;397:13,21,
25;398: 3,22;399: 2,
24;400: 7;403:16,19,
22,25;404:17;
405:13;406:18;
407: 7;408:10;
409: 7;411:12,21;
412:16;435:11;
436:18;438:25;
439:19,22;440: 8,12,
16,22;442: 9,15;
443:16;454:23;
456:13,17;461:21;
468:10;470:17;
475: 8, 8;478:19;
479:13,25;480:11,13
biased (3)
398:13;405:11,15
Big (1)
453: 2
binder (1)
375:22
binders (2)
372:20,21
birth (1)
494:17
bit (1)
458: 8
bitch (4)
465: 4;466: 3;
468: 4;525:21
bitter (1)
445: 6
Blakeney (1)
372:14
blame (3)
408: 1;535:16,17
blamed (2)
444:10;450: 8
blaming (2)
444:12;535:20
blatantly (1)
552: 7
blog (20)
378:16,17,22;
379: 5, 6,10;384:14,
16,20;385: 2, 9;
462: 6;485: 6;
486:25;539:10,13;
542:21;545:18;
551:20;552:10
blogging (1)
547:11
blogs (9)
376:15;382:10;
422: 3;431: 5;533: 2;
538:21;539: 5, 6;
546:12
blowing (1)
487:20
blue (1)
477:19
Board (4)
371:18;373:15;
431:13;456: 6
boarding (1)
482: 5
body (1)
497:12
Book (31)
373: 7;386:21;
507:11,12,13;
508:20,23,25;509: 2,
7, 9,10,10,10,22;
510:23;513:21;
514: 1;515: 9;
516:13;519:21,21;
536: 2, 3, 4, 5;
539:21,25;543:20,
20;552: 9
book/Bad (1)
507:11
books (3)
451:17;508:22;
516: 7
borne (1)
436:19
both (10)
382:25;421: 9;
423:20;466: 1;
467: 8,10;478: 5;
526:17,24;545:22
bothered (1)
545: 4
bottom (2)
378:24;421: 5
bought (2)
508:19,21
bound (4)
406: 2,14;407: 1;
486: 9
bounds (1)
445:25
boy (2)
375:24;396: 5
Boyd (6)
500: 4, 9;506:10,
11;516: 4, 5
Boyd's (2)
494:12;500:15
branch (1)
451:20
brand (1)
410:13
break (3)
448:19;509:14;
542:14
brief (19)
444:13;445: 5, 7,
11,14,17,20,23;
446: 2, 8;447: 5;
449: 3;454: 3, 7, 9;
456: 8;505:15;
518:11;556:25
briefly (2)
374:20;520:22
briefs (2)
555:13,17
brief's (1)
446:17
bring (13)
383:21;412: 8;
425: 7;453:17;
489:12;525:10;
534:18;535:16;
536: 9;537:14,24;
541: 6;549:12
bringing (3)
383:25;453:21;
489:10
brings (1)
474:16
brother's (1)
452:13
brought (7)
383:18;475:12;
501:11;514:18;
529:11;536:22;
552: 2
busy (1)
439:16
butts (5)
488: 1;510: 3,25;
511:16;534:14
(504) 529-3355
(4) aura - butts

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
C
call (16)
375:17;377: 4,13;
384:18;385:21;
407:18;425:19;
426:20,20;458:15;
473: 1;525:11;
546:16,17,18;549:21
called (11)
399: 9;400:21;
404: 5;405: 8,13;
464:22;465: 4;
466: 2;468: 4;
492:25;525:21
calling (6)
401:23;412:17;
453: 3;462: 1;466: 3;
525:21
came (13)
387:13;415:22,25,
25;441:12;454:16;
465:20;484:12;
488:22;492:12;
494: 1;507:15;
532:17
campaign (3)
421: 8,15;424:15
can (69)
373:13;377: 6, 8;
384: 3;386:16;
389:21;397:18;
398: 2,20;399:21;
404:13;406: 3, 6, 7,
8;412:12;414:11;
415:10,10,11;420: 1;
424: 1;428: 3, 7,10;
431: 5;432:24;
440:19,24;443:11;
445: 1;448:14,19,21;
449:10;457: 2,14;
467:17;468:19;
470: 2;483:18;
485:18;493: 2,21;
498: 5;503:21;
504:16,17;507:11;
511:25;515: 3, 5;
518: 8;523: 2;533: 9;
537:19;541:10,11;
542: 8,10,14,17;
545: 6;546:11;
547:16,18;548: 4;
549:20;556:11
candidate (1)
400: 8
Canon (1)
400:14
capacity (1)
441:22
care (1)
449:18
Care2 (1)
377: 3
cared (1)
451:10
career (2)
449:12;521: 7
careful (3)
518:22,24;520: 3
carefully (1)
420: 4
case (95)
372:16,17;376:22;
379:12;380: 1, 6,17;
381: 4, 4,10,14;
397: 3;403:23;
407: 8,12,14,16;
408:13;410:13;
411: 6,14;413: 3, 5;
414: 6;415:23;
418:17;419:19,22;
427: 1;428:13,13;
429: 3;430: 1,21,25;
443: 7,11;445:11;
448:25;452:19;
453: 4;454: 5;
456:22,24;457: 2,21,
22;458: 9;460: 8;
461:18;462: 8,18,22;
464:14;468: 2;
470:10,23;471: 2;
480:23;481: 6,10;
482:18;484:16,20;
486: 2;488:14,19;
490: 1, 6,10;493:18;
496:25;501:10;
502:18,19;504:10;
506: 2,21;515: 2;
517: 3;518:11;
521: 2, 6;523:12;
527:23;528:16;
530: 2;532:19;
534:25;549:15,22,
23;550: 6;551: 5;
552:24
cases (35)
372:10;385:15;
393:16,20,25;397: 2,
15;408:12;410: 5;
411: 5,17;413: 5,10,
11,12,13,15;416: 2;
418: 9,10;419:24;
420: 9;426: 1;
443:10;453: 3;
459: 5;461:15;
478: 7;485:13,24;
545:13;550: 8, 8,15,
18
Casing (1)
456:24
casino (1)
491:22
casting (1)
446: 8
cause (10)
377: 7;386:22;
387: 8;388:12,19;
389:16;390: 3;
416: 5;450:13;
514:25
caused (1)
532: 1
causes (1)
456:14
caution (4)
398:25;399:11;
400:24;404: 7
cc (1)
528:18
cc'd (2)
458:22;530: 3
cell (2)
382: 3;502:12
center (1)
484: 5
certain (4)
403: 2;422:12;
530:13;548:21
certainly (5)
488: 7;503:24;
512:25;519: 9;
546:13
certification (2)
498:13,16
certified (1)
388: 8
Chair (3)
373:12;417:20;
431: 9
Chair's (2)
398: 8;517:14
challenge (1)
412: 8
chambers (12)
429:12;465:22,22;
466:21;469: 8;
501:19,24;502: 3;
525:13;526:22;
528:12,13
chance (1)
466:16
Chancellor (5)
376:21;507: 1,10;
516: 3;519:18
chancellors (1)
550:14
Chancery (10)
382:20;387: 3,11,
14;495:22;506:10;
509:25;517: 4;
518:13;543: 1
change (2)
424:16;472:21
Changeorg (1)
483:22
character (1)
462:11
characterization (2)
474:22;527:18
characterized (2)
539:16;540:22
characterizing (1)
543:14
charge (7)
433:19;435:21;
436: 6,24;437:18;
438:15;454:20
charged (10)
430:14,19;436:13;
545:10,14,14,17;
546: 3, 6,22
charges (9)
373: 8;436: 2,13;
461: 6;498:25;
515: 5;519: 3;
524:18;525:10
chastise (1)
526:24
chastised (3)
444:17;465:25;
467:10
chatted (1)
441:13
check (2)
439:12;502:12
cherry (1)
518: 8
cherry-picked (1)
412: 9
cherry-picking (1)
412: 7
chest (1)
464:24
child (20)
428: 8;449:25;
462: 7;465:16;
481: 1,15,18,18;
502:11,21;509:22;
510: 2;513:25;
514: 6;542: 1;
550:19;553:15,16,
18,22
children (37)
376: 6,18;377: 6;
378:21;379: 8;
381: 3,22,25;382: 4,
24;385:13;424:25;
425:10;427: 9;
428: 1;430: 3;
450:25;451:11;
487:25;496:24;
507:16;508: 9;
511:23;514:16,17;
534: 8, 8,10,11,13;
537: 9,10;538:17,19,
20;550:16;554: 4
Children's (2)
486:10;506:15
Childress (1)
419:13
child's (5)
450: 2;481:24;
515:10,11;552: 8
choice (3)
443: 5;449:12;
463:16
choices (3)
406: 3;457:12,14
chose (3)
403:24;407:22;
544: 4
chosen (2)
407:23;424:19
Circuit (10)
444: 5,17;445: 3,
11;447: 8;452:20;
454: 8;456: 5;
481:22;482:24
Circuit's (4)
447:18;480:23;
481: 4;482:23
circularly (1)
533:21
circumstances (4)
443: 9;451:24;
550:21,25
cite (1)
443: 7
cites (1)
443:10
citing (2)
443: 6;551: 5
Civil (9)
399:16;455: 2,10,
24;456: 2;457: 9;
486: 5;513: 7;541:21
claim (1)
438:20
claimed (2)
540:13,14
claiming (1)
553:18
clarification (3)
393:18;512: 1;
557:14
clarify (2)
478:22;513:20
clear (13)
395:11;439:21;
440: 7;478:12;
480: 7;487: 4,16,24,
25;532: 4;535:10;
547:10;557:12
clearly (16)
380:23;404:21;
405:11;413:20;
416:13;439: 4;
440: 1,10;442: 4, 5;
446: 3;474: 8;475: 2;
524: 6;526: 1;540: 7
Clerk (3)
426:16;495:22;
518:13
client (33)
(504) 529-3355
(5) call - client

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
377:25;389: 5,14;
406:11,12,14;407: 2,
6, 8;410:11,16,25;
411: 1;417: 3;
422:21,22;441: 8, 9,
10,12,16,24;445: 8;
463: 3,20;465: 9;
466:18;469: 8;
503:18,19;524: 8;
530:10;531: 1
clients (7)
407: 7,18,21;
413:18;416: 3;
445:24;501:21
client's (2)
406: 2;415: 7
closed (2)
413:10;484:10
Coast (5)
449:10,18,19;
452:13,16
Code (17)
399:16;400:11;
424: 5;455: 2,10,24;
456: 2;457: 9;
471:22;498:17;
540:25;541: 3, 4, 9,
14,19,21
cold (1)
472: 7
collected (1)
488:20
college (3)
452:11,12;505:14
Columbia (1)
501: 6
column (1)
550:13
coming (6)
395:22;472:16;
492:13;512:16;
525: 1;553:25
commanding (1)
387: 3
commence (2)
495: 2, 7
commencing (1)
495:15
comment (4)
444: 4,12,13;
485: 3
comments (6)
386: 5;414: 5;
444: 8;447: 4, 8;
557: 9
Commission (2)
492:25;493: 5
commit (1)
446:24
Committee (12)
371:14,18;435:22;
436: 1;438: 2;
449:11;470:25;
471:21,25;519:11;
542:11;557: 2
Committee's (3)
473:22;477: 4;
549:22
communicating (1)
458:16
communication (4)
528:24;530: 4, 6,
15
communications (5)
459:24;460: 1;
503:14;524: 2;
545:12
community (1)
426:15
Compel (3)
462:19;463:17;
552: 3
compelling (5)
457: 3;474:15;
487:22;488:13;
541:25
complained (1)
478:18
complaining (3)
499:19;513: 2;
529:25
complaint (43)
393: 1, 6;395: 4,
16,24;401: 6,12;
414:16,19;436: 2;
454:10;455: 6,14,19,
20;458:19;459: 3, 8,
10,17;460:13,20,22;
474:11;521: 8,18,20,
22;522:14,18,25;
523: 2, 6;524: 2,16,
22;525: 7,24;526: 5;
527: 9;531:24;
532: 1, 4
complaints (2)
395:22;454:16
complete (3)
389: 8;530:17,18
completed (2)
448:24;498: 9
completely (2)
463: 5;466:11
completion (1)
382:13
complex (2)
418:19;550:23
compliance (6)
462:17;463:23;
466:12;528: 8;
530:22,23
complied (1)
528: 9
comport (1)
464:16
compound (1)
430:16
concept (1)
507:13
concern (8)
395:21;460:12;
464:15;513:11;
521:19;528: 3;
540:10,15
concerned (15)
401:10;412: 1;
425:22;426: 9;
428:24;440: 2;
459: 2;462:25;
464: 7;489: 2;503: 5;
526:14;537:12,16;
556:10
concerning (6)
484:21;517:18;
518: 2;521: 4;
523:11;524: 1
concerns (10)
401:12;427: 2;
464: 9;479: 5;
491:24;503:21,22;
517:12;521:24;
529:20
conclude (2)
373:22;544: 9
concluded (2)
479: 9;558:17
concludes (1)
377:17
conclusion (4)
445:22;446:17;
485: 2;553:15
conclusions (2)
446:22;475: 7
conclusory (1)
456:19
condemn (1)
445:25
condone (3)
485: 9,17;486:22
Conduct (25)
400:12;425:24;
434: 2,18;437: 9,18;
442:11;446: 1;
460:12;467:11,12;
468:14;469: 6, 7;
479:11;490:10;
521:10;522:25;
523:16;526: 2,25;
527: 2;528:12,13;
552:23
conducted (1)
544: 8
confer (1)
519:11
conference (8)
429:10,11,13;
493:11;494: 7;
500:19;501: 2;
532:22
confidentiality (1)
529:21
conflict (12)
397: 1,14;399:25;
403:17;404:17;
406: 1, 6,19;407:25;
408:11;409: 7;
411:21
conflicted (2)
510: 9,13
confused (3)
510:14;544:10;
547: 1
confusing (1)
483:17
conjunction (1)
514: 7
connection (6)
393:11;480:24;
484:20;504: 9;
530: 1;549:24
consent (9)
386: 7;490:14;
496:13,15,16,17,18;
500: 1,14
consent' (1)
446:20
consider (14)
382:16;421:11;
424:23;428: 9;
462: 1;488: 8;522: 5;
537: 2;538: 8;
542:22;545:23;
549: 7;552:23;
554:23
consideration (7)
378: 8;394: 9;
473:22;477: 4;
553: 9;557: 5;558:15
considered (9)
402: 7;424:25;
433:22;437: 2;
450:15;453:15;
486: 3;494: 9;513:12
considering (3)
526:19;538:12;
555:15
consist (1)
446:22
constantly (2)
472: 4;474:17
constitutional (1)
443: 4
contact (9)
377: 8,10;378: 6;
380:16;384:24;
385: 3, 8;425:25;
482: 8
contained (3)
446:16;478: 5;
505:15
contempt (12)
387: 9;390:14;
391: 6;392: 3, 7,14;
481:13;490:19;
491: 2,12;492:16;
501:18
contend (1)
434:16
content (2)
392:22;510: 1
contentious (1)
462:22
contested (1)
550:21
context (1)
494:10
continuation (1)
437: 7
continue (5)
375: 5;376: 9;
377: 4;410:24;
446:25
continued (1)
494:18
continuing (1)
439: 2
contradictory (1)
472:20
contrary (2)
495:21;514:23
conversation (4)
406:10;441:15;
459: 1;493: 4
convey (2)
479:23;491: 6
conveyed (1)
491:10
convicted (1)
430: 8
conviction (1)
513: 5
convince (1)
489: 1
copied (1)
385: 6
copies (16)
371:24;372: 9,18;
432:23,25;433: 5;
438: 6;470: 7;
477:11,20;496:10;
518:14;539:21;
540:11;541:15;
542:13
copy (10)
371:19;374: 4, 6;
388: 1;391:16;
394:15;461:10;
529: 3, 6;542: 3
corner (1)
484: 7
corrected (1)
394:16
correction (1)
394:18
correctly (3)
397: 3;408:14;
(504) 529-3355
(6) clients - correctly

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
444:12
correspondence (3)
395:17;405:14;
528:19
cost (1)
524: 9
Counsel (46)
371: 8,10;399:11;
400:23;401: 7;
403:19;404: 6;
405: 9;434:13;
438: 4;445:13;
446: 4;454:10;
458:17;462:21;
463: 1, 2, 6;464:20;
465: 4, 6, 9,10,23;
466: 1,13;467: 9,11;
468:18;469:12;
499: 8;504:11;
513: 8;521: 1;523: 7,
7;526:20,21;530:12;
531: 6;532: 3;
539:22;540: 5;
541:15;542: 2, 6
counsel's (2)
468:14;469: 6
country (3)
449:19;451:13,15
Counts (1)
498: 6
County (9)
372:15;382:21;
387: 4,15;391: 9;
495:22;501: 9;
509:25;543: 1
couple (4)
377:22;521:15;
549:21;557:19
course (3)
458:20;470:14;
472: 2
Court (141)
377:12,14;378: 1,
6;382:20;383:18;
384: 1,24;385:19,22;
386: 7;387: 4,11,15,
16;391: 7,12;392:13,
15;396:24;397:12;
399: 7,14;400: 1;
401: 9,11,20;402:12,
13,24;403: 4;404: 3,
10;405:17;406:22;
408: 9;413: 6,13,14,
15;414:18;416: 7, 8;
418:18,21,24,25;
424:23;425: 3, 5, 5,
6,19,22,25;426:10,
10,13;441: 7,14,15,
17;443:21;444: 6,18;
446: 2, 9,20,25;
450: 6;452:22;
453: 1, 8,10;456: 5,
24;457: 1;459: 6;
462:12,15,18;
463:13,25;464: 3,17;
465: 5;467:20;
468:21;477:13,21;
480: 6,15;481:12,18;
487: 2,13;495:16,23;
502: 2,22;505:16,16;
506:10;508: 8;
509:25;512:10;
514: 4;516:12;
523:21;527:11,16;
528:16;530:18,19;
533:24;535:18,21;
539: 1,18;541:22;
542: 5;543: 1;
546:19;547:12;
548:20,24;549:13;
551: 1, 3,10,11,18,
25;552: 2;553:18,25;
554: 3,24;555: 3, 8;
557:12
courtesy (1)
541:23
Courthouse (1)
465: 8
courtroom (16)
405:20;406: 4,12,
16;412:19;415: 6;
425:11;441:20;
442: 8;453: 2;460: 9;
462: 4;465: 1;467: 3,
15;527: 4
Courts (6)
426:21;443:25;
485: 8,11;487: 2;
498: 8
Court's (9)
387:10,21;392:11;
425: 8;426:16;
491: 4;506:16;
551: 4,13
cousins (1)
508:15
cover (3)
523: 4;524:25;
530: 8
covered (1)
524:24
created (1)
483:25
creating (1)
513:21
credibility (5)
474: 9;475: 3,19;
501:20;552:15
credible (1)
502: 4
crier (1)
527: 2
criminal (2)
512:10;513: 4
critical (1)
485: 1
criticism (3)
414:24;484:22;
497:21
criticize (1)
483: 1
criticizing (2)
482:17;497:17
crossed (1)
403: 2
crowded (1)
464:21
cry (1)
527: 6
Cullen (8)
396:18,22,23;
402: 9;413:17;
480: 5,10,14
current (1)
504:11
currently (2)
393:19,19
custody (11)
380: 6;391: 9;
413: 8;418:24;
419: 3;453:18,22;
481:19,20;482:14;
550:22
cutting (1)
469:12
D
DA (1)
501:13
dad (8)
452: 1;507:17;
508:23,24;510: 4,10,
16;511: 1
daddy (1)
488: 2
damaged (1)
501:20
Damon (1)
371: 7
Data (1)
505:14
date (12)
380:23;392:19;
394:17,19;395:18;
415:19;463:18,23;
495:24;507:19;
556:12,18
dated (4)
378:14;459:20;
460:16;521: 3
date's (1)
394:12
daughter (7)
481:22;482: 1, 2,
4, 7;509: 2;510: 2
daughters (2)
494:23;546:14
Dawn (2)
381: 9;393:16
day (40)
383:17;387:17;
389:11;391:15;
405:18,21,23,24;
406:12;411:25;
413: 2;415: 2;
417:18;441: 7;
444: 6;446:19,21;
453: 3;462: 4,23;
466:11,18,19;
468:10,18,23;469: 9;
479: 1;482:13;
494:15;507: 6;
509: 1;521: 4,21;
527: 5;536:10,23;
543:10,18;551:25
days (12)
382:12;391:10;
461: 3;495: 1,24;
508:11;555: 5,20,20,
22;556: 8;557:20
DC (2)
372:17;550: 1
DCFS (1)
534:13
deal (1)
557:20
Dealing (2)
415:17;430: 2
dealt (2)
465:17;468:22
Deborah (5)
376:20;379:17;
382:20;516: 3;
542:25
decide (4)
403:21;537: 5;
553:21,24
decided (1)
471: 1
decision (14)
398:25;420:13,17;
449: 9;486:16;
505:16;526:24;
527: 1;535:14;
537: 9;538:17;
541: 1;551: 4,13
decisions (1)
522: 7
decline (1)
445:19
declining (1)
515: 1
deeply (4)
449:18;451:10;
526: 2,14
defend (3)
475:13;519: 2, 6
defensiveness (1)
475: 4
deference (1)
475: 1
definitely (2)
421:16;462: 9
definition (1)
550:24
degree (1)
522:13
delay (2)
407:11;412: 3
delayed (1)
419:22
delays (2)
407:16;419:24
demeanor (5)
470:13;472: 1,17,
21;475:18
demonstrate (1)
466: 3
demonstrated (5)
403:22;440: 7,12;
454: 4;475:16
demonstrates (2)
462:10;523:11
denied (3)
424:22;466: 2;
525:21
denies (1)
462: 8
deny (7)
398:15;402: 6;
405: 4, 4;410:20;
421:14;440:15
denying (1)
528: 9
depending (1)
494: 4
deposed (1)
476: 7
deposition (14)
420:24;470:10,14,
22;471: 6,20;472: 3;
474:15;475: 2, 9;
476:19;484:25;
507: 2, 6
depository (1)
533:23
Deputy (1)
498: 7
describe (1)
507:12
described (6)
465:22;500:18;
510: 3,13,23;525:22
describing (2)
509:21;510:25
description (1)
550:12
deserve (1)
505:10
despite (1)
438:24
details (2)
389: 6;512:17
development (1)
(504) 529-3355
(7) correspondence - development

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
449:22
Devereux's (1)
413:14
difference (5)
409:19;410: 9;
485:19;523:20;
534:25
different (11)
382: 9,10,11,12;
401: 2;409:21;
411: 5;425:12;
466:11;479: 5;
489:19
differentiate (1)
375: 5
difficult (4)
398: 7;412:22;
451: 2;486: 1
direct (5)
378: 5;485: 9;
486:22;487: 6,12
directed (1)
389:25
directing (1)
474:18
direction (1)
428: 9
directly (5)
375:17;377: 8;
526:12;533:13;
544: 1
Director (1)
498: 7
directs (1)
373:12
disagree (6)
412: 4;427:11,17,
17;468:21,24
disagreed (3)
452:20;480:18;
527:17
disagreement (1)
427:23
disagrees (1)
527:22
disappointed (1)
453:13
Disciplinary (7)
371: 8;392:25;
395: 4;454:10,15;
458:17;532: 3
discipline (1)
443:25
disciplined (1)
443:21
disclose (1)
387:12
disclosed (1)
395: 7
disclosing (3)
382: 1, 1;387:10
disclosure (1)
392:11
discouraging (1)
489: 9
discourteous (1)
445:17
discovered (1)
497:10
discovery (3)
462:19;463: 7,21
discretion (7)
517:14;537:15,21;
538: 3, 4;553: 4,23
discuss (4)
375:22;476:17;
506: 1;516: 6
discussed (7)
373:11;449: 8;
471: 1;488: 9,10;
519:18;535: 7
discusses (5)
376:16,20,22;
379: 6,11
discussing (5)
375: 1;381: 3;
385:12;437: 9;488: 1
discussion (4)
383:20;384:15;
493: 7;518:16
discussions (1)
516: 9
Disgraceful (2)
423:15;425:17
disingenuous (1)
554: 5
dismissed (2)
525:11;532: 2
dispute (1)
445: 6
disseminated (1)
387:23
dissemination (1)
518:16
distinction (2)
512:12;526:25
distinguishing (1)
467: 9
District (7)
381:12;393:15;
399:14;404:10;
501: 8;514:21;540: 2
disturbed (3)
450:14;521:14;
526: 3
disturbing (2)
450: 7;525:19
Division (4)
404: 9;413:20;
416: 4;419:12
divorce (2)
416:10,11
docket (3)
418: 7;506:10;
530:25
document (5)
404:25;433: 3;
504:15;525: 1;
541:10
documentary (1)
440:25
documentation (2)
497:19;498:15
documents (4)
487:13;504:18;
518:17;531: 3
dollars (1)
535:19
domestic (7)
444:10,16;446:23,
24;450: 1, 4,20
done (22)
380: 6;406: 9,17;
409:23;410: 5;
412:21;441:14;
448: 9,16;450:10;
465:23;473: 4;
491: 7;513:15;
522:11,11;525:15;
538: 1,17;542: 7,16;
557:10
dormant (2)
413: 7;418: 9
doubt (3)
404:21;446:13;
513: 6
dovetail (1)
479: 4
down (9)
379:15;405:20;
406:24;413:18;
435: 1;453:25;
454: 1, 6;507: 3
draft (3)
378:22;397: 5;
555:17
drag (1)
463: 2
drawings (1)
539:21
drawn (1)
516:14
dress (1)
406:24
dressing (1)
405:19
drew (2)
510: 5, 7
Drive (3)
491:20;492: 1, 2
Dropbox (1)
515:19
dropped (2)
430: 7;452: 6
DUCOTE (105)
371: 9,10,16,23;
372: 2, 6,13;373: 2;
386:12;388:20;
389:18;390: 5,15,19,
25;417: 8;427: 3;
431:17;432: 1, 6,15;
433: 1,13;434:11;
435:12,16,20,25;
437:11,25;438:16;
443:23;447:14,21;
448:18;449: 5, 6;
454:14;469:16,23;
470: 6, 8,19;471:16;
473:13,19;474: 5;
476: 1, 9,18,21,25;
477: 5, 9,14,16,23;
496: 4, 9;498:19;
499: 2, 6,22,24;
503: 7;504: 2, 5,24;
505: 6,11;509:20;
512:22;513:22;
516:16,21;517: 1, 8,
15,21;518: 1,25;
519:14,15;520: 6,20;
524:10;525: 3, 6;
529:12,23;531: 8;
544:17,25;545: 7;
549:19;550: 5,10;
554:10;555:19;
556:15,21;557: 6,11,
18;558:13
Ducote's (2)
438:15,20
due (5)
399: 8;404: 4;
438:22;486: 7,18
duly (1)
373:25
dumped (1)
407:14
during (10)
395:16;441:20;
470:14;476: 7;
491:23;502:13;
533:12;534:21;
535: 8;536:18
duties (1)
502:20
E
earlier (3)
378:16;407: 3;
431:12
early (2)
488:19,22
easy (1)
524:19
education (1)
449: 8
Edward (1)
396:22
effect (3)
388:23;490:22;
491:15
efficiency (1)
445:19
effort (2)
421: 8;552: 3
efforts (2)
415:18;426:19
egregiously (1)
526:19
either (10)
388: 7;406: 3;
416: 2;421:11;
429: 7;431:18;
444:15;467:19;
498: 2;531: 3
elected (1)
426: 6
electronic (1)
389: 9
electronically (1)
540: 1
element (1)
437: 8
elicit (1)
421: 7
elicits (1)
443:20
Elizabeth (2)
394:10;501:12
else (15)
388:19,25;398: 6;
442: 7;452:25;
453: 6;464:13;
486:24;492: 2;
494: 9;506: 6;
523:21;544:11;
547: 2;557:13
email (4)
463:11;498: 6;
500:24;504:15
emanated (1)
500:17
embarrass (1)
526: 9
emergency (2)
514:14;553:21
emotional (1)
443: 3
emphasis (1)
485:23
encountering (1)
521:17
encourage (5)
425:24;426: 4,20;
485: 9;486:21
encouraged (2)
385:21;425:19
encourages (2)
378: 5;380:15
encouraging (1)
422: 8
end (4)
372:24;410:20;
413: 9;452:17
ended (1)
377:13
(504) 529-3355
(8) Devereux's - ended

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
endorse (1)
486:22
enforcement (2)
430: 5,10
engage (1)
465:13
engaged (4)
433:24;458:14;
467:10;528:12
enlightening (1)
544: 7
enlightenment (1)
521:24
Enroll (10)
416:17;419: 2, 6,
8,16,18;440: 9;
442:19;443: 2,12
enrolling (3)
419:10;443:10,15
ensure (3)
535:13;537: 8;
538:16
entered (5)
446:21;447:25;
490:22;493: 7;
496:14
entire (14)
405:20;425:16;
445:22;468: 6;
470: 2;474: 4, 6,15;
475:24;476:19;
505:15;523: 6;
544: 5, 8
entirely (2)
486: 8;500:19
entitled (7)
375:12;376: 4;
378:19;495:11,13;
553: 9,10
entry (1)
490:13
enumerated (1)
456:10
equally (2)
397: 2;408:12
equities (1)
446:19
err (1)
428: 8
escort (1)
467:20
essentially (5)
401:23;453:14;
462: 1;508: 8;510:15
established (3)
378:15;383: 4;
442:14
etcetera (12)
485: 7;499:14,15;
500: 5,12,12;502:22;
506:17;513:15,16;
516:10;524: 4
ethical (1)
522:25
evasive (1)
474:20
evasiveness (2)
472: 6;475: 4
even (36)
400:15;405: 6;
407: 1;409:18;
410:12;414:23;
426: 4;431: 6;
456:13;459: 1;
462:24;467: 3,12;
469: 7;472: 7;
475:21;486: 7;
491: 4;494:20;
496: 2;497:20;
499:16,17;502: 7;
506: 5;512: 9;530: 2,
11;535: 2;536:22;
537:12;540:17;
549:13;552:18;
554: 8;556:13
events (1)
401: 8
everybody (1)
523:21
Everybody's (1)
506:14
everyone (6)
406:25;508:18;
552:18;554:19;
555: 1,12
everywhere (1)
499: 9
evidence (153)
382:22;383:14,25;
384: 5;389:13;
412: 9;420:12,18;
421:12,16,22;422: 6,
9,13,17,20,21,25;
423: 1, 3, 4, 6,10,23,
24;424: 5,12,24;
425:14;427:19;
428:10,22;429: 1, 2,
6, 7,12,21;431:14;
432: 4,14;437:23;
440:25;441: 1;
447:19;461:21;
469:18;471:14,22;
473:21;474: 8;
475: 6;485:10,12,23;
486: 7,17;487: 2, 5,
22;488: 8,13;489: 7,
10;494: 9,24;495:20;
498:21;499:12;
502: 5,21,22;503: 9;
507:11;509:23;
512:24;513:10;
514: 1, 2, 5,10,22;
515: 3, 4, 9;516:13,
18;519:10;520:25;
524:12;529:15;
531:12,14;533: 4,12,
15,23;534: 1, 3,16,
18;535:12,15,17,20,
24;536:20;537: 2,11,
13,17,23,25;538: 4,
8, 9;539: 1, 8;
540:23,25;541: 5, 9,
14,18,19,25;542: 2,
5;543: 3,10,17;
544:15;546: 2;
547: 5;548: 8,12,15,
22,23,25;549: 2, 4, 7,
10;551:24;552: 1,24;
553:13,13,14,24;
554: 7, 8
evidenced (2)
446: 1;470:16
evident (2)
445: 6;472: 7
evidentiary (3)
427: 7;552:23;
553: 5
evolution (2)
450: 3,17
evolved (2)
451: 3, 6
ex (5)
439:14;530: 6,14;
531: 5;545:11
exact (1)
395:18
exactly (6)
406:10;424:13;
433: 3;446:12;
479: 4;519:13
examination (5)
373:23;374: 2;
449: 6;531:22;
550:10
examined (1)
534:15
excerpts (2)
516: 1;519:16
exclude (2)
538: 4;542: 2
excluded (8)
383: 6;424:12;
429: 5;533: 3,11;
536:19;538:10;
539: 7
excluding (2)
423:17;540:22
exclusive (1)
456:11
executed (1)
387:17
exercise (1)
553:21
exercises (1)
538: 3
Exhibit (48)
373: 7;375:24;
378:10;386:21,21;
389:12;390:10,24;
391:23;393: 2;
394: 6;396: 1, 2,18;
402: 8;408: 2;421: 3;
431:15;437:23;
447:12;448:12,14;
459:19;460:24;
461: 4, 7, 9;467:23;
470:21;477:11;
478: 5;480:21;
483:13,14;484:20;
492:17;505:12;
515:24;519:13;
521: 2;523:10;
524:20;525: 2;
529: 2,22;531:23;
550: 4, 6
exhibits (7)
391:22;472:12;
517:17;531:11;
554:24;557:15,22
exist (1)
440: 3
existed (4)
440: 4, 5;487:23;
488:13
existing (1)
502: 9
exonerates (1)
520:19
ex-parte (4)
514:14;528:24;
529:10;530: 4
expects (1)
527:25
expedited (1)
394: 8
expense (1)
524: 9
experience (1)
557:23
experienced (1)
399: 3
experiencing (2)
511:22;514: 6
expired (1)
498:14
explain (9)
414: 1;471:11,12;
475:13,20;483:18;
485:18;547:23;
548: 4
explainable (1)
523:17
explained (3)
398: 5, 9;440:14
explains (1)
547:20
express (6)
397:25;399:23,24;
460:11;475: 7, 8
expressed (7)
395:21;397:21;
398: 3;439: 3;
504:21;528: 3;
540:15
expresses (1)
540:10
expressing (4)
442: 5;510: 6;
513:11;514: 1
expression (1)
442: 9
expressly (16)
396:25;397:13;
402: 6;404:16,18,19,
20;405: 6;408:10;
409: 7;435:10;
436:17;478:19;
479:13,25;504:16
extended (1)
501: 4
extent (5)
380:14;395: 7;
503:23;517:17;
525:16
extortion (1)
525:23
extra (1)
411: 8
extreme (12)
396:25;397:13,21,
25;398: 3;399: 2,24;
404:17;405:13;
408:10;409: 7;
436:18
extremely (3)
401:10,20,21
eyesonlinecom (1)
376: 3
F
face (1)
464:23
facilitate (1)
486:23
fact (33)
383: 4;388: 1;
389: 7;391:15;
396:20;408: 3;
410:16,22;422:14;
424:23;425: 8;
437: 4;438:17;
441: 2;442:21,22;
468:20;469: 4;
472: 8;484: 8;499: 9;
500:16;504: 3;
506:13;512:11;
521:12;526:11,20;
530: 5,12;531: 7;
552:25;553: 3
factor (2)
434: 1;437: 3
facts (9)
375: 4;394:25;
398:15;443: 9;
(504) 529-3355
(9) endorse - facts

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
466:24;512: 3,19;
539:12;553:11
factual (4)
374:23;376:10;
431:12;512:14
fail (1)
526:25
failed (2)
391: 7;463: 7
failure (1)
438:23
fair (3)
427:21,22;552:18
fairly (5)
405:15;439:16;
457: 5;483: 4;522: 8
fairness (1)
451:11
false (13)
383: 5;397:16;
398:23;409: 5, 9;
412: 7;436:14,15;
454:20;545:16;
546: 4, 5;552:12
familiar (6)
389: 6;400:11,14;
456: 3,22;457: 8
family (13)
412:10,11,12,14;
442:21;446: 9,19;
451: 6;512:10;
521:11;542: 5;
553: 7;554: 3
far (5)
462:25;463: 1;
484: 4;505:25;
556:10
fast (1)
556:18
father (18)
382:25;383: 2;
430: 6;449:23;
481:13,20,22;482: 3;
494:20;495: 4, 9,10,
12;502: 5;507:21;
508: 4;509:11;
511:17
father's (4)
428:16;494:13;
495: 5;508:11
fault (3)
416:19;536:11,12
favor (2)
462:24;501:13
feel (4)
473: 8,24;511: 6;
526: 4
feelings (2)
510: 6,14
feels (1)
502: 9
fees (7)
463: 3,24;466:17,
24;495:23;528:10;
531: 2
felt (11)
386: 2, 5,10;
388:12;414: 1;
453:11;454: 4;
463: 4,14;510:12;
521: 9
few (4)
409:11;443: 5;
531:21;555: 5
field (1)
451: 8
figure (1)
414:21
file (34)
373:13;380:12;
387:11;402: 5;
405:21;406:24;
407: 5,10;408:16;
409: 1;411: 2;413: 1;
416: 6,16;442:24;
454:24;469:17;
479:19,24;489: 4;
490: 3;496: 6;
498:20;503: 8;
516:18;517: 3, 5;
518: 8,15,19;524:11;
526: 7;529:14;532: 1
filed (70)
371:17;373:10,17;
377:18,25;381:10;
382:11;392:25;
394: 8;395: 1,24;
396:21;398: 7;
401: 7;402:20,21,23;
403: 3;407: 3;408: 6;
409:20;410: 3,19;
414:16;415:24,25;
416:22;417:14;
418: 3, 4,20;419: 2,
8;431:13;433:19;
434: 7;436: 3,22;
440: 4, 6;455: 6,19;
457:25;458: 5;
460:13,20,23;478: 4,
17,20,22,25;490:20;
506:14,21,23;508: 4;
521: 8,17;522:17,19;
523: 1;524: 7,22;
525: 8;530:12;
531:24;533:19;
546:20;550: 7
files (1)
502: 8
filing (8)
422: 2;442: 3;
457:19;458: 8;
461:17;474:11;
524: 2;547:12
final (1)
380: 4
finality (1)
505:17
finally (2)
463:14;552:21
find (7)
436:25;458:13;
462: 2;482:24;
502:17;527: 7;
538:15
finders (1)
442:22
finding (4)
456:16;491: 2;
492:16;512: 9
fine (7)
373:19;414:14;
448:14;499:21;
520: 5;556:14,16
fire (2)
406: 7;415:10
fired (3)
410:16;411: 1;
417: 3
firm (1)
388:10
firmly (1)
442:14
first (52)
375:13;376: 5,10;
378:20;379:14;
387: 8;389:11;
402:14;404:12;
408:13;415:24;
416:24;417:18;
418:19;432:24;
434:13;440: 5;
444: 5,17;445: 3,11;
447: 7,18;452:20;
454: 8,19;456: 4;
458:14,18;459: 9,16;
461: 1, 5;471:18;
474: 7;479: 8;
480:12,22;481: 4,22;
482:22,24;488:19,
21;499: 7;501: 7;
504: 3;514:18;
521: 7;547:10;
548:13;554:18
firsthand (1)
399: 3
fist (4)
465:14;466: 4;
468: 5;525:23
fit (2)
501:19,24
five (2)
441:16;448:19
follow (5)
376: 8;428: 6;
443:20;531:21;
549:20
following (3)
449:10;468: 2;
532:16
follows (2)
374: 1;427:18
food (1)
509: 8
footnote (5)
445:21;446:17,18;
452:19,23
for' (2)
375:12;376: 5
forced (2)
463:23;535: 4
foremost (1)
547:10
forever (1)
511: 5
forget (1)
431:11
form (4)
412:20;443:24;
496:16;526:10
formal (6)
373: 8;436: 2, 2,
13;455:20;461: 6
formality (1)
410:14
formally (1)
384: 4
format (2)
375: 7;389:10
forum (4)
411:13,15;412: 2,
23
forwarded (1)
500:24
found (7)
423:19;430: 8;
433:24;437: 4;
499:12;525: 9;
527:14
foundation (1)
504: 4
four (9)
409:19;410: 5;
411: 5;413:11,12,15;
415:24;416:25;
418:25
freak (4)
464:23;466: 2;
468: 4;525:22
Free (4)
378:15;384:14;
473:17;542:21
Friday (5)
377:19;495: 2, 7,
15;556: 3
friends (2)
452: 9;546:15
frivolous (1)
463: 6
front (15)
375:23;398:10;
403:20;405:20;
406:25;409:18,24;
410:12,23;411: 9,22;
416:15;419: 7;
443:12;526:20
frustrated (2)
489: 8;535:11
full (1)
447: 1
fun (1)
509: 8
further (7)
391:11;495:16;
504: 4;525: 4;546: 7;
549:18;554:11
Furthermore (2)
471:21;518:10
future (2)
380:18;427: 2
FXA (2)
480:24;481: 3
G
Gambrell (85)
376:21;377: 1, 4,
11;379:18;380: 2,16;
381: 5, 9;382:20;
383: 7;385:16;
386: 2, 5, 9,22;
387: 2;389:17;
390: 4,13;391:15;
392: 2,25;393: 5;
395:23;420: 8;
423:18;424:16;
429:11;458:15,22;
460: 2,23;474:11,12;
492:20;493: 1, 2,10,
24;496:12;499:11,
13;500: 6;502: 1, 3;
503: 1;507: 1,10,15;
513:14;514: 8, 8,23;
516: 3;519:19,22;
520:12;524: 1;
532:24;533: 3,11,21;
535: 1;536:14,19;
539: 7,16;540: 8, 9,
15,22;542:25;543: 8;
544: 2,15;546: 1;
547: 4;548:18;
549: 1,10;551: 9,21,
24;552: 6
Gambrell's (10)
379:11;387:20;
388:22;458:19;
459: 3;489:13;
500:13;536:11,24;
545: 1
game (6)
425:11;488: 1;
510: 3,21,25;511:17
gave (6)
420:20;463:18;
488:24;489: 5;
544:23;548:25
(504) 529-3355
(10) factual - gave

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
generally (1)
402: 4
gestalt (1)
513:12
gets (2)
396:19;530: 6
girl (2)
508:12;527:22
girlfriend's (2)
452:12;511: 4
girls (7)
377:15;420:14;
428:25;502: 6, 7;
507:16,22
girl's (1)
511: 4
given (4)
456:15;475: 1;
494:17;528:25
gives (2)
403:14;553:20
giving (1)
518:13
glad (1)
552:25
God (1)
444: 6
goes (6)
377: 9;411: 6;
437: 8;473:16;
501: 6;546: 7
GOLDSMITH (61)
371: 2,12,13;
372:25;373:18;
386:15;389:20;
414:13;432: 8,20;
435:18;437:13;
438: 5,11;447:24;
448: 8,13,20;449: 1,
4;473: 6,15;474: 3;
475:23;476:11,15,
23;477: 2, 7;499:20;
505: 4, 8;509: 4,13,
18;513:17;517:19,
23;518:21;519:12;
520: 1, 9;529:17;
531:18;547:17,21;
548: 2;550: 3;
554:12,16;555: 6,10,
23;556: 2, 9,17,24;
557: 8,25;558: 5,11
Good (14)
371:10;415: 1;
420:19;449:24;
507:11;509: 7, 9;
513:18;519:21;
536: 2, 4;539:21;
543:20;558: 1
good-bye (2)
481:21;482: 1
govern (1)
455:25
government (1)
451:21
grab (1)
436: 8
Grand (1)
501:11
grandmother (3)
508:14,19,21
grant (2)
445:20;463:16
granted (4)
439:14;481:20;
502:25;508: 8
granting (2)
466:24;501:24
gratification (1)
511:22
greater (1)
395: 7
greatest (1)
537: 8
greatly (1)
440:17
grounds (8)
397: 2;408:12;
443:11;456:10;
471:14;524:25;
525: 2;526: 5
Guard (5)
449:10,18,19;
452:13,16
guardian (66)
372:15,16;383:15,
23;429: 8;430:13,18;
495:23;496: 1, 3,20,
24;497: 5, 7,13,18;
498:10,12,13,16,24;
499:10,12,14,15,17;
501:10;502: 2,15,20,
23,24;514:20;516: 7;
533:22,25;534: 2,16;
537:14,25;538: 1, 5,
23,25;539: 2, 6,15,
18;540: 3, 4;544:24;
548: 9,11,13,15,17,
18,25;549: 3,12,14,
23;550:23,25;551: 9;
552: 2
guardians (2)
550:15,17
guess (2)
398:18;548: 6
guessing (1)
414: 3
guilty (1)
430: 8
H
hade (1)
491: 8
Hal (1)
501: 7
half (3)
419:22;541: 6, 7
hallway (1)
465: 9
hand (5)
403: 7;409: 4;
484: 5, 7;527:18
handled (2)
521:25;532: 5
handling (3)
376:22;379:11;
526:15
handwriting (2)
403: 7;478: 3
handwritten (2)
400:19;402:17
happen (4)
483: 1;494:19;
510:20;511:14
happened (15)
417:12;424:13;
441: 6;442: 7;462: 4;
464:13,19;491:11;
494: 6;497:17;
519:20;520:14;
522: 4;528:15;
551:25
happening (2)
419:24;513:13
happens (2)
514: 3;542: 4
happy (3)
504:19;522: 7;
544: 4
hard (4)
516:11;552:14,17;
556:18
harder (1)
488: 7
harm (1)
554: 2
harsh (1)
483: 4
head (2)
443: 8;550:13
headache (1)
416: 5
hear (8)
403:23;453:23;
481:15;487: 3, 8,10;
552:22;558: 1
heard (12)
382:17;389:10;
409: 2;417: 1;
423:20;472:18,18;
474: 2;499:25;
524:17;542:22;
545:24
hearing (60)
383: 7, 9,11,22;
384: 3, 6, 7;388:14;
390: 3;405:24;
409:18;410:22;
411: 4,25;412: 4;
415:15;416:21;
417: 5;419:14;
425:16;432:24;
434:22,23;439:13;
457:17;461: 9;
462:17;466:12;
494:14;503: 1;
508: 7, 9;514: 9,10;
519:25;528: 8;
530:22,23;532:23;
533: 4, 6,12,15,22;
534:20,21;535: 8;
536:10,19;539: 9,23;
544:14;546: 1;
547: 3, 5;549: 6;
552:23;553: 5;
555: 1;558:17
hearings (3)
415:25;429:10;
557:24
hearsay (5)
503:11,23;504: 1,
25;505: 2
heart (1)
512:16
heck (1)
531: 6
held (6)
387: 9;493:12;
516: 2;522: 5, 8;
549: 3
Help (7)
375:12;439:16;
445: 1;453:23;
508:25;521:23;
544:11
helpful (1)
423:25
hereby (5)
391: 8;399: 8;
400: 1;402:14;404: 3
here's (4)
436: 8;496:10;
545:21;546:19
hero (1)
377: 3
herself (32)
397:23;398:14,17,
21;400: 6;402: 1;
403:15;406:22;
409:17;410: 3,10,15;
411: 3, 7;416:25;
417:13;418:15;
419: 5,21;438:23;
440: 7,22;443:11;
457:22;461:15;
472: 8;478:10;
514: 1;519: 2, 6;
537:20;551:15
hesitate (1)
426:25
hey (3)
487: 7;488: 6;
546: 9
hide (1)
425:12
high (3)
452: 6;522: 6, 8
highly (3)
414:23,25;415: 9
himself (1)
398:17
hire (3)
406: 7;407:24;
415:11
history (1)
442: 2
hitting (1)
464:24
hold (4)
392:13;440:19;
491:12;553: 5
home (10)
451:22,25;452: 4;
495: 3, 9;507:23,25;
508: 1;514: 9;553:19
honestly (3)
414: 7;461: 3;
544:10
Honor (2)
468:14;469: 3
Honorable (1)
516: 3
hopefully (3)
373:22;375: 6;
501:19
horrendous (1)
430: 2
horrible (1)
416:12
horrified (3)
385:25;546: 9,10
horrified' (1)
546:16
hospital (1)
482: 3
hostile (7)
401:20,21;405:19;
412:17;414:22;
429: 9;523:23
hostility (3)
470:17;472: 6;
475: 3
Houma (1)
456:25
hour (1)
537:24
hours (1)
537:24
house (3)
382:25;508:11;
511: 8
housekeeping (4)
429:14;493:12;
494: 2;500:18
humiliated (1)
(504) 529-3355
(11) generally - humiliated

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
413:19
humiliating (1)
527: 5
hungry (1)
509:12
hurt (1)
411:21
I
idea (4)
424: 3;522:12;
532:18;555:14
identification (4)
470:20;498: 4;
500:22;522:24
identified (7)
393: 7;399: 7;
402:11;403: 7;
532:24;543:17;
551:16
identifies (1)
524:21
identify (5)
447:11;493:21;
498: 5;515:25;523: 3
Ignatiev (3)
501: 1;503:15;
540: 6
ignore (1)
451:15
ignored (8)
429:17;462: 8;
465:25;468:23;
469: 5, 6;527:22;
554: 6
ignoring (5)
468:14,17,25;
527:18,20
immense (1)
538: 3
impartial (4)
403:18;442:20,23;
456:10
impartially (1)
457: 5
impeach (2)
471: 9;473: 2
impeachment (1)
471:19
impermissible (1)
530: 4
implication (1)
440:10
implied (1)
501:12
important (11)
420: 3;426:12,13,
14;469:10;471:25;
512: 2,12;542: 9;
552:16,17
impossible (1)
411:10
improper (5)
435: 1;440:11;
443:15;467:12;
471:12
impropriety (11)
398:20;399:12;
400:16,25;404: 8;
433:18;439:24;
440: 2;456:14;
464:10;480: 2
inadmissible (1)
488:11
inadvertent (1)
444:15
inadvertently (1)
465: 8
inappropriate (5)
445: 8,17;446: 3;
467:11;473:25
Inc (1)
456:25
incarceration (1)
482: 9
incident (3)
528: 2;529: 5;
532: 1
inciting (1)
545:15
inclined (2)
529:18,21
include (4)
456:12;523: 5;
538:19;552:19
included (9)
385: 7,11;433: 2;
461: 7, 8;478: 9;
484:19;534: 4, 4
includes (1)
478: 8
including (7)
382:23;446: 4;
506:15;536:20;
539: 8;543: 3;546: 2
incorrect (1)
427: 8
increasingly (2)
486: 1;523:23
incredibly (1)
552:16
indeed (1)
493:18
index (1)
557:15
indicated (2)
467:17;554:25
indicates' (1)
475:22
indicating (2)
464:25;530:23
indication (2)
459:16;488:21
indicted (1)
430: 6
indifferent (1)
536: 1
indirect (1)
533:14
Indirectly (2)
533:16,20
individual (1)
547:13
influence (5)
420: 7;421: 8,10,
15;422:16
information (20)
375:14;377:11;
379:22;384:24;
385: 4, 8;387:11;
393:10;395:15;
412:18;460:24;
463:22;485:10;
507: 4;515:21;
528: 4, 5;546:16;
551: 3,12
initially (1)
413:11
injunction (1)
433: 9
ink (1)
477:19
inquire (1)
385:22
instances (1)
429:18
instead (3)
406:19;481:17;
556:19
instigate (1)
450:11
instruction (1)
403: 2
insufficient (1)
392: 9
insulting (1)
445:18
integrity (4)
443:22;446: 9;
462:11;552:16
intend (2)
436: 7;541:16
intended (2)
429:24;524:25
intensive (1)
521:15
intent (2)
473: 3;526:16
intention (1)
530:24
interest (5)
443: 1;445:18;
537:10;538:18;
549: 2
interesting (2)
462: 3;527:10
internet (5)
414: 5;420: 6;
422:16;424:15;
427:12
internship (1)
450:19
interpret (1)
538:14
interrupt (1)
432:12
interrupted (2)
467: 1;468:15
interrupting (1)
547:15
intersect (1)
419: 2
interview (4)
381:20,24;502: 6,
21
interviews (1)
502: 9
intimately (1)
389: 6
into (53)
373:17;374:24;
383:14;384: 5;
387:13;391: 8;
396:13;402:21;
406:11,15;407:16;
431:13,14;432: 4,14;
437:23;441:15,20;
447:19;450:15;
451: 1, 3;464: 3;
469:18;471:14;
477:15;481:12,18;
482:14;489: 7;
494:10;496: 6;
498:21;503: 2, 9;
516:18;524:11;
529:14;533:15;
537: 3;538: 9, 9;
541:18;543:10,17;
544: 6,14;547: 5;
548:24;553:18,25;
554: 8;557: 5
introduce (10)
469:17;496: 6;
498:20;503: 8;
516:17;524:11;
529:14;540:12,16;
541:18
introduced (3)
517:17;532:21;
538: 9
introduces (1)
407:15
inventoried (1)
549: 5
investigate (1)
551: 2
investigated (1)
525:17
investigating (2)
430:14,20
investigation (4)
393:11;395:16;
430:25;525:15
investigative (1)
551:10
investigatory (4)
533:24;539:17;
548:20;551:17
invited (1)
412:21
involve (1)
503:13
involved (19)
380:17;427: 9;
428:19,20;436:10;
445:10;450: 3;
458: 2;459: 8,10,17;
460: 7;481:23;
485: 2;510: 5;
522:13,13;523:25;
527: 8
involvement (1)
489:25
involving (4)
430:25;481: 6;
550:15,19
irrelevant (5)
386:14;451:19;
471:13;536: 4, 5
issuance (1)
454:17
issue (14)
398: 8;414: 2;
426:14;427:13,16;
451: 6;462: 7;
466:11;476:17;
485: 5;492: 6;
509:24;516: 6;541: 6
issued (3)
386:22;392:18;
445: 2
issues (11)
421:22;422: 5;
449:25;465:18;
474: 9;481: 6;
494:25;506: 1;
516:10;541:12;
557:23
J
jabbed (1)
464:24
Jackson (1)
498: 8
jail (5)
482:12,14;501:18,
23;503: 3
Jane (1)
371:13
January (5)
408: 5;410:19;
470:11,23;507:19
jealous (1)
(504) 529-3355
(12) humiliating - jealous

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
450:21
Jim (2)
467: 4;496:21
job (9)
429: 9;431: 2;
452: 3, 7;538: 1, 2, 2,
6;548:12
jobs (1)
452: 8
John (1)
430:23
Johnson (5)
496:21,23;498: 9,
11,15
Johnson's (1)
498:13
joined (2)
449:19;452:15
journal (5)
423:11,13,18;
508:14,16
journaling (1)
508:15
journals (2)
423:19,20
Joyce (3)
391: 6;392: 9,14
JRD (1)
551: 5
Judge (311)
376:20;377: 1, 4,
11,11;379:11,17;
380: 2,16;381: 5, 9,
9;382:16,19;383: 7;
385:16,16;386: 2, 4,
9,22;387: 2,20;
388:22;389:17;
390: 3,13;391:15;
392: 2,25;393: 5,10,
16,20;394:10;395: 2,
3,14,23,23;396: 8,
11,21;398:17,18,20;
399: 6, 9,13,22;
400:19;401: 8,10;
402:11;403: 1, 6,21;
404: 4, 9,16;406: 5,
16;407:13,13,20;
408: 6;409: 2, 6,16,
18,25;410:23;411: 9,
18,18,24;413:14,20;
414:23;415: 2, 2, 3,
15,17,18;416:15,20,
21;417: 6, 7;418:23;
419: 7,11,19;420: 7,
8;423:18,25;424:16;
427:18;429:10;
433: 8;435: 9;
436:17;438:22;
439: 4,21,25;440: 9,
21;441:17,23;442: 1,
4,13,20;443: 2,12;
444: 7, 7;453: 1,11,
12,12,13,14,24;
454:21,22;455: 5,16,
17,18,21;456: 9,15,
19;457: 2, 5,11,16,
20,21;458: 1, 2, 9,13,
15,19,21,21,22,24;
459: 3, 5,12,12,13,
24;460: 1, 3, 3, 4,16,
23;461: 2,11,14;
462:13,23;463:14,
15,25;464: 6,15;
465: 2, 3,21,22,24;
466: 4, 7,14,16;
467:14;468: 9,15;
470: 9,22;471: 5,25;
474: 1, 9,10,12,16;
475: 4,12,14,18;
476: 4,20;477:25;
478: 6, 9,12;479:12,
23;481: 9,14,19,24;
482:12,24;483: 6;
484:22,25;486:11;
489:13,15;491: 3, 7;
492:20;493: 1, 2,10,
23;494:23;496:12;
499:11,13;500: 6,13;
501:17,22;502: 1, 3;
503: 1;507:15;
513:14;514: 8,23;
519:22;520:12,23;
521: 3,20,25;522:19;
523:14;524: 1;
525:12;526:13,14,
23;527: 8,14;528: 9,
19,22,25;529: 4, 7, 9,
24;532:23;533: 3,11,
21;534:23;535: 1, 1,
9,24,25;536:11,13,
19,24;538: 7,11;
539: 7,16,18;540: 8,
9,15,22;542:12,22,
25;543: 8;544:15;
545: 1, 2,23;546: 1,
17,17;547: 3;548: 9,
18;549: 1,10;551: 9,
21,24;552: 6,21;
553:11;554: 4
Judges (19)
385:22;411:16;
412:14,16;420:11;
421: 9,15,24;422: 9,
12,17,23;426:20;
455:25;485:22;
487: 8, 9;488: 6;
545:12
Judge's (13)
375:17;382:18;
384:18,22;400:15;
404: 2;429:18;
444:14;474:24;
484:22;526:22;
538:13;542:24
judgment (2)
380: 5;386: 8
judgments (1)
446:20
Judicial (9)
381:12;393:15;
400:12;445:18;
447: 1;453:16;
492:24;493: 5;
505:14
judiciary (3)
443:22;444:14;
446:10
July (15)
429:12;493:10;
494: 1, 6,11,16,19;
495: 1, 2;501: 1;
507:15;508: 3, 7;
532: 9;535: 8
jump (1)
452:17
June (4)
396: 8,20;402:13;
407: 5
juries (1)
442:21
jurisdiction (5)
388:24;490: 9;
491: 5;553:17,21
Jury (1)
501:11
Justice (14)
375:12;376: 5;
377: 6;378:20;
381: 2;428: 4, 5,22;
429:19;449:17;
486:13,14,16;538:16
justifiable (1)
523:17
justify (1)
415: 4
Juvenile (2)
418:21,22
K
keep (6)
375: 6;406: 3;
425:13,14;506:20;
511:14
keeping (1)
477:18
keeps (1)
443: 6
Keister (23)
394:11,11;395: 2;
396: 2;397:18;
399: 6;413:16;
416:10;457:20;
458: 1, 9;461:18;
462:18;468: 2;
477:25;478:13,25;
520:21,24;521: 6;
522:20;528:16;
530: 2
Keller (2)
418:11,12
kept (2)
489: 9;510:15
kicked (2)
466:20;467:15
kids (1)
372:21
kid's (1)
506: 6
kill (2)
449:20;452:15
kind (7)
374: 4;376:13;
436: 7;450:21;
483:25;503: 1;
521:22
kinds (1)
531: 6
Kittrell (1)
501: 7
knew (9)
419: 1;441:10,10;
444: 7;452: 9;461: 4;
506:18,25;549:11
knowing (1)
412:19
knowingly (1)
552:12
knowledge (1)
389:15
known (3)
436:22;490:21;
523:24
Kristiann (1)
396:23
L
labeled (5)
431:15,22;437:22;
447:19;509: 9
lack (2)
475: 3;516: 8
language (15)
403:10,13;404:12;
408:22;445: 7,16;
446:10,14,15,16;
478: 2,15;479: 3,21;
480:10
last (16)
373:11;374: 5;
379:15;406:25;
409:19;416: 8,14;
418:10;443:19;
462:12;484:12;
498: 9;526:11,12;
544: 3;546:25
lasted (1)
441:16
late (2)
472:25;488:24
lately (1)
513: 2
later (6)
406:21;468:16;
472:24;479:14;
533:18;542:15
law (51)
377:15;398:16;
412:10,11,12,14;
418: 1;420:12,13,19;
421:16;427:19;
428: 5;429:16,18;
430: 4,10;431: 1;
434:10;439:20;
449: 9;450:18,24;
451: 1,12,14,15,16;
460: 5;461:25;
484:21;485:22;
486: 5,13,18;489:22;
490: 8;491: 5;
497:22,23;502: 7,19;
505:14;518:12;
521:11;538:14,14;
541:21,23;552: 4;
553: 8
laws (2)
429:17;451:17
lawyer (1)
545:10
lawyers (1)
541:15
lead (1)
426:25
learned (2)
479: 9,15
least (13)
395:13;407:22;
423:16,17;424: 7,14;
466:17;507:18;
515:10;540:12,18;
548:10;553:24
leave (4)
451:22;467:17,19;
517:13
leaving (3)
416:14;451:25;
465: 7
led (1)
481:14
Ledet's (1)
453: 1
left (4)
374:17;441:19;
467:21;527: 4
legal (1)
451:19
legally (1)
457: 3
LeMoine (1)
456:23
lend (1)
377: 7
less (2)
547: 6;557: 7
(504) 529-3355
(13) Jim - less

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
letter (26)
395: 6;401: 6,22;
415: 7;459:11,20;
460: 6,16;461: 2,11;
462: 9;479:17;
521: 3;526: 3;
527:15,21,24;528: 2,
22;529: 3, 4, 7, 9,25;
530: 8,16
letters (1)
393: 6
letting (1)
520: 4
level (1)
475: 2
liar (4)
401:24;405:14;
412:17;462: 2
license (2)
458: 3;497: 3
licensed (1)
393:14
life (5)
412:22;449:11,23;
481:24,24
light (2)
429:25;523:15
liked (1)
453:12
limit (1)
557: 4
limitations (2)
443: 6;515: 6
limited (3)
437:15,19;473: 9
line (4)
397: 9;421: 6;
501: 2;507: 4
lined (1)
402:16
link (2)
381:25;545:21
linked (1)
545:22
links (2)
381:18;382:14
Lisa (1)
498: 6
list (3)
461: 4;497:12;
506:13
listed (4)
377:10;384:22;
385: 3;398:11
listen (12)
420: 3;453:24;
487:21,23;488:25;
489:16;512:18;
535:22;544:21;
545: 4,20,22
listening (2)
444: 6;508:19
listing (1)
381: 3
lists (5)
375:13;376: 5;
377:16;378:20;
446: 4
litem (62)
372:16,17;383:16,
23;429: 8;495:23;
496: 1, 3,20,24;
497: 5, 7,19;498:10,
12,13,16;499:10,12,
14,16,17;501:10;
502: 2,15,20,23,24;
514:20;516: 7;
533:22,25;534: 2,17;
537:14,25;538: 1, 5,
23,25;539: 6,15,18;
540: 3, 4;544:24;
548:10,11,13,16,17,
25;549: 3,12,15,23;
550:15,18,23;551: 1,
9;552: 2
litem's (5)
430:14,19;497:13;
498:24;548:18
literally (3)
453:25;467:16;
535:16
litigate (2)
433:16;435: 2
litigation (1)
481: 2
little (10)
420:14;428:25;
458: 7;483:17;
492:12;493:11;
494: 2;500:18;
510: 4;511: 4
live (3)
451:15;472:15,16
lives (1)
486:10
log (1)
502:18
logs (1)
483:24
long (15)
380:22;420:18;
427:21,22;444:20,
23;452:24;468:23;
482: 6;491:14;
515: 5;522: 3;527: 7;
557: 3,19
longer (1)
516:25
look (33)
374:10,11;375:24;
376:14;378:13;
379:14;387:19;
398: 2;407:19;
420:11,12;421:16;
422: 9,12,17,18,19,
23,25;423: 8,10;
424:17;428:22,23,
23;485:22;488: 7;
502:20;505:22;
535:25;537:11;
542: 6;553:24
looked (6)
379: 6;380:22;
404:12;409: 3;
423:13;533: 2
looking (6)
382: 9;385: 9;
402:10,16;404:24;
522: 2
looks (2)
391:16;415: 8
lose (2)
406: 5;415:12
losing (2)
427:23,24
lot (21)
382: 7;413: 9;
449:25;451: 7;
452: 2, 4, 6;460:23;
462:10;465:17;
469:10;499:25;
512:15;522: 3, 7;
523: 6;524: 9;
525:25;557:20,21,22
lots (1)
521:10
Louisiana (24)
377:12,14;378: 1,
6;381:11;384:23;
385:19;389: 4,15;
393:14;422:22;
425: 3, 5;456:23,25;
457: 1;501:14,17;
514:14,16,18;
546:18,19;552:24
love (1)
508:23
loved (1)
510:10
low (1)
442: 6
LSU (1)
450:18
lunch (2)
441:17;465: 5
M
ma'am (3)
386:24;396: 5;
555: 9
mad (1)
511: 5
Madam (1)
431: 9
magically (1)
537: 6
maiden (3)
446: 5, 6;448: 4
mail (5)
388: 5, 8;391:18,
20;492: 8
mailed (2)
391:19;529: 8
maintain (1)
497: 3
majority (1)
550:17
makes (3)
415: 3;537: 9;
554: 4
making (5)
402: 1;422: 3;
435: 8;436:13;
487:20
manages (1)
497:12
mandated (1)
548:14
MANNING (78)
371: 6, 7;373: 3, 5,
20;374: 2;386:20;
389: 2;390: 2, 9,17,
22;391: 2;415:13;
417:10,16,23;427: 6;
431: 8,21;432: 3,10,
18,22;433: 6,21;
434: 3;435: 6,14,23;
436:11;437:21;
438: 7,13,18;439: 8;
442:19;443:16;
444: 1;447:10,17;
448: 1,10,15,22;
461:11;469:19;
470: 4;471: 3;
472:13;473:23;
475:10;476: 5;
496: 7;498:22;
499: 4;503:10;
511:24;516:19,23;
517:10;520:16;
524:13;531:20,22;
544:22;545: 5, 9;
546:23;547:14,19;
549:17;555:21,25;
556: 5;557:16;
558: 2, 7
Manning's (1)
452:18
many (6)
373:23;413: 5;
415:13;416:19;
451:17;468:22
March (22)
420:20;460:16;
461:10,13,14;
462:13,14,15,19,22;
463:13,20;464: 3,20;
468: 1;507:20;
508: 2;520:22;
521: 5;528:16;
529: 5;530: 2
Marie (1)
396:23
Marion (7)
382:21;387: 4,15;
391: 9;495:22;
509:25;543: 1
mark (2)
447:12;470:20
marked (6)
467:23;477:19;
493:21;498: 3;
500:22;522:23
married (2)
452: 9,10
material (2)
551: 3,12
matter (36)
385:18,23;394:10;
395: 2;396: 3,18,22;
399:13;402: 9;
404: 8;408: 7;
410:21;417: 2;
420:23;430: 4, 6;
435: 4;441: 2, 7;
445: 3;451:16;
454: 9;457: 6,16;
490: 8;494: 3;
495:25;517:13;
520:21,24;522:20;
526:15;544: 8;
547: 2;553: 3;554:22
matters (11)
380: 8;382: 4;
412: 4;413: 2;417: 5,
25;426:19;434: 9;
438: 9;468:23;
493:12
Maurer (5)
413:16;415:23;
478:25;479: 6;500: 4
may (32)
373: 8;374: 6;
386:10;387:15;
392:12;394: 7,13,14,
16,17;395: 7, 9,18;
399: 9;400:21;
404: 5;405: 8;406: 8,
8;407: 4;459:11;
478: 2;479:18;
503:13,20,22;504: 3;
505: 9;526: 6;556: 3,
13,20
maybe (18)
396:13;399: 5;
412: 2, 2;418:10;
427: 8;431: 4,10;
439: 6;445: 1;
453:21,22;460:10;
464:14;474:23;
488: 6;513:20;525: 4
McCool (47)
371:11;373: 3,24,
25;374: 3,17;376:11;
(504) 529-3355
(14) letter - McCool

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
377:19;378:12;
379: 1;381:18;
383: 3;386: 1;389: 3,
5;391: 6;392:10,14;
393: 9;394: 5;395: 1;
397:11;404:16;
409:12;420: 2;
429:20;431: 3;
433: 7,24;437:19;
439: 9;440:13;
448:17;449: 7;
464: 7;472: 9;
474:12;476:24;
479:24;503:19;
512:19;513: 1;
531:23;536: 7;
545:10,19;557:17
McCool's (3)
448:24;475: 7;
518: 4
mean (25)
380: 5;388:22;
389:25;398:18;
401:23;402: 3;
404:20;405: 1, 1;
410:12;426:22;
429: 1;432:11;
442:11;449:19;
454: 7;460: 6;
468:19;472:14;
473: 1;512:25;
515:23;529:18;
553:13;556:10
meanings (1)
398: 1
means (4)
421:18;514:24,25;
515: 2
meant (4)
501:15;526:18;
535:23;540: 4
media (7)
387:23;420: 7;
421:17;422:15;
424:15;426:19;
427:12
Mediamol (1)
413:16
member (2)
420:11;486:23
members (1)
519:11
memo (5)
431:19;432:17;
433: 4;502:18,19
Memorandum (5)
371:20;372: 9;
374:15;549:25;
550: 9
memories (1)
511:10
memory (4)
383:12;390: 1, 8;
484:13
mental (2)
437: 8;482: 3
mention (3)
405:17;480:16;
506: 5
mere (1)
456:13
merely (2)
389:13;485:21
merit (1)
464:15
Michael (4)
494:12;501: 3;
502:14;516: 5
mid-April (1)
555:16
middle (2)
384:14,17
midst (1)
454: 3
might (12)
373: 9;389:25;
418:11;453: 5, 6;
480:11;481:16;
488:11;522: 6;
527: 3;551: 4,12
mind (7)
399:23;424:16;
427:23;428:22;
535:23;540: 3;549: 9
mine (3)
399:23;406: 1,18
minor (9)
376: 6,17;377: 6;
378:21;379: 8;
381: 3,22;382:24;
385:13
minor's (2)
375:13;377: 3
minute (6)
402:15;407: 1;
410: 3;448:19;
542: 4;554:14
minutes (1)
441:16
mischaracterization (3)
461:24,25;539:11
mischaracterized (1)
542:20
mischaracterizing (2)
427:13,15
misconduct (6)
433:25;434:15,16;
437: 1, 4, 5
misrepresented (1)
438:20
missing (1)
428:11
Mississippi (57)
372:10,16;375:15;
376:21;382:21;
387: 4,15;388:13;
389: 7;391:10;
422:23;431: 1;
458:16;489: 4,23;
490: 1, 4, 6, 8,13,17,
22;491: 3, 6,11,17,
24;492:24;493: 5;
496:25;497:17;
498: 8,17;501: 9;
502:19;503:17;
504:22;505:13,16;
506: 3;507: 9;
509:25;513:13;
514:15,21;515: 7,13;
516: 4;517: 3;
518:11;519: 8;
527:23;532: 9;
543: 1;549:23;
550:14;552: 4
Mississippi's (1)
429:17
misstatement (2)
460: 5;461:24
mistake (1)
489:11
mistakes (1)
415: 3
modified (1)
481:19
molested (2)
383: 1;542: 1
mom (2)
449:23;501: 5
moment (2)
376:13;476:13
Monday (1)
433: 7
month (7)
410:18,21;419:22;
460:10,10;492: 8;
508: 4
months (10)
411: 6;462:20,21;
463: 8,11,11;492:14;
514: 5;533:18;534: 3
moot (1)
417: 3
more (21)
373:23;399:21;
409:11;412:10,22;
429: 2;430:13,18;
456:18;459: 2;
465:11;469:10;
470: 3;523:23,23;
531: 2;535: 4;542: 9;
544: 4,11;547: 6
Morman (1)
467: 4
morning (2)
371:10;482: 4
most (4)
451:20;487:22;
488:13;508:13
mostly (1)
511: 7
mother (25)
452: 1;481:10,12,
14,17,21,25;482: 6,
10,11,12,16;487:19;
494:17,20;495: 4, 5,
10,20,21;501:14;
507:23;514:19;
516:12;537:13
mothers (1)
546:14
motion (60)
380:13;394: 9;
395: 1;396:21;
397: 5,24;398:10,11;
402: 2,10,20;405: 5,
22,25;406:20,24;
407: 4, 5,10;408: 6,
16,19;409:13,17;
410:20;416: 6, 9,16,
22;417: 1, 6;418: 6,
11;419: 2, 6, 6, 7, 8,
15,16;440: 5, 9;
442:24;443:12;
445:20;454:24;
457:11,16,20;458: 1,
5, 8;461:18;462:19;
463:17;494:12;
508: 5, 8;522:19;
530:21
motions (18)
408:22;413: 1;
415:14;416:20;
436:14;440: 8;
442: 3,19;443: 2;
454:21;455: 1,16;
478: 4, 6, 8,17;
479:20;524: 7
mouthing (1)
524: 4
move (2)
542: 8,10
mover (1)
404: 6
moving (1)
394:24
Mrs (1)
469: 5
much (9)
444:11;458:24,25;
481:23;485:23;
521:16;524: 7;
539:16;555:15
must (7)
404: 1;445:24;
450:10;456:17;
509:11;536: 5;
538:19
myself (4)
404: 1;464:10;
480: 1;557:17
myth (1)
453:15
N
name (13)
375:10;377: 3,10;
414:11,11;446: 5, 6;
448: 4;483:18;
506:15;516:13;
522:25;552: 7
named (1)
493: 4
names (15)
372:21;373: 6, 8,
16;375:13;376: 6;
378:21;384:24;
506: 6,15,16;519: 1;
520: 7;524:15;
557:14
name's (1)
517:16
NANINE (6)
373:25;377:19;
379: 1;391: 6;392: 9,
14
natural (3)
449:22;450: 3,17
nature (1)
456:18
nearly (1)
411:10
necessarily (2)
414: 9;552:19
necessary (3)
463: 4;551: 3,11
need (13)
376:13;399: 4;
432:25;436: 5;
453:23;485:25;
488: 6, 7;494:22;
501:21;544:11;
553:16;557:14
needed (1)
453: 8
needs (1)
504:18
negative (1)
462:10
neither (1)
383:17
Nelson (4)
371:15,21;372: 4,
11
network (1)
387:23
Nevle (1)
408: 7
new (12)
385: 7;410:13;
433:19;435:17,21;
436: 9;437:17,18;
514: 2, 5,22;515: 3
next (8)
378:10;390:10;
(504) 529-3355
(15) McCool's - next

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
391:25;394: 4;
396: 2;482: 4;495: 5;
521: 4
night (2)
482: 2;491:22
nightmare (1)
416:11
Nine (3)
411: 6;510: 7, 8
noble (1)
451:20
nol-prossed (2)
514:24,25
none (2)
424:24;429:23
non-legal (1)
450: 5
non-witness (2)
503:12,13
Nor (1)
383:23
normalize (1)
508: 5
normally (1)
471:20
note (2)
454: 2;550:13
notes (1)
374:17
nothing's (1)
411: 5
notice (4)
378:24;380:13;
458:18;492: 8
noticed (2)
458:21;506:23
notices (1)
436:10
noticing (1)
458:23
notion (1)
486:23
notions (1)
451: 7
November (3)
498:10,14,16
number (11)
374:18;375: 7,21;
377:16,23;390:24;
426:15,16;478:20;
515: 1;550: 4
numerous (1)
550:21
Nyman (2)
446: 5;448: 4
N-Y-M-A-N (1)
448: 6
O
object (22)
381:23;419:10;
433:14,20;434:12;
435:13;447:15,22;
468:13;469: 4;
471: 4,15;472: 5,14;
473:17;498:23;
503:11;524:14,23;
525: 1;526: 6;544:18
objecting (2)
472: 4;474:17
Objection (14)
388:21;390: 6;
427: 4;432: 7,14;
438: 1;443:24;
466:23;469:20;
474:18;493: 3;
496: 8;517:11;
528:10
objections (1)
507:21
objective (1)
526:16
objects (2)
446:16;503: 3
obligated (2)
388:12;540: 5
obligation (1)
537: 8
observed (1)
452:22
obtain (4)
504: 6;506:11;
515:16;517: 2
obvious (1)
442: 9
obviously (5)
392:22;437:17;
482:22;513: 4;519: 5
occasionally (2)
515:20,20
occur (1)
512:11
occurred (5)
461:25;506: 3;
511: 9;525:13;
527:13
o'clock (1)
468:22
October (5)
387: 4;390:12;
392: 2;418:17;441: 4
ODC (51)
375:23;378:11,13;
386:21;390:10,16,
18,24;393: 1, 7;
394: 6,18;395:15;
396: 1,17;401:12;
402: 8;404: 2;408: 2;
412:18;414:20;
415: 8;421: 3;
429:24;431:15;
437:22;447:12,19;
448:16,23;455:15,
22;458:19;459:19,
20;460:13,15;
461:20;478:18;
517:18;521: 3,22;
522:14;524: 3;
525:24;526: 3;
527:15,21;529: 2;
542:21;545:18
ODC's (6)
373: 7;393:11;
459:10;461: 6;
478: 9;479:17
off (18)
374:17;441:18;
443: 7;445:13;
449: 7;454:13;
469:12;476:12,14;
492:14;494:23;
502: 3;507: 4;
509:17;519:11;
526:17;554:13,15
offer (14)
432: 4;437:23;
447:12;469:17;
472:23;496: 5;
498:20;503: 8;
516:17;524:11;
529:14;533:15;
544:14;547: 4
offered (18)
383: 8,14;384: 4,
4,10,11;432:12;
489: 7;505: 1;
533:10;535:24;
536:22;538: 8,11;
543:10,17;548: 9;
552: 6
offering (5)
434:14;447:18;
471: 5;473:25;474: 4
offers (2)
446:18;531:16
Office (10)
371: 7;413:19;
420:21;439:17;
454: 9;458:16;
483:20;492:10;
498: 8;517: 4
officials (1)
426: 6
often (4)
450: 8, 8;492:10;
550:14
old (2)
510: 9;514: 4
older (1)
509:22
oldest (7)
508:12;509: 2;
510: 2;513:25;
515:10;527:22;
552: 8
once (7)
382:21;448:23;
451: 4;486:11;
517:25;543: 2;546: 1
One (80)
372: 1,12;374:10,
11;375:23,25;
377:23;378:16;
384: 4, 9;391:22;
394:25;395:13;
399:21;401: 5;
403:14,18;406:18;
411: 8,12,25;412:16;
413:17,18;415:16;
416: 1,23,23,24;
418:10;420: 4;
421: 9;423: 7,16,18;
424: 3,11,14;425: 2;
429: 3, 4;430:13,18,
23;433:25;435:19;
439: 6;440: 8;444: 6;
445:13;450:20;
452:12;457:12;
474:14;476: 6,12;
479: 6;480:12;
482: 1;484: 3;
488:19;496:12;
498:12;503:12,21;
508:14,18;511: 3;
527:18;528:23;
529: 6;535:15;
536:13,18;540:23;
541: 6;545:13,24;
556:25;557:23
ones (3)
431:18;432:16;
522:21
ongoing (5)
425: 9;433:23;
514: 2;515:10,11
online (24)
375:16;385: 4;
426:18;431: 4, 6;
481: 5,11;482:16;
483: 2,21;484:21;
488:16;499:19;
504:21;505:19,22,
24;506:10,12;516: 9;
532:13,18;533: 1;
545:20
only (15)
381:23;398:20;
403:13;428: 2, 3,14,
21;434: 4;437:14;
457: 2;467:13;
496:16;534:17;
538: 8;553: 4
onto (1)
396:19
open (3)
402:12;515: 3;
555:18
opened (1)
441:17
openly (1)
443:21
open-minded (1)
453:20
opinion (13)
442: 6;443:17;
444: 3, 9;445: 2;
446:11;447:19;
480:23;482:23;
483: 4;502: 5;
534:25;550: 2
opinions (3)
426: 1;482:25;
504:21
opportunity (5)
383:10;495:19;
553: 2,12;554: 8
oppose (1)
495:20
opposed (1)
375: 2
opposing (29)
441:23;462:21,25;
463: 1, 6,19;464:20;
465: 4, 6, 9,10,23;
466: 1,12;467: 9,11;
469: 6,12;521: 1;
523: 7;526:19,21;
531: 5;539:22;
540: 5;541:15;
542: 2, 6;556:25
option (1)
403:24
options (4)
403:14;413:22;
415:10;428: 3
oral (2)
511:20,21
order (85)
386: 6, 7,10,13,22;
387: 2, 8,16,17,20,
24;388: 2,12,19,23;
389:16,24;390:13,
20;391: 3, 4,11,17;
392: 3, 3, 6, 7,11,19,
23;396: 7;397:19,20;
398: 2, 8;399: 6,18,
22;402: 9,11,15,18;
403: 3,12,13;404: 2,
12;418:20,23;433: 9;
434: 7;438: 9;
439:14;440:21,24;
444: 3;445:21;
453: 5;463:20;
477:25;478:13;
490:14,21,21;491: 1,
12,14;492:16,23;
493: 8,23,25;494:25;
495:16;497: 5;
500:17;505:17;
507:14;514: 7;
518: 5;532: 8,10,12,
16;549:15
ordered (4)
382:23;391: 5,15;
(504) 529-3355
(16) night - ordered

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
495:21
ordering (1)
491: 2
orders (9)
387:10;409: 4;
436:18;439: 4;
478: 6, 9;479: 7;
493: 9;518: 2
organization (1)
441:11
original (5)
477:15,17,19;
494:16;496:10
originally (1)
374:14
ostensibly (1)
481:13
others (6)
376:16;386: 3;
407:24;416:24;
532:17;545:11
otherwise (1)
512:10
ought (2)
436: 5;438: 2
out (43)
372:19;385: 7;
398:24;399:11;
400:24;402:17;
403: 2;404: 6;405: 7;
409:13;414:11,21;
423:19;425:14;
428: 3;436:19;
439:16;451: 4;
452: 6;454:16;
458:13;463: 2;
466:20;467:15;
468:16;472:20;
475:12;481:23;
484:12;487:20;
488:12;489: 4;
494: 1;495:25;
504:11;507:15;
518:11,14;521:22;
527: 7,14;528: 1;
535:15
outcome (6)
419:17;428:12;
485:24;486: 8,12;
525: 7
outcomes (4)
485:23,25;486:10,
11
outrage (1)
375:18
outrageous (2)
487:19;512: 4
outside (1)
485:11
outstanding (2)
462:20;463:10
over (18)
388:24;418:10;
430: 4;438: 1;441: 9,
12;456:15;464:23,
23;467:18;474:18;
490: 9;492: 3;
499:11;501:24;
507:20;528:10;
531: 6
overcome (1)
449:25
overlapped (1)
484: 4
overlaps (1)
484: 2
overly (1)
557: 3
overnight (1)
495: 8
own (6)
383:21;406:20;
419: 6;440: 9;
467:13;516: 9
P
pad (1)
454: 1
page (23)
372: 1, 3;378:25;
379:14;384:13,15,
17;387: 8,19;391: 3,
24;421: 4, 9;445:21,
22;456: 8;462: 5;
496:15;526:11;
546: 8;550: 1,12;
557: 4
pages (4)
372: 5, 8;526:12;
557: 7
pale (1)
521:13
pane (2)
484: 4, 5
panel (1)
504:18
panes (1)
484: 3
panicking (1)
508:13
paper (1)
454: 1
paragraph (4)
379:15;381: 8;
438:21;442:16
paragraphs (1)
446:23
paraphrasing (1)
440:17
parents (1)
506:16
Parish (1)
501: 9
part (20)
395:10;411:24;
412: 3;423: 9;
426:18;430:17;
433:22;434:14;
436: 3,15;440:18;
451:21;475: 5;
482:15;484: 8,16;
504:20;518:15;
519:24;521:19
parte (5)
439:14;530: 6,14;
531: 5;545:11
partial (3)
469:22,24;532:21
participant (1)
444:16
participation (3)
395: 4, 8,15
particular (9)
377:23;378:22;
379: 4;385: 8;
428:12;481: 6;
523:10;524: 9;
557:21
particularly (2)
480: 5;554: 2
parties (1)
496:14
parts (1)
471:17
party (13)
404: 6;405: 9;
410: 8;419: 9, 9;
441:23;463:19,19;
490:12,16;491: 8;
528: 8;553:25
pass (3)
372:18;465: 8;
488: 9
passage (1)
543:24
passionate (2)
412:12;449:17
password (2)
483:24;484: 1
past (1)
383: 2
pasted (1)
385: 6
patently (1)
541: 7
patience (4)
450:16;554:20;
557:19;558: 4
pattern (4)
433:23;434: 1,14;
437: 7
pay (4)
466:19;469: 8;
495:21;531: 1
paying (1)
535:18
pending (30)
377:18;378: 2, 8;
380: 1, 5;381: 5,10,
15,15;385:15,19;
393:16,20,25;
406:23;410: 9;
411: 7;413: 2;420: 9;
421:24;422: 6;
424:22;425:18;
426: 1,19;430: 1;
494:12,15;501:16;
545:12
people (30)
378: 5;380:15;
385:21;425:19,25;
426: 8, 9,15,20;
442: 7;449:20,21;
452:15,15;453: 3;
467: 2, 7;483: 1;
485: 6;486: 9;
487:12,18;488: 6;
508:17;517:24;
518:14,17;535:12;
546:12;552:18
per (1)
398: 7
percent (1)
412:11
perception (2)
462:10;470:18
perfectly (1)
426: 3
perform (2)
511:20;552: 4
Performance (1)
493: 6
performing (2)
497:22;511:21
perhaps (1)
474:23
period (4)
391:10;416: 1;
418: 5;495: 6
permission (1)
504:14
perpetration (1)
444:16
person (4)
441: 9;449:24;
493: 4;496: 1
personal (2)
392: 8;523:19
perspective (2)
450: 2;453:21
pertain (1)
378:11
pertains (1)
408: 2
petition (30)
375:16;377: 4, 7;
424:10;428:17,20,
21;431: 4;434: 6,25;
435: 9;436:21;
439:10;482:19,20;
483: 8,11,22;484: 9,
10,15,19;486:15,25;
514:14,18;532:13,
18;538:22;547:10
petitions (6)
382:11;422: 3;
426:18,23;484: 2;
485: 7
Phillips (1)
536: 3
phone (5)
377:16;382: 3;
458:15,15;502:12
phonetically (2)
413:17;467: 5
physically (2)
467:20;480:14
Physicians (2)
534:12,12
pick (3)
373:22;374:18;
518: 8
picked (1)
465:13
picking (1)
376:24
picture (1)
484: 6
pictures (1)
510: 5
piece (1)
549: 7
pitched (2)
501:19,24
place (5)
384:16;392:12;
401: 8;507:25;508: 3
placed (5)
379:22;387:14;
391: 8;403:11;
427:10
plaintiff (5)
438:25;439:20;
442:15;495:11,12
plane (1)
482: 5
platform (1)
446: 8
play (1)
511: 1
played (4)
488: 2,24;511: 3;
550:22
playing (1)
511:17
plead (1)
434:25
pleading (6)
402: 4, 5;434:17;
438:21;455: 1;
480:19
pleadings (4)
373: 9;485:11;
490: 3;506:14
(504) 529-3355
(17) ordering - pleadings

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
Please (4)
377: 3;429:20;
530: 9,10
pleased (1)
502:11
plenty (2)
407:23;467: 2
pm (3)
495: 2, 3;558:17
poignant (1)
510: 8
point (26)
383:13;397:18;
399:21;405:19;
409:13;412: 1;
422:11;423:18;
430: 5;438:17;
440:20,24;459:18;
472:20;473:22;
488:10;493: 2;
494: 4,11;495:25;
507:16;511:25;
513:18;531: 1;
533: 9;549: 1
pointed (1)
518:10
points (1)
481:23
Policy (2)
425:22;426:10
polite (1)
530: 8
poorly (1)
544: 8
portions (2)
468: 7;469:25
position (7)
407: 9;440:14;
472: 9;491: 1;
526:16;535: 6;554: 1
possession (1)
387:13
possibility (3)
399: 9;404: 4;
456:13
possible (1)
523:15
possibly (1)
386: 3
Post (1)
553: 6
posted (12)
375:11;376: 4;
377:24;378: 2,25;
379:25;380: 3,25;
381: 2,16;482:16;
545:19
post-hearing (1)
555:13
postings (4)
382:10;414: 5;
422: 3;552:11
posture (1)
472:21
potential (1)
410: 7
practice (7)
393:23;411:22,22;
412:11;434: 2;
463:21;530:19
practiced (1)
489:22
practices (1)
393:14
practicing (2)
451: 5, 8
preach (1)
451:14
preceded (1)
467: 8
precise (1)
551:14
preclude (1)
518:15
precluded (1)
518: 7
preconceived (1)
451: 7
preference (1)
407:21
pre-hearing (4)
374:15;431:19;
432:17;433: 4
prejudice (8)
397:22;398: 4;
404:17;435:11;
436:18;456:17;
461:21;478:20
preliminary (1)
433: 9
premised (1)
519: 3
preparation (1)
461: 9
prepare (1)
402:18
prepared (10)
373:21;403: 3;
410:24;509:23;
534:20,22;537:18,
19,20;558:10
preparedness (2)
516: 8, 8
preponderance (1)
513: 7
pre-selected (1)
403:11
present (9)
371:11;441:21;
470: 9;535: 9;539: 1;
540:17;547: 2;
551: 2,11
presented (3)
457:11;512:25;
537: 4
presiding (1)
456:15
presumed (1)
456: 9
presumption (1)
453:19
presumptively (1)
474:23
pretty (5)
414:23,24;522: 6;
539:16;555:18
prevailed (1)
486:16
previous (1)
386: 6
previously (4)
393: 7;435:10;
480:11,13
primarily (2)
450:25;516:11
primary (2)
536:24;537: 7
printed (3)
483:20;484: 2, 4
printout (2)
483:16,16
prior (18)
387:10;410: 5;
411: 5;438:24;
439:19;457:19;
458: 7, 8;461:17;
463:10;479: 7;
490:13;495:24;
507:18,18,19;508: 4;
545: 2
privilege (1)
503:20
privileged (3)
418: 1;434: 9;
503:14
probable (1)
514:25
probably (4)
406: 5;415:12;
441:15;483:21
probing (1)
409: 1
problem (10)
410: 6;413:21,22;
425: 9;454: 5;
479:13,16;504: 8;
519: 4, 7
problematic (1)
444: 9
Probst (1)
396:23
Procedure (9)
399:17;455: 2,11,
24;456: 2;457: 9;
486: 6,18;541:21
proceed (3)
535: 1, 4, 6
proceeding (22)
410: 8;419: 4;
428:18;434:20,20;
435: 3;438:24;
441: 4,21;442:24;
443: 1;471:21;
478: 3;490:19;
503:17;505: 3;
507: 9;509:24;
513: 8;516:25;
519: 9;520: 4
proceedings (33)
375:15;389: 4, 7,
15;399:10;400:22;
401: 3,14,15,17,18,
19;402:22;404: 5;
405: 9,11;418:22;
425:15;427:10;
428:19;434: 9;
437:17;468: 1;
470:25;474:25;
490:13;497:18;
499: 8;504:22;
515:13;516: 2;
517:12;519:17
process (9)
388: 8;392: 8;
393: 6;399:15;
425: 7;486: 2, 4, 8,18
produce (3)
463: 7,20;552: 3
produced (2)
463:22;466:14
Professional (5)
434:18;472:10;
479:10,11;526: 2
professionalism (2)
445:25;554:20
proffers (1)
485:12
program (1)
450:19
prohibit (1)
518:13
prohibited (1)
546:21
Project (1)
505:14
promoted (1)
375:11
prompted (9)
401: 9;405:24;
411: 1;441:25;
449:12;452:22;
460:11;514:13;
532:13
proof (2)
513: 5;531:16
proper (3)
434:25;487:11;
514:10
properly (3)
388:11;430:24;
431: 1
proportion (1)
487:21
propounded (1)
463: 9
propriety (1)
504:22
prosecute (1)
515: 1
prosecuted (1)
430: 7
protect (10)
377:15;420:14;
425:10;428: 4, 7;
452: 4, 5;514:15,17;
554: 4
protected (6)
387:22;417:25;
425: 1;434:10;
553:19,22
protecting (1)
538:19
protection (2)
428: 2;553:16
protective (3)
418:20,23;453: 5
prove (3)
411:10,12;437:18
proven (2)
512: 3,18
provide (7)
470: 2;504:19;
539:21;540: 5;
541:15,24;548:15
provided (27)
375:14;383:15,16;
389: 9;393:10;
426:16;432:23;
455:21;463:12,13;
488:18;503:18;
515:17;530:11;
531: 3;534: 2, 5, 6, 6,
16;535:12;539:25;
540: 1, 2;549:24;
550: 7;551:23
provides (1)
457:10
providing (1)
395:15
provisions (3)
399:16;455:24;
457: 9
provoking (1)
450:12
public (9)
420:11;485:24;
486:24;488:12;
503: 5;506: 9;513: 2;
519: 9;524:18
publicly (3)
385: 4;444: 2;
526:24
pulled (1)
492: 3
punch (1)
(504) 529-3355
(18) Please - punch

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
468: 5
purport (1)
523:10
purports (1)
522:24
purpose (19)
437:15,19;440:11;
442: 3;443:15;
450:24;471: 5;
472:15,24;487:17;
488: 5;505: 1;
511:16;513:16;
526: 8, 8;529:15;
536:25;546:24
purposes (4)
382:13;434:23;
471:19;473: 9
pursuant (1)
498:17
pursue (2)
436: 5, 5
put (23)
401:12;402: 4;
403:20;407: 9;
429: 6;431:14;
454:25;466:23;
471:13;482: 3, 5,12,
14;485:23;488:11;
494:10;495:20;
505:19;509: 7;
528: 4, 5;553:12;
554: 8
puts (1)
411: 8
putting (1)
473:21
Q
qualifications (1)
498:25
qualified (13)
429: 9;430:13;
431: 2;496: 2,23;
497: 5, 7,15,20,24;
499:16;502:23;
538:23
quite (2)
383:18;524:19
quote (2)
408:21;456: 8
quoting (1)
376:25
R
radio (1)
482:21
raise (1)
488: 3
raised (3)
466: 4;468: 5;
531: 6
rampant (1)
453:16
ran (2)
441:18;453:15
random (1)
399:15
rather (8)
395:23;406:16;
410:10;418:18;
419: 5;449:20;
453:19;467:24
Raven (42)
381:20;382: 2;
383:12;388:18,25;
389: 3, 5,10,24;
390: 2;415:23;
422:22;429: 6;
488:18;497:14;
498: 2;500: 2, 4, 4,
24;503:16,18,21;
504: 7,12,16;506:19,
19;514:19;515:17;
516: 4,12;532:17;
533:18;534: 2,23;
535: 2,11;547: 1;
548:23;551:23;
553: 8
Raven's (18)
376:17;379: 8;
380: 1;382:22;
414: 6;503: 2,19;
507:21;536: 9,12,20,
22;539: 7,20;543: 2;
546: 2;549: 9;552: 5
Re (1)
456:23
reach (1)
528: 1
reached (2)
504:11;550:16
reaching (1)
521:22
reacted (1)
511: 7
reactions (1)
545:16
read (23)
387:24;390:11;
396:12;397: 3;
408:13,22;414:19;
421: 3;425:15;
438: 2;445: 4;
458:20;461: 3,20;
468:19;474: 1;
487: 1;539:19,23;
542:11,14,17;543:16
readers (2)
375:16;486:25
readily (1)
505:21
reading (6)
374:22,24;375: 2;
448:12;546: 9,12
re-admitted (1)
534:21
ready (2)
371: 3,15
realize (4)
439:25;451: 1;
475:24;488: 6
realized (5)
450:16;451: 5;
452:10;454: 3;
459:18
really (25)
389:23;390: 1;
405:18;407: 9;
413: 9;414:18;
417:14;420: 5;
450:14,16;453: 1,23;
462: 3;463:14;
466: 6;492: 5;520: 2;
521:14;522: 8;
526:10;527:10;
537:16;544:15;
547:25;548: 3
reason (8)
395:10;400: 5;
412: 3;416: 2;425: 4;
501: 6;548: 7;554: 3
reasonable (1)
513: 6
reasonableness (1)
499:18
reasons (22)
382: 7;394:25;
395:12,14;396:12,
14;398:12;400:20;
403: 8;405: 7;409: 5;
424: 9,14;425: 2;
427:24,25;434:13;
457: 4;491:19;
513: 1;515: 2;545:24
re-brought (1)
515: 5
recall (10)
411:24;446:10,12;
452:21;470:13;
483: 3, 3;484:25;
489:13;493:13
receipt (1)
556: 1
receive (4)
388: 1;389:16;
492:15,18
received (8)
388: 4,19;389:24;
391:17;395: 6,19;
418: 5;477:24
recently (1)
394: 2
recess (4)
449: 3;465:21;
537:22;542: 4
recessed (1)
465: 5
recollection (1)
445: 2
recollections (1)
502:10
record (79)
371: 5;373: 9,17;
374:25;382: 3,13;
383:20;389: 8;
393: 4;396:13;
413: 6;418: 8;
429:23;431:13;
436:20;440:21;
442: 6;444: 8;448: 2;
449: 5;450: 9;
454:13;463: 5;
466:22,23,25;468: 3;
469: 4,20;476:12,14;
477:15,20;485:16;
489:15;494: 8,24,25;
496: 6;502: 4,16;
509:17,19;512: 7;
513:15;514:10;
518: 5,12;519: 5, 8,
11;526:17;528: 4, 6,
14;530:13,17;531: 7,
10,16;532: 4;533:20;
535: 7,10,14;537: 2,
4;538: 9;544: 3, 6,
20;545: 3;548:24;
551: 8,17;554: 9,13,
15,18
recorded (1)
381:20
recordings (24)
381:19;382:15,17,
23;383: 6,22;384: 5;
387:22;423: 3, 5, 7;
533: 3,10,12;536:10,
21;539: 8;542:23;
543: 3,23;544: 1;
545:21;546: 3;547: 5
records (2)
490:14;517: 7
recusal (22)
395: 3;396: 7,12,
15;397:19,20;
398:10,11;399: 5;
400:20;403: 8;
405: 7;409: 4, 8;
436:19;455: 1,25;
456:10;457:17;
478: 4, 7;518: 3
recusals (2)
418: 6;454:20
recuse (59)
394: 9;395: 1;
396:21;397: 6;
398:19,21,24;399: 1;
400: 6;403:15;
404: 1;406: 8,21;
407: 4,10,19;408: 6,
17;409:14,17;
410:10,14,20;411: 3,
7,14;413: 1;415:10,
14,18;416: 6, 9,20,
22;417: 1, 6,13;
419: 3, 5, 8,21;
436:14;438:23;
439:23;440: 6;
454:21;455:16;
457:11,15,20,22;
458: 1, 6, 9;461:18;
464:10;479:20;
522:19;524: 7
recused (9)
397:23;398:14;
402: 1;410: 3;
413:12;416:25;
418:15;456:20;
461:14
recuses (6)
398:17;399: 8;
400: 1;402:14;
404: 3;439:21
recusing (8)
397: 1,14;407:19;
408:11;442: 4;
477:25;478:10;
480: 1
redact (2)
372:20;373:16
redacted (23)
373: 6;398: 7;
411: 2;414:10;
417:14,15;418: 3, 4;
438: 8,10;469: 5;
470:24;506: 7;
509: 1;513:21;
516:13;517:16;
518:20;519: 1;
520: 7;523: 1;
524:15;552: 8
refer (5)
442:13;454: 8;
457:16;524:19;
529: 2
reference (8)
434: 7;436:20;
438: 8;448: 3;
459:23;460: 1;
470:24;499: 9
referenced (14)
372:14;399:10;
400:23;401:14,15,
19;445: 4;458:20;
467: 3, 5;511: 3;
521: 2;533: 5;550: 8
references (8)
379:17;381: 9;
394: 6;460:22;
462: 6;481: 5;
489:14;493:24
referencing (7)
377: 1;381: 8;
396: 2;401: 4;
417:25;438:14;
(504) 529-3355
(19) purport - referencing

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
468:25
referred (2)
399:13;404: 9
referring (9)
425:14;434: 8;
435: 8;439: 1;442: 5,
12;505:12;528:15;
550:12
refers (4)
375:23;501:22;
507:12;528:23
reflect (3)
448: 2;469:21;
533: 8
reflected (3)
394:17;469:13;
521:20
reflecting (2)
453:15;517:12
reflects (6)
463: 5;512: 7;
522: 4,12;531:17;
551: 8
refresh (1)
471: 9
refreshed (1)
383:12
refusal (1)
472: 1
refuse (2)
407:24;520:16
refused (15)
382:18,22;383: 6;
417:13;422:12;
429: 6;440: 6;492: 1;
535:25;542:24;
543: 2;546: 1;552: 7;
553:12;554: 7
refusing (2)
405:22,25
regard (6)
520: 4;522: 6, 8;
526:12;543:20;
548:21
regarding (4)
452:18;505:17;
529: 5;537: 9
regards (2)
526:13;552:21
regular (2)
388: 4;391:20
rejected (1)
552: 7
related (1)
389: 4
relating (1)
392:11
relation (1)
437:16
relative (2)
458: 3;490:10
relevance (9)
388:21;433:14;
437: 6, 6,16;447:15;
498:24;499: 7;
524:14
relevancy (1)
447:22
relevant (7)
389: 1,19;435: 5,
7;437:12;468: 7;
469:24
relief (5)
425: 6;453: 8;
553: 6, 7,10
relies (1)
485:24
rely (2)
440: 1;485:25
relying (1)
556:19
remain (2)
391:11;419:19
remaining (1)
530:21
remains (1)
515: 2
remarked (1)
416:13
remember (16)
374:13;389:23,24;
390: 1;395:18;
444:12;452:25;
453: 2, 9,12,25;
454: 7;458:22;
488:23;489:17;
533:16
remembers (1)
508:13
removed (1)
428:16
removing (1)
456:15
renewed (1)
498:15
repeatedly (7)
464:22;474:20;
511: 9;533:21;
548:19;551:16,24
rephrase (1)
458:12
replies (1)
556:25
report (3)
383: 1;502:21;
527: 2
reported (4)
492:19;502: 2;
534:10,11
REPORTER (6)
477:13,21;554:24;
555: 3, 8;557:13
reporting (2)
534: 9,13
reports (1)
534:12
reprehensible (3)
442:11;521:11;
526:22
represent (5)
407: 7;450:25;
451: 3;535:13,19
representation (4)
436:16;500:14;
516:24;535: 3
represented (3)
438: 4;475: 9;
500: 9
representing (5)
389: 3;445:23;
476: 3;500: 5;503:16
reprimanded (2)
444: 2;447: 7
request (2)
428:12;497:14
requested (1)
394: 9
require (3)
513: 5;538: 5;
550:25
required (9)
398:18;418:13,14;
497: 1, 2, 4,23;
548:12;550:17
requires (7)
400:15;456:16;
502: 7;541:14,20,23;
548:20
rescinding (2)
392: 3, 7
reset (1)
374:20
residence (1)
501: 5
respond (5)
391: 8;398:22;
407:14;421:10;
438:15
responded (5)
459: 4;497:13;
521:21;522: 1, 9
Respondent (16)
371:11;373:24;
375:11;376: 4;
377: 2,10,13;392: 4;
393: 1,13;394: 8;
396:21;408: 6;
436:12;448: 3;
524:20
Respondent's (6)
391:23;470:21;
477:11;478: 7;
480:21;505:12
responding (2)
395:21;401:11
responds (1)
426:11
response (10)
395:20;421: 7;
438:19;440:18;
443:19;481:10;
525:20;526:17;
528:21;529: 4
responsibility (5)
419:23;420: 1;
430:19;472:11;
479:11
responsible (3)
383:24;426: 7, 8
responsive (1)
426: 7
rest (2)
372:22;375:10
rested (1)
448:25
restraining (2)
433: 9;434: 6
result (1)
494: 7
return (2)
445:19;463:23
returned (1)
530:11
review (3)
383:10;533:25;
548:17
reviewed (1)
384: 2
reviewing (1)
502: 8
revisit (1)
542:14
Richard (1)
371:10
ridiculous (2)
412:24;536: 8
right (45)
384:17;385:11;
387: 5;388:18;
393:23;395:11;
400: 9,18;401: 5;
403:25;405:16;
410: 1;411: 2;413: 5;
420:25;422:13;
423:20;427:24;
443: 4;444:23;
464:25;469:24;
478:22,24;480: 9,20;
482:13;483: 9;
484: 5, 7, 7;496: 5;
500: 8;512:23;
513: 8;532:19;
538:15;539: 3;
540:12,13,19,25;
541:18;544:10;
547:12
rightfully (1)
474:24
rights (2)
494:13,22
risk (2)
427:10;488:15
road (1)
435: 2
Robert (2)
371:14;394:11
role (6)
427: 1;539:17;
548:18;549:14;
550:22;551: 8
room (8)
401: 9,20;418:18;
427:22;467:20;
481:19;523:22;
552:20
routinely (2)
463:24;506:22
rub (1)
488: 4
rude (1)
453:10
rule (14)
416:10,11;423:23,
24;446:19,21;
448:12;451:14,16;
453: 2;455: 3;
462:24;481:13;
505: 2
ruled (3)
421:23;481:12;
519:23
rules (11)
427:20;428: 6;
434:18;472:10;
479:10;486: 5, 6,11;
526: 1;541:22;
546:21
ruling (11)
417:19;423:16,17,
25;424: 8, 9;427:17;
434:21;456: 5;
481: 4;519:23
rulings (5)
420: 8;427: 8,11,
18;506:16
Russell (7)
408: 7, 8;415:16;
416:23;417: 2,13;
440: 6
S
safe (2)
510:16;511:15
same (19)
375: 7;382: 8, 8;
390: 6;407:16;
413: 2;427: 2;
431:18;432:16;
433: 3;436:20;
440: 3;462: 6;479: 4;
489:19;492:18;
518: 7;525:16;
527:16
Sanctioned (1)
(504) 529-3355
(20) referred - Sanctioned

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
444: 2
Sanctions (2)
445:21;455: 9
sat (2)
410:17,17
save (7)
449:21;452:15;
480:21;482:19;
483: 8,11;485: 3
saw (6)
384: 3;450: 5;
458:20;475:16,17;
534: 8
saying (19)
401:22;403:18;
405:10;427:16;
444:13,18;463:15;
474: 1;479:24;
494:21;498: 9;
519: 4;526: 4;
527:19;529:10,24;
530: 9;537:13,16
scan (1)
396:14
scanned (1)
389: 8
scenes (2)
464: 8;524: 1
schedule (1)
495:14
school (7)
449: 9;450:18,24;
451: 2;452: 2, 7;
482: 5
Scott (2)
394:11;396:22
seal (3)
386: 7;387:14;
490:14
sealed (11)
375:15;387:11;
489: 4;516:25;
517: 2,13;518:18,19,
23;519: 5, 8
sealing (2)
518: 5,12
seat (1)
413:18
Second (15)
371:19;372: 7, 8;
378:25;379:15;
387:19;407: 5;
434:21;452: 3;
459:11;471:24;
501:14;502:18;
549:25;550:13
secretary (1)
530: 7
Section (2)
442:13;498:18
seek (1)
428:15
seeking (3)
411:14;428:21;
433: 8
seemed (2)
395:22;523:21
self-recuse (1)
457: 3
send (4)
487: 1, 8,12;
504:15
sender (1)
503:15
sending (1)
412:18
sends (1)
530: 8
sense (2)
524: 5;554: 5
sent (12)
393: 5;395:17;
492:23;493: 8;
501: 1;504: 7;526: 3;
527:15,24;528:24;
529: 7;531: 4
separate (3)
418:22;435: 3;
436: 6
separately (1)
477:18
Separation (1)
553: 7
September (4)
387: 1,18;392:24;
463: 9
sequence (1)
380:12
serious (2)
418:19;474: 8
serve (2)
426: 8;551: 1
served (2)
388: 7,11
service (4)
388: 8;392: 8;
449:10;492:11
services (1)
501:21
serving (2)
449:17;496: 1
session (1)
381:21
set (14)
409:17,24;410:22;
415:14;416:20,24;
419: 6,11;439:13;
443:11;494:14,15;
508: 7;530:22
sets (2)
440: 8;443: 2
setting (2)
412: 3;442:19
several (3)
408:11;434:12;
467: 6
sex (4)
511:19,19,20,21
sexual (11)
376:17;379: 7, 7;
384:16;385:12;
429: 2;430:20,25;
494:21;511:22;
512: 6
sexually (1)
494:23
SG (2)
372:17;549:25
shall (7)
391:11;399:13;
404: 8;495: 1, 7,11,
12
shape (2)
412:20;526:10
Sheep (3)
378:15;384:13;
542:20
sheet (1)
523: 4
Sheriff (3)
391: 9;492: 9,10
shirt (1)
488: 3
shop (1)
411:15
shopping (3)
411:13;412: 2,23
short (3)
410:25;418: 5;
460: 9
Show (19)
386:22;387: 8;
388:11;389:16;
390: 3;397:19;
398: 2;404:14;
482:21;484:21;
493:20;498: 3;
499:15;500:21;
515:24;522:23;
531: 2;543: 9,19
showing (1)
498:15
shown (1)
500:16
shows (4)
412: 9;475: 2;
496:15;513:15
sic (1)
398:25
sick (1)
439:16
side (1)
484: 5
sign (7)
375:16;377: 3, 6;
426:22;483:10;
484: 1, 9
signature (4)
397: 8, 8;408:19;
523: 5
signed (15)
387: 2;390:13;
392: 2;396: 7;399: 7;
401: 2;402:12;
405:18;410: 4;
445:13;483: 8;
484: 8,13;486:15;
496:18
significance (2)
510:22;515: 8
signing (1)
484:14
signs (1)
478:13
similar (4)
376:14;388:19;
389:16;404:11
simple (3)
377: 6;545: 6;
550:24
simply (5)
382:18;457: 4;
493:11;500:18;
542:24
simultaneous (1)
556:22
simultaneously (2)
419: 3;478:23
single (1)
534: 7
sister (3)
510: 4;511: 2, 7
sit (2)
393:22;512:17
site (1)
378:16
sites (1)
378:17
sitting (2)
465: 1, 3
situation (2)
443: 9;444:11
six (1)
514: 4
Skye (1)
516: 4
Slaughter (1)
456: 5
Smallwood (1)
430:23
smoothest (1)
557:24
SNC (1)
551: 5
So2 (1)
551: 6
So2d (2)
456:23;457: 1
So3d (1)
456: 7
so-called (1)
446:20
social (10)
387:23;420: 7;
421:17;422:15;
424:15;426:12,18;
427:12;450:15,17
sole (1)
481:20
solely (2)
463: 4;471:18
solicit (3)
426: 5;485: 9;
486:22
soliciting (1)
545:11
somebody (3)
416:12;479: 9;
511:14
somehow (5)
386: 6;479:13,16;
483:18;523:17
someone (9)
373:15;402: 5;
403: 1;428: 7;
483:20;492: 1;
540:17;541: 5;
553:17
sometimes (1)
446:21
somewhere (2)
488:23;502:13
sooner (1)
524: 7
Sorry (30)
374: 7;380:21;
381: 1;384:11;
390:16,23;414:10,
16;422: 1;432: 9,11;
435:19;438:19;
451:14;469: 9;
499: 5;500: 1;509: 1,
2, 3,16;513:25;
517:20;518: 3;
536:16,17,17;540: 1;
541:12;552: 8
sort (6)
434:17;446: 1;
455: 6;479: 3;
521:23;533:21
sought (1)
395: 3
sound (1)
382: 8
sounds (1)
512:18
source (1)
428: 2
Southern (2)
456: 6,24
spared (1)
524: 8
speak (4)
465:10;467: 1,16;
507: 8
(504) 529-3355
(21) Sanctions - speak

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
speaking (5)
402: 5;441: 8,25;
512:13;548: 6
speaks (3)
473:11;481: 5;
482:23
specific (8)
398:12;403: 8;
440:20;450:19;
489: 3;493: 4;
504:14,15
specifically (11)
395:13;405: 4;
436:12,15;440:15;
455:15,25;456: 1;
533: 5;545:17;
546:22
specifics (1)
402: 2
specified (1)
529:16
spectators (1)
527: 1
spelled (2)
413:16;467: 4
spent (2)
482: 2;491:22
spoke (1)
441:12
sponte (4)
406:21;418: 6,15;
457:21
spot (1)
482:13
St (1)
412:14
staff (3)
377:12;384:23;
465: 2
stand (1)
391:13
standard (2)
495:13;513: 7
standards (2)
433:25;437: 3
standing (5)
441: 8;442:24;
453: 3;467: 6;472: 4
start (4)
371:17;453:18,19;
532:18
started (5)
371: 3;449: 7;
451: 4, 8;550: 7
starting (1)
453:20
starts (1)
469:12
State (2)
516: 4;553:19
stated (5)
377: 2;392: 7;
396:24;408: 9;
473:10
statement (22)
383: 5;384:20;
386: 2;393:21;
397:12,16;398: 3;
399:21;409: 6,10;
420:21;421: 6;
429:23;439:18;
460: 4;462: 3, 5;
468:24;504: 1;
543: 8;546: 4, 5
statements (7)
436:14,16;454:21;
461:23;545:16;
551:20;552:12
states (1)
462: 7
stating (3)
377:13;390:14;
527:15
statue (1)
515: 6
status (1)
439: 9
statute (1)
553:10
stay (2)
406: 4;415:11
stayed (2)
381:11,15
step (1)
411: 8
still (46)
374: 3;375:19;
377:20;378: 1, 7;
380: 1,17;381: 5,14;
385:15,19;389:19;
391:13;392:16;
396: 2;400: 3;410: 9;
411: 6;413: 6;
414:19;415: 4;
418: 7;424:21;
425:23;431: 5;
435: 8;440: 3;
448:11;463:12;
465:19;466:13;
505:24;512: 7;
514: 6;515:18,18;
518:22;522: 4, 5, 5,
7;523:13,14,18,19;
547: 1
stipulated (2)
375: 4;394:25
Stipulation (36)
374:17;375: 1, 2,
7,19,21;376: 2, 7, 9,
10,25;377: 9,17,20,
23;378:12;390:11,
12,21,23;391:13,14,
25;392: 1, 6,16,24;
393: 9,13;394: 4, 5,
7,15,21;396:19;
408: 3
stipulations (6)
374: 4,23,23;
431:12,25;432:12
Stood (1)
464:23
stop (5)
402:15;450:11;
510:10,16,17
stopped (1)
464:21
stricken (1)
445:23
strictly (3)
471:23;505: 2;
548: 6
strike (4)
465:14;513:23;
521: 9,12
Stroscher (4)
444: 5,19;446:16;
452:19
struggled (1)
526:15
struggling (6)
414:20;415: 4;
430:17;522:15;
523:19;548: 7
stuck (1)
468:16
stuff (5)
402:16,17;415:22;
481:11;482:16
stunned (2)
466: 8, 9
sua (4)
406:21;418: 6,15;
457:21
subject (8)
386:13;434:19;
481: 2;491: 4;501: 2;
509:23;513: 3;
550:23
subjective (1)
404:14
submissions (1)
556:23
submit (3)
477: 3,14;544: 5
submitted (4)
446: 2;531:15;
541:10;548:13
subsequently (3)
478: 4,17;503:19
substantial (3)
456:12,18;482:15
substantive (3)
475: 6;485:12;
493:13
sued (1)
433: 8
sufficient (2)
515: 4;529:19
suggest (5)
485: 8;486:21;
502:14;542:13;
554: 6
suggesting (1)
443:13
suggestion (1)
439: 2
Sunday (3)
495: 2, 8,16
supervised (4)
495: 5;507:22,23;
508: 1
supervising (1)
501: 5
supervision (2)
495: 4, 9
Supervisors (1)
456: 6
supplement (1)
456: 8
Supplemental (7)
371:20;372: 7, 8;
393: 6;502:18;
549:25;550: 9
support (7)
375:19;377:20;
439: 5;452: 2;
482:25;543: 7;554: 1
supported (2)
394: 6;502:16
supporting (1)
475: 6
supports (2)
391:24;499:18
supposed (13)
417:17,19,24;
442:20,23,25;
494:16,18,19;
533:25;535:13;
536:25;540: 7
supposedly (2)
490:20;494: 1
Supreme (17)
377:12,14;378: 1,
6;384:24;385:19,22;
424:23;425: 3, 5, 5,
19;426:10,13;
456:23;457: 1;
546:19
sure (16)
373:14;374:12;
375: 5;379:13;
380:11;401:16;
414: 7,18;416:19;
423: 9;428:11;
512: 7;519: 1;520: 7;
531:10;557: 1
surprised (1)
484:11
switching (1)
407:12
sworn (3)
373:25;420:21;
525:24
system (7)
428: 4, 5;444:18;
447: 1, 2;451:20;
453:16
T
tainted/manipulated (1)
502:10
talk (7)
391:25;465:12;
466: 6, 7;468:12;
515:19;527:25
talked (10)
381:19;421: 2;
425: 9;452:19;
474:10;500: 1, 8;
507: 7;511: 6;519:22
talking (15)
376: 1;382: 4;
386: 4;389:12;
401:16,18;428: 1,13;
497:18;499:13;
506: 2;513:10;
517:24;534:14;
545: 1
Tammany (1)
412:14
tangential (1)
435: 4
tapes (9)
487: 8;489:14,19,
19;506: 5;534: 4;
544:19,20;545: 3
task (1)
538:15
taught (2)
510: 4;511: 1
TD (2)
480:23;481: 2
teacher (1)
452: 3
Teachers (2)
534:10,11
tears (1)
527: 4
technicalities (1)
425:13
technicality (2)
424:11;540:23
telling (3)
419:25;508:17;
541:24
tells (1)
380:15
temporarily (1)
553:20
temporary (9)
423:17;433: 8;
434: 6;493:23,25;
500:17;532: 8,10,16
tender (1)
(504) 529-3355
(22) speaking - tender

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
448:16
term (2)
412: 6;427: 4
terminate (1)
494:12
terminated (1)
494:22
terms (1)
523:20
testified (22)
374: 1;386:18;
388:23;396:12;
455: 5;460:19;
471: 7;472:15;
474: 2;493: 1, 3, 6,
10;500: 6;507: 2;
513:14;514:23;
520:13,22;530: 5;
531:24;532: 7
testify (1)
474: 2
testifying (2)
472:22;512: 8
testimony (34)
389:10;405: 3;
409: 3;411:25;
423:21;448:24;
449: 8;452:18;
472:18,20;484:12;
489:14;493:16,24;
494: 5;502:15;
507:10;512: 2,15,19,
24;514:11;519:19,
20;520:15;524:17,
24;529:19;544:19,
23;545: 2;553: 1;
554:23;557:22
that' (1)
473: 2
That'll (2)
414:14;556:22
theme (1)
449:22
theoretically (1)
548:10
theory (1)
491: 5
therapist (2)
534: 7, 7
therapy (2)
465:18;521:15
thereafter (1)
495:10
therefore (2)
391: 5;404: 1
Thirty (2)
555:20,22
though (11)
392:10;405: 6;
407: 1;409:18;
469: 7;494:20;
502: 7;530: 3,11;
535: 2;549:13
thought (13)
411:11;414:23,24;
448:11;451:12,19;
464:14;476: 6;
488:14;521:13;
525:25;529:11;
546:25
thoughts (2)
420: 5;446:19
thousands (1)
535:19
threatened (4)
465:14;501:17;
521: 9,12
threatening (2)
501:23;503: 2
three (6)
431:10;441:13;
446:22;468:21;
477:11;492:14
throughout (3)
481:24;499: 8;
535:11
throw (3)
501:18,23;503: 2
Thursday (1)
378:14
till (5)
405:21;406:12,25;
472:23;533:18
timing (1)
526:10
Timothy (1)
408: 8
tired (1)
541:13
titties (1)
488: 4
today (26)
377:20;384: 3;
393:22;397:11,15;
400: 4;409: 1, 2;
415:20,23;417: 9,11;
420: 6;424: 7;
425:24;426: 4,19;
429:24;431: 6;
437:10;439:10;
499: 1;512: 9;527: 3;
529:11;549:24
today's (1)
555: 1
together (2)
488: 4;532:17
told (11)
429:22;441:23;
450: 9;452:13;
466:10;489:10;
501: 9;508: 9,12,18;
534: 5
tone (1)
472:17
took (12)
382: 2;398:14,25;
401: 8;405:14;
418:17;492:13;
507: 2,25;517: 7;
527:19;540:21
tool (1)
428: 3
top (2)
431:23;443: 7
topic (1)
446:23
toward (1)
484:23
towards (5)
412:17;415: 5;
460:12;470:17;
523:16
track (1)
506:20
trained (1)
430:24
training (5)
497: 2, 3, 4;
498:10,11
transcript (50)
374:25;384: 2;
421: 4;425:16;
440:25;442:10;
467: 4,25;468: 7;
469:14,22;470: 2;
471: 6;472: 7,24;
473:11;474: 4, 6;
475:25;476:19;
515:12;516: 1;
519:17,24;520: 8,24;
524:20;532:22;
533: 8, 9,17,18;
539:20;540: 9,19,20;
542:12,16;543: 7, 9,
16,19,21;544: 5;
548:19;554:25;
555:11,16;556: 1, 6
transcriptions (2)
387:13;392:12
transcripts (4)
383:11;442: 1;
543:25;544:14
trauma (3)
514: 2, 6;515:11
treat (1)
523:21
treated (2)
450: 6;527: 6
treating (1)
523:22
trends (1)
426:12
trial (10)
383:18;399:14;
494:14,16;495:17,
24;497:11,25;507: 8;
532:25
tricks (1)
425:12
tried (4)
516:12;548:23;
552:13,17
trier (1)
442:21
trigger (2)
465:16,19
troubled (1)
522: 9
true (8)
383: 9;392: 4;
394:21,22;435: 8;
459:14;539:19;
550:20
truthful (1)
552:14
try (7)
411: 9;420: 7;
422:16;424:16;
471: 8;544: 9;547: 9
trying (15)
380:21;398: 6;
414:21;435: 2;
439:25;450: 4;
453: 7;465:12;
467:16;468:12;
523:13,14,15;
540:12,16
turn (10)
377: 2;378:10;
386:20;390: 9;
396: 1,17;402: 8;
427:11;546: 8;555: 4
turned (4)
416: 3;422:15;
430: 4;491:21
tweets (1)
422: 4
Twenty (1)
555:20
twice (1)
406: 9
two (42)
372: 3, 5, 8, 9;
378:21;384:13;
391: 3,24;397: 1,14;
401: 2;403:14;
407:22,22;410:23;
411:15;412:13;
420:14;423:19;
431:10;452: 8;
457:12;461: 3;
462: 5;471:17;
472: 3;474:16;
476: 3, 8;478:23;
480:25;492:13;
495: 1;507:18;
508:11,21;517:24;
526:12;532:15;
537:24;543:11;
550: 8
twofold (1)
501: 7
type (4)
427: 1, 4;436:10,
20
typed (1)
385: 7
typo (1)
394:15
U
UCCJEA (3)
514:16;553: 5,19
ultimate (1)
538:15
ultimately (3)
462:23;516:14;
535:14
unattended (1)
439:17
Unbeknownst (1)
527:12
unbiased (1)
453:20
uncertainty (1)
407:15
uncharged (1)
434:15
uncomfortable (2)
465:24;510:12
under (22)
383:24;387:14;
417:25;431: 1;
437: 3;438: 9,15;
455: 2,10,24;466:24;
491: 5;495: 4, 9;
514:16;518:11;
550:20;553: 5, 6, 8,
10;554:22
underlying (2)
486: 2, 4
underneath (1)
484: 8
understood (1)
402: 3
Unequivocally (2)
404:23;405: 2
universal (1)
550:24
University (1)
456: 7
unless (5)
394:15;400: 6;
443:19;511:14;
556: 6
unnamed (1)
531:25
unopposed (1)
373:15
unprofessional (2)
446: 1, 3
unreasonable (1)
487:19
unreliable (1)
(504) 529-3355
(23) term - unreliable

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
486: 9
unrepresented (2)
453: 7;506:22
unrestricted (1)
495:13
unsolicited (1)
524: 3
unsupervised (1)
508: 6
untrue (2)
460: 4;462: 6
untruthful (3)
459:13;520:13,18
unwilling (1)
377: 5
up (32)
373:13,22;374:18;
376: 8,24;413:25;
415:19,20,23,25,25;
417: 9,11;422:11;
443:20;453: 3;
454: 6;458: 7;
459:18;465:14;
473:25;484: 6;
487:20;488: 3;
489:12;505:19;
507:16;517: 7;
531: 2,21;532:17;
549:20
upon (1)
421:23
upset (5)
383:19;412:13;
417:14;464:22;
465:20
use (8)
424:11;425:13;
479:20;504:13,14,
16,17;519:10
used (3)
412: 6;420: 6;
471:20
using (2)
382: 3;504: 9
utilize (1)
446: 7
V
vacated (2)
491:13,15
vacating (2)
492:16;518: 4
various (1)
533: 1
Varley (1)
394:11
verbally (1)
465:12
versus (14)
372:15,17;394:11;
396:23;408: 8;
456: 6,25;480:23;
481: 2;506:10;
513: 6;516: 4;550: 1;
551: 5
via (2)
387:23;502:12
victim (1)
444:10
victims (2)
450: 4;451: 3
Victoria (6)
480:22;481: 1;
482:19;483: 8,11;
485: 3
video (1)
487: 7
videos (1)
534: 6
view (3)
499:14;503: 4;
519: 9
violated (6)
386: 6, 8,10;
429:17;472:10;
479:10
violating (1)
490:21
violation (3)
392:10;434:17;
455: 3
violations (1)
526: 1
violence (9)
444:11,17;446:23,
25;450: 1, 4,20;
465:15;553: 7
violent (2)
449:24;452: 1
Virginia (1)
371:14
vis-a-vis (1)
485: 7
visit (1)
508:11
visitation (12)
428:16;494:25;
495: 6,14;501: 4,25;
502:13,25;507:22;
508: 2, 5;514: 9
visits (2)
382:24;495: 8
voice (3)
375:17;377: 7;
426: 1
Voluntarily (25)
382: 1;396:24;
397:12,23;398:13,
25;399: 8;400: 1, 6;
401:25;402:14;
403:15;404: 3;
408: 9;409:16;
411: 4;416:25;
439: 3,21;457: 3,15,
22;480: 1;487:25;
534:14
voluntary (3)
438:24;439:19;
478: 1
volunteering (1)
558: 8
W
wait (6)
407: 4;435:19;
440:23;458:12;
472:23;517:20
waited (2)
405:21;406:12
waiting (1)
406:25
waive (1)
503:21
waives (1)
504:17
walked (3)
406:11,15;441: 9
Wanda (2)
536: 3;539:25
wants (3)
406:14;407: 2;
528: 1
warrant (1)
492: 6
warrants (1)
518: 3
Warren (1)
372:15
way (22)
372:23;374:21,21;
398:16;401:10;
412:15,20;450: 5;
451:12;463:18;
464:16;471:19;
484: 6;488:18;
495:18;519:23;
522: 3, 9;523:22;
526:10;527: 5;
543:13
wear (1)
492:14
website (11)
375: 8,10;376: 2;
480:22;483:22,23;
484: 3;485: 3;
505:13;506:19;
507: 3
week (5)
418: 3;433: 7;
436:22,23;532:15
weekend (2)
495:14;501: 4
weeks (2)
410:23;521:15
wee-wee (1)
511:17
wee-wee's (4)
488: 1;510: 3;
511: 1;534:14
weight (5)
447: 1;458:24;
459: 1;503:25;505: 9
weren't (5)
384:11;421:22;
424:25;429: 8;
488:12
whatnot (1)
539:22
what's (8)
373:17;428:24;
436: 1;439: 9;
474:14;480:24;
497: 9;542: 9
whatsoever (3)
490: 9,23;549: 2
wherein (3)
375:14;396:23;
408: 8
Wherever (1)
507:25
whole (11)
415: 5;421: 8;
430: 6;449:22;
450:23;474:21;
475:22;476: 2;
513:12;516: 6;
542:17
whomever (1)
442: 7
who's (3)
428: 2;498: 7;
502:23
willing (1)
444:15
wish (3)
443: 7;444: 6;
454: 7
withdraw (3)
534:23,24;535: 2
withdrawing (2)
530:21;535: 8
withdrawn (1)
530:25
within (7)
418: 4;445:24;
479: 1;495:24;
515: 6;532:15;
553:17
without (16)
373:22;392:13;
404:21;405: 2;
411: 4;412:18;
424: 4;436:10;
494:24;495:19;
502:25;508: 9;
514: 9;518:17;
528:25;535: 9
withstanding (1)
404:10
WITNESS (22)
386:17;389:22;
390: 7;399:10;
400:22;401:13;
404: 5;405: 8;410: 7;
414:15;417:21;
441:23;470: 1;
478: 2;496:11;
509: 6,15;513:19,24;
520:11;547:24;
548: 5
witnesses (1)
448:23
woman (3)
441:10,12;453: 7
women (1)
453:16
wonderful (1)
449:23
word (2)
478: 1;538:16
word-for-word (1)
536: 6
words (3)
398: 1;399:23;
404:15
work (2)
450:15,17
worked (1)
452: 2
working (1)
452: 8
worried (1)
492:12
worth (1)
488:14
wow (1)
449:16
wrenching (1)
512:16
writ (9)
377:18,24;378: 7;
385:18;425: 3, 4,18;
514:13;546:19
write (3)
376:11;378:22;
508:22
writing (6)
404:22;405: 1;
444: 3;445:10;
454: 3;547:12
writings (2)
540:16;552:11
written (2)
404:24;545:19
wrong (3)
394:12;427:25;
488:22
wrote (10)
403: 8, 9;405: 7;
409: 4;410:21;
453:25;454: 1, 6;
509:11;528: 2
wwwthepetitionsitecom (1)
(504) 529-3355
(24) unrepresented - wwwthepetitionsitecom

13-DB-059
HEARING - Vol. II
March 27, 2014
375: 9
Y
year (12)
394: 3;406:21;
441: 5;449:10;
463:10;479:14;
491:16,21;494:13;
497: 3;498:12;510: 9
years (5)
382:18;418:25;
507:18;508:17;
542:23
yesterday (1)
439:16
Yesterday's (1)
501: 2
young (1)
511:23
Z
Zone (3)
378:15;384:14;
542:21
(504) 529-3355
(25) year - Zone

2014-03-27 ODC Hearing Transcript - 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2014-03-27 ODC Hearing Transcript - 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi