In divorce proceedings, courts have discretion to establish temporary parenting plans based on the best interests of the children, considering factors such as the child's age, existing custody arrangements, and the parents' demonstrated parenting abilities and concerns. Courts may adopt shared custody schedules (such as 2-2-5 arrangements) even when one parent has concerns about the other's parenting, while also addressing practical issues like residence transitions and financial support.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Mom Kicks Dad And His Kids Out - Uses 3-Year-Old As A Weapon In DivorceAdded:
And this case entitled in the matter of the marriage of Courtney RM Bezd and Adam T. Bezd case number 2026 DM146.
Starting with petitioner would council announce appearances for the record please.
>> Your honor if uh petitioner Courtney Bez appears by and through council Kyler McMullen here in my office on Zoom.
>> Ashley A. Davis appearing on behalf of the respondent Adam T. Bezek who is present uh in my conference room via Zoom.
>> Very well. This matter comes before the court at this time for uh further proceedings uh apparently in regards to a motion to modify temporary order filed by the respondent in the case. Council, have there been any uh resolution of issues that were raised by the motion?
Your honor, based on um the petitioner's exhibit, we learned that um uh the petitioner is uh purchasing a house on the 22nd and will be out of the marital residence on June 23rd. Um, my client obviously would like back in sooner than than that because he has two children who are uh basically 10 and 12 and one of them attends school, but he's fine with letting her have until the 23rd and then he will move back into the marital residence with his other two children that he has shared residency of.
>> All right, Mr. McMullen, can your client be out on June 23?
Yes, your honor. My client anticipates closing on her new residence on the 22nd, which is a Monday, and has plans to take off that Monday and Tuesday to be out of the residence. Um, I would say on the on the front end, it kind of depends on how a few things today go. If uh requested spousal maintenance and increases or and changes to child support, and so those things will impact my client's income and will impact her ability to close. But as of right now, my client anticipates that she should be able to close on the 22nd and move into that residence by the end of the day on the 23rd to be out on the 23rd.
>> So the date of possession or turnover of possession of the residence would actually be the 24th. Would you agree?
>> Yes. You'd be out by the end of the day on the 23rd, your honor.
>> So yes, the 24th would be the first day that he could move back in.
>> All right, fair enough. Apparently is no dissension over that. Um, my client is in agreement with that whether I guess this is the first I'm hearing that it's conditioned upon whether she's going to be able to close on her new house or not, but I think that's plenty of time to hopefully she'll know. I mean, this is more than 30 days in advance. And again, I was very kind of shocked that she kicked him and the two other kids out of the house when they just have one minor child who will be three next month. I would have thought it would have been easier for her to find her own place, but that's where we are. And so I just want to make sure whether she closes on her house or not, my client is in on the June 24th. She may have to get an apartment somewhere.
>> All right. Fair enough, council. Uh what other issues are raised by your motion that still needs the court's involvement?
>> Well, your honor, the parties have one child, Breen, who will be three next month. My client has shared residency of two other children, Harper who is 10 and in the fourth grade and EMTT who is 12 and is in the sixth grade. And um in the temporary order, uh Miss Mrs. Bezd gave my client Mondays and Tuesdays from 5 to 7, but she didn't give them overnights with their almost three-year-old. Um, she also gave him every other weekend from Friday 5 to 7, Saturday I think 9 to7 and Sunday 9 to7. There's no reason for my client not to have overnights with the three-year-old. Um, again, in the marriage, my client tells me both parties took turns um putting the child to bed. Um, when I talked to Mr. McMullen about this and getting him up.
He was like, "Well, sometimes he'd get home late when the parties were having marital problems. she needed space and so my client would try to stay out um and leave her time because he was sleeping on the couch um or hey occasionally some mornings she would take the child to to daycare and again uh in Swinn his and so but she left the child with him for a weekend in March when she went to a bachelorette party and I'm not disparaging her for doing that but I don't see any reason why there would not be overnights for a three almost three year old child.
Again, he has shared residency of his other two children. Um, we are actually asking for a shared residency arrangement on a 225 schedule so that Breen can stay on the same schedule with her half siblings that um she's grown up with. And again, th those are her siblings. That's going to be the most important relationship um as they get older. And so, we're asking for shared residency on a 225 schedule. At a minimum, we want overnights, and we don't believe there shouldn't be any reason not to have overnights with the three-year-old. Um, >> please not be there, counsel. Does your client currently have proper accommodations?
>> Yes, my small child overnight.
>> Yes, he does. He's living with his mother. Um, and they to make accommodations for his 10 and 12year-old. And so, he's living with his mother uh temporarily. And yes, there are accommodations for Breen at that residence.
>> All right, Mr. McMullen, what's wrong with this proposed shared custody plan that would apparently treat each of the two parties as equals, at least during the pendency of this case?
>> Your honor, uh, Mistics downplays significant concerns that my client has about dad's parenting ability, about dad's, uh, level two, uh, parent and supervise three children. He's not just asking for parenting time for one child overnight. That's a little bit different circumstances. Right now, he's got two kids, a 10 and a 12-year-old, and he's asking to add a 2 and 1/2year-old to that mix for extended amount of parenting time overnights on Mondays, Tuesdays, and every other weekend. My client has significant concerns about his ability to handle that. Uh my client, you know, shared the responsibility of having all three of those kids in the residence half the time and contends that more than half of the responsibility for those three children was on her. She took the kids to daycare more than half the time. She was responsible for putting the kids to bed more than half the time. Uh responsible for those things. Uh Ashley Davis contends that he would sometimes come home late as an idea to give her space. Your honor, if you would look at my respondents or excuse me, petitioner's exhibit, it's my exhibit 14, your honor. There's a couple text messages from dad to mom at, you know, page of exhibit 14, your honor, is 3:14 in the morning on a a Thursday evening.
That's Friday morning, Thursday evening that he's out late hanging out with friends, doing whatever, not coming home. Sorry, your honor. The next page again is uh 3:00 in the morning, woke up. I doesn't know what's going on with the child. Page 15, your honor, it's another couple examples that he goes out on Wednesday evenings over to friend's house and we'll stay out all night on Wednesdays. We'll drink alcohol. We'll hang out over there and won't come home.
will stay the night at the friend's house in the middle of the day and we'll text my client at 1:00 in the morning that he's not going to be able to take the party's child to daycare or that at 6:00 in the morning that he's not feeling well because he's hung over and was up until 3:00 in the morning drinking alcohol, your honor. Um, couple examples of that where he's, you know, and asking her to take the child to daycare because he's not home or is asking her to take the child to daycare and she's already done it. He texts at 7:00 in the morning and says, "Can you take our youngest child who's 2 and a half years old to daycare for me because I'm not home on time to do that?" And she's already got the kid all ready to go and dropped off at daycare and on her way to work before he's even home from whatever he is doing. Um, my client contends that she's nervous that type of behavior would continue if she's not around. Uh, he, again, your honor, weekend parenting time, extended periods of time from Friday to Sunday evening.
My client is nervous that, uh, dad will drink alcohol and hang out in bars and things like that with the children. He's been doing that with the 10 and the 12-year-old on multiple instances. Has no reason to think that he won't be doing that with the two or threeyear-old. Um, your honor, the weekend in question when my client gave uh dad some extra parenting time, uh, she had an event to do on Friday, had the kid with her. The kid did not spend the night over there on Friday as Miss Davis's exhibit or excuse me, as Miss Davis's motion contends, didn't spend the night on Friday. She did let him spend the night or did let him have overnight parenting time on Saturday.
when she went to pick the kid up on Sunday, dad was ky with her. Didn't want to agree on a time to do an exchange, even though it was an extra weekend that she granted, was ky about those things, was ky about communication. And when my client went to pick her up, again, the daughter, she's two and a half years old, was wearing a diaper for five or six-year-olds. It was way too big for her. And my client has concerns about his ability to co-parent or to parent three children all at the same time without her help based on her experience when she was there to help. Um, you know, it's responsibility with three kids and half as much help. Um, my client contends that that parenting time should stay the same until parties kind of have some attend a domestic consiliation or some other kind of alternative dispute resolution, your honor, so that she can get some try to work on a step-up plan. She wants, you know, her daughter to have time with her half siblings. That's why she gave parenting time on Mondays, on Tuesdays, on those weekends specifically to line up with her siblings parenting time.
just can't trust dad to have extended parenting time at this time with a daughter that young with three kids and half as much help as he's traditionally had.
>> All right, Mr. McGumball. And at least for the next five or six weeks, Adam would be living with his mother, would he not?
>> I believe so, your honor.
>> Isn't there a greater comfort level with with a grandma in the house than there would be if he were on his own?
>> I believe so. But again, they're they're asking until a couple minutes ago to take full possession of that house. Um if if WBO is supervised visits I believe um again that's kind of why I think or visit supervised by his parents while he's over there while she's there. Um make sure that grandma and grandpa are there during parenting time. Again, your honor, that's kind of why I thought that alternative dispute resolution or some kind of domestic consiliation where the parties could work on maybe a step-up plan, some kind of written plan that's uh good for the parties and good for the minor child so that um parties can kind of work together on something that works for everybody.
>> Did your client have to go through go through a plan before she took primary custody of this child?
>> No, your honor. My client >> The other parent does. But you're saying the other parent does. based on concerns from my client, I believe that's reasonable, your honor.
>> Miss Davis, do you agree that that's reasonable?
>> No, your honor. And I will tell you, I tried to again, I thought it was weird that my client didn't have overnights initially um for an almost three-year-old. And when I talked to Mr. McMullen, he was like, "Well, maybe this is in my opinion about mother's control." Again, my client when I talked to Mr. McMullen, he was like, "Well, he's not even sure if the other two kids are there. my client's mother is here again because I was like had I known this was an issue I would have had her sign an affidavit that yes he still has the other two kids on Monday and Tuesday this is about control for mom and again even though they had been sharing I'm not going to go into but when they talk about Wednesday nights my client doesn't have the kids on Wednesday nights and they were kind of doing an day thing with um Breen and kind of alternating and again I think it is ridiculous they have this three-year-old child they have been parenting parenting this child for three years together, but because mom is now, hey, we're filing for divorce um you only get five to seven um on these two days and you can't even have overnights on the weekend. I think the court should do shared again recommending domestic consiliation is a way to delay and delay. We need to get this kid on a schedule. I will tell you Mr. Mullen was like, "Well, when she asked the 2 and 1/ halfyear-old if they saw if brother or sister," she'd be like, "No, this is a 2 and 1/2year-old.
When you talk to a 2 and 1/ halfyear-old and you ask them what they did, nothing.
I don't know. You you can't believe a 2 and 1/ halfyear-old says." Um, again, not that they they just don't have that concept. So, I'm asking for shared residency. I agree. It it shouldn't have to be supervised. I'm very offended that oh well it can be supervised by his mom and dad again he is living with his mom I don't think it needs to be supervised there they have given reason except again she doesn't like and he was doing this but again I've got tons of text messages where she was doing this I will tell you again my client would say she would go pick up the child then take her back to work and work till 7 or 8 which again her time she can do what she wants but I'm asking the court adopt a shared 225 schedule so that Breen can continue to be on the same schedule as her uh brother and sister Harper and Emit.
>> All right, Mr. McMullen.
>> Your honor, again, I think these concerns about dad's behavior are legitimate. He has several parenting concerns that my client witnessed for long periods of time. My client has lived experience of not being able to share equally in responsibility for the party's child, especially one who's 2 and a half years old on with dad. The one overnight that she decided to let him have during the dependency of this divorce did not go well. She returned with a diaper that didn't fit her was ky with exchanges and all of those types of things. Your honor, he had one opportunity to have that go well and it didn't. Your honor asked me if she'd be more comfortable if parents were there.
I said yes, they would. And then Ashley, it presents that that's absurd that I would say she'd be more comfortable with grandparents present. That's a perfectly reasonable thing for her to be more comfortable with. And again, your honor, this is a temporary parenting plan that doesn't only apply to when he's living at mom and dad's. He's going to move in to the temporary or back into the mar residence in four or five weeks from now. We're not Ashley Davis isn't proposing that parenting plan only apply until then. I think that your honor, these concerns are pretty legitimate about his his behavior, his drinking, his staying out, his ability to care for three children as opposed to just two.
You know, a 2 and 1/ half-year-old takes a lot more work than a 12 and a 10-year-old, especially when you're on your own. My client again contends that she was responsible for more than half of the parenting responsibilities for all three of those children, let alone the youngest. Your honor, my client had shared residency of his other children before he was involved with um Mrs. Bezdc. Uh the weekend I didn't specifically address. She had left the child Friday night, didn't come back until we hours in the morning. Um and then again, yes, did leave Saturday morning and he had him off Saturday night. My client disputes that the child wasn't taken care of. Again, this is about control for mom. And I believe again, I'm not saying it was absurd that mom be around. I'm saying it's absurd absurd that they supervise parenting time. Hey, they have concerns. Again, my client has been taking care of Breen during his parenting time. Uh again, she said, "Well, I don't even know if the other two kids are there." They are there. Um this is all a control for mom.
I think that they shared residency.
Again, it will if it he's living with his mom for the next till June 24th. So that will again if they need eased into it. My client disputes he needs eased into taking care of their almost three-year-old child Breen. And again, yes, he can take care of a three, a 10, and a 12y old um at the same time Mondays and Tuesdays and every other weekend. There's no proof that he can't, but because she doesn't feel comfortable, she doesn't want to do it.
And again, it's about control for her and that's been the problem.
>> Thank you councel uh for your respective arguments in this case. Court needs to make a decision today regarding a temporary parenting plan. The court will first note that the the first uh parenting that was entered in this case was basically just based on one side suggestion as to what the proper parenting plan must be. The the issue before the court today is is Adam's recent behavior or his current status in a situation where he cannot adequately parent this child. This court will conclude at this point no he is quite capable in the view of this court of being able to care for a 2-year-old, a 12year-old and a 10-year-old all at the same time. After all, this court shared in raising five all at once. So, I know it can be done. With that said, uh the court will adopt the what has been referred to as a 225 shared custody plan as a temporary order in this case.
However, the other suggestions regarding a holiday plan, this court specifically rejects that that were we're too talking about holidays with the uh possible exception of Father's Day and it would be the intention of the court that father of course gets to see his child on Father's Day. I am presupposing that this case will be totally concluded one way or the other prior to any other meaningful lateear holiday that might arise. So as far as the 225 plan, the court will adopt it. Supervision will not be required. Adam, would you uh unmute yourself, please?
>> Oh, he can he can talk computer. I mean, it's covers. Do you want to talk to him?
>> Yes. Yes, sir.
>> Can you hear him?
>> Yes, I can. I can. you request to the court today and your attorney has argued your position. Well, I don't need you to rehash that, but essentially, you need to step up to the plate. You're asking to take on a lot more responsibility, a lot more. You're going to become responsible for a small child, as you know, gets into everything. I see the 12-year-old and the 10-year-old as assets in that situation rather than detriments. Anybody who can keep a watchful eye on a uh quickly moving 2 and 1/ halfyear-old, I think, is an asset to you. I'm also a little more comfortable with implementing this plan because you're staying with your mother.
Grandmas usually are great caregivers and great substitute caregivers. So, under her watchful eyes, I I'm even more comfortable with with the current parenting plan which the court has ordered. Um, but I think you've heard the concerns that the mother of this child has.
>> Yes, sir.
>> I will expect you to be that child's primary caregiver, not anybody else in the house. You you need to work schedule so that during your parenting times that child is the priority and not just leave the child there with someone else who can watch the little one. You need to take that primary responsibility which I presuppose mother is already doing on her side. So, when it comes to going out or extended work or any other social activity that you may be inclined to be involved in, if you can't take your 2 and 1/ halfyear-old with you safely, then you need to change your behaviors and just do that kind of thing during her parenting time rather than yours.
>> Yes, sir.
>> This all seems like common sense and it seems like it's really easy for the court to talk about, but in practice, it can be very, very difficult. But you v for this responsibility. The court would expect that you're going to step up to the plate and perform the duties that you're wanting the opportunity to perform.
>> Yes, sir.
>> So, this is a temporary plan. If this doesn't work for whatever reason on your end that makes it unworkable, the court can always do something different. But we're going to give you an opportunity to prove that that you are uh a shared residential custodian in reality.
>> Thank you, sir. your honor.
>> Up to you. Yes.
>> Sorry. And then I didn't know if we were ready to move to my other two issues.
>> Well, I'm going to address another issue.
>> Sorry.
>> Obviously, this is going to result in in modification of any temporary child support order. I don't know if there's any real dispute over the numbers to go into the worksheet. I think both parties had a reasonable handle on the other's income. And the court's going to order any modification of child support based on a shared residential custody schedule to be in effect as of May 15th. Miss Davis, I'm sure you're quite capable of of doing that shared residential worksheet, or perhaps you already have.
Um, your honor, I had prepared a shared residency worksheet which was my exhibit C with mom paying the direct expenses, but in addition to that, I had my client had requested temporary spousal maintenance and that worksheet was on that.
>> All right. So, uh, have you done a worksheet without spousal maintenance?
What would the base child support obligation be and who's paying it?
>> Your honor, if I may for just a second, I believe there's a little bit of a dispute. It's not much, but I believe that party's uh income on Miss Davis's child support sheet is slightly inaccurate. I have argument to make about that later if you'd like to, but I I think we're not far off, your honor, but it is a little bit different.
>> All right. Were the numbers pulled off the uh W2 forms from 2025?
>> Your honor, I used their yeartoate income and on my domestic relations affidavit. Um, I actually on page 38 of my exhibit, I tell you how I do the math for each of them. Um, based on their pay stubs were actually attached to the domestic relations affidavit. Um, and so that's >> mullen. How did you compute it? Um, your honor, one of the things that I believe is incorrect about Miss Davis's uh calculation, both parties are awarded a one-time HSA distribution from their employment. It's about $900. They get it at the beginning of the year. Ashley Davis has calculated that as if it's um every because she's divided the party's income through March. So, she's divided that $300 or that $900 divided through March instead of through 12 months. So, it's overcalculated both parties income by a few hundred dollars a month. Um, as well as my client received a onetime $200 employee appreciation bonus at the beginning of the month. So, her income is actually, you know, $1,100 divided by three months as opposed to $1,100 divided by 12 months. So, there's a couple uh disputes there as to the amount of the total amount of monthly income. I believe uh Miss Davis has uh dad at about $5,300.
I have him at $5,085. So about $200 difference. Um I believe with my client, she has them at around $9,700, your honor. And I believe my client uh income is around $9,400 $9,300 and some change. So it's about $400 a month difference some for her as well. Well, the court has always had a problem with using just a just a portion of a year and extrapolating income for an entire 12-month period just based on a few months. Uh quite frankly, I think for a temporary uh orders purposes, this court would be comfortable if the parties had the same job for the entirety of last year simply using 2025 uh year end uh income for the parties unless there's some reason not to.
>> Your honor, I can do that. My exhibit I and J are uh has Mrs. Bezdex's last pay stub for 123125 and my client's uh W2. So we can definitely that income the only other thing which I think again both parties used to put their money in the joint account and then that was being used to pay the daycare and so again I think because they have shared residency and it creates a disparity if they're not equally sharing in the daycare costs and I would propose the parties simply alternate paying every other week for the daycare and they share that and I can prepare a child support worksheet based on shared residency. I still believe um my client is still requesting $500 in again temporary spousal maintenance. Um Mrs. Bezdck makes either 9,300 per month or 9,700 per month depending on how you look at it. And my client makes 5,300 or 5,085 um based on his domestic relations affidavit. And that is exhibit E. And if you go to page four of the DRRA or page 40, um that is where I did the math that shows if he's given the $500 in temporary spousal maintenance, I will need to uh revise the child support worksheet. Um but it was based on uh and them sharing the daycare. Um, I think it'll be a little bit different, but uh the child support that Mike would owe mother based on mother paying the direct expenses would be um $287.
And so the $500 helps offset that cost, your honor.
>> And your client is living with his mother right now.
>> My client is living with his mother right now, but >> needs a spousal support subsidy from his his wife. Well, the reason spousal support was when he gets back into the marital residence that I have his expenses based on that. So, I agree he doesn't have that right now for until June 23rd, June 24th when he gets back marital residence.
>> All right. With what appears to be an offer to defer the start of spousal maintenance, Mr. McMullen, what is your uh position on this?
>> Your honor, my position is similar. uh my if she's basing it based off of you know my client's been the client who the party who's been paying the child support services. So if she's proposing going forward the party split that 50/50 that's great. That's not been what the parties have been doing. And so you know her domestic relations affidavit indicates that her client pays $531 per month in spousal maintenance or sorry in child support. Sorry to pay daycare.
Sorry your honor. And that's not the case. right now also indicates that he pays $775 in rent. That's not the case right now. Um again, party he's never been the party paid rent. So that's, you know, $1,300 as an expense on his domestic relations affidavit that shows that he's got a monthly shortfall and doesn't take into account the additional $531 my client does pay that she didn't get credit for for child or for daycare.
um you know that $1,300 alone says that, you know, he says he's $700 in the hole.
You add $1,300 to that, he's mult he's he's up hundreds of dollars. He's got, you know, lots of uh he's positive net balance at the end of the month. And my client's proposed net balance is much lower. Additionally, your honor, if if he comes in and is paying that 775 per month as rent, my client would be in a new residence as well. She believes her mortgage is going to be around $2,500 per month. So, your honor, I believe this request for spousal maintenance is simply a bad faith request to get around child support. Um, in their motion, they say that child support or that spousal maintenance amount should go up if he's if my client remains primary if they are shared. I believe this is strictly an attempt to circumvent any child support payments that would have been made payable by dad by indication that they've asked for a lower amount. Why would he need more support to spend less time with his child? Um believe if parties are going to be shared, my client's going to have increased expenses and he's got, you know, his domestic relations affidavit is not indicative of what his current circumstances are, your honor.
Additionally, uh on that same page, page 40 of uh respondents exhibits um lists several nominal debt payments. There's $25, $25, $75, your honor. Uh, balances are low, typically below $5,000 on each of those, except for the student loan payment, which is $39,000.
Your honor, that student loan payment is in deferment, so he's not making payments on that. My client contends that the interest bank 401k loan on the bottom page of that that says it's a $24,000 loan that he's paying about $1,300 per month said that that the purpose of that 401k loan to pay off each of those debts with those small balances and that that was the purpose of that loan by listing both those nominal debts and the 401k loan. He's essentially double dipping those debts.
He borrowed money against his 401k to pay off those debts. He's included both on here. Believe that respondents indication that he's in the whole hundreds of dollars per month is extremely inaccurate based on the current circumstances of the parties, your honor. And that there's no need for spousal maintenance, especially considering he's full-time employed, got a good job, and has not been paying rent. My party's been paying rent historically, your honor. My It is my exhibit. Boom. Exhibit honor that shows or sorry your honor not exhibit 12.
Where is it? Exhibit 12.
>> Sorry your honor. It's my exhibit 11 page 076 is an example of uh my client Courtney paying the 775 per month from her Venmo account. Um my client's the one who's consistently made that payment during the time where the parties were married and splitting expenses. My client paid more a bigger percentage of the client's monthly expenses because her income was higher. Uh respondents had plenty of opportunity to save money, is living cheaply right now, will continue to leave live cheaply if he moves back into the rental from his parents. So my indication, your honor, is that there's no need for spousal maintenance. It's simply a request to offset any child care cost or sp or child support.
>> Your honor, I completely disagree with that. If you look at their exhibit 7677, that is a joint account that had both parties money and from their job going into it. So again, she may have physically been paying the Vinmo payment for daycare, but again, it was using it with parties joint funds from their joint account along with the rent. And I will tell you that the 401k, first of all, the student loan, I didn't put an amount. It's got an X. He's not paying on his student loan. That's not included in it. He did have to take out a for loan. And if you look, even though again, it's marital debt. It doesn't matter whether it's in his name or her name. He's taking the lion share of the debt again because it is in his name.
Uh, and so he did use that loan to pay off debts that are not on there. Um, but these are still debts that yes, he has.
And so she makes over $9,000 a month. My client is asking for $500 a month in temporary spousal maintenance. Again, this is temporary. This is not forever.
This is not final. And yes, the reason because again my client regarding the income again he doesn't have the funds um to be doing this and he's in the hole. So yes, he can save money but he's not going to always live with his mother and again need to be back in the marital residence so his other child can continue to go to Andover Sunflower Elementary. Um that's the address that they use. I think again Mrs. Bez can afford $500 in spousal maintenance and she's buying a house with a $2,500 mortgage payment. Uh, that seems very high um for a mortgage payment or for rent. Again, maybe she needs to be renting and not buying a house. I don't know anything about that. But I believe $500 again effective June 24th I think is not unreasonable. Again, this is a temporary order and temporary spousal maintenance, your honor.
>> Very well. Having heard arguments of both parties regarding the issue of temporary spousal maintenance, the court will enter an order at this time denying the request for temporary spousal maintenance to be paid uh from the wife to the husband. This court believes that proper analysis of need and ability to pay needs to take place based on an a post June 24 analysis rather than today.
Uh this is a family clearly in transition. Their financial circumstances on each side are in transition. Until the parties get settled into what are going to be new residences for both parties, it does not seem prudent for this court to uh require one party to pay a a spousal maintenance subsidy to the other. With that said, there there could be perhaps in the finalization of this case, as far as a final order in this case, a need to revisit the issue of spousal maintenance. The court makes no order in that regard. However, uh at this time the court denies the request for a temporary spousal maintenance order. All right. Were there any other issues?
>> I think the only other issue is whether or not the parties equally share in the daycare costs and alternate paying that weekly.
>> All right. Uh Mr. McMullen, do you take a position on this?
>> Your honor, that's okay with us. just my client's been h [clears throat] handling that expense on her own for the last several weeks and would ask that if that's how the parties are going to go forward that she be reimbured for the payments that she's made over the last several weeks.
>> They didn't have shared residency then, >> right, your honor? It's daycare. They've my client's been cheering or paying line share uh just requesting reimbursement for his portion of the daycare for the party shared child. Wasn't that contemplated by the original child support order in the case?
>> Oh, I haven't received child support.
>> We have not received one payment of child support, your honor. Okay.
>> When was child support uh ordered to be effective?
>> May 1st, your honor.
>> Okay. Well, he'll owe child support for the first half of May. The shared custody schedule will take over as of the second half of May. So, he'll owe one half of the original child support order issued in the case. For the record, announce that figure, Mr. McMullen. At least the monthly uh math would be pretty simple from there.
>> Give me just a second to find that number, your honor. I apologize.
>> Miss Davis, I'm going to want that included in the order which stems from today's proceedings that you will draft.
So >> yes, your honor, I understand the ruling. He will pay 1 half of the original amount of child support and then effective May 15th, the shared residency goes into effect. And there the court will deny any reimbursement request made by the mother in this case.
>> Your honor, the monthly child support in full due by payable by dad was $512 per month. I believe one half of that is $256.
>> Okay, that reconciles with the court's math. So if you'll include that in the order, Miss Davis, >> I will. Your honor, >> I hope after today a a period of parental cooperation can take place.
You're going to be co-parenting for a long time so that this that there's a mutually cooperative uh relationship established the better for this little one cuz what we really want to make sure we we do is mess up this child in some way. So, uh I think we probably got two good parents who want to be parents and I have no reason to believe you're not going to be good parents. So, good luck in that regard. Miss Davis, anything else?
>> No, your honor. Thank you, your honor.
And >> if you'll get that order drafted with a new child support worksheet over to Mr. McMullen for his uh review and approval as soon as you can.
>> I will do that, your honor.
>> Mr. McMullen, anything further we need to address from your side?
>> No. Thank you, judge.
>> Very well. But if there's nothing further at this time, the Bez matter will currently be in recess. Butler County, Kansas. Case entitled State of Kansas versus James Dale Gage. Case number 2023 CR 171. Mr. Gage appears from the Butler County Detention C Center's Zoom location. Jorge DeHoyes appears at Defense Council. Brett Sweeney on behalf of the state of Kansas. The motion before the court this morning is a motion to lift no bond hold and set bond amount. The court will note for the record that the defendant was set to appear before this court back on August 10 of 2023.
The defendant failed to appear. This court issued a bond forfeite bench warrant no bond hold order. Court also noting at the time that the uh defendant had a no bond hold status due to failure to appear in judge Hart's court as well.
Continuous request was denied. uh motion for judgment on bond was officially granted. Then nurse docket notes from March the appears to be the 13th of 2026.
At that time the defendant was in jail.
No bond hold remained. Further proceedings were held on April the 20th.
At that time the defendant plead guilty to an amended count one possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute a level four drug felony. A pre-sentence report was ordered and sentencing set for June 23rd. Uh subsequently, this motion was filed. Mr. De Hoyos, what is the defense position here?
>> So, judge, we are asking you to set a bond here and to uh set bond for $5,000 O bond with electronic monitoring. Uh the gentleman here is, as I understand it, and you may have to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that he's going to be Senate Bill eligible. And for that reason, I think that this becomes a presumptive probation case.
And uh so we are talking about somebody who's already going to have an opportunity out in the community by law.
Assuming I'm right about all that and this isn't my case as the primary. Um the reason why we're asking for this now is because the gentleman's brother is about to go through a back surgery I believe.
>> Yes.
>> And we're anticipating he's going to be kind of laid up from that. Right. So we're hoping to get out and establish that relation with him, move into the house there on the address provided in the motion and work to help him out as we pro proceed to a sentencing on June 23rd. All right. Uh, Mr. Sweeney, what is the state's position on this request?
>> Um, your honor, the state's asking the court to deny the defendants's uh request for modification of bond. Um, I'm not terribly versed on what the reasons for the nonappearances previously are, but even if they involve, you know, it's in another court, I don't know that that's necessarily a good excuse. Um, additionally, I think it's worth noting [clears throat] he does, at least according to my records, still have the no bond hold in Judge Hart's court, um, that's set for sentencing on June 11th.
Um, and that's a sentencing for a possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Uh, at a very minimum, I I think a cash bond is still warranted.
And that's about all the thoughts I have on that, your honor.
>> All right, Mr. Gage, between Mr. Paw's written motion and Mr. De Hoyus's arguments this morning. I think I understand your position, but under the circumstances, I'm inclined to address you personally and ask, do you have anything else that you would add to this request? Uh, yes, Ro. They put the the motion for Judge Hart's court for May 29th for a bond as well because because it's my brother, he's having back surgery. He ain't going to be able to move her up for like six to eight weeks.
He ain't going to be able to do nothing.
And I was just trying to be up there to help him. And I I could I have an ankle monitor, whatever you guys wanted, where you guys monitor where I'm at. I'd be right there at the house. And I'd also still going back and forth to the the sack classes, Miss Ashley Nelson, as well to show you guys that I'm still doing the right thing out there. I mean, I understand in the past. I'm I'm trying to turn my life around, your honor. I really am, and I apologize.
>> Well, I appreciate the apology, Mr. Gage. Um, I don't know if you've already completed what's necessary to um allow a court services officer to fully compile a pre-sentence investigation report.
>> Yeah, I've already completed all the paperwork for um the cso for her. I I I up here and I sent it to her already.
She's already got it. And we went to court in Judge Hart's court. Um I forgot what date it was. I don't have the paperwork right in front of me, but we went just it was just just like weeks ago. And she said she put it out until the the uh June 11th that for the sentencing on it cuz that way she could see the she ordered a new uh PSI. So, I've already filled out the paperwork and everything for it and sent it to her. And uh Miss Ashley asked her if she would like for her to send her the the my assessment stuff for my because I've did assessment with sack and everything.
I've been going through sack classes here at the jail. I've also been going through all the classes and everything and she said yeah. She asked her to to go ahead and do this paperwork for that.
So she sent that to her as well. I signed a release for that u last Monday for to release that paperwork to the cso lady. court has considered the request to lift a no bond hold uh order that was previously set and set a bond amount in the case. The court noting, however, that under Kansas statutory law, failure to appear in a felony case certainly justifies the type of no bond hold order which has been in effect in the case.
What's really disturbing here, uh, Mr. Gage, is that you defaulted on your appearance in this court. I I don't know when defaulted in Judge Hart's court, but in this court, uh, August 10 of 2023.
>> Yes, your honor.
>> Get you back to the court two and a half years.
>> Mhm.
>> So, it's not like you forgot about a court date, called your lawyer later, and tried to fix it. It's not one of those situations at all. You essentially absconded from the authority and jurisdiction of this court for a period of years before we could get you back.
And I think that may have been because you were incarcerated elsewhere for a few months and you the hold took place and we eventually got a hold of you. Um, Mr. Gage, I I understand you're you've related. I have no reason to believe that you're being untruthful. It's just that a lot of people promise that they'll show up for court and take care of things to get out. I don't want another situation where we're waiting two and a half years to complete your case. Further, this is the crime you uh pled to in this case is presumptive prison most likely. However, there there could be a bill 123 overlay that you qualify for. At this point, we do not know with certainty that you do. Um for a number of reasons, Mr. Gage, I'm going to deny your request. Uh we're looking at a really short-term turnaround before your sentencing. In this case, it's about 5 to 6 weeks still to go. I will expect your cooperation with the pre-sentence process so that that doesn't have to get delayed. But to allow you to walk out of jail, especially on an O bond and then expect after a 2 and 1/2 year absence, you're just going to be in court when you're supposed to is asking the court too much and the court's going to deny the request at this time. The no bond hold in this case remains. Uh pending sentencing in the matter. That ruling now made. Uh Mr. Sweeney, is there anything from the state's perspective we need to address today? No, your honor.
Thank you.
>> De Hoyos, thank you for your substitution as counsel today and your arguments to the court, but is there anything further that we need to address?
>> Not that I'm aware of, your honor.
>> Very well. Then if there's nothing further, the James Gage matter will currently be in recess at this time and we'll reconvene for sentencing June 23 at 11:00 a.m. by Zoom.
>> Thank you, Judge.
>> The meeting will be ended for all at this time. This is in the District Court of Butler County, Kansas. case entitled in the matter of the estate of Matthew Mark Johnson. It's case number 2023 PR71.
Beginning with the petitioning party here, would council announce their appearances, please?
>> Yes, your honor. Ashlin Lindco appears on behalf of petitioner Scott Revard, who also um appears via Zoom.
>> Miss Gage, you'll go next.
>> Yes. um Kathleen Golage on behalf of Jeffrey um Johnson Koba who is the administrator of the estate in this matter and also the sister of the deedent and she appears here in person in my office via Zoom as well.
>> Please the court Bruce Walpert and Topeka attorney appears uh for two heirs at law Leslie Phillips and Nathaniel Sadler. Very well. Spard comes before the court at this time of Miss Lindskco on your petition. If you would just outline here for the record exactly what you are seeking.
>> Yes, your honor. First, I want to apologize and acknowledge that the court got some additional materials from us late this morning and likely too close for the court to have the opportunity to review them. And I apologize for the timing of that. Um specifically without getting into or addressing respondents um written objections to our request um our initial question for this court or request for relief for this court is that this court issue an order reopening the estate ordering DNA testing to allow us to get the information the additional information that we may need to set the determination of airship for evidentiary hearing.
In the interim, your honor, we'd also ask the court to enter an accounting from the beneficiaries of the proceeds that they did receive through the estate, where it went, what it was spent on, um, what assets were purchased with funds, those types of things. Um, and then we also ask that the court enter preservation orders just that if there are any proceeds remaining as it relates to how this estate was paid out that those not be spent, not be moved um or otherwise used until the final determination of this court can be made.
>> Miss Gage, I trust uh your client opposes this request.
>> Oh yes, your honor. um the administrator does and the administrator she was the deedent of or the sister of the deedent and um of course very intimately familiar with his life she denies that Scott revert is the biological child of the deedent she also would state under um oath that um her brother never acknowledged paternity never had a parent child relationship with Scott um um the allegations that were made in um the petition are that she fraudulently concealed um the knowledge that Scott was his son, didn't give him notice. Um and we've um in our answer outlined our defenses and joined with Mr. Wilpert and his as well.
>> All right, Mr. Wilpert, uh any initial remarks that you would like to make? No additional remarks. Uh if we're not going to be discussing the the merits of the the reasons why uh the estate should not be opened, if we're going to get to that, then I'll reserve, but I think Miss Gulage expressed my client's concerns.
>> All right. Very well, Miss Linskog.
Obviously, this uh estate action proceeded through the court system of Butler County uh over 3 years pending. A publication was made to give general uh notice to the public that this estate was being opened and to give an opportunity and notice to people that if they had some involvement or some role they wanted to play in this estate, it was to give notice to do so. Uh Mr. Revard did not respond to that. Why after three years and after the estate has been formally closed, should this court even consider reopening under these circumstances?
>> Yes, your honor. I think um if th that was the only context I would understand um the concerns but I think there's some additional context here that is important for the court to consider. The first being that that there we had submitted some additional documentary evidence this morning as it relates to um what the administrator's position is now specifically that Mr. Revard wasn't a known heir um and those things and we can discuss that later. The the truth your honor is that Mr. Bvard had a conversation. He will testify to this.
He had a conversation with the administrator at the celebration of life of the deedent. And she told him um by from what he understood from that conversation and what he has relayed to me is that he was told that there were no assets, there was no value, there was nothing, that the deedent was a hoarder, but that she would handle everything.
She would let him know and take care of everything. um and that she would keep him apprised of what was going on. Uh he did not get actual notice of the act the probate proceedings. Um he didn't no one communicated with him. No one reached out to him to let him know what was going on. He only found out about the probate itself having been closed when he was searching through um the Butler County records as it relates to some of the real estate he thought his dad had owned to try to get sort of an update um on where things had been. And at that point um when he realized that it had been sold um he began I I think he actually wrote a letter to the court earlier this year and was advised that he would need to follow the proper procedure appropriately in order to reopen the estate. Um so he searched for counsel um who would agree to take the case for him. Um, in reviewing all of the information that he had provided me, it was clear to me that under Kansas law, there are two sort of notice tracks um, under a probate. Actual notice and published notice. And published notice is sufficient um, for unknown heirs for people that no one knew about. We we couldn't even attempt to notify everyone um, and get actual notice on them because we just want to let everyone know. But that type of notice, your honor, is not sufficient for a known interested party or a known heir in a probate proceeding, especially in one where the administrator had represented to the beneficiary that she would handle it, that she would take that there was nothing um sorry I have a net. There was nothing really of value in the estate, but that she would handle everything and let him know if something came up. So I think in this case, your honor, applying the publication statute notice as a mechanism in which Mr. regard as the only surviving heir of the deedant in this case would result in um a really punitive and unfair result to him um where um he believed what he was being told. He believed the information that he was being given and was not put on direct notice and actual notice that all of these proceedings were ongoing. Um, I think had he been put on actual notice, had he seen the pleadings specifically, um, where he was not listed or not named or his name did not come up at all, I think that might have likely encouraged him at that time to do the work he has done now to engage counsel and try to figure out what is going on. But I think in the time that had passed, I do think that he's not necessarily he's not a lawyer. He's he's not a creditor. is not a sophisticated person who would otherwise read a publication in the newspaper if he saw it at all, which I do not believe that he did, and indicate that that meant that everything was final and he was not included, your honor. And at this point, our request is that the court consider that specific issue in context. Um especially given the fact of the additional documents that we provided the court this morning which include text messages between the administrator prior to opening the estate in the administrators and Mr. Revard's mother where he is acknowledged as the deedent son and photographs of Mr. Revard at the celebration of life and included in the materials that were displayed at the celebration of life.
Um, so with that full context, your honor, I would submit to the court that the publication notice that the respondents rely on in order to indicate that the estate is closed and there's no further opportunity for him to be heard um I think would is improper under the way that the statutes require actual notice and I think it would result um in something entirely inequitable to Mr. Revard.
>> Is Mr. Revard's birth certificate. Does it indicate that uh Matthew Mark Johnson is his natural father?
>> Your honor, it does not indicate that ma Mr. Johnson is his natural father. Um that is something that they had not done. Mr. Revard's mother has indicated that Mr. Johnson is the biological father. Father, we have spoken with other third parties who have indicated that um Mr. Johnson called Mr. Revard his son. Spoke to M about Mr. Revard like he was his son. And you know, Kansas law indicates that it's not just um the biological piece that otherwise would indicate that Mr. Revard would be Mr. Johnson's son. Um the Kansas Kansas courts have held that if he held him out to be his son throughout his lifetime.
Um that that too would indicate it. And I think that there is additional evidence that this court should hear as it relates to the statements from those individuals including longtime longtime friends of the deedants um other members who attended the celebration of life and how Mr. Revard was um acknowledged and discussed at that event itself. I think it allows additional context as to how problematic it is that the administrator elected not to even bring up um or give him the opportunity to be heard through actual notice about the positions that she was taking as a result of the probate. If you believe that your claims can be supported by genetic testing since the deedent in this case has been dead for many years now, how exactly did you expect that this court would be able to order genetic testing at this stage?
>> Um, that's a excellent question, your honor. Parts part of the reason we needed the court's help to reopen the estate is that we need the court to order um that the deedent's biological family submit to genetic testing um so that that testing can be compared to Mr. Revard's testing who happens to be the administrator and the other beneficiaries in this case.
>> What family members?
>> I believe that the administrator is the um deedent sister.
>> Anyone else? Um, I believe that likely would do the trick in being able to compare her biological material to Mr. Revard's biological material.
>> All right, Mr. Linskog, the court from the very inception here struggles with the concept of the time. Despite the fact that he believed that he was this deedent's son, he took no action for many years to assert any type of inheritance rights. Despite the fact that he claims that he lived with the deedent, he accepted supposedly at face value that there were no assets whatsoever, nothing to pursue, nothing to follow up on, nothing to research.
What about uh the the equitable concept of latches here? He has sat on his rights for over 3 years. And yet now he expects the court to grant him relief postfal settlement, mind you, to essentially allow him to assert a claim that very well should have been asserted at the very inception of this case. And I understand what you're saying about he should have received actual notice as someone who has a possible claim of being an heir. And obviously that's something for Miss Gullage and and her client to address how much they knew and when they knew it. But uh the court struggles with just the timing of this.
Um this is an extraordinary request.
Miss >> G.
Miss. Lens. If you've got some answer, I'm I'm wanting to hear it.
>> I I just didn't want to interrupt you, your honor. And I would be lying uh to the court if I didn't ask Mr. Revard the same questions when he came to my office and um explained to me what had been happening. And the response to those questions, I think that hearing them from me is going to will hopefully give you some insight, but I think um hearing them from Mr. Revard will also serve some value to the court because I don't know that it is true that he sat and did nothing. I I do have multiple screenshots of messages where he was reaching out to family members um trying to understand what was going on um reaching out to the other beneficiaries trying to connect about what had happened. Um I don't at the time of the deedent's death Mr. Revard was no longer living with him. He was living elsewhere. And so I I don't think that he was was just sitting and then all of a sudden one day woke up and said it's been years but now I'm going to look into this. I do think he took conscious effort to try to get an idea about what was going on um and try to get some help in directing him about what his options were. I do think that that process was slow and difficult for someone who doesn't have um sophistication to the level of being able to understand what his options are um or being able to understand how to go about getting the information that he needs.
I don't think that if heard from his start to finish about what happened, I do think that he reached out routinely um and tried to get some explanation. Um but I do not think he knew the val the full value of the estate itself until the pleadings were pulled and that the proceeds were paid out and provided to him to sort of give give some additional context. So I understand the court's hesitancy here, but I do not think that Mr. Revard intentionally sat or abandoned um his rights or his ability to recover um under the probate code for his father. I think that he did try um and I think that he did make multiple efforts and and spoke with different counsel and you know wrote a letter to the court and attempted to get here faster. he just didn't have the means um or the representation or the sophistication to do so as quickly as I think any of us would have liked.
>> Does beg the question, Miss Gullled, uh if your client knew of Scott, uh why wasn't actual notice provided to him?
Your honor, my client did know of Scott.
She when I um interviewed her earlier um prior to final settlement um when we were um um contacted by Ashlin and she said that she had met him one time when he was eight, that her brother had been married for a very long period of time, approximately 18 years to a lady by the name of Tamara Allen.
And um apparently the time frame of when Scott would have possibly been born was a time that um Mr. Johnson was married to some other individual and they mar they were married for 18 years and then later divorced. He had no children. She claimed that um Scott was never introduced to any family members as a son. He was never introduced to um Jeffrey's um mother or her sister who is also deceased as a biological child of um the deedent. Um in addition to that, when I looked at the statute, your honor, it claimed that um the heir would have to have some type of documentary evidence. There's been no statements by um Ashlin about who was named as the father on Scott's birth certificate and if there is any father that's been identified.
But certainly there was never any paternity done during his lifetime.
There was never any child support that was paid. Um it appears as if from Jeffrey's perspective that um her brother had a relationship at some point in time with um Scott's mother, but he never acknowledged that he was um the biological father of this particular individual. Um, M. Cobra also um explained to me that um Scott had had a a past history of substance abuse, that he had been in and out of prison, and um the only thing that she had known about any type of relationship was more of her brother um feeling sorry for him and then um having to distance himself um from Scott because of his behavior.
There was never any paternity action or uh action seeking child support or determination of paternity during the entire minority of Scott. Um, no, your honor, there wasn't. U, but what I will tell uh the court is I think there are are two pieces here and I I want to say these next pieces carefully because I'm want to advocate for my client um but not escalate or make make statements that are going to uh be problematic for the administrator. But um I think that there are two critical pieces of context here, your honor. But for Scott existing in this probate estate, the administrator and the other beneficiaries would have gotten nothing.
So there is some piece of making the ultimate determination of whether or not he was a biological child through the lens of a fiduciary who's the administrator of the estate by determining well um you know here's all these reasons that we didn't include him or didn't even give him actual notice.
um because if he doesn't exist then we inherit a sizable amount of money. Um the second piece that I think is important is in some of the documents that we submitted this morning there is a text message between the administrator and Mr. Revard's mother who is ready and willing to testify to this court and has submitted a statement um as well which I included that um the mother of Mr. Revard was texting um the administrator and saying that she couldn't understand why the deedent son and his four grandchildren weren't mentioned in the obituary. That that was confusing to her. And Miss Cobra Koba's response in the text message was that she could not find any of the names. Um my concern was to find enough money to have him cremated and pay his rent. I figured people would be upset no matter what I did. Um, and then she goes on to talk about the probate estate at this celebration of life. But I think that this is important context, your honor, because she didn't even then in that correspondence suggest that he was not his son. She did not suggest that they didn't have that type of relationship.
Um, she just suggested that she couldn't do the work to find their names. Um, so she left them out. And I I think that this again in context of other things that are happening at the time. Um there's also a photograph that we included of the deedent with the petitioner and the petitioner's young child. Um it will be Mr. Revard, his close family members, his mother, um and other testimony that the deedent attended birthday parties for Mr. Revard's children. Um it referenced himself as their grandfather and all those types of things. I think that there was more of a very clear relationship between the deedent and Mr. Revard than I think the administrator is indicating. And I understand at this point why that's being done, but I don't think that it gives full context. And I think what's important critically um to remember at this stage, your honor, is that the whatever Mr. Revard's mother elected or elected not to do during his lifetime as it relates to the deedent beating his father for paternity, for um what is it called? Child support. Oh my gosh. Um all of those things. Um I think they would have helped uh given us a little bit more context or a little bit more evidence here. But I think what is clear is that um the administrator was aware of the existence of Mr. Revard.
She was aware that at least some members of the family indicated that he was the deedent son. Um she was aware they spoke at the celebration of life. Um he Mr. Revard was there. He's in the photographs in the display at the celebration of life. Um, so I think it's unfair to now take the position while he wasn't determined to be his child at the outset. So he wasn't entitled to any type of statutory notice that the probate court provides.
>> All right, Miss Lenscog, two more questions for you. Um, >> yes, your honor.
>> Who was named as the as Scott's father on his birth certificate?
>> I don't have a copy of his birth certificate, your honor, but I could ask Mr. Revard here. My recollection is that no one is named, but I'll confirm that for the court.
>> A statutory presumption in favor of some other man.
>> I will certainly um get and make sure that we have a copy of that, but my recollection is that when I spoke to Mr. Revard, he had indicated that his mom had elected not to put any there was no father um listed on his birth certificate. And I think critically for context for this court, I I do think that there was some um um when he was with Scott's mother um the the woman that he was married to then the woman that Miss Golage just indicated to Tanya I think is her name. Scott, right?
Tanya. Um she also recognized during her lifetime that Scott was the deedent son.
She has just since passed, so I haven't been able obviously to get um a statement from her.
>> All right.
>> Hold on, Mr. Revard.
>> Well, if he can address that question, I would like it answered.
>> Yes, your honor. Certainly.
>> Unmute yourself if you can.
>> Oops. Wrong button.
>> He just took himself off video.
>> All right. Scott, can you unmute yourself so you can tell the court?
>> Can you hear me now?
>> Yes.
>> On my birth certificate, um yes, I am a junior. um a my mom got with Scott um after I was conceived. So yeah, Scott did sign my birth certificate, but he's never been a part of my life because he told me that I'm not his child.
>> So Scott Revard senior is named as the father on your birth certificate.
>> That's correct, Ricky. Yes.
>> All right. All right. Thank you. I I think that's all I need right now.
>> Second question, Miss Lindcock. No, >> thank you, Scott. Um, Miss Linsk, the second question perhaps is even more pertinent than some of the rest of this discussion we've had. Ultimately, here here's what's happened in reality. This estate pending for several years has now been settled and closed. Money has been distributed. Now, it's generally [clears throat] been the court's experience that when people receive money through uh a will or through an estate, they spend it. So, as a practical matter, let's just presume for a moment that much, if not all of the money that's been distributed has been allocated elsewhere. What do you expect to gain through all of this?
>> Uh, yes, your honor, I too had this exact conversation um with my client and thought through that request in advance of this hearing. And the short of it is, your honor, I don't know because I don't know if it has all been spent. I don't know um how it has been spent. I don't know if any of it um is able to be clawed back into the estate. I don't know what remains. And so it's difficult for me practically to give you the most practical answer, but I will give you what I worked through my client and and what our options were. And the first was um that if these things are true that you had this conversation that that she represented to you that she was going to handle everything and she'd let you know if you were entitled to inherit anything if there was anything left over to inherit after all the junk was removed.
Um, and if it is determined that you are in fact a legal heir of the estate, it becomes an analysis of what is available to recover. And we haven't been able to do any type any type of analysis about what the estate may be able to recover um for Mr. Revard's benefit um because we are about these initial stages trying to gather that information and trying to determine um whether there is anything and and there is a lot of options under Kansas law for Mr. regard as it relates to um if property that he was legally entitled to was in fact um given to someone else. There are options under Kansas law for a fiduciary who knowingly conceals um and creates that type of situation that may have occurred here, your honor. Um so I think that that is a practical question that does that deserves a practical solution. I just think before we can get there, we have to have a little bit more information, especially as it relates to what the money was spent on, what the beneficiaries purchased it for, whether it went to third parties, those types of questions. And we're not talking a small amount of money. We're I think each of the two niece and nephew got $50,000 each. And so, um, trying to sort of reconstruct what had happened with the funds. Um, and then I understand if the court says, "I'm not going to make anybody go through that process until we we reach the determination of airship."
Um, I certainly understand that approach as well. One of the things that I didn't get to talk about, but I think that is is critical for this case because it is very rare that I'm able to find a direct Kansas case on point as much as I am in this case. Um, and I I submitted a copy to the parties and to the court very almost right before this hearing. So, I anticipate that um no one has had a chance to review it yet, but in Enray estate of Nuland um which is a Kansas Supreme Court case from 1986, the facts in this case in that case are nearly identical, your honor, to the facts in this case, um there was a child of the deedent that existed. The administrator distributed the um estate proceeds to the siblings and then the estate was closed. um that case, the Kansas Supreme Court held that there was a violation of the intesty statute because children are to inherit before siblings. The court in that case held that such a distribution is an unlawful taking of an heir's property. Um they reversed it under KSA 6260, which is a judgment that's erroneous on its face and it's entered in violation of that statute. Um in Newand the administrator I think what is different is that the administrator did try to gather um information about errors. In Nuland the administrator hired a private investigator. They contacted social security. They attempted to do everything right within the statute in order to notify the heirs. And even still in that case, your honor, the Supreme Court reversed the district court's finding to keep the case closed. Um because it said no matter what, it was a violation of the intestasy statute. In this case, it's it's not that simple. It it the the administrator at least knew of his existence. She acknowledged his existence um to another family member as being a son of the deedent.
She had the information the phone number of deedent or of Mr. Revard's mother.
She met him, saw him, communicated with him at the celebration of life. And and I would submit to your honor that if if the heir in Newland gets relief from an estate closing and assets being distributed, even in a case where the administrator could show they hired a private investigator, they called the social security office, they did all this extra work in order to notify all of the heirs and yet still was required to reopen the estate and reconsider what assets were distributed and where they were supposed to go and what the consequences of that is. I certainly think that Mr. Revard is entitled to the same aid treatment. Um, especially in this case where I don't think that he was as much a secret. I don't think that his existence was or that his claims would be not easily identifiable.
>> The administrator have a bond in this case, Miss Gullage?
>> Uh, no, your honor. Um, there were two assets in the estate. there was some real estate in Butler County and then there was an IRA that his former spouse was named as a um beneficiary on and what we did is um with Mr. Wilpert and I's agreement all the funds were paid into my attorney trust account so there was no bond that was your honor if I may though Mr. Revert just admitted that his father on his birth certificate was Scott Rever senior. And um all of the other allegations that um have been made thus far are all hearsay allegations that can't really overturn direct evidence. And what she um Miss Lynn's work is asking is that the state be reopened and the administrator be required to submit to DNA testing to see if there's any type of um biological relationship with um Brever and and her which is highly irregular. If he was at the celebration of life, if he claims that this man was his father, surely he would have known that he had real property. if he had the ability to contact um and write the court or contact people. It begs the question if he's been involved with the legal system in the past, surely he would have known um to contact an attorney or even known where that real property was located at.
But there's the only thing that um Miss Lindborg has said is that um my client who was here and um has not claimed um any of things that have been said to be um true or accurate. She's claimed all the long that yes, she knew of Scott when he was 8 years old. Her brother never acknowledged him as a child to anyone in his family. She was clearly um married to somebody else at the time that Scott was conceived and that individual is the father on his birth certificate. And now after an estate has been closed for over 4 months, she's wanting the estate to be reopened at this particular time. And as Mr. Wolford pointed out in his answer and he pointed out through his um testimony, we had that estate open for the good part of just under three years. Surely he could have done something prior to that time.
And I also like to um point out the fact that Mr. Walpert um when he um intervened in the case as the representatives of the niece and nephew of the deceased sister, he um had that information because he um has connections with an airfinding company.
That company never identified any other heirs. There was no reason that we would have given Scott actual notice because he was not the deedant's biological child.
>> Your honor, I respectfully don't think that ends the analysis. I understand the the presumption in Kansas as it relates to of parenthood and being on the birth certificate.
But in estate of which is a Kansas Supreme Court case, holds that a parent child relationship may be established not just through paternity, but where the father has notoriously recognized that relationship and that evidence of recognition can be sufficient despite other presumptions or the biological whether or not paternity has been established. I think that there is enough here and what we are asking the court to do and what our petition asked was not that the court determine airship today but that the court open the estate. Sorry being attacked by an that the court open the estate allow us to set an evidentiary hearing for the determination of airship allow if they're declining or objecting to a DNA test. Um that's obviously within the court's purview. I think it would make it simpler and easier. um in order to do this um if they would agree um so that there is biological evidence of his relationship but there's plenty of individuals who can come to the court and testify um to the contrary of what the administrator is now asserting and the other thing that I want to point out to what Miss Sculage said is that um or the Nelson um case in under the Supreme Court or the Newand case in the Supreme Court it doesn't matter um as it relates to what they thought or what they tried to do. What matters under Kansas law is that 59506 says that children are to inherit before siblings. When children inherit before siblings uh or when that does not happen, it is a violation of the law and it allows then a judgment to be reversed because it was done so in violation of that particular statute.
Um, I think that the Newand case makes it clear that it the important piece here is that this is in this is property rights that Mr. Revard was entitled to by law. He did not get those property rights that he was entitled to by law through the mechanism of um the proceedings that are designed to allow him to do so. And I understand the concern as it relates to the amount of time that is passed, but the estate hasn't been closed for years. it was just recently closed and the funds ultimately distributed. Um, and I don't think Mr. Revard would ha would have known up and until that point what the plan ultimately was. Um, and I think that he is entitled to the opportunity for airship to be determined for his relationship with his father to be determined at the court level um in order to determine what the ne the right next steps are as it relates to the the proceeds that were already paid out in this estate.
>> Very well, Mr. Wilpert, you've been relatively silent. Don't mean to exclude you from any argument made here today.
Did you have any additional arguments you wish to make at this time?
>> Thank you, your honor. Uh, it is a very interesting situation.
I echo Miss Gulage's concerns and the court's concerns that for three years, uh, nothing was done. Um, Scott's council said that he had spoke with an attorney during that a council during the three-year period. any attorney would have advised him of his rights to petition. Uh he was at the celebration of life. So he had notice of death. Um you know he had the administrator's contact information. Uh he basically you know sat on it for 3 years. But what we haven't heard today are the statutory uh concerns. There is no mechanism to reopen this case your honor statutoily.
As a matter of fact, 15059501A gives two reasons to open a case and these are not ones one of them. If uh he had 30 days to ask the court to review the journal entry didn't do that. Those are the two statutory requirements.
There is an appeal mechanism is what happens when somebody feels wronged. So opening up the estate um is not statutoily allowed in in my client's opinion. I will mention that one of my clients is Leslie Phillips, niece of um the deedent. Had a conversation with her and she acknowledged that there had been, you know, gossip or chatter about whose father whose, you know, son it was. But her conversation with Mr. Johnson was that Mr. Revard would would contact uh Mr. Johnson for money. And Mr. Johnson, again, this is hearsay. I mean, I'm just telling you the court what I've heard from my client that Mr. uh Johnson denied those requests for two reasons. One, he was concerned that the uh that Scott would spend money on drugs. two that he did not acknowledge Scott as his child. That's according to my client and she will come forward just as Scott's council said there'll be multiple people. There's just as many folks who would say no, he never did acknowledge. But I think we're back to the statutory issue. Your honor, I do not believe the court has me has has the authority under statute to reopen this estate. Thank you.
What vehicle was used in Newand, Miss Linskog, since you assert that it was essentially the same situation. Final settlement had already taken place. The estate was closed and then the court denied the estates's reopening, went up on appeal. What what mechanism was justified by the Supreme Court to reopen the estate?
>> Uh yes, your honor. uh case uh the court did not use 59501A which is what respondents are relying on and saying that is the only means in which we can use here. The Nuland court used KSA 60260B6 to set aside a final settlement to set aside the final settlement in that case.
Um um what they said I'm sorry >> did you seek relief under that statute?
Um your honor, initially no we petitioned the court in order to reopen the to to to reopen the estate to seven iniary hearing to determine airship and and the reason that I used that mechanism at the outset was so that we could get um additional information as it relates to why how this all went the way that it went and the mechanism in which uh to do that I believed was to reopen the estate so that the court had jurisdiction to order that the other individual will submit to a blood test because I think that is the clearest path forward to det to to determine airship if it is correct. If he is the biological child of this man, then I think that makes everything significantly simpler. I certainly when preparing um for the petition included the ability and and requested the ability to do so. Um I in preparing for today's case and preparing for and reviewing respondents replies that were filed on Friday and on Monday where they rely pretty heavily on saying this is the only mechanism in which the estate had. I dug deeper to make sure that I wasn't incorrect there was that because I would be the first to acknowledge maybe we have to take a different mechanism in this case your honor. I think that the Nuland case gives us what we need. If if it is appropriate to file an additional petition to set aside the judgment as opposed to ask the court to reopen the estate, I think it all lands us back here in the same place, which is airship has to be determined. And that ideally would have been determined while the probate was still open. So four months ago, it would have been ideal if this issue would have been determined before the estate was closed. It wasn't. And I would submit to the court that I I hear a lot of information about what Scott should or shouldn't have done during those three years. And I understand that. Um I do want to clarify that Mr. Revard didn't see an attorney during that period only after realizing that the estate had closed and no one had communicated with him or he had not gotten any information because he was left with the impression by the administrator that there was nothing to give, that there was no money, that the deedent was a hoarder. Um, but I think what's most important here, what I would redirect attention to is that Mr. Revard is not a fiduciary in this case. He wasn't the administrator. It wasn't his obligation is to respond to things he knows about, to things he's put on notice about. So, the appellet statute that says he has 30 days to appeal final judgment doesn't apply to him because he didn't know about the case itself. I I think the administrator separate and apart from being a beneficiary who inherited a sizable sum of money as a result of this case, it was her job. It was her duty to find heirs. It was her duty to notify heirs. It was her duty to make sure that the settlement that the judgment that she was procuring based on the representation she was making to the court was bulletproof. All of those things were her responsibility. They were not Mr. Revard's responsibility in shifting us back to saying, "Well, Mr. Revard should have done more." I think what that tells us, your honor, is that this is certainly ripe for a determination of his airship. If there's testimony one way or the other, the court can determine credibility about what testimony they believe given the presumptions. I think a DNA test would make that simpler. Um, but obviously that is certainly up to the court and whether the court is inclined to agree with that. I would again reiterate that um it hasn't been for the estate has been closed for a matter of months. Mr. Revard within those matter of months is when he reached out to the court is when to this court is when he started seeking counsel to try to figure out what happened. Um and is when he tried to identify what his next steps were. Um I I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to shift the responsibility and the burden that the fiduciary holds on to Mr. Revard and say well you sir were responsible um for engaging in a probate case that no one told you about no and has acknowledged that we didn't tell you about. I'm gonna stop you there, Miss Because I understand your attempts to deflect away from the question that the court asks and >> try to put blame somewhere else. But the reality is >> you're the one seeking relief here. Um, under the probate statutes, your action is not proper before this court.
>> I think you would have to concede that point. Is this one of the statutoily approved reasons to reopen the estate?
Yes or no?
>> No. One of the two reasons. It is not, your honor. So if indeed there's case law that suggests that relief could have been sought under a different statute but you didn't do it then what authority does this court have to proceed further?
>> I think your honor now that we are here we have two paths forward and and whichever path forward you direct me to take is the one that I certainly will take. I can refile the petition, notice it up for hearing and ask the court to set an evidentiary hearing on the airship issue. But I think the the the determination of airship is a threshold issue. [clears throat] So the mechanism in which to reopen the estate is not under 59151.
The mechanism to reopen the state is through the Nuland case, which I will submit a a different petition if that is the court's request. I think the other option is all of the parties are here, all of the parties are represented, all of the parties um the the next phase of this could be let's go ahead, we can brief on that particular issue. If respondents need the time to do so, but set um an evidentiary hearing for airship in the meantime if if the court is not inclined to do that, then we can start over and I will draft a petition under the Newland case um as to why the estate should be reopened. And then at that point um I will make the same request to the court that we to the extent the court is inclined under Nuland and under that scheme to apply the basis under which an estate should be reopened when an air is not properly does not distribute it does not get distributions properly. Um we can certainly handle it that way which I understand the court's the position that I've put the court in.
>> All right. First of all, uh the court does note that under general rules pertaining to KSA6260, generally relief is sought within a year under most subsections of that statute.
I do understand the catchall of B6, but B6 generally can't be used to get around the time limitations which are generally set at one year to attack a final judgment. We are within that period and because of that the court is inclined to allow the petitioner in this case 14 additional days to file any additional requests for relief under KSA 6260. If that is filed, this court noting that there have already been written defenses to the original petition will find that chapter 60 discovery uh is available to the parties in this case which I hope would would be very narrowly focused on matters which are truly pertinent at this stage. This court is not inclined to set an evidentiary hearing at this point. Rather, a non-evident hearing, but in the courtroom, and we're going to at least address at a minimum the issue of whether genetic testing should be ordered in this case. At this point, I don't see why it would be necessary to present testimony on that issue. And furthermore, this court does want to uh read and and fully be aware of the Nuland case and what it actually says in regards to the pertinance to this case.
But to the extent um necessary, the court wants to go ahead and conditionally reopen this estate based on the timely filing of the 6260B motion in this case to seek relief from the final judgment in the case. I also want to allow a certain period to allow for some reasonable chapter 60 discovery, a request for production of documents that might be pertinent, for example, or perhaps some limited interrogatories uh as might be necessary um before this next non-evident hearing is set. This would be in the nature of a pre-trial conference in that if this court determines that further evidentiary hearing is necessary, we'll schedule it then.
>> Your honor, if it pleases the court, may I make a request?
>> You may.
>> Um, all of the assets of the estate have been dissipated. The beneficiaries are not of any substantial means and all of the resources that have been distributed to my knowledge have already been spent.
So there's no way to freeze any assets or tell them not to spend the resources.
There's nothing at this particular stage um based on the beneficiaries um information and belief that they were entitled to those proceeds as a year.
They've spent those resources.
So I think it would be inappropriate in this case since um Mr. Revert has acknowledged that he has a a different biological father on his birth certificate and based on his all of his hearsay evidence and the allegations that he's made against the administrator that a bond be posted to cover the costs of the proceeding going forward as there are no resources at this particular stage and everything up to this point has been done in good faith despite council's um claims that in her petition in her answers. Um, she makes an allegation that my client is a genealogologist. My client is not a genealogologist. She was a drug rehab counselor. Um, that was her vocation for years. And um, she makes allegations that um, this was all done fraudulently, which is not not true. There's no evidence of fraud. So, in this particular case, your honor, because of the cost involved, I would um request that the um judge order that a bond be posted in this particular case to cover those costs.
>> Miss Gunage, you've you've done a lot of business with this court and generally I I can take any statement you make at face value, but I don't think it's been clearly established that the substantial monies that were distributed at final settlement are indeed gone. understand that you're just relying on representations of your clients that hasn't been asserted under oath to this court's knowledge. Is that represented in a sworn written defense?
>> Your honor, uh my clients I've had conversations and I did in my response uh not under affidavit. Uh I did state that my clients do not have any of the assets. Three cruises later, I I will mention that of the 50,000 um it was necessary for my clients to pay uh a one-third fee to the airfinding service who brought them in in the first place. So their 50,000 is already reduced by a third. They had about what maybe 33,000 left and and they did spend that. Both of them did. They both received that. And so that's not a lot of money to spend. You're right. your honor, you get the money, you want to go out and have a good time. That's what they did.
>> And your honor, if it pleases the court, I joined in u Mr. Walford's um his statements and I did not delineate that my client had also spent the money, but that was the statement that Mr. Walpert u made and I joined in his uh response on that as well.
>> Court understands the request. The court will deny the request for an order requiring a bond at this juncture.
Again, uh I think uh we can be narrowly focused as this next evidentary hearing which we're going to establish uh non-evidentary hearing rather where we'll address the genetic testing issue and perhaps some of these others based on argument of the party similar to today. We're we're way beyond the 30 minutes that were allowed for this hearing and I do have another hearing I need to address. So there's some issues I don't think we're going to be able to resolve today anyway. Um, Miss Lenskog, I'm going to task you with drafting an order stemming from today, including the date and time of our uh non-evident hearing, which the court will establish.
I'm I'm thinking about sometime in July.
And again, with some exchange of information, perhaps between council, some issues can be clarified or narrowed. And that's the court's hope between now and the time of the July non-evident hearing. I don't see necessarily that there's any that this matter is time critical to the extent that a 60-day time frame wouldn't be appropriate. I'm going to address my assistant Mandy at this time. She's in charge of the court's calendar. Can you suggest say a morning starting at 9:00 perhaps marking off till noon uh for a non-evident hearing in this matter sometime?
>> July 10th open >> July 10 council.
>> Sorry, honor. I'm in Oregon that week, but I'm back the next week.
>> I'm available.
>> All right. I will be out of state in I wonder if the court since my clients aren't really uh um don't have the information that the court's u after. I wonder if I could participate u through a video.
>> Objection by other council.
>> No, sir.
>> Not for me, your honor.
>> Very well. Court will allow it. So, >> thank you, sir.
>> Okay. um a a date in July, Mandy. Okay.
>> July 27th or 28th or 29th?
>> All three of those dates work for me, your honor.
>> Okay.
>> I could do the 28th or the 29th. Um but if the 31st is open, I would prefer that since it um I have more availability on Fridays than I do during the week.
>> We have that available as well.
>> Excuse me. Wilbert, you will be able to participate remotely on July 31.
>> No, your honor. Um, we've we've booked family trip uh leaving on the 31st. Um, Miss Gouage, I wonder if she could make the 30th. U, >> let me look back at my calendar. Uh, >> was a date my assistant skipped over.
So, >> yeah, we have something scheduled in that morning.
>> Uh, the 29th. I'm sorry.
>> The 29th. Yeah, I I'll make the work if that's the only day that's available for all the other parties.
>> All right.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> At what time?
>> 9:00 a.m. July 29, 2026. Courtroom B, Butler County Judicial Center in Elorado. However, the court will allow Mr. Wilpert to uh participate remotely.
>> Thank you, your honor.
>> But I'm going to expect everyone else to be in the courtroom. We will resolve what issues we can narrow the issues and determine what needs to be done further if anything at that point. This is all conditioned however on Miss Lindcog filing an appropriate motion within the 14-day period allowed by the court.
>> Yes, your honor.
>> Is if that's not filed within that period, Miss Lindcog is it'll be the intention of the court to dismiss the claim.
>> Yes, your honor.
>> I will. I'll look forward to seeing it.
I will make it with well before my deadline.
>> Very well then.
>> Thank you, judge. Thank you everyone.
>> Anything further at this time?
>> Nothing for me, your honor. Thank you for the time this morning. Sorry we ran over.
>> Miss Gullich, anything further currently?
>> Uh, no, sir.
>> Mr. Wilpert.
>> No, sir.
>> Very well. Thank you all uh for your participation. If there's nothing further at this time, the Johnson matter.
This is the Butler County, Kansas first appearance docket of May 11, 2026. I'm David A. Ricky, district judge. The first case that I'll call on this docket is State of Kansas versus Derek Ray Vandola. It's case number 2026, CR 161.
I have an individual seated at the detention facility Zoom location. Is that Mr. Vandola?
>> Yes, your honor. Mr. >> Vandola, do you have a copy of your charging document before you? No, I do not.
>> I will inform you then in count one, there is a charge of attempted aggravated human trafficking, a level three person felony. Count two, electronic solicitation, a level three person felony. Count three, attempted commercial sexual exploitation of a child, a level six person felony. Count four, attempted indecent solicitation of a child, a level eight person felony.
Count five, attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child, a level six person felony. Since felonies are involved, you will not be asked to plead at this time. Rather, a preliminary hearing scheduling will be made before your assigned judge, which is the Honorable Chadrum. Judge Crumb's next docket for that purpose would be June 8, 2026, 2:30 p.m. You must fully participate in Judge Crumb's docket at that time. June 8, 2:30 p.m. Judge Crumb's court. Mr. Vandola, do you have the financial resources to hire a lawyer?
>> No, not really, your honor.
>> Okay. What do you mean no? Not really.
Were you working prior to this arrest?
>> Yes, sir.
>> What kind of job did you have?
>> Well, I work in the underground. Um, I mean, I I could probably hire one if I was out, but as far as having the money uh put in the bank, no, I do not have the money in the bank.
>> You work underground?
>> Um, no, I I do the underground. DLS underground is where I work. We do anything under the dirt. We put fiber in the ground, dig ponds, ditches, stuff like that.
>> All right. I can't give you any assurance at this juncture that you're going to be immediately released into the community, especially in light of these charges. I'm going to resolve a doubt in favor of uh appointing you a lawyer at this point to represent your interests. James Watts will be appointed. We're finding that there's at least partial indigency here. This is a very serious matter. So, Mr. Watts will be appointed at this stage. You can always replace Mr. Watts with your own retained counsel at any point. Mr. Vanoa, what bond is recommended, Mr. Mr. Regger uh for Mr. Vandola.
>> Your honor, in addition to all standard conditions and any other orders the court the court may deem appropriate, the state would be recommending at minimum 10,000 cash or shity up into including um defendant being ordered not to leave the state of Kansas, not make use of the internet or other electronic communications as well as even retrial court services monitoring if the court considers it appropriate. Um, as the court has already observed, the state does consider these allegations to be very serious. Additionally, it is the state's information that this is a defendant with multiple prior felony adjudications and convictions as well as other convictions for battery, domestic battery, and disorderly conduct if the court considers it relevant.
>> Mr. Regger, I do consider criminal history relevant here. Would it be anticipated by the state that if convicted of one of these felony crimes, he would be uh presumptive prison? I unfortunately did not have the opportunity to research that matter in full prior to today's hearing, your honor.
>> All right. Thank you, Mr. Rear. The court will set bond in this case at $10,000. Cash or professional shy required. Where do you live, Mr. Vanova?
>> Uh Harper, Kansas.
>> Okay. Court will order you not to leave the state of Kansas for any reason.
you're not to use the internet uh for any purpose and obviously appear on time for all scheduled court proceedings including the next date that I've already established with Judge Cone. All right, Mr. Gar, anything else we need to address regarding Mr. Vandola at this time?
>> Not from the state, your honor.
>> Mr. Vandola, any questions?
>> Nope, that's it, your honor.
>> Very well. Then the Vandola matter will currently be in recess. We'll move on to another case. Mr. Ariano, just for the court's information, who do you represent on this docket?
>> Your honor, Dalton Specsarth is in custody.
>> Um, I've been contacted by his family and they asked me to appear with him for his first appearance.
>> Very well. I trust the individual now seated at the detention facility Zoom location is Allison Kefir.
>> Yes, sir.
>> This is State of Kansas versus Allison Anne Kefir, case number 2021, TR 2418.
Again, Mr. to reear peers on behalf of the state. Allison Kefir from the jail zoom location.
>> Judge, I apologize for not making the other Zoom court date. I was having technical difficulties. I know it doesn't matter, but I did not have a phone that worked. I contacted my lawyer and I tried to get a device that would so I could reach you and I apologize.
>> Well, I appreciate that. I was just looking at the docket notes as to why you're here in custody.
Failure to appear Yes, sir. And I tried I had the link and and I didn't have a device to let me get into the link. So, just technical difficulties, but I understand why I'm here.
>> Well, good. There's a duty or non-appearance on May 4th of 2026 on your misdemeanor case, which has been pending in the system for quite a while.
>> Yes, it is an old case and I I just would love to plead with the court.
Right now I'm taking care of an 88 year old woman in Lawrence, Kansas who has cancer and I'm very extremely worried about her because I've been gone three days now and uh just was I just I throw myself in the mercy of the court. If there's any way I can get back to taking care of her, she's 88. It's a good job is in front of the judge so we can get your case resolved. But we can't get your case resolved if you don't appear for court. And that's the problem we have here. Once you've established a track record of non-appearance, it's difficult for this court to trust when you say, "I'll show up next time."
>> I understand.
>> I understand that.
>> I understand, sir.
>> Uh there's currently a $400.
That's what it appears to be.
>> It's so old. I don't even know what the charges are, sir. I don't >> Okay. Uh document notes don't seem to be consistent with the order that was generated. It does appear that the new bond that was set was 5,000 cash or professional shy. The court will set you on an expedited appearance. Docket >> just worried about the person I'm taking care of. And it's a good job, sir. And I finally have a good job. And Lawrence, and I really don't want to wreck that.
>> I'm sure you don't. I have a court date I can assign. May 15, 1:30 p.m. That's at the end of this week.
>> Okay.
>> Mr. Patterson was earlier appointed as your lawyer. He his appointment remains.
Perhaps you can talk to Mr. Patterson and maybe get this case worked out in some way and get it behind you. Again, this case has been has been pending in the system for quite a while.
>> Yes, sir. It's way too long overdue and I want to I want to have it behind me.
>> Okay. Well, >> I appreciate your your willingness to give me >> bond order of 5,000 cash remains if you can make that bond, but you do have the obligation to appear May 15th at 1:30 >> here in Butler County here.
>> Correct.
>> Not via Zoom.
>> Is it can is there any way to do via Zoom now? Because I have a good >> You're still in jail. You're you're going to be doing it by Zoom.
>> Oh, so I stay here until the 15th.
>> That's what it means. unless you make that bond. Um, further, you've already told the court you have technology issues. If you do make the bond, I'm going to make a specific condition that you appear at the Butler County Judicial Center in Elorado, Kansas for your next court date.
>> Okay.
>> I don't want any more technical issues.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Zoom technology.
>> I appreciate your uh >> You may not remember this, Miss Kefir, but you know, back before the pandemic, everybody came to court in person every time. I do remember, sir.
>> But we do we have since then made special accommodations to allow out of town people to occasionally appear by Zoom to make it easier for them. And then when they don't appear, when we give them that opportunity, it results in bench warrants, bond forfeertures, and often no bond holes.
>> I know. And I to communicate. I know that does it's neither here nor there, but I just appreciate your willingness to to give me a a good a court date that's sooner than later. Thank you, sir.
>> Yes. Otherwise, you'd be looking probably the end of July.
>> You I don't want to do that.
>> You'll see a judge again at the end of the week with your attorney present and hopefully some progress can be made on case resolution. Mr. Anything else we need to address with her currently?
>> No, your honor.
>> Very well.
>> Thank you, your honor. in recess. You're welcome.
>> Thank you.
>> Who's going to be next? Oswaldo Guadalupe Gonzalez Salazar.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. This time then the court will call that case state of Kansas versus Oswaldo Guadalupe Gonzalez Salazar. Case number 2026 CR159.
Jared Rear appears for the state. The defendant from the jail zoom location. I trust you don't have your charges before you, Mr. Gonzalo Salazar.
>> No.
>> Okay. Then I'll inform you that in count one, there's a charge of attempted aggravated human trafficking, a level three person felony. Count two, electronic solicitation, a level three person felony. Count three, attempted commercial sexual exploitation of a child, a level six person felony. Count four, attempted indecent solicitation of a child, a level eight person felony.
and count five, attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child, a level six person felony. Felonies are involved. You will not be asked to plead at this time. Rather, the court will make a preliminary hearing scheduling with your assigned judge, the Honorable Chadrum. Judge Crumb's next docket for that purpose would be June 8, 2:30 p.m.
You must fully participate in Judge Crumb's docket at that time. June 8, 2:30 p.m. Judge Crumb's court. Were you working prior to this arrest?
>> No. Oh, yeah. I am working uh here in Widgeta.
>> Hey, what kind of job did you have?
>> Uh I do a a pipeline construction.
>> Part-time construction. How much money do you make at that job?
>> Oh, >> how much money do you make at that job?
>> Around 1,500 every week.
>> Do you have the financial resources then to hire your own lawyer? Yes.
>> Are you sure?
>> I have to look into it, but yeah, I'm pretty sure.
>> Well, I'm going to find at least based on 1,500 a week income that that the defendant should be able to hire his own attorney. So, at this point, the court will not appoint counsel. And I hope that you can get a lawyer on board prior to your next court date so retained lawyer can appear with you at your next court appearance. Mr. Gonzalez Salazar.
And again, that was June 8, 2:30 p.m.
with Judge Crumb. What recommendation do you make here regarding bond, Mr. Regger?
>> Your honor, this is a defendant who the state understands has little to no prior conviction history. However, the affidavit does appear to include information to suggest this is defendant with few if any ties to Butler County, let alone Kansas. So for although at the very least the state would be recommending a bond of $10,000 cash or shity as the state does consider these to be very significant charges that the defendant be not ordered not to leave the state of Kansas and not use the internet for any reason and any other orders that the court may dee appropriate >> very well court will adopt those recommendations and set bond at $10,000 cash or professional shy required defendant is ordered as a condition of that bond not to leave the state of Kansas for any reason at any time without specific civic court permission to do so and he's not to use the internet for any purpose and you need to make sure you appear personally for all scheduled court dates. Mr. Gonzalez Salazar.
>> Yes, sir.
>> You have any questions about any of that?
>> Do you remember when your court date is?
>> June 8th.
>> What time?
>> 2:30.
>> Okay. I'm going to order you to appear at the uh county Judicial Center in Elorado, Kansas for your next court date. No other location. If it's going to be done by Zoom, you can participate by Zoom from there. But you need to be at the judicial center essentially where court is held in Elorado, Kansas. Right.
>> Yes.
>> As a specific condition of your bond.
>> All right. Regier, is there anything else that you believe we need to address regarding Mr. Gonzalez Salazar?
>> No, your honor.
>> Any questions, sir?
>> Yeah. Um, my work um the pipeline construction. other like move towns and out of town like what would I like work out if I can't leave Kansas?
>> Well, that's difficult for you. I don't want you going to work in Texas or California or anywhere else. It's hard to get you back for court. So, you can work local jobs apparently, but not out of state jobs.
>> Okay?
>> I don't want you to get in further trouble for u the bond conditions. I want to keep you in the state while this case is pending. It's a very serious case. In fact, it's presumptive prison if you're convicted of the serious charges. Very well. I believe that concludes our business regarding Mr. Gonzalez Salazar at this time and we'll move on to another matter. All right.
Can I have the jail bring Mr. Specsarth out next?
>> Thank you, Judge.
>> Uh, take us a second and get him down here, your honor. Um, yes, we can. One moment.
>> I want to accommodate council on this meeting. Otherwise, he's almost at the very end of my list today. Mr. Ariano, >> I I appreciate it. I'm in the juvenile court here in Cedric County and they're waiting on me. So, >> Ariano, I will inquire, but uh prosecutor present. Do you intend to enter your appearance and be council of record for Mr. Specsarth?
>> Uh your honor, uh for today's hearing, I'm entering my appearance. I've actually not met Mr. Specsarth yet. He was arrested over the weekend. Uh his family has contacted me. He lives with his parents. I do anticipate they will be retaining me to represent him. Um but at this point we have not met in person.
So I think you're going to find it's similar to the cases that you've seen before you. Um and the state will be asking for a $10,000 bond on it. I've already talked to Ms. Pierce about it.
>> All right. Dalton Raymond Specsarth there. The uh detention facility Zoom location is muted currently. Mr. Specsarth.
>> Yes, your honor.
>> All right, I can hear you now. This is State of Kansas versus Dalton Raymond Specs. It's case number 2026 CR160.
Jared Regger appears for the state of Kansas. Steven Araniano appears on behalf of the defendant Specsarth.
Dalton Specs appears from the jail zoom location. Mr. Specsarth, I trust you haven't received a charging document yet.
>> Uh, I believe so.
>> Excuse me.
>> I believe so. That's what I was hitting when I first came in. Correct.
>> Uh, very unlikely. This was, uh, filed at 1:18 p.m. today. So, let me read your charges to you. Count one is attempted aggravated human trafficking, a level three person felony. Count two, electronic solicitation, a level three person felony. Count three, attempted commercial sexual exploitation of a child, a level six person felony. Count four, attempted indecent solicitation of a child, a level eight person felony.
Count five, attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child, a level three person felony. Obviously, court will not be asking for a plea today.
Rather, a preliminary hearing scheduling will be made. The judge in this case is the honorable Charles M. Hart. Judge Hart's next docket for that purpose would be June 15 at 2:30. Defendant must personally participate fully in Judge Hart's docket at that time. June 15, 2:30 p.m. Judge Hart's court. Mr. Ariano has appeared as retained counsel for the defendant at this point. This court based on earlier commentary by Mr. Araniano that he very well may be retained counsel in this case. So at this point the court will not consider uh the appointment of counsel uh pending uh proper retention of Mr. Araniano as attorney in the case. And I trust that June 15 date reconciled with your calendar, Mr. Arano.
>> We will make it work, your honor.
>> Thank you.
Mr. Regger, formal recommendation regarding bond here.
>> Yes, your honor. State would be recommending 10,000 cash assurity subject to all standard conditions. Any other orders the court may dee appropriate including that the defendant shall not use internet during the pendency of this case. Um besides the nature of these charges, this does appear to be a presumptive prison case as counts five one and two are all level three person felonies on the information.
>> Mr. Mariano, do you have any other remarks for the court regarding Bond?
>> Very briefly, I would just share with you that he has no prior criminal history. He lives with his parents. His parents are watching via Zoom or via YouTube right now. Um, and he is employed.
>> All right. Um, Jay, where does he work, Mr. Ariana?
>> It was a manufacturing company. I forget the name of it.
>> All right. And his parents live in what city?
>> They're here in Cedric County.
>> All right. Very well. This court will set bond in this case at $10,000. Cash or professional shy required. The defendant has uh standard bond conditions but including he shall not leave the state of Kansas without prior court permission and he shall not use the internet. For now, Mr. Specs, uh, you forfeited your internet privileges, you might say. So, no use of the internet and may not leave the state of Kansas, similar to some of the other orders the court has made on these cases today. All right. With those matters handled, Mr. Gear, is there anything else that you believe the court needs to specifically address regarding Mr. Specsar?
>> Not at this time, your honor.
>> Mr. Araniano, anything further from you at this time?
>> Nothing on behalf of the defense. Thank you, your honor.
>> Did want to ask just only because of his youthful appearance. Uh, Mr. Specsarth, how old are you right now?
>> I am 23.
>> All right. Thank you. I appreciate you answering that question. If there's nothing further, then the Specsarth matter is currently in recess. I can release you from the meeting at this time. Mr. Ariana, >> thank you for taking us up. Judge >> Skyler Far Farhoff.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. This is State of Kansas versus Skyler Brandon Farha. Case number 2026 CR 155. Jared Rege appears for the state. Mr. Farha from the jail Zoom location. Mr. Farha, I have a charging document before me that alleges in count one, possession of fentanyl, a level five drug felony. Count two, possession of methamphetamine, a level five drug felony. Count three, possession of paraphernalia for use, class B misdemeanor. Since felonies are involved, Mr. Farha, you will not be asked to plead at this time. Rather, a preliminary hearing scheduling will be made before your assigned judge, which is this court. This board's next docket for that purpose would be June 22nd, 2026 at 2:30 p.m. You are ordered to appear at the Butler County Judicial Center in Elorado, Kansas for that court date.
>> June 22nd, 2:30 p.m. Mr. Farha, were you working prior to this arrest?
>> Yes.
>> Where were you working?
>> Um, my family's company for refrigeration.
>> How much money do you make in that job?
Oh, 40,000 a year. 3,000.
>> Can you afford to hire your own lawyer then?
>> No, not right now.
>> Why is that? I >> don't have any money to I don't I worked for a little bit. So, no, I can't.
>> I'm going to make a finding of partial indigency and I will appoint James Watts to represent this defendant.
>> Thank you.
>> He'll be representing you at your next hearing which I've established for June 22nd at 2:30. recommendation regarding an appropriate bond for this defendant.
Mr. Regger.
>> Yes, your honor. Um, at this time, the state would recommend um $4,000 cash or shy subject to all standing conditions that the court may deem appropriate. The this is case where we're pursuing page one of the affidavit. Law enforcement is alleged to observe multiple signs of impairment about the about the defendant as well as retrieving aluminum foil, a cut straw, a a pipe in box containing residue and and other plastic baggies containing a white substance from the vehicle. Furthermore, this is a defendant with a history of prior convictions, all misdemeanor, non-drug related by the state's understanding.
Although it would appear this defendant um also has a pending case out of Marian County with multiple misdemeanors including at least one interference with law enforcement charge within the last 6 months.
>> Where do you live, Mr. Farha?
>> Witchaw, Kansas.
>> Court will set bond in this case at $4,000 as recommended. Cash or professional shy required. Standard conditions apply. No alcohol or illegal drugs either in possession or use. Mr. Farha.
>> Yes. You must appear personally for all scheduled court dates, including this court's next date, which I've I won this for the third time. It's June 22nd at 2:30. And I hope you got that written down for you, Mr. Far.
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> Get that on all your calendars. Right.
All right. Mr. Regger, anything further we need to address regarding Skyler Farha at this time?
>> Not from the state, your honor.
>> Farha, anything further? Very well, then. The Farha matter will currently be in recess. We'll move on to another matter. You Darcy Mundai.
>> Yes.
>> Mundai. I This is state of Kansas versus Darcy Mundai. It is case number 26CR 158 with Jared Rear appearing for the state.
Mr. Mundai appearing from the jail zoom location. Court will inform the defendant that he's charged in count one with attempted aggravated human trafficking, a level three person felony. Count two, electronic solicitation, a level three person felony. Count three, attempted commercial sexual exploitation of a child, a level six person felony. Count four, attempted indecent solicitation of a child, a level eight person felony.
And count five, attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child, a level three person felony. Mundai, you will not be asked to plead at this time.
Rather, a preliminary hearing scheduling will be made before your assigned judge, which is the honorable Jan Sderfield.
Judge Satderfield's next docket for that purpose would be June 29, 2026, 2:30 p.m. You must fully participate in Judge Satderfield's docket at that time.
June 29, 2:30 p.m. Where do you live, Mr. Mundai?
>> Uh, are you a body center?
>> If you're able to make bond, which we haven't set yet, Mr. Mundai, but I'm going to require you at this next court appearance to be at the Butler County Judicial Center in Elorado, Kansas for court. Okay. County Judicial Center, El Dorado, Kansas for your next court date.
No other location. All right. What's the uh uh income that you currently have, Mr. Mundai?
>> My income?
>> Yes.
>> As in full-time work?
>> Yes, I presume. If you're working full-time, what job do you have that you work full-time? Uh warehouse.
>> Okay. At what warehouse? There are a lot of warehouses.
>> Amazon.
>> Oh, I see.
How much money do you make at that job?
>> So, it's almost about 20 an hour, something like that.
>> Can you afford to hire your own lawyer then?
>> I'm I'm not sure.
>> Well, I'm not sure either. Do you have other dependents that you support?
Child, wife?
>> Uh they're quite serious. Um, I don't want you unrepresented at any future stage, Mr. Mundai. I'm going to find you are at least partially indigent and probably cannot come up with a retainer for a court uh a retained lawyer. I'm going to appoint Jay Houston Bales as your attorney. So, Mr. Bales is appointed as the defendant's lawyer and we've got his court date set before Judge Satderfield. Let's deal next with the issue of his bond. What is the recommendation for this individual, Mr. >> Regard? $10,000 cash assured your honor subject to all standard conditions, including the defense shall refrain from internet use during the pendency of this case, as this case does involve multiple class 3 felonies. This would appear to be a presumptive prison case.
Additionally, pursuant to par paragraphs 8 through 10 of the affidavit, um it is alleged that law enforcement um did obtain um multiple pieces of communication where then the defendant alleged to have agreed to pick up a a minor sex worker but needed to buy contraception and multiple items of evidence as well, including the alleged contraception were retrieved from the defendant's vehicle.
>> Court will set Mr. from Mundakai's bond at $10,000 cash or professional shy required. He's not to leave the state of Kansas without uh specific prior court permission. And he's not to use the internet for any purpose as a condition of his bond.
Obviously, he also must appear for all scheduled court dates, including the next one that the court has established with Judge Satderfield, June 29 at 2:30 p.m. And he is to appear at the Butler County Judicial Center in Elorado and no other location. Mundai, do you have any questions about what we've done here?
>> Uh, I just don't understand all the charges, that's all. If someone can just explain, maybe I guess I'll ask my lawyer for one.
>> I've read your charges to you, Mr. Mandai. I think full explanation of those charges need to be done by your lawyer, especially in relation to to you in particular. And that's why the court wants you to have an attorney so that you can get those explanations that you desire. Okay?
>> I can only tell you that these charges are very serious. So, you should only be discussing your case with your lawyer and no one else. All right? If there's nothing further, then the Darcy Mundai matter is in recess at this time. We'll move on to another case. Billia Klene.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. This is State of Kansas versus Billia Lorraine Klene. Case number 2026 CR157.
Jared Regger appears for the state of Kansas. Defendant Klein appears from the detention facility Zoom location. Miss Klein. Uh I have a charging document before me that alleges in count one criminal threat a level 9 person felony.
Count two, theft, a class A non-person misdemeanor. Since a felony is involved, you will not be asked to plead at this time. Rather, preliminary hearing scheduling will be made before your assigned judge, which is this court.
This court's next docket for that purpose would be June 22nd, 2026, 2:30 p.m. You must fully participate in this court's docket at that time. Where do you live, Miss Klein?
>> I live here in Elorado. I'm going to require you at your next court date to appear at the Butler County Judicial Center in Elorado, Kansas or from jail if the case as the case may be and no other location. So if you're on bond, you come to the judicial center for court at your next court which would be again June 22nd, 230. Recommendation regarding a bond here for this individual, Mr. Regger?
>> Yes, your honor. Besides all standard conditions, including no contact with any alleged victims or endorsed witnesses, the state would be recommending $5,000 cash or shy. States information is this a defendant with at least one prior conviction for misdemeanor theft. And it is also appeared to be alleged in pages one and two of the affidavit that the defendant admitted to driving a vehicle while an accomplice was taking tires off the victim's vehicle as well as admit as well as admitting to law enforcement to threaten to use a knife to stab the victim. And it would also appear that law enforcement allegedly did specifically retrieve multiple power tools from inside the vehicle that the defendant was driving. this point, would the state's evidence appear to indicate that Miss Klein was the one that actually communicated this threat or the individual that was taking the tires?
>> Your honor, the state's information and evidence would be that it was the defendant in this matter who communicated the threat.
>> Well, I just want to clarify that point.
All right.
>> It was a misunderstanding, your honor.
I'm really sorry. I need >> a lot of these criminal cases are >> misunderstandings, Miss Klein.
I have >> sometimes just a misunderstanding of what's legal and what isn't. But at this point, you have a presumption of innocence. Okay. Then another court date along the way, but I I I think of the circumstances is communicated by the prosecuting attorney. The court will adopt the recommendation and set bond at $5,000 cash or professional shity required. You're not to leave the state of Kansas for any reason unless you have specific court permission to do so, Miss Klein. No alcohol or illegal drugs appear as scheduled for all court dates.
And you're to have no contact or communication with the alleged victim, Alan Garcia.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Also, you're to have no contact or communication with any alleged codefendant. Do we have a name, Mr. Bear?
>> One moment, your honor. Your honor, the endorse witnesses list on page two of the information appears to refer to an individual one, Aaron Brewer.
>> All right. Thank you. You're have no contact or communication that individual, Miss Klein. All right, Miss Klein. Anything else we need to address here?
>> No, there's no way for me to get any lower of a bond.
>> Not from this court. Not today. [snorts] >> Okay.
>> And forgive me, your honor, if I misheard. I apologize. Is the court taking up the issue of counsel at this time?
>> I am.
>> Thank you.
>> Miss Klein, can you afford to hire a lawyer?
>> No.
>> Were you working prior to this incident and arrested? No.
>> So, how do you financially survive without a job?
>> I just recently lost my job at Casey's.
>> All right. I think uh court has enough information to make a finding of agency here. Uh and the court will appoint a lawyer to represent her. Has the codefendant come before the court? Mr. Regger, to your knowledge?
>> One moment, your honor.
>> I just want to make sure that I'm not setting up a conflict situation for appointed counsel.
>> Who are you? In so far as I can determine, your honor, it would appear not at this time.
>> Very well. Court will appoint James Watts to represent Miss Klene. I think that concludes the business in the Klein matter at this time and we'll move on to another case.
>> Very good, your honor.
>> I think that's all of the in custody cases. I do know I have uh a Brian Styles on the docket. So, if you join fully, Mr. Styles and I trust the individual on the what appears to be a Brian Styles box to be indeed Brian Styles.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. This is State of Kansas versus Brian E. Styles. It's case number 2025 CR126.
Mr. Styles appears on his own Zoom.
Jared appears for the state of Kansas.
Court has before it a request for revocation of community corrections assignment submitted by Teresa Stanfeld from the community corrections department. It alleges the defendant has failed to report, failed to pay, never provided verification of employment, tested positive for methamphetamine and empmphetamine and marijuana, and discharged administratively due to non-compliance in 120 Senate Bill 123 treatment at seventh direction. Further hearing will need to be established before the sentencing judge regarding these allegations. Mr. Styles. All right.
>> This is Judge Crumb's case.
Judge Crum's next docket for that purpose would be June 12, 2026, 2:30 p.m., June 12th, 2:30 p.m. Judge Crumb's court. Mr. Styles, you are ordered as a condition of your bond to appear at the Buffer County Judicial Center in Elorado, Kansas, and no other location for the next appearance. Again, you have to be at the judicial center and participate from there.
>> Okay. further year to report as your community corrections officer directs between now and that court date. Do you have an appointment already set, Mr. Styles?
>> No, I do not.
>> They will contact Miss Stanfeld and follow her directions regarding uh reporting between now and the time of your court date. I do see that pursuant to the warrant that issued for your arrest, you posted bond to AAA Butler County bail bonds in the amount of $7,500. Court will approve that bond and maintain Mr. Styles under it pending further proceedings with the additional conditions which the court has announced. Mr. Styles, can you afford to hire a lawyer to represent you on this?
>> No, I cannot.
>> Are you working currently?
>> No.
>> I think as a condition of probation you're supposed to, right?
>> I was looking for a job.
>> So, how are you financially surviving currently? Do you >> I currently live with my dad.
the court will reappoint a lawyer to represent Mr. Styles in your honor.
>> Yes.
>> I don't know if this has any bearing on the court's consideration day, but this does appear to be a case um a defendant who has two other pending Butler County cases, 24CR 525 and 24CR 518. It would appear there was a first appearance on a request for revocation in both those cases approxim within the last week and the state's information is that judge district judge Sville did appoint Mr. Watts to both those matters.
>> Is that consistent with your understanding Mr. Styles that Mr. Watts has been appointed to represent you on those other cases?
>> Yes.
>> Court will appoint Mr. Watts on this one as well. Thank you for that information Mr. Reier.
>> Your honor.
>> So James Watts is appointed. The court has approved the $7,500 AAA Butler County bail bond with the additional conditions that he report to his community corrections officer as she directs between now and time of court and appears in person for his uh warrant to show cause hearing at the Butler County Judicial Center in Elo. Any questions about any of that, Mr. Styles?
>> No.
>> Okay. Anything further we need to address on Brian Styles? Mr. Reir, >> not from the state, your honor.
>> Okay, Styles, appreciate your patience as you as we work through the jail cases here on this docket. I can release you from the meeting at this time to call Teresa Stanfill and get an appointment set up with.
>> All right. Thank you, Judge.
>> Okay. Styles matters in recess. Mr. appears to be the last case that was uh listed to be on this docket here this afternoon. Do you agree?
>> I would, your honor.
>> All right. There's nothing further than that concludes the Butler County, Kansas first
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
