Ex-Girlfriend Gets HUMILIATED In Court As Judge Exposes Her Stalking Lies

本站添加: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]All right, good morning. We're going to start with the circus civil docket call followed by the uh chantry docket at 10:30. First case on the docket is Enray Miriam Lawson. A motion to add approved bonding agent to the list of approved agents. And this is Mr. Aerson's case.

[00:00:15]All right. Next case will be Kimberly Bryant versus James D. Roberts 2024 CV61.

[00:00:23]Good morning. It's a motion to wave mediation. I'll hear your motion.

[00:00:27]>> Okay. Your honor, on the motion uh pursuant to row 37, the motion to compel uh the motion itself was kind of lengthy. I've never done one like that before where it says where has this happened? Where has this happened? But just wanted to let the court know that there's been about 13 attempts to uh for the defendant to respond to discovery.

[00:00:47]By the way, I put I attribute none of the delays whatsoever uh to adverse counsel here. I think Mr. Potter's done everything he can with a perhaps a difficult client. Bottom line is there was four items that we had requested as late filed exhibits during our deposition over nine months ago and promises were constantly made to produce those documents and they never were. Um Mr. Potter suggested which is wise uh that we just go ahead and file a formal uh motion to discover. So we did that and still there was no response. Mr. Roberts still refused to respond to it.

[00:01:21]So then we had to file our rule 37 motion which is why we're here today.

[00:01:24]Now, I will say this. On Friday afternoon, there was emailed to me a partial uh response to my request to produce. The uh first two items that were requested be that produced were produced. The last two were not. Uh the response states that uh these are not in my possession. However, nine months ago when I took his deposition under oath, Mr. Roberts told me that they were. they were in a barn uh in a shipping container there on his farm and uh so I don't know why in 9 months all of a sudden they're no longer available but our our position is that even if he had supplied all of it this late date the fact that he's made us go through 13 attempts to get it and drag this thing out for 9 months and my client's entitled to her attorney fees if the position that's being taken by the defendant is I cannot produce what I do not have which I presume is the position on the last two items, then I guess I'm stuck with that. But, um, it is our position that my client should be awarded her attorney fees from this. And I did prepare an affidavit and my new parallegal was supposed to made three copies. She made none, but I do have an affidavit uh to the effect as to what that would be, your honor. But while I'm up here, uh, the motion also to wave mediation. And I had called the circuit court clerk's office to try to get possible trial dates in this case and was told to look at rule 306 of the local rules which says you have to go to mediation first. But the last sentence of rule 306 says that can be waved by permission of the court. So I filed a motion with the court saying I don't think this is a case I've been doing this for over 53 years your honor. I'm old as dirt and uh just I don't see this case ever resolving itself in mediation or otherwise. This case needs a trial.

[00:03:13]So, I'm asking that the court uh put down an order allow if the parties later decide to go to mediation is one thing, but to make it mandatory here, I just don't think it's productive, your honor.

[00:03:24]We're asking for a waiver of that and a trial date. Thank you, your honor.

[00:03:27]>> Mr. Potter, >> this case uh we were late to this case.

[00:03:31]First, the defendant, Mr. Roberts, was prosay. He did that for a while and then we entered an appearance. There have been some amended pleadings in the case.

[00:03:40]Parties have now been deposed. We've taken at least one third party witness's deposition in the case. Um during my client's deposition in August, uh he was requested to submit certain late filed exhibits.

[00:03:55]Two of the exhibits that have not been produced. We offered an objection to those exhibits. That should be noted in the deposition transcript. But the late filed exhibits u you know there is no rule on late filed exhibits. I did suggest to Mr. Vaughn at some point in time that he submit to me a formal request for discovery which he did and there are only four requests in that discovery. On Friday we answered the first two of those requests. Uh we obtained those from our client. The first one was uh he wanted a copy of proof where a retainer check had been paid to my client. Uh again my client is an attorney and this is a legal malpractice case. So he wanted a copy of a retainer check that had been paid to my client. Uh we have produced where it had been deposited. We produced that. He also wanted an itemization of where the retainer had been paid uh or had been build against by my client.

[00:04:56]We have now produced that. So he has those two items and but items three and four we do not have nor do I think they're relevant to this lawsuit. So that'll be fought about on a different date. but he wanted number three, a copy of a chancellor's ruling where my client was allegedly deemed to have an ethical violation years ago. We objected to that at the deposition, but then we said in our response to number three that we don't have that in our possession, custody, or control. My client has done a diligent search for that. He no longer has a copy of any of those records, but that is a document that if Mr. on wants, he could obtain it directly from the chancery court uh in Davidson County that made a ruling on that case. Uh and number four, he wanted a copy of the Supreme Court opinion concerning any apheraid ethic charges. Again, we objected to that on the record at the time of his deposition. I do not think it's relevant to this lawsuit, but um my client has done a diligent search and he no longer has a copy of any such record or opinion from the Supreme Court. He just doesn't >> talking about the Tennessee Supreme Court.

[00:06:05]>> Yes, sir. And so, Mr. Vaughn again should be able to obtain that directly.

[00:06:09]If it's a public record, he should be able to get that. So, we just don't have it a copy of our own to give him. So, um, I would say that while Mr. Vaughn has stated in his motion that there's been some respondence back and forth, there's been some email traffic between the lawyers, there always is, um, he submitted this formal request and not long after, almost immediately after the 30-day period for the formal request being submitted, he filed this motion for sanctions with the court. I do not think that attorneys fees are warranted.

[00:06:43]And I know that he's going to make an argument, well, I'm in East Tennessee.

[00:06:47]But this case should not, with all due respect, be treated any differently than if Mr. Bond lived 8 miles from the courthouse. And this is just, in my opinion, not an appropriate case for any type of sanction or fees against Mr. Roberts. He has the documents that we now have in our possession. The other motion that he has before the court is a motion to wave mediation in this case.

[00:07:08]We're not done with discovery in this case. I have a deposition scheduled of a uh previous lawyer of Mr. Vaughn's client that's going to be taken I think in June. I'm not sure if there's going to be any other depositions taken or not in the case. Um but we haven't had any serious settlement discussions. Mr. Vaughn sent me an email making asking me an inquiry if my client would be willing to pay a certain amount and I didn't it was an exorbitant amount. I didn't respond to that. But so we haven't had any real inquiries or any real discussions about settlement in this case and I do not think that waving mediation is appropriate in this case. I certainly don't think that it's a ripe request at this time. Thank you. I've got a copy if your honor would like for you to make your decision. I'll go ahead and give that to you. This is a copy of what was sent to him on Friday. So you have a copy to help you with your decision. Thank you.

[00:08:08]>> You have a response. turn the microphone on there at the table.

[00:08:11]>> Council pointed out that almost immediately after the 30 days had run from the filing of the request reduction of documents that we filed our motion to compel. But I might point out it was 52 days after that that they finally did respond. So whether I filed it the day after the 30 days or 20 days after whatever it took them 52 more days to respond. That's all your honor.

[00:08:33]>> Well, the um the issue that apparently is before the court is having to do with the alleged failure of Mr. Roberts and uh to respond appropriately to the discovery request and looking at the request for production of documents.

[00:08:50]Number one, I agree that there's no specific uh rule that says that a request made at a deposition for a late filed exhibit absent a motion to compel that with the court and and uh having a court order go down that that affirms document should be produced as a late filed exhibit. Otherwise, it's just an informal request that's made during the deposition. Uh I'm not aware of any rule of discovery that provides that a late filed exhibit to a deposition carries the same weight as a rule of uh discovery under the rules of civil procedure. Then court will look at in other words I can't really consider the 13 attempts that that Mr. on references made as far as an informal uh request, but the discovery request that was actually formally made pursuant to the rules uh according to the answers that have been propounded by Mr. Potter and submitted to the court do request four things as Mr. Potter pointed out. There was a response made to number one and number two and in number three the uh request was made a copy of the chancellor's ruling concerning an ethical violation brought against the defendant and the defendant simply says he does not have the requested document in his possession custody or control paragraph or number four. This was a copy of the Supreme Court opinion concerning the enforce ethics charges.

[00:10:17]And again, the defendant does not have the request to documented his possession or control of custody. And I frankly have to agree that a copy of a chancellor's ruling of an ethical violation against the defendant is available readily through the court records. It's also available, if I recall correctly, and under certain online records that are provided through either the Tennessee Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts as well as the uh Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility that could be obtained without any problem. A copy of the Supreme Court opinion uh regarding the ethics charges would be available online to any person that seeks to do it. And if Mr. um Roberts does not have those matters in his possession or under his control.

[00:11:06]He has no more control over them according to this and there's no proof before the court that he has the items in his possession is simply refusing to provide them. So, as to the motion to compel a motion pursuant to uh rule 37, this court does not find that there has been sufficient proof before the court that would warrant um an order finding that the defendant has failed to comply with the discovery rules. Um and as a result of that, the motion for relief under rule 37 is respectfully denied. In addition to that, the motion to wave mediation is set a trial date. Uh this court has a very limited we rotate in every four months and there's four judges and we come in one after the other on a rotating basis because we are actually circuit writing judges. As a result of that we have very limited trial dates available right now. I think the last case I set was in 2027 latter part of 2027.

[00:12:06]And uh because of that nature, I think we have a rule that we don't set a trial date until all discovery has been completed. The old rule was that you had to file a certificate of readiness.

[00:12:18]But in any event, I don't find that it is appropriate at this point to wave mediation on the set of trial date simply because there's still ongoing discovery. And as a result, until that case is ready to be tried, I'm not going to make any ruling on the request to wave the mediation, but uh often times it is waved. If parties have exhausted their um discussions and have been unsuccessful and both sides agree it's unlikely a mediation is going to be beneficial, then I will wave it at that point in time. But at this point, it seems premature. So, I'll simply pass your motion to wave mediation rather than rule on it until such time as discovery has been more fully completed.

[00:13:02]That is the ruling of the court. Thank you, Potter. filing as an exhibit to this. Your answers to the third set of requests for production. Next case is 2024 CD64 st I'm sorry Carolyn Barrow versus Haley White.

[00:13:18]>> Good morning.

[00:13:18]>> Chris Coin with the Davidson County Bar.

[00:13:20]This is my motion to withdraw, your honor. Um I've been unable to reach my client in over a year since March 2025.

[00:13:29]Tried phone calls, texts, emails, regular mail, tried her employer. um just cannot get return contact to obituaries. Thankfully, there's nothing there, but we've had no contact and just unable to continue pushing our case along. The name defendants and the um um carrier have responded with no opposition. One has requested, I think, 45 days for plaintiffs to find new council. The other has requested 30 days. I prepared an order and left that blank for your honor to fill in.

[00:13:59]>> All right. And the one who's requesting 45 days is the uninsured motors.

[00:14:05]On behalf of the defendants, we're requesting 45 days um to allow plaintiff to obtain counsel within a decent amount of time.

[00:14:12]>> We'll give her 45 days since you're not in opposition. That's your suggestion.

[00:14:16]So, all right. Your motion withdraw is granted.

[00:14:18]>> Thank you, your honor.

[00:14:19]>> I've filled in 45 days on the blank.

[00:14:22]>> Would you like me to take that down to the clerk's office?

[00:14:24]>> Well, the clerk sitting right here if you want to take it. We'll let them make that decision. So, >> thank you, your honor.

[00:14:31]>> All right. All right. Next case is Camille Brooks versus Jimmy Hill doing business as JDH Home Solutions. Good morning.

[00:14:40]>> This is our motion. I represent Miss Camila Brooks. We have received some handwritten responses to the interrogatories. It's my understanding that later today um they will be producing documents um that they had to make copies of. At this point, we would ask to pass our motion to any issues that come up.

[00:15:00]>> Mr. Holly, you represent the defendant.

[00:15:01]>> I do. Please, the court judge got me the answers today. Got a copy of all the answers and he brought all the production documents in. So, I'm going to take that with me. Get copies made.

[00:15:12]>> All right. Then we'll just pass your motion to compel. Thank you.

[00:15:15]>> Thank you, judge.

[00:15:16]>> 2025 CV68. Jennifer Turlei as parent for minor Brantley Martin Edal. Jennifer.

[00:15:23]Uh, so a motion for approval of a minor settlement. Good morning.

[00:15:27]>> Two different minors. Um, both her sons that we're here about. U Brantley Martin and Brian Leadford. Um, they were riding in the car with their mother on August 19th, 2024 when a vehicle failed to stop at a stop sign and pulled out in front of them and they t-boned. Um, the minor petitioner, Brantley Martin, he received $8,22.78 in medical care and they were able to settle with State Farm for $11,468.

[00:15:57]Uh, the M Brian Leadford had $21,33.72 in medical expenses and they were able to settle his case for $24,585.

[00:16:08]We are asking that for Brantley Martin, the court pay $6,15.60 from the funds deposited into this court and into an interestbearing account to be held in trust for Brantley.

[00:16:20]We would pay $4,587.20 to Pony Law for the 40% contingency fee and $655.20 20 cents to Ponty Law for case expenses with a remaining $120 for the funds deposited to Wellpoint for their subregation lean incurred. And then for Brian Leadford, we're asking that $13,9755 from those funds be deposited into an interestbearing account with this court to be held in trust for Bartley Brantley, sorry. uh $9,834 to go to Pony Law for our 40% contingency fee, $662.51 to cover case expenses, and $112.94 to Wellpoint to cover the subregation.

[00:17:06]If your honor would like to swear in, Mr. Lucky, I do have a few questions for her.

[00:17:09]>> Mr. Leki, if you'll raise your right hand, let the clerk place you on the roof, please. You'll step in front of the microphone, please.

[00:17:15]>> Morning, Mr. Leki. Are you Jennifer Turlei?

[00:17:18]>> Yes. And are you the parent or legal guardian of Brantley and Brian?

[00:17:21]>> Yes.

[00:17:22]>> Do you understand the terms of the settlement I've just presented to the court?

[00:17:25]>> Yes.

[00:17:26]>> And you understand that in exchange for the settlement money being paid by the defendants. This will settle your children's case, full and final, and you cannot bring any further claims?

[00:17:34]>> Yes.

[00:17:35]>> And you understand that you don't have to settle your case, you have the right to go to trial if you do not wish to accept the settlement?

[00:17:40]>> Yes.

[00:17:41]>> Do you agree that this settlement is in the best interest of your children? And are you asking the court to approve?

[00:17:46]>> Yes.

[00:17:47]>> Mr. Lucky there's an old judge. I understand this the circumstances and you've got two young boys who are injured and you're settling the case. Do you understand that this is going to cut you off from any further opportunity to pursue any sort of damages in this case?

[00:18:01]>> Yes.

[00:18:01]>> And you understand that this is going to be a final and full settlement of all claims that you may have as about your uh injury to your two boys. Now, do you understand that this may not be as much money as you would like to receive, but that this is going to cut it off and you're not going to be able to get any more out of it. And the other option, as was pointed out by council, is is that you have the right to say, "Well, I don't like this settlement. I'm going to take it to trial and uh see what a jury says about what happened in your case."

[00:18:30]Do you understand that? Well, one of our old judges that used to practice I used to practice in front of, Alan Wallace, used to say, "There's three things you can never be sure of. One is who a woman will marry. Two is how much a mule will pull downhill. And three is what a jury will do. And my experience both as a lawyer and as a judge is that that's absolutely accurate. You never know what a jury is going to do in a case. Cases that I've seen that were open and shut and appeared to be no question. Came back with a verdict that uh I puzzled about and scratched my head about because I didn't understand how they reached that decision. So by hedging your bets and settling this case, you're waving the question about whether or not you're going to get anything and you're going to ensure that your boys are getting something. So is that what you want to do in this case and you understand these funds are going to be distributed according to what been set out in the motion as well as what your lawyer has said? May not be the best settlement that you can get, but do you believe it's the only thing that's in your cl in your uh children's best interest? All right. And in view of that, I will approve this.

[00:19:37]>> And I have a copy of the order for your >> All right. 2025 CV 119, Jacob Edward Hodgej versus Linda Eileen Ratliff.

[00:19:45]>> Good morning, your honor.

[00:19:45]>> Good morning. This is an appeal from the General Sessions Court. It's my understanding that um Hold on just a second. This is an appeal from an order of protection. Is that correct?

[00:19:55]>> Yes, your honor. Well, by rule, I am required to consider that and to have a hearing on that within as quickly as possible once it's been appealed. Uh, you and Mr. Ratliff, is that correct?

[00:20:08]Mr. Ratliff, do you still wish to pursue this order of protection? All right, then. Have a seat. We'll take you up after I've concluded what I have to do with my other cases. So, we'll have the hearing today.

[00:20:18]>> Thank you.

[00:20:19]>> 2025 CB127, Devonte Thompson versus Carlos Lopez Castillo. Morning, your honor. This is Preston Hawkins with Lewis Thomasson Law Firm in Knoxville.

[00:20:30]And uh I'm calling or I'm zooming in here from Lebanon, Tennessee. Uh I got double booked this morning with Judge Collins. And quite frankly, I'm a little embarrassed being from East Tennessee. I did not realize how far apart Lebanon and Charlotte, Tennessee were.

[00:20:46]>> As busy as traffic was, it it takes you a while.

[00:20:49]Well, your your assistant, Jennifer, was kind enough to send me the Zoom link, and I really appreciate that. And I I don't believe, your honor, that I ever received a response uh to the motion. Um and um you know this is a situation where I think plaintist council withdrew and the new council um with the Spartan law group out of Atlanta. I forwarded him all of the information about our answer, our motion to dismiss and the notice of hearing back on April the 1st.

[00:21:18]Still received no response or anything.

[00:21:21]I also mailed this to the address that uh Miss Phillips provided for Mr. Thompson when she withdrew and we've we've just received no response and I'd like to submit an order if it would be appropriate.

[00:21:34]>> Devonte Thompson, he is not here to in opposition to your motion to dismiss.

[00:21:39]It's my understanding that this is one where he the uh defendant had rented a car from a nationwide rental or something like that.

[00:21:49]>> Yes, your honor. And I represent E Holdings. They have Enterprise National and uh Alamo. Well, the only thing that causes me any concern is in reading through the file, one of the allegations in the complaint was that the defendant was operating the motor vehicle within the course and scope of his employment and on the benefit.

[00:22:12]See if I he was in paragraph 15. upon information and belief at all times relevant. The defendant Castillo was within the course and scope of their employment with EIN Holdings LLC and was engaged in furtherance of the Eian Holdings business and was was the defendant a employee of Ian or was this reading your responses it appeared this is just an individual like me who rented a car and was driving the car and had an accident. Yes, your honor. And that that is that is very much the case. He was obviously not an employee of Ean Holdings. He was just a rental customer.

[00:22:48]And you know, we do find that because and just so your honor knows, I represent Ean Holdings all across the state of Tennessee. And one of the things that uh that some of the plaintist bar has has taken to doing because there's a federal statute that basically precludes liability against the rental car company for vicarious liability claims uh for the actions of their drivers. So, one of the things that they've tried to do is to to try to figure out, you know, an alternative way to get to vicarious liability, which would be either alleging that they're an employee or on the EN holdings business or sometimes they try to allege negligent entrustment. But, you know, he he certainly was not an employee of of of Enterprise or or EAN Holdings. And so, >> that's the way I took it. And so as a result of your motion to dismiss and no opposition from the defendant, Ian, your motion to dismiss will be granted. But that still lives Mr. Castillo as a defendant. Correct.

[00:23:47]>> Yes. Yes, your honor. It does.

[00:23:49]>> All right.

[00:23:49]>> This is not dispositive of the case.

[00:23:51]>> All right. If you will uh submit your order dismissing holdings, then I'll be glad to sign it. Just >> I will. And your honor, I did ask for attorney's fees, but I won't include that in the I won't include that in the order. We're just to be honest with you, we're just happy and pleased to be out of the case and we'll we'll let these folks figure things out uh in due course I guess for how the rest of their case will work out.

[00:24:14]>> All right. Thank you. Submit your order.

[00:24:16]>> Thank you, your honor. We'll do.

[00:24:18]>> Thank you. Be careful going back to Knoxville.

[00:24:21]>> Yes, your honor. Thank you. And I'm supposed to say hi to you on behalf of Mr. Paul Wit, Ben Jones, and Chris McCartney.

[00:24:27]>> Tell them I said hello back. So, >> all right. I will take care.

[00:24:30]>> All right. We're on page 4 2025 CV133.

[00:24:34]Teresa St. Clair individually and this is Nathan Suis's parent and exfriend motion to appear proh visa.

[00:24:41]>> Good morning your honor. Olivia Hester on behalf of the pliff and this is my motion.

[00:24:46]>> I don't believe there's any opposition to your motion. I've reviewed your file.

[00:24:49]So I will grant your request to appear coh.

[00:24:54]>> Thank you your honor.

[00:24:55]>> Whatever the correct pronunciation is.

[00:24:57]All right.

[00:24:58]>> Thank you judge. That concludes my business. Have a good day.

[00:25:01]>> Well, I wish I could say that concludes the uh circuit court docket, but there was apparently one case that got omitted. So, we'll take that up now.

[00:25:09]Kimberly Maiden Bryant versus James D.

[00:25:12]Uh, actually, I already dealt with that's the one I already dealt with. The case that I was referring to is Christina H. Talison, Paul M. Talison versus Dixon ear, nose, and throat. Pardon? All right. Thank you.

[00:25:28]You don't hear me say anything, you ask.

[00:25:30]I'll repeat it.

[00:25:31]>> Good morning, your honor. Good morning, >> Brick Dixon of the Nashville Bar. I represent the defendants in this matter and want to give you a very brief procedural history. This is a refiled case that was originally filed, had gone through some litigation. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed that case. They waited and they refiled it.

[00:25:51]>> Is this the case that it's not a case that Judge Ash has ever >> No, your honor.

[00:25:55]>> He had some others. He had at least two if not I had one he had two and I think this is the fourth one. So >> I think Judge Wallace at some point made an appearance in one.

[00:26:06]>> So it's been but no this is not one of those. The issue is that and I think that it's not disputed amongst any of the parties that once a case is refiled or excuse me once a case is dismissed any subsequent case must still comply with the healthcare liability acts requirements specifically presuit notice and that's set out in Tennessee code annotated 2926121.

[00:26:32]In this case, we received notice with that for the refiled case. With that notice came a medical authorization and that's one of the requirements of pre-suit notice to allow all the defendants to obtain records from every other defendant. The issue is that the pre-suit notice contained an authorization that specifically allowed the disclosure of psychotherapy notes.

[00:26:55]Now, the original case filing years ago did not have that authorization. The new case filing had a completely different authorization that now allowed disclosure of psychotherapy notes. So when you look at the regulations on HIPPA 164508, excuse me, B32 specifically states that a psychotherapy nodes authorization can only be combined with another authorization for psychotherapy notes.

[00:27:22]If you go further down the statute, excuse me, the regulation, you'll see that any violation of that section B3 means the entire authorization is invalid. So, what we have here before your honor is a refiled case with multiple defendants, Dr. Roth, his practice, and then an advanced diagnostic imaging. Now the problem is that the authorization does not allow the disclosure of records between the entities and the individual. As a result, um we moved for motion dismiss which is stated as required and uh litany of case laws is the way to deal with this kind of thing. Now this is also important to reference the case loss in v Knoxville dermatology. This tracks right along with the same issue that is that an employee i.e. Dr. Roth and a practice are separate. They have to have an authorization to allow disclosure between them. And I know that Mr. Canard will say, "Well, we've been through this. We they've seen the records. They've gone through everything. We we had experts on deck in the old case. That doesn't obiate the need to comply in the letter of the law in Tennessee as it relates to refiled cases. Um, I'll also note that Miss Tollison, who's the patient in this matter, she's survived. She's continuing on. Um, in addition, ADI, ADI is advanced diagnostics imaging. I know they've listed it as advanced diagnostics imaging doing business as Dixon ENT or Sinus and Allergy Clinic.

[00:28:57]Well, an issue here we also have is Advanced Diagnostic Imaging has, and your honor can take judicial notice if you'd like, the website has a litany of providers. they do business as many different types of providers. So, uh, in this situation, I think we have, um, we just don't have a HIPPA compliant authorization as required by 2926121 and that requires dismissal. Any questions? I'm happy to address them.

[00:29:22]>> No, I will tell you both that I was not aware this was even on the docket when when last week when last Friday when I reviewed my files for the day. So, I have not had an opportunity to fully review. I've glanced through what you filed and glanced through what Mr. Canard had responded to. So, I'm going to end up having to take this under advisement to really more fully review everything. So, >> sure.

[00:29:45]>> No problem. I appreciate you having us here today so we didn't waste a trip to Dixon County.

[00:29:50]>> She certainly can. There is an HDMI court up here. That's the extent of my knowledge.

[00:29:56]>> I'm going on someone teaching me that that's what you call it.

[00:30:00]>> Morning, your honor. to help the court.

[00:30:02]It's going to be uh a little tedious.

[00:30:04]This is not something you deal with every day. I know these authorization forms, but it's our position that the form is compliant. Let me take you through that. Our notice letter and the authorization form satisfy these requirements under the Code of Federal Regulations. Six core elements, three required statements. They're the six core elements. And by the way, your honor, I'm going to with your honor's permission, give you a copy of this, which may help you as you consider the whole file and all these issues.

[00:30:40]>> I'd say I need all the help I can get.

[00:30:43]>> This this puts it as simple as I can. So, it has the required statements in it. It's all good. Six core elements are here. The three required statements are here. And what the defense has done is read our form too narrowly. They looked and saw the underline in red right there. They saw that phrase psychotherapy notes and said, "Aha, have you and I got you moment. You you put that there."

[00:31:14]But they didn't read it in context and it's not a request for psychotherapy notes. Here's what it says.

[00:31:24]with the uh important information in red on the screen. Diagnostic information related to drug, alcohol and/or psychiatric psychiatric notes and psychological treatment. And under the code of federal regulations, diagnostic information is excluded. A request for medical records including any diagnostic information related to psychiatric psychotherapy notes is asking for information in the clinical record. So you've got psychotherap psychotherapy notes by some psychiatrist somewhere. If the information gets into the provider's file, it becomes part of the medical record of that person. Miss Thompson is essentially saying, "My life's an open book. Send whatever medical you record you have to each other." And that's what we said in the notice letter, the cover letter. This allows you to get complete medical records. A letter can narrow the scope of an authorization and it can bring down the extent of the authorization form. And all we ask for were medical records. We're not even asking for psychotherapy notes. So it should be their motion should be denied on that one ground that it is compliant.

[00:32:53]But let's go to the second information available in deciding a motion like this. The plaintiffs have substantially complied with what they're supposed to do. The purpose of this statute, your honor, is to allow defendants to get medical records from each other, evaluate their case, and see if they want to settle in the 60-day period before the lawsuit can be filed. That's what it's all about. And where's the prejudice to these defendants? There's zero. Why is that? This case was filed in 2021.

[00:33:29]We did big time discovery. Everybody had all the records. Each defendant had all the records from all the other defendants during that case. Miss Tollison never went back to this to these defendants for treatment. So all the treatment for her is in these records that they all already had. They already had every record and they exchanged them. They haven't been deprived of anything. I'd like to end this part of the argument by saying that last week before the Tennessee Supreme Court, Mr. Dixon's partner, Eric Miles, in a case that Mr. Dixon handled before trial court on a motion to dismiss. I want you to try to follow these facts.

[00:34:15]In the Buckner case, Mr. Dixon filed a motion to dismiss because the authorization form in that case attached to the complaint did not show that it was signed by the patient plaint.

[00:34:32]So one of the core elements was missing and he moved to dismiss. The trial court had the hearing and the judge said to the plaintiff, "What do you have to say?" And the plaintiff said, "Your honor, we sent a signed authorization form when we sent the notice out. My client's signature was on it. Somehow in my office, we didn't make a copy of that form. And what we put on the complaint was the form, just without her signature, but we did send signed forms to all these defendants." The judge said, "Mr. Texas. Did your client get a signed authorization form? He said, "Yes." And the Supreme Court last week asked Mr. Miles, "What is this about? You all actually had the form and you you moved to dismiss the case." And Mr. Miles said, "You know what, your honor? We raised this issue with a trial judge, and the plaintiff did not ask for any discovery to show prejudice." So, I don't know what the Supreme Court's going to do, but I have a feeling that case is not over. So, Mr. Miles said, "The plaintiff should have asked for discovery." So, what we're asking your honor today to do, even before you'd make your final decision, is to grant us an opportunity to take discovery to prove there's no prejudice beyond any reasonable doubt. You could rule on what you have right now, but out of an abundance of precaution, given the uh kind of need to appeal these things, I'd like to just put it all to rest permanently. If your honor would allow us to take just your honor, first I'm going to address all three of the arguments he made as briefly as I can. First, he says that the plaintiffs say the defendants's motion should be denied because they have actually complied respectfully and as set out in our motion. That's just not true. If you look at the regulations on HIPPA and the specifically Tennessee code annotated 2926121 says you must provide a HIPPA compliant medical authorization.

[00:36:45]When you look at what HIPPA says if you request psychotherapy notes along with medical records, that's an invalid authorization. So that's that's I can't say anything more than I'm reading what HIPPA says and that's not a valid authorization. Number two, and I I will say it they also say that they're not requesting psychotherapy notes. To me, this comes down to a little bit of who's interpreting this agreement or this authorization because it sounds to me like they're saying if they did request psychotherapy notes and they're acknowledging it would not be a valid authorization. We submit that it does request psychotherapy notes. It requests diagnosis things related to psychotherapy notes. I think that has to include psychotherapy notes.

[00:37:29]Next, I want to talk about the Buckner case. I do not agree with Mr. Canard's 5minute synopsis of a very complicated issue and a very complicated case. the transcript, the arguments will speak for themselves. But most importantly with that is in that situation there's al in Buckner there's allegations that there is a valid authorization out there somewhere that's just not part of the record. In this case we're not making that argument. We're saying this authorization that is in the record is not valid. Dr. Roth therefore could not utilize that authorization to have access to the records. And that's what this is about. This is about having access to records. You can have access at one point if you look at the original authorization with the original filing.

[00:38:14]It expired in approximately May 2022.

[00:38:17]The case was subsequently dismissed.

[00:38:19]He's lost access. They want to refile it. They give him access again. This again is set out in Lawson Voxville Dermatology. They're two separate.

[00:38:28]They're treated separately. He doesn't have custody and control as an individual. The practice maintains custody and control. I know this is very complicated. Um, but I would submit that even with discovery, it's going to show exactly what I'm telling your honor, that the same authorization in this record is the authorization that was set and received, and that authorization is just not valid. Thank you. Have to answer any other questions.

[00:38:51]>> Well, no, I don't. Thank you. As I pointed out, I have not had hands on this case or had an opportunity to review the pleadings. And I explained that I was going to have to take it under advisement to be able to review uh the documents. And it appears to me that what the defense argument is is that the law requires the reading of the medical authorization be hyper techchnical. You put that language in there, then that means it's an invalid authorization.

[00:39:20]Therefore, they haven't complied. and that your motion should be granted. Mr. Canard makes the argument that they have substantially complied and that there's no prejudice shown and wants an opportunity to explore by discovery whether or not there's actually any prejudice to the defendants in the case by this situation. So since I have to take it under advisement anyway in order to review these documents, I'm going to reset it for a final ruling on September the 1st. That's my next docket call here. During that interim four-month period, the parties will have the opportunity to engage in any discovery that Mr. Canard thinks would be appropriate on the issue of prejudice.

[00:40:02]And the issue is going to be regarding whether or not that uh authorization is should or should not be considered by the court as valid. And I will that'll give me a plenty of an opportunity to both review your arguments in the file as well as make my own research into the matter.

[00:40:18]And maybe the Supreme Court will have ruled on that case by the time we get to it.

[00:40:22]>> September 1st.

[00:40:23]>> Doubtful, but possible, I suppose.

[00:40:26]>> September 1st at 9:00 a.m.

[00:40:27]>> Understood. Thank you.

[00:40:28]>> Right. Thank you. All right. That concludes our circuit docket call matters. And I'm going to take a short recess before I take up that uh order of Ratliff versus Hodgej. We'll be in recess for about 15 minutes.

[00:40:46]last case on the circuit court docket.

[00:40:48]Linda Eileen Ratliff versus Jacob Edward Hodgej. You both come up, please. Right, Mr. Hodge, if you'll have a seat at that table, Miss uh Ratliff, this is a an appeal from General Sessions Court, which means it is what we call a trial denovo. And that simply means that even though you've been through this in general sessions court, you're going to have to reestablish and prove the reasons for or the basis for the issuance of an order of protection. So, you just need to start from the beginning as you did in general sessions court and let me know that. But I'm going to have you come and testify.

[00:41:21]We're going to need the witness stand.

[00:41:23]All right. Just move it over there if you will. While he's moving the microphone, if you'll raise your right hand, let the clerk place you on the roof. You solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this case to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Say, "Help your God." That working? Is it on? All right. Now, we're ready. All right. Mr. Ratliff, if you will please uh tell me what what the nature of your relationship was with Mr. Hodgej and why you feel that you need an order of protection.

[00:41:47]>> Good morning, your honor. Um so my name is Linda Ratliff. Um Mr. Hodgej and I were previously dating and we are not married. We were just dating in a relationship. Um which ended in October of 2024.

[00:42:01]So, I filed for the order of protection originally in October of 2025 after enduring about 12 months of harassment and stalking. And I do have the police reports that I filed along the way that align with this. Um, so I can kind walk you through the timeline of just everything within those 12 months and what led us here today. So, as I mentioned, the relationship ended at the end of October 2024 where I blocked Mr. Haj's number and all of his social media accounts and any accounts that I was aware of at the time. The first contact attempt came from him um in an email on October 31st, 2024. And that was initially what started all of this.

[00:42:46]Throughout November, there were other instances. Um, one of which where my TVs in my house were linked to his Alexa account still and he changed the screen savers on my TVs to old pictures of him and I. Um, he also created profiles and changed names of accounts on my streaming accounts that he still had passwords to. January fir or January 3rd, excuse me, of 2025 um was when I received the first text message from a number I did not recognize um and confirmed it was Mr. Hodgej. And at this point, I told him to stop contacting me. Other messages followed this. So, what was happening was as soon as I would block one number, he would create an account on a texting app and it would generate a new number that I did not have blocked at the time.

[00:43:40]And so I have various documentation here of text messages that I received all from numbers that I did not have blocked because I they were new numbers. Um after this I began receiving calls um that were no caller ID calls that were coming through. There was flower deliveries made to my house. I have documentation of these photos. I also have the original cards and also have communication with the florist confirming that they were from Mr. Hodgej. On January 28th, 2025, I received an email that from Mr. Hodgej that contained a screen recording of all of his attempts to text my phone number, which was blocked. I assume he was trying to see if he was still blocked.

[00:44:24]Um, but within the screen recording of all of these attempts, it appears to be in the hundreds of message attempts from him. Um, I also received a voicemail.

[00:44:33]even if you have a number that is blocked, you can apparently still receive voicemails from them. On January 30th, 2025, after this, he began making social media accounts to try to contact me that way. Uh I have documentation of this in February 10th of 2025.

[00:44:51]And at this point, I did file harassment charges. However, um since he lives in the state of Kentucky, I live in Tennessee, those um were very lengthy to process, uh they are now finalized, but it took a while throughout this for him to be notified of those.

[00:45:09]>> Let me interrupt you and ask this question. You say that the harassment charges are finalized.

[00:45:13]>> Yes, there is a court date, I believe, March 19th, pending harassment charges.

[00:45:20]>> In other words, you have a case where he has been charged with harassing you.

[00:45:24]>> Yes. And that case is still pending in court. Correct.

[00:45:28]>> No, there is no further court date for that.

[00:45:30]>> So what what is when you say it's finalized that means things to different people.

[00:45:34]>> Okay.

[00:45:35]>> What what happened in that harassment case?

[00:45:38]>> So as part of his release conditions, I believe is what it was called. He agreed to an order to not contact me.

[00:45:48]>> Okay. So, there's an order in that pending criminal case that redirects him not to have contact with >> Yes. correct.

[00:45:55]>> Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

[00:45:56]>> No, you're fine. Um, so on February 14th, so approximately 1 week after I had initially put the paperwork in for the harassment, he did come to my house.

[00:46:09]I do have camera footage of this. Um, he left flowers in a five-page letter at my house. I did not speak to him at this time. I was home though and as I said I have it documented through my cameras.

[00:46:21]After this in February I again have multiple instances where there were calls, social media accounts. He also attempted to contact me through reaching out through my family members. Um it did however be kind of become minimal compared to what it previously had been until October of 2025 at which point it escalated again. And at that point, I had received a text message with another screen recording of all of his text attempts to contact me. I have a voicemail from him documented on 1023.

[00:46:54]More flower deliveries on 10:28. And again, communication from the floor there confirming that they were from him. I have a text message on 10:29 where he refers to um trying to contact me and he says other than stopping by unannounced, I don't know what else to do. Um implying that he was implying that he was considering stopping by my house unannounced. And then on October 30th of 2025, he made a social media post. It was an old picture of him and I. and the caption was, "I wish you knew how far I would go just to get a reply."

[00:47:31]So, with this happening in October 2025, and again, having no contact with him since when I told him to stop contact me on January 3rd, this was when I filed for the order of protection. I was really afraid that things would escalate. He would come to my house. And to be honest, I was just looking I'm looking for some peace and quiet here after all. He there was also some instances of erratic behavior throughout the relationship where he at one point showed up to my house with a firearm and spoke of having suicidal thoughts. So this combined with these messages I was just afraid of how things I'm sorry.

[00:48:11]>> When did that occur that he showed up to your house?

[00:48:13]>> Before several months before the relationship ended, it was um probably early 2024 I would say. But that is what led me to file for an order of protection.

[00:48:27]That I like I said I've had no contact with him. I he does have a son. I did see his son u twice actually during this time. So I initially just saw him at the mall. He was with um his nanny of sorts um at the mall that I was at and he asked me to watch a movie with him. They were going to the movie theater. I declined at the time and then later on the nanny reached out to me and said that Isa had asked to see me and asked if I would meet them for lunch. I had thought at the time that she had cleared this with Mr. Hodgej. Again, I had no contact with him. I later found out that she had not, but I did just want to mention that there I did have contact with his son during all of this happening, but I had not spoken to Mr. Hodgej.

[00:49:14]>> How old is the son?

[00:49:16]>> 13.

[00:49:17]>> Anything else? U no your honor I believe that concludes my statement >> and this is on this has been ongoing and you said you have proof that you wish to or substantiation of of some of these items. Is that correct?

[00:49:31]>> Yes, your honor. I have printed out here if you would like to look through them.

[00:49:34]>> All right, let's if you will hand that to the baiff and let the baleiff demonstrate that to Mr. Hodgej so that he can look at it before it's presented to me.

[00:49:42]>> Would you like the police reports as well? Police reports are not admissible as hearsay, but if there's documentation of what you say was his behavior, then uh we'll take a look at that and see what's admissible. I can't hear you.

[00:49:55]You're going to have to turn that microphone on just a second.

[00:49:58]>> These are in order, I believe, however she would like them. Can I take them out of order or flag them a certain way?

[00:50:03]>> No, just leave them as is. I'm just showing them to you so that you know what she is seeking to introduce.

[00:50:09]>> Thank you, M.

[00:50:10]>> Radiff, you have submitted some documentation. There is a card here from the Petals on the Bluff. Is that one of the cards that was on the flowers that was delivered?

[00:50:19]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:50:20]>> And it says, "You deserve them." Do you know of anyone else who would have sent those flowers to you?

[00:50:25]>> No, your honor.

[00:50:26]>> In this documentation that you have submitted, there are a number of of photos of no caller ID, missed calls, repetitive calls. Uh those are the calls you're referring to. his number or from him. As far as you know, >> the no caller IDs, yes, from him as far as I know. There are a few instances and they're documented where there were calls or voicemails from his work number and also his number via other apps like WhatsApp.

[00:50:54]>> Here is a text message that you have dated February the 4th of 2025 that says, "I am not asking you to talk to me. I'm not asking for you to reply.

[00:51:04]Just please unblock me. I have these thoughts running through my head all day, every day, and I need to let them out. You're the only person that understands me. I won't beg, but I also won't blow you up. There's a lot I need you you to hear. You don't have to reply. And that's from a 270262 3536. Is that his number?

[00:51:24]>> That is not his number. That would be one of the numbers he I believe acquired through an additional texting app. Then there's another again interspersed with these missed calls from an unknown from an unknown no caller ID. There's a transcription from Jake on January the 30th of 2025 that says, "I get it. I know I need to talk to you. I need your help, please." Is that from Mr. Hodgej?

[00:51:52]>> That would have been from his phone number. Yes. Um if you have a blocked phone number, you can still receive a voicemail. They just go into a separate folder, which is where that was located.

[00:52:01]>> And then here's one in January 25 that says, "Block me here if you want, but make a Tik Tok about me. I'm okay with that. I've deserved that. But I have so much I want to say to you. I don't want anything out of it. I don't want to be friends with you. I'm damn sure not helpful of ever figuring it out.

[00:52:18]However, I just keep running across the same [ __ ] and I can't deal with it anymore." is that then there's a number of unscent messages that were apparent.

[00:52:28]Were those block messages that show up on this?

[00:52:30]>> So I believe that is within an email from Mr. Hodge and he sent me that. So those are his attempts to send a text message to my number and then he unent that says please help me. Was that one that got through?

[00:52:47]>> That was No, I never received that. That was just one he didn't un send on his end.

[00:52:52]>> Here's another one that's uh February, I'm sorry, January 24th. It says, "I'm not okay. I know you want me to hurt. I understand, but I need your help, please." Then here are some that uh from January that basically says uh a series of conversations where you ask, "Who is this?" And then you say, he says, "Lastly, if you ever feel like unblocking me and talking, I think we both need that." You said, "I don't need that. stop contacting me. He says, "If that if this person says, if that's really what you want, I get it. I don't blame you. Take care of yourself. I'm proud of you always." Then again, a series of messages says, "Uh, it won't go away." And you say, "Sorry, who is this?" And then it says, "Every [ __ ] day I think it's going to feel better, but I can't go 10 minutes without sick effing feeling in my stomach." You ask again, "Who is this?" He says, "I hope you're okay. I see you're traveling. I know that at least makes you happy.

[00:53:48]That's all I want. So what? And then he goes on to say, "Lastly, if you ever feel like I'm blocking me and talking, I think we both need that." Did you have a period where you were traveling when he sent that message?

[00:53:59]>> Yes, I do travel a lot.

[00:54:00]>> And so that was an indication that he knew you were traveling. This is a picture of the screen saver that he had changed without your knowledge or consent.

[00:54:09]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:54:10]>> Show a picture of you and him together.

[00:54:12]>> Yes, that is on my bedroom TV in my house.

[00:54:15]>> Right.

[00:54:16]And had this continued up until the point where you obtained the order of protection in this case?

[00:54:22]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:54:23]>> That order of protection was issued by the general sessions court. Has that stopped the contact?

[00:54:28]>> Yes, it has.

[00:54:29]>> And you're asking for that to be extended for up to a year. Is that correct?

[00:54:34]>> I I would prefer that at this point. I would love for it to not be appealed and just be held for the at least the year it was originally in place for.

[00:54:43]>> This is the appeal. So today, if I issue an order, I can issue it for a period up to one year. And then within that one-year period, if you feel that there's a need, you can come back into court and seek to have that extended for an additional one-year period. And you can continue to do that as long as you feel that there is a substantiated need >> than in this case for the one year, your honor.

[00:55:07]>> All right. Well, I'm going to have these u documents marked as an exhibit to this hearing. Mark is collected.

[00:55:16]>> Now, anything else you want to tell me about the situation?

[00:55:20]>> I do not believe so, your honor.

[00:55:21]>> What effect has this had on you as far as your state of mind during the time that all of this has gone on?

[00:55:27]>> Uh, mentally, it's been very draining.

[00:55:31]Just I use the same phone number for everything, my personal life and work.

[00:55:35]So, to have all of this come through, it it has really hindered my life as a whole. And honestly, just kind of constantly looking over my shoulder if he was going to show up at my house again, if I'm going to receive flower deliveries. It's really just been exhausting overall.

[00:55:53]>> All right. Anything else?

[00:55:55]>> No.

[00:55:56]>> Mr. Hod, you are acting as your own attorney. You have the right to ask questions of this witness if you wish to do so. You're not required to do so. Do you wish to ask any questions? If you do, you'll need to come to the podium.

[00:56:09]Miss Ratliff, have I ever endangered your life, hurt you, caused you harm physically at all whatsoever?

[00:56:16]>> Physically, I've not endured any harm.

[00:56:19]>> How long were we dating in total from start to end?

[00:56:22]>> In total, approximately 15 months on and off.

[00:56:28]>> Was this behavior a pattern?

[00:56:30]>> I would say yes.

[00:56:31]>> This would happen and then the relationship would continue. Correct.

[00:56:35]There are instances where the relationship was ended for a brief period of time and this behavior did um appear I would say briefly when the relationship had ended for a few days.

[00:56:49]Yes.

[00:56:50]>> Uh was there a time in March of 2024 where there was approximately 10 days worth of text messages from myself to you that were no reply and we continued a relationship after that?

[00:57:02]>> I would say no. There were replies. We had spoke on the phone several times during that I believe.

[00:57:07]>> No further your honor.

[00:57:08]>> Thank you. All right, Mr. Ratliff, you may step down. Do you have any other witnesses that you wish to call? No, >> I do not.

[00:57:15]>> All right, then you may have a seat. Mr. Hajj, the plaintiff has rested the case, her case, regarding this order of protection. You have the right to present proof if you wish to do so. It's my understanding, however, that there is a pending stalking charge that's still an active case um in another court. And I would just remind you that you have an absolute right to refuse to answer any questions that or to not testify if it would tend to inculpate you or make you guilty of the charge that's pending. You have a right against self-inccrimination, in other words. So, I will hear whatever you have to say if you wish to testify and then she can cross-examine you if you wish. You'll come right up here and ask you to raise your right hand and be placed under oath.

[00:58:03]>> First off, your honor, um, this was appealed because I had had yet to be heard, not because of a judgment.

[00:58:09]If you want me to bore you with the reason it wasn't heard, I would be glad to do so. But >> I want to hear from you what you have to say regarding her petition for an order of protection and why you feel like should not be issued if in fact that's the way you feel.

[00:58:25]>> Thank you. Um what she described was a harassment case. There was not um any endangerment threats promises um ever from my end. That's the last thing I would ever want.

[00:58:37]There are multiple instances where we had ended our relationship and and my persistence of trying to speak with her had begun another instant of our relationship. And there have a proof with me if you would like to see that as well. As far as her bedroom TV, I changed photos on all my Alexa devices.

[00:58:58]It went to her TV as well. And that's not something I had unpaired at that time. It wasn't uh trying to backdoor any kind of secret sly reasoning of changing her photo on our TV. That wasn't it. Um as far as her social media or her um Hulu accounts that I still had a log into that because we both used it.

[00:59:18]It wasn't u I just took my shows off of her profile and put them on my own. That wasn't a a vulgar act of any kind. um in October of uh 2025, just before this case um saw the court the first time, we were at the same racetrack. We both drag race competitively. She knew I was there. She didn't feel threatened enough to leave or scared or have any protection there. I would never ever do any of that. Um let me see here. My my biggest issue with the order protection is that um I'm a business owner and my firearms obviously on this was were taken away my right to defend myself and my son and I travel the country and we travel to Indiana and shoot competitively target shooting with my father um were not able to do that as well. I'm completely okay with a no contact order that was in place and it was a harassment charge that we had a we had the agreement for one year of no contact taking place in um March I believe of this year. The no contact order is completely okay. I don't have any intent to contact her. I don't have any intent to cause her any harm. I don't have any sort of ill will towards her whatsoever. I was uh I think more or less I had a lot of guilt and regret my actions that led to this and that's what led to me trying to contact her and talk through that. But as for the evidence she provided, I understand the assumption that every spam risk and no caller ID was myself. I get that it was not. There was a um social media post that before I was blocked on social media that she had posted a screenshot of a no caller ID miss call knowing that I looked at it and it wasn't me and I knew that the call wasn't me. So I know every one of those is not me. Every spammer is assumed is me. I understand the assumption. I'm not trying to run from that. But there's a text in there about brazed pork ribs. I couldn't make that if I was asking if she was interested in braced pork ribs I was making for dinner. I couldn't make braised pork ribs if you if I watched a YouTube video while doing it. So, not all those were me. Um, some of those absolutely I'm not dodging that whatsoever. But as far as I I would never show up at her house. That's why I said other than showing up, I don't know what else to do. And that was it. And I believe her and myself can both agree that there would be if there was one conversation had there none of this would even be this far. But um last and not least, the time she told me that um whenever she was done with me, the only get back she would have is public embarrassment. And I believe that's what I'm going through. So that'll be it.

[01:02:07]>> All right. Mr. Radith, you have the right to cross-examine him if you choose to do so. You may ask questions. If you're going to ask questions, you need to come to the podium.

[01:02:15]>> Thank you, your honor. Um, okay. So, first thing, um, you mentioned that you would never cause me any harm and, um, that I should be aware of that, but when you make a social media post that states that I have no idea the links you would go to just to get a response from me, um, I would say that's open to interpretation. Would you agree?

[01:02:41]>> Absolutely. Would you like me to interpret that?

[01:02:43]>> I think that you just answer her question. It's not what I want or don't want. It is the question that she asked that you must answer.

[01:02:50]>> That meant like on my end, I would change locations, change my life, my phone number, who I'm around. That wasn't uh I would go to some physical extreme length to speak to you.

[01:03:02]>> And then you also referred to a reference of when we were at the same racetrack last year. However, I had no knowledge, prior knowledge that you would be there as we had no contact. And then can you also correct that I was with my father?

[01:03:18]>> Let me interrupt you. Um, this is a portion where you may ask questions, but your questions are not to be statements made by you, but rather they must be in question form.

[01:03:29]>> If you have a question in question form, you may ask that.

[01:03:33]>> Thank you, your honor. Um, one final question then. I believe you stated in your testimony just a moment ago that you would never show up to my house. Was that correct or did I mishar that?

[01:03:45]>> No, I stated that a conversation could have been prevented all of this and I wouldn't show up to your house unannounced. The day that you said I came, I did come and you knew I was on my way.

[01:03:56]>> I'm sorry, which day?

[01:03:57]>> The one you provided on camera >> and I knew you were on your way.

[01:04:02]>> Yes.

[01:04:03]>> Do you have any written proof of that? I do not.

[01:04:06]>> Okay. Thank you, your honor.

[01:04:08]>> Mr. Hodge, you may step down. Do you have any other witnesses?

[01:04:12]>> No, your honor.

[01:04:13]>> Thank you. Mr. Haj makes the argument or makes the point that there was no physical damage, no physical injury or threatening or and so forth. uh so that you can make the argument that Miss Rattliff is not a domestic abuse victim.

[01:04:28]But under 363602, which is the stat the section of the Tennessee code that provides for orders of protection, it states the following in subsection A. Any domestic abuse victim, stalking victim, sexual assault victim, observation without consent victim or unlawful photography victim who has been subjected to, threatened with or placed in fear of domestic abuse, stalking, sexual exploitation of a minor, sexual assault, human trafficking offense, observation without consent, or unlawful photography. may seek relief under this part by filing a sworn petition alleging domestic abuse, stalking, sexual exploitation of a minor sexual assault, a human trafficking offense, observation without consent or unlawful photography by the respon by the respondent. In this case, the petition that was filed by Miss Ratliff alleged that she has been subjected to stalking and as a result of that, the proof in this case is overwhelming that Miss uh Radliff has been subjected to and has been the victim of stalking. Therefore, I find that she has substantiated the need for an order of protection. I understand Mr. Haj's objection to his loss of firearm privileges. that is a provision of the law that anyone who is under an order of protection is subjected to and for this court's consideration um the evidence would be sufficient in in my opinion that justifies the um loss of the right to have a firearm in your possession after reviewing all of this information. Clearly, Mr. Haj that while you may seem today to be very rational and calm um the repeated and persistent uh efforts that were made to contact her against her wishes uh do arise to the law of stalking and therefore I'm of the opinion that the order of protection should be extended should be issued and extended for one year. I will issue that document in just a few moments and you can both have a copy of it. Um, Miss Rattle, if you would like to wait in the courtroom while I fill out the paperwork, then you may do so and I will uh have the de deputy serve Mr. Hajj out in the lobby. So, we'll take a short recess while I finalize the paperwork in the case and then we'll come back and begin the docket for chantry. Welcome to the chantry docket. If you want to call the first case.

[01:06:58]>> Morning, your honor.

[01:06:59]>> Good morning. I represent Miss Matt and we filed in this case a petition um requesting that her name be changed and we're ready to proceed.

[01:07:08]>> All right, Miss Matt, if you'll raise your right hand, let the clerk place you under oath.

[01:07:12]>> Miss Matt, would you please state your name? Miss Matt, you're a citizen and resident and reside here in Dixon County. Is that correct?

[01:07:18]>> And and you are an adult, correct?

[01:07:20]>> Happy birthday.

[01:07:21]>> I'm sorry. Is today your birthday?

[01:07:23]>> Yesterday.

[01:07:24]>> Well, how old are you?

[01:07:25]>> Well, congratulations. I vaguely remember turning to >> and it was Mother's Day too. So, happy Mother's Day and birthday. So, your legal uh name is Marcy Anne Matt. Is that correct? And you're asking this court today to change your name to what?

[01:07:42]>> And that last name will reflect the last name of your child. Is that correct?

[01:07:46]Yes, sir.

[01:07:46]>> That's the reason that you want to do that.

[01:07:49]>> And you are not doing this um to avoid criminal prosecution. Is that correct?

[01:07:53]No. or to avoid any creditor or for any other illegal purpose. Is that correct?

[01:07:58]Do you want the court to grant that name change?

[01:08:01]>> I'm happy to grant the request for you as her all the questions I have to ask.

[01:08:04]So, I believe there's an order that's been submitted.

[01:08:07]>> Is there Okay. I wasn't sure.

[01:08:08]>> Which one do you want me to sign?

[01:08:09]>> They're there. They should be the same.

[01:08:11]>> I have signed your order and granted your name change. Thank you. Happy birthday. You may, >> judge. Good morning.

[01:08:16]>> Good morning, >> judge. Those are three motions for default. Had two individuals show up.

[01:08:21]We've resolved those. Are there any other folks here for Dixon Sanitation?

[01:08:25]>> All right.

[01:08:26]>> And your motion for default is granted on those that have not worked out an agreement.

[01:08:30]>> Thank you, your honor. I'll submit an order.

[01:08:32]>> Thank you.

[01:08:32]>> Have a good rest of the day.

[01:08:34]>> Good morning, >> honor. This is the case that I know that keeps popping up in front of you that still has not been closed, but I have a good update for you that all taxes have now been filed. Good.

[01:08:43]>> Part of the the reason for all of the delays over the years has been because taxes were due for since 2014.

[01:08:50]um it wound up being about $136,000 that had to be paid for taxes. We are likely now looking at an insolvent estate. Um we do still need to get the CPA. So we'll likely also be filing a notice of insolveny and informing the IRS too if it is confirmed that it is insolvent. I haven't done the math on the judgments for the postjudgment interest, but I believe that's going to push us over into consult >> since as far as statuses are. I mean, I can set it for the September docket call. Would that be enough time to >> if we could push it maybe to December? I think that would be preferred.

[01:09:26]Just give us a little bit and hopefully we'll get everything in front of you even before then. Then a status conference would second or fourth. Let's do the second. Would that be at 10:30 as well or >> No, it's a different judge.

[01:09:38]>> Oh, okay. Oh, okay.

[01:09:40]>> I think it'll be at 9:00 cuz >> Who was that judge? Who would that be in front of?

[01:09:44]>> Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

[01:09:47]>> All right. There's been a motion request to uh not live stream that. So, we'll skip it and go to the next case and then come back to Richard. Pardon?

[01:09:56]>> We have an agreement.

[01:09:57]>> Well, you want to announce the agreement? I'll be glad to hear it.

[01:10:00]>> Good morning, your honor. Alan Hall, the Williamson County Bars. Good to >> see you again. I haven't seen you in forever. It's >> a long time. Yes, sir. You inherited your father's hair color. I'll say that.

[01:10:09]>> I did indeed. Yes. That's better than better than my brother-in-law and not having hair. So, >> I agree.

[01:10:16]>> Um I reached an agreement with uh the defendant on this, your honor. If we could continue this for 30 days, I think we'll have uh everything will be dismissed.

[01:10:26]>> 30 days would be >> or the next convenient call if that's fine. We should have everything wrapped up long before, >> right? June 15th. Thank you, your honor.

[01:10:37]Thank you. Good to see you.

[01:10:38]>> Good to see you again. Right.