This hearing occurred On Monday, April 30, 2012. In attendance were Pappenheim and attorney Amy Antommaria, and Lynne represented (somewhat) by individuals who's name I didn't catch.
13:53 - Doors open.
13:55 - People start to file in, with loud whispering occurring. In the back, to the left of the judge is a whole section on individuals who appear to be from the District Attorney's office. Charles Robles, chief investigator of the Larimer County DA's office among them, some I didn't recognize. A couple with badges, indicating that they are on company time. Two deputies in attendance.
13:57 - Peppenheim and attorney file in, his attorney wants to play musical chairs, seating is rearranged.
14:00 - Sargent speaking on radio, maybe expecting "incident". Judge arrives, starts with an admonition, calls it a hearing on award of attorney fees. Speaks on the following:
- 2012-2 Directive from Chief Judge Schapanski.
- No recording devices, must order transcripts (See Note 1 below).
- Must have cell phones off, etc.
- No outbursts, etc., attorney's must be standing when addressing the court.
- This is a petition requesting attorney fees, but this hearing was already had apparently, as Antommaria states that this has already been ordered.
14:04 - Pappenheim called to stand by Antommaria, sworn in. Three deputies in attendance now. It's almost like this case makes them fearful. That usually occurs when somebody has been perpetrating.
14:06 - Evidence entered on attorney fees by Antommaria. Doesn't bother to copy Lynne, then has the gall to blame it on her "assistant". Lynne doesn't object, judge lets it slide.
14:08 - Antommaria appears to be trying attention deflecting tactics such as swapping papers out that she just handed to Lynne.
14:10 - Antommaria goes through litany of private attorney's that allegedly have represented Pappenheim, with respect to restraining orders but no restraining orders granted, on behalf of Lynne.
- Antommaria then goes through a pattern of form questioning about cost of investigating subpoenas served.
- Antommaria mentions the court orders re that "treatment professional" Elizabeth Seabock.
- Antommaria mentions the total costs as being $27,000.
- Not being satisfied, Antommaria wants the court to approve even more payment from Lynne.
- Antommaria mentions the on-line radio shows, Dave Hodges, this blog, Agenda 21, and statements made there about the case and judge, etc. (See Note 2 below).
- Lynne objects at this, as it has no bearing (the blogs, talk shows, etc.) on attorney fees, and that these are all being bought up to prejudice the judge.
- Judge sustains the objection again bringing up this nonsense.
14:21 - Antommaria just won't let it be. Now she brings up the issue again via the pamphlet being handed out befor the hearing. Lynne again objects, but judge allows partial questioning.
- Antommaria covers the "onslaught" of information on the web about the case, and talks at length about this website, coloradoan-anti-censorship.net. Talks about the latest here. (See Note 3 below).
14:26 - Antommaria continues to hit on website, mostly from the idea that "Stacy Lynne is responsible for the comments" or "These comments cause an increase in attorney fees".
14:29 - Lynne objects to this continued attempt by Antommaria to sneak in evidence that the judge has already disallowed. Judge overrules.
14:31 - Lynne called up to stand.
- Attempts to bring out evidence that Pappenheim sworn financial affidavit not filed.
- Court doesn't allow questioning on that matter, the failure of Pappenheim to file sworn financial affidavits as is required.
- As has been the case with Lynne in front of this judge, it appears that everything she brings up is overrulled.
- On crossexamination Antommaria attempts to figure out how Lynne is getting financed, and who the individuals are who are providing funding. All such questions are allowed by Judge over objection of Lynne.
14:41 - Antommaria talks about video that is on-line with respect to Jaden (not familiar with that video, not presented as evidence). Again talks about this sites postings.
- Lynne again objects to the testimony and evidence as being irrelevant and immaterial to the question of attorney fees. Guess what? Overruled. Does anybody but myself see a pattern here?
- I ask Sargent in attendance to let the tell the attorneys for Stacy Lynne to allow me to testify. The Sargent won't and orders me to get back to my seat. I now wish I would have made an issue of it. What are you going to do arrest me for asking to speak to one of the attorneys?
14:45 - Lynne again objects to relevance with respect to evidence presented, specifically to email that got copied to this blog site.
14:47 - Judge denies admissibility of exhibit with respect to email.
14:49 - Witnesses step down.
14:50 - Pappenheim closing argument is to:
- Throw blame on Lynne for everything.
- Uses radio shows and websites, including this one, as somehow indicating that Lynne has the capability to pay.
- Asks for an increase in what Lynne should pay out. No $hame there, LOL.
14:54 - Lynne's attorney's argue:
- C.R.S. 14-10-119, No financial statement filed.
- C.R.S. 13-17-102(6), the standard that petitioner has to prove, that the petitioner has to prove that the opposing party had to know that the filings were frivolous, groundless, in bad faith, etc,. before attorney fees can be assessed.
- C.R.S. 13.17.102(6), objective standard.
14:56 - Pappenheim rebuttal:
- That Lynne should be held to the same standard as Antommaria because she is pro se.
- C.R.S. 13.17.102(6), Court reads the actual law, reasonable person standard.
~15:00 - Hearing Done
Note 1: The digital audio and video recordings of proceedings in Colorado Courts are property of the People of the State of Colorado, not of the Court, and surely not of any transcriptionist. Since the Courts won't release such, or will only release such at an exorbitant fee, claiming or attempting to claim it is their property apparently, it behooves any participants in the Courts to bring their own digital recording devices so that they can't be raped by the Courts in attempting to get a record of the proceedings. Why shouldn't individuals wishing the record transcribed be able to use whatever transcriptionist they wish?
Note 2: Nothing on this website, nor on any on-line show causes anything that relates to attorney fees. One, such sites, including this one, are exercising free speech, independent of Stacy Lynne. Two, Lynne has no control over such sites or talk shows. Three, such sites DO allow for rebuttal of anything presented. No rebuttal has occurred on coloradoan-anti-censorship.net of any posting with respect to the Stacy Lynne Matter,
Note 3: There is an "onslaught" of information because what was done to Stacy Lynne is a eye-opening example of what is being done throughout the nation in Family Courts, and further, it is the in People's right and in the People's best interests to discuss the subject thouroughly and at length.