The Courtroom, Part 1

Court part 1

Court opens with some introductions and then some discussion about the law itself. Go back and look at the law if you need to in order to follow what they are talking about.

Here’s the transcript of that section above.


ATTORNEY(at the bench quietly to judge): I normally don’t do this, but I’ve got people here on certain things, and I know this is gonna take awhile. Can we get some other stuff done before they start their. . .

JUDGE: Uh, who you got?

ATTORNEY Like I’ve got one lady for an emergency guardianship.

JUDGE: Let’s have her

ATTORNEY: And I’ve got a couple-

JUDGE (announcing to courtroom): I’ve got a couple of matters I’m going to take up before we start with this hearing because of its length. I’ve got a couple of emergency situations, uh –


Opens with Lisa and her attorney, Todd Bolus in front on the left of the screen. Eric and Viv are standing behind them with their attorney. Nicole is standing to the right. Joe walks up during the conversation to stand beside Nicole.

JJUDGE: And Mr. Miller, you represent whom?

MILLER: Judge, I represent William Martin and Vivian Adams who are standing here.

JUDGE: Vivian Smith? Or Vivian Martin?

VIV: I’m the same person. That’s because Mrs. Naugler didn’t know my name correctly.

JUDGE: Mr. Miller, you represent who?

MILLER: Both of them.

JUDGE: I’ve got a William Martin also. On my file, on my 37 70 ND 37 [edit: or some number like that]

JOE: That would be the one I filed against him.

JUDGE: That’s Joseph Naugler vs. William Martin

JOE: Yes ma’am.

BOLUS: And your honor, just for a point, (unclear) threshold level, number one, we do need separation of witnesses. It is a separate set of allegations as involves Ms. Luthi from the other two – from the other cases. Ms. Luthi’s is only relative to Mrs. Naugler and I would, I would insist on separation of witnesses in Ms. Luthi’s case.

NICOLE: (interrupts) I’m in agreement with that.

JUDGE: I’m sorry, what?

NICOLE: I’m in agreement with that.

JUDGE: Well, anytime anybody asks for separation, the court grants that, so that’s not gonna be a problem. Uh,

BOLUS: And I would also like that, her counts to be severed from the other counts as well.

JUDGE: They are.

BOLUS: Thank you.

JUDGE: As we stand here, they are. Right? I just called you all up together at the same time because I thought included all. I didn’t realize that Mr. Naugler was here too but he’s here and it’s okay so we’ll talk about those matters at this moment, because I understood a moment ago that you all had some preliminary motions that you were going to make, uh, and so we can talk about those preliminary matters without a separation of witnesses, can we not, gentlemen?

Mrs. Naugler –

Hold on, one more thing. Help me out, sir. Your name is?

BOLUS: Todd Bolus B-O-L-U-S

JUDGE: Yeah, but I didn’t know who he was so

[laughter from group]

JUDGE: I just like to know who’s on first

Are you from Elizabethtown, sir?

BOLUS: No, ma’am. I’m from Louisville.

JUDGE: And then, Mr. Miller, and, and, [judge is writing notes] (unclear) this is on Luthi. . . and then, Mr. Miller, you’re on not only, uh, Ms. Smith but Mr. Martin?

MILLER: Correct.

JUDGE: So, and Mr. and Mrs. Naugler are also here today and, interestingly, these cases were all transferred from Hardin County, is that what I’m hearing, been told?

BOLUS: Some were, Your Honor.

MILLER: Our two, Your Honor, and that was my initial motion.

JUDGE: Those are your two cases, that are transferred?


BOLUS: We objected . . .

JUDGE: So, three of four are transferred from Hardin County?

BOLUS: What happened, Your Honor, I had initially made a motion with regard to the jurisdictional requirements of the statute, as the Court is aware, the IPO statute is very precise. Because it provides an attenuated proceeding, what it does, is we have a very rigid set of standards. In that set of standards is a requirement that it be filed in the county in which the purported victim resides. That wasn’t Hardin County in the case of Ms. Luthi’s case, and Mrs. Naugler had not, had not fled to Hardin County, uh, in order to escape the, the, what she claimed was occurring to her.

That meant that this case had to come back here to Hardinsburg. What winds up occurring is that Judge Addington first signs the order dismissing the case which was the order which I tended with my motion, which was the appropriate order, but then she, then she issues a subsequent order simply transferring the case.

Our position on the Hardin County is that that case is actually dismissed by the operation of law. The court was not empowered to go ahead and reinstate it on her own motion.

JUDGE: She didn’t set it aside?

BOLUS: Correct.

[Some talking over]

JUDGE: (To JOE) Just a minute, just a minute, Mr. Naugler. You’re actually not in that case.

[JOE continues to try to talk]

BOLUS: He is not an attorney, Your Honor. If he were licensed. . .

NICOLE: I filed an independent protection order here in Breckinridge County several weeks ago, so my protection order against Ms. Luthi has been filed in Hardin County and in Breckinridge County. The one in Hardin County was either dismissed or transferred, um, I have not gotten the documents on that exactly, um, in the mail yet.

JUDGE: (To Nicole) Hold on. . .

(To Bolus) What you were saying was that there was Trailer One and Trailer Two, and Trailer One was the dismissed case from Hardin County.

BOLUS: I’m not sure which Trailer is which Trailer

JUDGE: Trailer One is the one Mrs. Naugler speaks of and Trailer Two is the one that was dismissed (speaking to the clerk)

BOLUS: Right, so Trailer Two would be the. . .

CLERK: [unclear]

BOLUS: Right, it was simply issued as a summons.

JUDGE: So then Trailer Two is the Hardin County matter that was dismissed by Judge Addington and we’re going to maintain its dismissal because I have absolutely no authority over dismissed cases.

NICOLE: Ms. Addington told me, her office told me that it was transferred. So if it hasn’t, that’s fine, because I filed one here in Breckinridge County and if I need to file one against Ms. Adams as well here in Breckinridge County, I can do so.

JUDGE: Mrs. Naugler, if both of the matters are talking about the same time frame and the same allegations, it would be redundant for us to have both, wouldn’t it?

NICOLE: Right. I’m just saying that if one’s dismissed, then I can. . .

JUDGE: If one is dismissed, then the other stands, so we don’t need both against Ms. Luthi. Do we?

NICOLE: Correct. I was referring to another case. I apologize.

JUDGE: So I’m trying to clean up a little bit of house first before we try to get, so I can get it clear for me, because this is kind of an unusual set of facts I’m looking at, I think.

BOLUS: Yes, Your Honor. And so, and so that’s our position with regard to the Trailer Two case. I have further requests with regard to the Trailer One case, but I think as the court is dealing with this particular housekeeping matter, I think it’s appropriate for us to do the housekeeping first, but before I get into my more substantive. . .

JUDGE: It is the same set of facts, correct, folks, on Trailer One and Trailer Two?

NICOLE: Correct.

BOLUS: As I’ve read the. . .

JUDGE: Then in fact, it . . . I’m not gonna hear two cases on the same set of facts, so I’m going to dismiss the transfer. Whether it should have been or should not have been, I’m doing it anyway. Okay?

So we can just have the one case.

So on Trailer Two, which is the, uh, Hardin County, 17-D-33 Trailer Two, that’s gone. That leaves you, sir, uh, the Trailer One.

BOLUS: And I do have some requests with regard to Trailer One. And I’m gonna make a motion with regard to rule 12 as a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Basically, as I, as I have reviewed the allegations in the petition versus the requirements according to the statute, she’s missing the very most important part which is the reference to the stalking statute. She doesn’t make the allegations that are required in this attenuated process for this order.

This was a set of orders which was, which was intended to address very severe, very fast, very hard items between people, ideally in some form of romantic relationship. Unfortunately, there was a rather large hole that the General Assembly left in the statute where people who weren’t in that kind of relationship could wind up using them. Nonetheless, there’s very specific statutory requirement in this proceeding which does require that there be violations, specifically under the stalking statutes, whether first or second degree, and I’m not reading it in the allegations that she’s set forth.

JUDGE: Get your green book and show me what’s required.

MILLER: Todd, I have that. . .

BOLUS: Have you got it? A little more convenient.

JUDGE: Do we have a copy for Mrs. Naugler?

MILLER: I did not make a separate set of copies.

MILLER goes with the green book to share it with NICOLE.

BOLUS: As the court may review in the statute, it requires a reference under, I think it’s 508.010. The statute on stalking. It requires allegations with regard to death, serious physical harm, or sexual assault, under the sexual, under the sexual abuse statutes. And those are absolutely mandatory under the, under the statutory scheme that she has chosen to proceed under. As a result of that, because she makes no allegations with regard to the statutory requirement, I think that under the circumstances, rule 12 would require that the matter be dismissed.

And that if the court, and furthermore, I would add one other thing, that, you know, to the extent that she’s gonna raise allegations that aren’t going to those things, until and unless she actually makes those allegations, a motion in limiting should be promulgated prohibiting her from talking about any other episodes.

JUDGE: Well, Mr. Bolus, I don’t know how frequently you practice down in the country but here’s the thing. We don’t have domestic violence advocates that have offices in the courthouse directing our plaintiffs how to file and, uh, uh, helping them to have all the statutory requirements. Now, if you’re telling me that the TIPO statute

[To NICOLE: Ma’am, just a minute. Let me speak.]

Um, that the TIPO statute requires her to make these allegations, I’m gonna read it, and if it requires her to do it and she hasn’t done it, then I’m gonna rule in your favor on that. I don’t know that it actually is gonna require her to include that, so what we ordinarily do, is we try to give some latitude to petitioners in our cases because they don’t have the advantages of people, uh, that live in the city to have that assistance from people who work the cases daily.

So, if you’re gonna, you’re telling me that she’s got to specifically allege that in her petition under the TIPO statute, I’m happy to look at that. Show me. . .

BOLUS: Your Honor, the reason why I say that is that even in a proceeding as, as narrow and attenuated as this one, I think that there does come a requirement that people have as to certain due process, to be able to respond appropriately. That’s why the statute is very direct in terms of what is required, what level of, of, conduct is required , and I think she has to make some allegations regarding . .. .

JUDGE: Well, I’m not necessarily disagreeing that she has to make some sort of allegation that is gonna support or at least allude to something of that degree but I’m just gonna have to read and see, um, and you know, you’ve seen today, I’ve kinda been busy most of the morning, and it was that way, or the afternoon and it was that way this morning, so, and I wasn’t here yesterday, or the day before, or the day before, or the day before, so I don’t know these. I’ve never looked at them before until now, so I’m going to have to make those calls at this point, and you wanted to respond, Mrs. Naugler?

NICOLE: Yes. It says here 456.030 Petition for Interpersonal Protective Order. A petition for interpersonal protective order may be filed by, number B would be a victim of stalking.

Statute 508.130 says definition means to stalk means to engage in an intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person or persons which seriously alarms, annoys, intimidates, harasses the person and which serves no legitimate purpose.

That would be, and in B it says that the course of conduct shall be that which causes a reasonable person to suffer substantial distress. Mental distress.

Um, that’s 508.130. I don’t have it printed out, but I do have it referenced on my phone to the KRS.

JOE: And a lot of what we’re referencing. . .

BOLUS: Your Honor

JUDGE: Mr. Naugler, in all honesty, I wouldn’t let anybody else speak other than her. You can’t counsel her because you don’t have a. . . you can’t be her attorney. You can sit with her and support her, and you can speak on your case, but as far as making argument of law, he’s correct (pointing to BOLUS), you can’t do that. If you want to hire counsel, she could, counsel could assist with that, but you can’t do that at this point. Okay,Mr. Naugler?

All right. So, um, let me read the facts, first. Okay?

I’ll be doing all of this in segments over the next few days, as I can get them transcribed. This is public information. It’s a readily available video. Anyone who wishes can obtain a copy. Nobody’s “rights” are being infringed upon here. It was a public hearing.


40 thoughts on “The Courtroom, Part 1”

  1. Seems to me that Joe or Nicole could have done some court watching in order to have half a clue how it works.

    I mean, he was at court with her, so he wasn’t taking care of the kids – why not do it prior to this event?


  2. Thank you for transcribing all this and putting up the videos. It’s a lot of work for you, but lots of us appreciate it. The whole video of the court room thing is fascinating to me, because in Canada the only court room images we get are from the court room artist on big trials.


  3. I really feel bad laughing but couldn’t they have watched a few episodes of Law & Order or old Court TV shows before heading to court? I guess youtube law school wasn’t good enough.

    Sally, thanks for transcribing all this.


  4. At first I was disappointed when the video cut off but now realize that this debacle is best consumed in smaller segments. Thank you for the transcript!

    Also, I miss the menu bar at top of page for finding posts.


  5. Also, I miss the menu bar at top of page for finding posts.

    The menu will be returning in a revised, improved, expanded version.


  6. And in court, just as in real life, people are telling Joe to basically STFU…this time because it’s not his case, and he’s not an attorney. He was really trying to get his point and opinion on the proceedings across, but the judge was having none of it. Bravo judge!


  7. I hope everyone that can downloads the court videos/transcripts. Just in case. 🙂


  8. Scratching herself in public, not a discreet little scratch, oh no, but a good, old “I’ve got to use my other arm to apply some leverage on my elbow and really get into that spot!” Leaning like a drunk on the podium, one hand on her hip, like she’s bellied (Ha!) up to the bar, waiting on a shot. The interruptions. It’s like she’s thinks they’re in their own fucking living room! I’m watching this from thousands of miles away and I can see the disrespect of this process, the contempt that they view the lawyer and the judge with. If they actually believe they’re making a solid case for anything in the future, they’re beyond delusional.


  9. This is great! Thank you for your hard work on this Sally!!!

    I can’t wait to see how Nicole is going to spin this. You know she will. Who is she going to blame now?


  10. First, I feel so sorry for that poor judge. You could see it in her eyes that she wanted to literally throw a book (probably the Green Book) at JoJo to shut him up. Next, did you see NN playing on her phone constantly? I’m surprised the judge let that by. Even in the sticks where I live, there is a big sign on the courtroom door that reads “No Cellphones Allowed in Courtroom.”
    Thanks for transcribing, Sally! Can’t wait for the next installment!


  11. Next, did you see NN playing on her phone constantly?

    She wasn’t “playing” on her phone. She quite literally was looking up stuff. That’s where she got the definition (508.130) that she read to the court (not understanding that she was reading a definition and not a statute).


  12. I read the transcript earlier but finally got the chance to see the video. Just reading the transcript does not do what happened in the courtroom justice. I can only imagine how crazy this will get. The look on the judge’s face is priceless. Poor Joe, getting shut down.


  13. What a pathetic couple they are. I am so happy Lisa, Viv and Eric are fairing well in this f**ked up fiasco of the Naugs. [I know you guys want to talk about the oldest son. However, nope. He has done nothing to anyone that I know of and I have no intention of discussing his life further. Your sentiment about hoping his life is happy is a good one, and we can help that happen by ignoring him completely.]


  14. Ha! I guess Joe figured that since he’s allowed to represent himself in cases in which he’s involved, then he can also serve as Nicole’s attorney, too. If they followed Nicole’s “logic” he shouldn’t even be in the courtroom since he is not involved in the case. I hope they are sued for filing a frivolous cases or cases and filing false documents. Joe’s criminal case should be a hoot!


  15. NN just cannot be still….the constant fidgeting, moving papers, hand raising, etc. was so distracting. I don’t know if this is a usual thing, but why would Lisa’s lawyer have to provide a copy of papers for NN? It was just the statute, correct? It wasn’t evidence that I know must be shared.
    I also want to thank you Sally for the transcription. Cannot wait for the next installment, popcorn at the ready!


  16. Nothing says being prepared for court like having to look relevant information up on your phone while you’re standing in front of the judge! Hilarious!


  17. I don’t remember which JW movie this is from but to Nicole, “Life is hard. It’s harder when you’re stupid.” I think Joe and Nicole are good poster children for that quote. There’s another quote from the movie Cannery Row, “You’ll be alright as long you don’t try to make like you know something you don’t.” Nicole would be well served by buying into that advice too.

    Nicole is kind of cute (in a rather pitiful way) in how she tries to approximate legalese, and tries to sound educated by incorrectly using or making up big words (indefinally?). It waves around a big nasty flag as big as that skirt she wears–she has no clue what the law is, she is making this up as she goes along, and she is trying to appear as if she knows something she really, really doesn’t. It ‘s the same kind of thing she does on her various pages about her not-a-homestead that she says is a homestead and how she is persecuted. Well, almost every topic she has opined on. She just tried to bamboozle a judge and it didn’t fly too far.

    If Nicole and Joe would attend to their responsibilities rather than trying to make the tabloids at the checkout counter, gee, maybe they might have had a real house by now. Something for nothing is all they can think of.


  18. Why were Viv and Eric there?

    There were something like four separate cases. That’s one reason the judge took a few minutes to figure out who was who. I’ve been watching this from the start and I get confused, so imagine her consternation when she walks into this mess cold. Nicole vs. Lisa was only one of those cases. The others involve Viv and Eric and were postponed until next month. But the postponement did not occur until that hearing, so Viv and Eric had to show up.


  19. why would Lisa’s lawyer have to provide a copy of papers for NN? It was just the statute, correct?

    There is no such requirement. It’s simply a courtesy. And if you watch carefully, you’ll see the bailiff bring a copy in and hand it to Joe.


  20. It’s not enough for Joe/Nic to bully people online, now they must use the court system to bully their non-admirers and waste their time. Their attitude is, “if you don’t like me and praise me, I will take you down.” They are narcissistic in the true sense of the word. No-one, and I repeat, no- who wants privacy and wants to be left alone acts like this! And Nicole’s LIES are what infuriate people the most. She WAITED outside the courtroom in order to intimidate Lisa Luthi. It’s mind boggling.

    Until Nicole stops lying and working overtime to draw attention to herself, people are going to keep WATCHING! But that doesn’t mean they are going to admire you Nicole.

    Mark my word, she will go after the judge since this video has been posted. The judge clearly was annoyed by Nicole’s cockiness. My favorite part of the video is at the beginning where Nicole interrupts and chirps, “I’m in agreement with that!” And the judge, looking surprised says, “I’m sorry, WHAT?” Who the hell cares what you think, Nicole?!

    Dear judge, please meet know-it-all-Nicole who does whatever the hell she wants and who can’t stand being ignored. She wants you to LISTEN, WATCH and LIKE her every move. If you don’t, she might call you a stalker and start telling lies about you. You might become her next target.


  21. @OleMiss: Doggone it, you had me re-watching the whole thing looking for the scratch moment – and then I got distracted making my coffee and missed it. ?

    I agree Nicole’s stance at the podium looks like she’s waiting for her double bourbon but I’m going to give her a pass since she’s pregnant – even if the proceedings have just begun, she might be anticipating a long time on her feet and is just using it as a little extra support. There certainly isn’t a lot of fear on display, even with her “stalker” just a few feet away. ?

    I would actually applaud her attempt to show some preparation, background reading of the law and so forth if she were an actual victim seeking actual relief from an actual threat, and not just engaging in this absurd attempt to punish Lisa for the non-crime of publicly not liking Nicole.

    Once again we have Nicole gathering energy and purpose by provoking people and picking needless fights. She clearly got no satisfaction from her latest day in court because these past couple of days she’s been flinging more than the usual number of nets out on her pages, hoping to gather some snark…..

    Look at me, I’m eating ice cream for breakfast – wanna say something?…..

    Hey, you! Yeah, you, Podcast Lady, you’re just helping my lawsuit! And all you guys calling in, you are too! And you chatroom bitches, I see you! You’re GOING DOWN! And all you little listeners, too!….

    Hey, you there, you in the church! You came here because of our name! Guess what, Blessed Little Followers? We’re ‘faith-driven’ to SKIP Easter in favor of 50% Off Day – we don’t care if He is risen; We only worship Lower Prices! [ADMIN: Removed the stuff about the kids. Sorry.]

    No? OK, then how about I hate cops like this one and this one and this one over here and all of these…..oh,and taxes. Stupid stealing statist government…..


    I know; I’ll take on the Pearl Clutchers by screen shotting a comment about my husband being a career criminal and posting it on my page along with a denial-that-is-not-really-a-denial, but just says You don’t know anything! Let’s see how long it takes them to Google all his mug shots and say “At least he has a job!”

    OK, that ought to do it. Now to tie it all up with a hand-crafted bow (custom orders available) in the form of a long folksy generalized thank you to Those Who Truly Love Us (i.e., strangers). Please note we’ve updated our Grift List for the Spring:
    – a small tractor to get some of the area cleaned up (Mud will remain for photo ops)
    – Adults to help with the cleanup (our littles can’t lift the larger items by themselves)
    – discarded building supplies (please, no discarded buildings; they might be too spacious and have too many modern conveniences)
    – discarded lumber
    – discarded timber (broken chain saw is slowing our son’s progress)
    – discarded metal (rusty is fine; we oxygenate our wounds to prevent tetanus)
    – discarded etc. for repurposing. Tens and Twenties preferred.

    Now we play the waiting game….

    *Glues her eyes to multiple phone screens waiting to pounce*

    It might be successfully argued, from the length of this comment, that I gather energy from writing self-amusing comments on Internet forums and blogs. Guilty as charged!

    I eagerly await Courthouse Part 2.


  22. From N’s recent FB post she thinks she’s being slick. Threatening to sue if the criminal charges against child proceed. I mean I’m no lawyer (yet) but, could that be considered intimidating the victim?


  23. Who is sitting behind Joe and Nicole in the court, with dark hair wearing a dark sweater with white shirt underneath, [ADMIN: Nope.]
    #ImFeelingMeanToday #ButNoReallyDidYouSeeThat


  24. I show more respect for the court when I serve on jury duty then they did for this case! The judge is going to eat them alive!


  25. could that be considered intimidating the victim?

    I’m not a lawyer either, and I haven’t asked my “little lawyer friend” (as Nicole calls Lisa), but I would say that it skirts mighty close to a threat intended to intimidate a witness.


  26. omg… this is great. im already watching court part 4 – the judge says with a smile, to Mr. Bolus, “…and then I’m gonna let you cross examination”.


  27. SheerLuck- gather as much energy as you want from your amusing comments because I thoroughly enjoyed that clever list!!!! 😛


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.