The Courtroom, Part 2

Court part 2

[Judge reviews material for several minutes]

JUDGE: Are you suggesting, Mr. Bolus, that, uh, Mrs. Naugler’s petition does not contain the facts and circumstances constituting the basis for the petition? Is that what you’re saying?

BOLUS: Well. . .

JUDGE: Or is there something more particular?

BOLUS: What I’m stating, Your Honor, is that the facts and circumstances that she alleges does not rise to meet the level of, of, does not rise to meet what is required under the IPO statute for issuance of that kind of order.

JUDGE: Well, ultimately, that’s the, that’s the purview of the court, isn’t it? Isn’t that where. . .

BOLUS: Ultimately it would be the purview of the court, but I was trying to read her petition in a light most favorable to her, and she just doesn’t say any of those, any of the items that are required under the statute.

JUDGE: I will tell you that, uh, mmm, she doesn’t particularly allege, but she says regardless to intimidate and invoke fear, uh, so, mmm (shakes head) As much as I think that filing an IPO in this situation is not proper, and as much as, uh, uh, I don’t even like these, the IPO or EPO, or TIPO statutes, I feel like she’s entitled to a hearing on her facts. I’m sorry to say.

Uh, so, uh, now, before we go forward with your hearing, let me hear the preliminaries on Mr. Miller and see if he has any better luck.

MILLER: Thank you, Judge.I learned about this yesterday.

JUDGE: Are you going to ask for a continuance?

MILLER: I didn’t receive any notice. Well, there’s two issues I think that are important for this case, especially as to Vivian Smith. We appeared in, uh, before Judge Addington in Hardin Family Court and we had a hearing on her petition. They had cross-petitions against her (gestures toward Nicole), and we heard, I heard all the evidence which she’s claiming and everything, and I can tell you that. . .

JUDGE: They had petitions, one against, both sides?

MILLER: Yes, and I can tell you as a officer of the court. . .

JOE: They filed theirs after we filed ours.

VIV: That’s not true, Your Honor. [MILLER gestures to Viv to stop her talking]

MILLER: [To Viv] Stop. Do not speak unless I ask you a question. Okay?

JUDGE: Thank you. Uh, Mr. Naugler, once again, you’re not on this one. You’re the on the next one.

MILLER: But in any event, Judge, we had those because ours were properly filed in Hardin County where they reside and we did not have a petition, and we asked the court to dismiss the case. Uh, initially, I can tell you I heard all the testimony, Judge, and there is no testimony that supports stalking allegations in this case. Now, she uses that word in her petition. She parrots that language, but I’ve heard all the testimony and I can reiterate for you what she said there, but, I can’t do that all right now. We had an hour-long hearing. But it does not constitute stalking. It doesn’t even come close to it under the statute.

They had a falling out in December 22, which resulted in criminal charges pending against him [gestures to ERIC] and pending against him [gestures to JOE]. Not the women. But in any event, they went to court February 27. They didn’t file anything in December. And they didn’t like what they heard.

JUDGE: February 17?

MILLER: February 27. Two months later, over two months later, and that’s when these were filed. Not in response to December 22, but two months later.

NICOLE: Because my IPOs weren’t in response to those actions in December, but were in response to the continued actions since then.

JUDGE: Mrs. Naugler, I’m going to give you a chance to speak in just a sec, okay?


MILLER: In addition to that, Judge, I don’t think Hardin Family Court has any authority to transfer an action that it began wrongfully in that jurisdiction to you. You shouldn’t have a hybrid. You shouldn’t be second-guessing what Judge Addington thought when she looked at this allegation to begin with, especially when I’m telling you, I’ve heard the testimony and what’s in here is not supported by the testimony we heard in court. There was no stalking. These people didn’t even know each other until December 22.

So, in any event, I would like the opportunity to present that to you by written motion. Number one, there’s no authority for you to hear this case. There was no authority to, for Judge Addington to transfer it and I certainly didn’t ask her to do that. Number two, based upon the testimony in Smith case – we didn’t have the other one – in the Smith case, um, there is insufficient evidence, even though she says stalking in her petition, to support any finding of stalking.

As to the other case, we did not litigate that, but I think I know, just from, they both testified on, uh, what is gonna be said there. That’s closer as to whether or not it could constitute stalking on the Martin. There’s allegations of threats made between them and the like, but not as to my. . .

JUDGE: What’s the status of both of these fellows criminal cases?

MILLER: I think his [gestures to JOE] is set for trial May 17 and ours is set for trial, uh, pre-trial.

JUDGE: So the charge against you is harassment? (gesturing to JOE)

JOE: Yeah, harassment

JUDGE: And the charge against you is harassment? (gesturing to ERIC)

MILLER: No, it’s terroristic threat.

JUDGE: And you are representing both of these individuals? [meaning ERIC and VIV]


JUDGE: Are you making that same motion for continuance on both of the cases?

MILLER: I am, Judge, because I don’t think you have authority, and you’ve probably never addressed that issue before. . .

JUDGE: I’ve not.

MILLER: And I don’t think you can transfer a case, especially an IPO that should have began in this county, in, in the, her case [points to LISA], they came over in response to that motion and filed their own IPOs, so you do have jurisdiction. But she, they didn’t do it in these two cases and I think they are required to do it.

[Both NICOLE and JOE mumble, unclear]

MILLER: And I’m just saying that as a matter of first impression. . .

JUDGE: What I’m gonna tell you is, is this. If you were just, were just brought into the case yesterday. . .

MILLER: Well, I knew about it, but I didn’t know it was on the docket. I was lucky to get here.

JUDGE: So you didn’t know it was on the docket. What I’m gonna do is I’m gonna let Mr. Miller have the opportunity to file whatever he wants to file in reference to that case and you will have an opportunity to respond as well. Um, what kind of time are we talking about, Mr. Miller?

MILLER: You’re here every Tuesday.

JUDGE: In even months.

MILLER: I gotta keep it in this. . .

JUDGE: I’ve got a shoulder injury, folks, I’m sorry, it goes numb every once in a while, I’ve gotta fix it.

MILLER: Judge, the next two Tuesdays (unclear) motion hour Tuesdays

JUDGE: What, sir?

MILLER: The next two Tuesdays are bad and you can’t do it in May, right?

JUDGE: I can’t, but if I have not heard any of this, uh, I don’t know why we can’t let Honorable Judge Goff hear it. I mean, I haven’t, we haven’t taken any, we haven’t taken any testimony. Uh, all we’re doing is continuing, uh, based on the fact that you have not had an adequate opportunity to, uh, and it’s not, Mr. Bolus made uh, uh, the suggestion that they need to be severed anyway, so we can’t hear all the facts at the same time because they’re different.

MILLER: Judge, could we go to May 9?

JUDGE: May 9?

MILLER: Yes, ma’am.

JUDGE: Uh, with the understanding, do we have no contact between the parties in the meantime?

MILLER: Yes. I believe. . .

JUDGE: They have bond conditions, isn’t there?

MILLER: They used to have businesses that were catty-cornered to one another but . . .

JUDGE: They are not anymore?

MILLER: Their (motioning to ERIC and VIV) is moved. Not any more. So there’s really no reason for contact. But, I think the IPOs would stay in effect.

JUDGE: Yes, they will until something further, so that orders no contact. So, we’ll set the case over for Tuesday May 9th. You’ll be back to argue your motion at that time, and do you, will you have this served on Mrs. Naugler, and Mr. Naugler, because it’s both of their cases. . .

MILLER: I will, Judge.

JUDGE: . . . prior to then, and if they wish to have time to file a written response, they might, or if they would like to be prepared with oral response that day, that’s up to you. Do you want to think about how you want to address that?

JOE: We’ll address it with an oral response. We have, we have brought all the recordings, documentation, and video recordings and everything. We have brought all the evidence with us.

NICOLE: So the IPOs that were. . .

JUDGE: . . . will stay in place.

NICOLE: Right. Do we need to file ones here with your clerk’s office? Or will this one. . .

JUDGE: You need to wait until after, uh, we hear from Mr. Miller, cause the other case may stay. Or may not, depending on the ruling. Okay?

NICOLE: Okay. That’s fine. As long as the IPOs are still in place, that’s fine by me.

JUDGE: Nothing really changes from the no contact aspect between now and May 9. Okay?

CLERK: For the clerk’s record, just to clarify on Vivian Smith.

JUDGE: Ms. Vivian Smith, what is your real name?

VIV: Vivian Smith Adams.

JUDGE: [to CLERK] Vivian Smith Adams. Is that what you wanted to hear?

CLERK: Yes. Would you like me to reflect item (unclear) too?

JUDGE: Please do. To be, to have her correct. Correct name on it.

CLERK: And Mr. Miller is going to be filing what?

MILLER: I’m going to be filing a motion to dismiss on two bases, which I’ve stated. Thank you, Judge.

JUDGE: Okay, that takes care of Mr. Miller and these two folks. Mrs. Naugler and, uh, Ms. Luth, Luthi, and uh, Mr. Bolus, uh, I need, uh, Mrs. Naugler as the petitioner on this side and Mr Bolus and Ms. Luthi on this side.

And as I said in Part 1, this is publicly available video. Anyone can get a copy from the Breckinridge County Courthouse ($20). Nobody’s “rights” are being violated by publishing this.


23 thoughts on “The Courtroom, Part 2”

  1. I’m always disappointed at how different tv courtrooms are vs reality. So many ums and incomplete sentences. I can’t imagine trying to transcribe it. Thank you. Off topic and shallow, Joe couldn’t find a single button up shirt?


  2. Question….are the IPO’s against Joe still valid. I remember her saying at one point that the IPO’s against Joe have been dismissed.


  3. Question….are the IPO’s against Joe still valid.

    I believe all that was dismissed. Lisa never filed any, so it’s only Viv’s and Eric’s, and they were heard in Hardin County because that was the proper place.

    The entire thing is ridiculous from start to finish. Nobody needs an IPO on anybody.


  4. lol Joe twiddling his thumbs, nic with her tongue in her cheek..annoyed….

    how rude to stand there..nic with your arms brought this on, you filed, its not easy peasy cut and dry!!!!

    joe picking at his nails and nic still arm crossed…rude

    ahaha shut joe up..thats 2

    nic speaking out of turn

    nic nag sighing waaaaaaa

    Tuesday May 9
    awww darn…just getting good


  5. I’m always disappointed at how different tv courtrooms are vs reality. So many ums and incomplete sentences.

    I agree. I’ve watched so many Law and Order courtroom scenes and the real life version can be quite disappointing in comparison! However, I have also listened in to many case management conferences when the attorney I work for has attended via telephone conference. Depending on the court, the parties participating by telephone can often hear the entire proceedings. Case management conferences are pretty routine, so perhaps that explains why the attorneys I hear on those conferences (and the presiding judge) sound more smooth, with a minimum of ums, ahs, incomplete sentences, etc.


  6. Does anyone know who is the person in the white top sitting with the Nauglers? (Not the name, just is it a court official? a friend/supporter of the Nauglers?)


  7. Does anyone know who is the person in the white top sitting with the Nauglers?

    She is a court-appointed domestic violence advocate who probably wishes she’d called in sick.


  8. Darn it, Sally! I went and watched all of them and now I can’t comment without spoilers! All I can say is just wait folks…Nicole will have her moment of total and inexorable legal flop on the floor recorded for posterity. She just sucks at playing lawyer (yeah she can do what someone with an undergrad degree and a JD can–man she’s an idiot). And Lisa was perfect. That was what made it painful to me–knowing that Lisa had to go through this complete crap and be put through this by pretend-to-be-a-lawyer Nicole. And knowing it wasn’t necessarily cheap to have to go through that canine and equine extravaganza (dog and pony show) reduced my enjoyment. But watching Nicole make a fool of herself in front of a very patient judge and have it recorded for everrrrr was priceless.


  9. Once in a while Family Dollar has a sale on Ladies Shirts and Shampoo,, Nogs,, go get some, you look horrible. Cant imagine the smell


  10. It’s up on RuTube. There are, I believe, five segments. I will get at least one more (#3) done tomorrow.


  11. I know people have already said it but thank you for the transcription, Sally. The sound is kind of difficult to follow for me. Lots of background noise or something. Anyway, I honestly think that was the most patient judge I’ve ever seen. The Naugler’s certainly have a hard time following instructions, don’t they? “Mr. Naugler, you cannot provide counsel.” How many times was that repeated? Anyone keep a count?


  12. “How many times was that repeated? Anyone keep a count?”

    Sounds like a new drinking game to me.


  13. I watched the tape this morning. OH HOW I wish that the camera would have cut to Nikki’s face when the judge said she was transferring the case to the family court judge.


  14. Sally, do you know who the person was sitting directly behind N & J during the proceedings?

    Wouldn’t we all love to know exactly what the judge thinks of the Nauglers?


  15. Sally, do you know who the person was sitting directly behind N & J during the proceedings?

    No. However he was hilarious. And bored stiff.


  16. judge said she was transferring the case to the family court judge.

    Judge Embry (in the film) is the family court judge. Eric and Viv’s cases will be heard by Judge Goff, who is not a family court judge.


  17. Long-time fan here. I watched all of the videos. How cringeworthy! What a terrible waste of the court’s time! That judge was so patient with nutty Nicole, gawd bless her.

    Is it possible for Lisa to recoup her legal fees from the Nauglers, given that this was such a collosal misuse and abuse of the court system? Not that they could ever afford to pay, but it would be an effective teaching tool for them, perhaps, that there are consequences for these frivolous filings? Maybe next time, they’ll think twice before dragging random citizens to court…?


  18. Off topic but others may have the same question. How do I use the quote button here in this text box? What are the steps? Sorry if this should be obvious. Do I click the button then highlight the text I want to quote? Do I copy and paste the text between the symbols which result when I click on the Quote button? No need to post this publicly unless you want to Sally. Thanks!


  19. Off topic but others may have the same question. How do I use the quote button here in this text box? What are the steps?

    Your goal is to get what you’re quoting in between the opening “blockquote” and the closing “blockquote.” The opening one has carets <> but does NOT have a forward slash. The closing one is just like the opening one but has “/blockquote.”

    You can even skip the little button and simply type out the commands. I can’t type them here because it will interpret it as a command. But BEFORE the quoted material, you want a caret (< ) and then the word "blockquote" (without the quotation marks) and then a closing caret (>). Then your quoted material, and then the closing command, identical to the opening one, but with the addition of the forward slash (and make sure it’s a forward slash / and not a back slash \.)


  20. I like Tekla’s idea of a new drinking game, but I have the feeling if we took a shot every time the judge told him that, we would end up with severe alcohol poisoning before the hearing is over….


  21. Looking forward to the rest of the parts. I tried listening to them last night from one of the pages, but I had a hard time hearing some of the things being said, due to being away from the microphones.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.