[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.