FROZEN FIEFDOM 

HOW'S THAT AGAIN? My Journey Through the Amazing Alaska Legal System, and The Words of Its Professional Representatives

 

Under this section, I'll do a brief recap of my steps to use legal channels to regain access to my daughter, and I will post the audio file of the December 8, 2008 Status Hearing, after it is completed.   If everyone is telling the truth, there isn't any reason why Mr. Grant and party should object to his voice booming over the internet.  I know I'll be pleased for anyone interested to hear my side of the story.

 

UPDATE:  December 8, 2008.  No audio file will be available of the hearing this morning.  I was unaware that I needed to file a written request with the Court system, in advance. See my notes of the hearing under "ORDER FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING..." or read them below when I post them in order of my steps taken.  

 

The afternoon mail of December 8, 2008 delivered the following PODCAST ALERT, which Mr. Grant filed on December 5, 2008.  I have smudged out the name of the Child Custody Investigator who also received a copy.   

 

Mr. Grant's statement about the possible videotaping just gave me a great idea!  I had only planned to use a small audio recording device, as I don't like being photoed, or filmed.  I hadn't planned on a "Court TV" style production, but I've heard that many attorneys enjoy being "on stage", and it sounds as if Mr. Grant was doing a little wishful thinking about being filmed during his performance.  Sheeesh!   

 

OK,  Mr. Grant, when I submit my written request to use audio tape recording devices during  the March 13, 2009 hearing; I will ask if  someone else can be given permission to video you.  The Judge, myself, and other attendees shall raise our hand if we want the video cams to be focused on us.  The spotlight is all yours, unless someone specifically sends the signal.  

 

And why would Mr. Grant object to having me or anyone recording, in any format, the proceedings, or broadcasting them?  It's a Courtroom, and every person in there who is speaking is sworn to be telling the Truth, correct? 

 

I have no objections to anyone recording what I shall say during the hearing, and I believe that the Court has a staffer typing and recording the event for the Official Record.  Having an additional recording of the same proceedings shouldn't be a problem for anyone, as we will all be on tape regardless.  I prefer to have my own materials and gather my own data whenever possible.  

 

I see by the contents mentioned under a "tab", that Mr. Grant's downloader is busy on my site.  I have asked Mr. Grant previously to name who that person is, but he hasn't.  It's OK, I have the IP, and it's different than the first IP who did the first full download.  And it appears by the IP of the site download,  that person was one of my former friends.  Nice!  

I certainly would like to be proven wrong on that assumption, but Mr. Grant won't reveal his source, and I am probably correct. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

December 7, 2008.  

 

I found a few stunning sentences while reviewing the prehearing website:  

 

"How do I introduce an exhibit?

Exhibits cannot testify for themselves, so somebody has to introduce them to the court. Over time, a standard procedure has developed for admitting exhibits, and you need to understand this if you plan to submit exhibits.

In summary, the person introducing the exhibit has to know about it, be able to identify it and confirm that it is authentic. For example, you could introduce a letter written by the defendant to you or a photograph of your house, because you will have first hand knowledge to identify it. However, you could not introduce a photograph of your ex's new house in Florida if you've never seen it."

 

All those words above are very clear to me, and they state that it is for Mr. Paul H. Grant to "Man Up", as I have previously requested, and for him to confirm how he knows that the photo which he claims is of me, and to identify the photographer. He hasn't, nor has he revealed the source of where he received this photo from; which he claims to be of me, and has offered as "evidence" against me.  

 

I have stated it does resemble me, but with other caveats.  And I know that those photographs were taken on Private Property, without the knowledge or consent of the person being photographed; as no signed Model Release is on file.  If so, such photos being used would be considered "unauthorized" or "snoop" shots.  That  brings up the subject of  a "paparazzi" style invasion of privacy.  Who's going to be on the hook for that?   The formerly "anonymous" photographer, Gail Margaret Sanders?  Or Mr. Paul H. Grant, Attorney At Law, for distributing and using as evidence, in a court of law; the material presented by a formally unidentified source of his own generation; who he still refuses to acknowledge as the photographer?  Wow!  Isn't it about time that the photographer and Mr. Grant get together on their stories?  And do I now have room to file a lawsuit on the now Named Photographer, by her own admission via email to me, and Mr. Grant, for his distribution; in a case of:   Invasion Of Privacy, because if that photo is proven to be of me; I didn't authorize it, nor pose for it.

 More soon...