1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 "t ,._~,

15 '~

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

T ><,, 28 "~

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

---ooo---

In re the Marriage of:

,

Petitioner,

vs CASE NO. 10

,

Respondent.

---oOo---

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Held in the Superior Court, in and for the County of Sacramento, Department 121, on Tuesday, August 28, 2012;

Before the HONORABLE MATTHEW J. GARY, Judge

---ooo---

APPEARANCES

For the Respondent: IN PROPRIA PERSONA

Reported By: Tara Murany, CSR No. 12892

~-------SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS--------~

1 own because of a voluntary choice to leave employment, but

2 because of various circumstances, then they find themselves

3 not able to pay court fees. But for your voluntary choices,

4 you would have to pay the court fees just like everyone else

5 has to pay the court fees that didn't make the voluntary

6 choice.

7 For example, if Ms. IIIII didn't -- she has not

8 made the voluntary choice to walk away from her vocation and

9 pursue litigation full time, and for that reason the Court

10 charges her for all fees. You have voluntarily chosen to

11 walk away from your vocation and to pursue litigation, and

12 you're asking the Court to waive the fee.

13 I understand that you won't find that in the

14 Government Code. And again, it's because I believe that the

15 Government Code did not contemplate this scenario.

16 Otherwise, if it did, what the Government Code would be

17 inducing, or asking, or allowing, sanctioning, condoning

18 people to do is walk away from their full-time employment to

19 pursue whatever type of litigation it is, including divorces,

20 and no one would ever have to pay a fee, and it would

21 encourage people walking away. That is clearly not what

22 these statutes are contemplating.

23 MR. IIIII= Your Honor, you're mischaracterizing

24 the record. You just stated that you reviewed the file.

25 Now, in that review did you note that I did not have income

26 for a year prior to the filing of the dissolution.

27 THE COURT: Yes, sir, that is what you declared,

28 but that -- but --

�--------SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS -------10

"--·

1

2

3

MR. IIIII: It's indisputable. That's never been

disputed by either side.

THE COURT: Well, the question -- the question,

4 which is really not squarely before me today, the question

5 was whether you voluntarily did that. And you guys have a

6 trial coming up, right? Am I mistaken on that? Don't you

7 guys have some hearings coming up? Is the matter being set

8 for trial?

9 MR. IIIII: The matter is set for trial, yes,

10 Your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Right. Isn't that one of the issues,

12 your income?

13

14

15

MR. IIIII: In the trial?

THE COURT: Yes. Isn't spousal support --

MR. IIIII: Well, I have -- I filed a Notice of

16 Appeal, so that's -- the trial is not going to happen.

17 THE COURT: Okay. Isn't spousal support one of the

18 issues being litigated, or is it not?

19 MR. IIIII: I haven't paid that much attention to

20 it, frankly, because I'm in the process of appealing the

21 rulings from the last hearing that we had.

22 THE COURT: All right. If I'm not mistaken, on

23 your response that was filed July 16th of 2010 you asked for

24 spousal support to be paid by her to you and to terminate the

25 Court's jurisdiction to order you to pay her. So I was

26 thinking spousal support was at issue in the proceeding, and

27 your ability to be gainfully employed I think is at issue.

28 I'm not certain to my knowledge or to my recollection of the

�-------SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS -------11