1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF CLACKAMAS TIM REEVES, ERIC SAUB, GREG ) BURNETT, as the Libertarian ) Party of Oregon; DAVID TERRY,) M. CARLING and RICHARD BURKE,) as members of the Libertarian) Party of Oregon, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) and ) ) CARLA PEALER, as the ) Libertarian Party of Oregon, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WES WAGNER, HARRY JOE TABOR, ) MARK VETANEN, BRUCE KNIGHT, ) JEFF WESTON, JIM KARLOCK, ) RICHARD SKYBA, and JEFF ) WESTON, individuals; and ) LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OREGON, ) ) Defendants, ) ) and ) ) JOSEPH SHELLEY, ) ) Defendant. )

Clackamas County Circuit Court No. CV12010345 CA A155618 Volume 3 of 5

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled Court and cause came on regularly for hearing before the Honorable James E. Redman, on Monday, the 22nd day of October, 2012, at the Clackamas County Courthouse, Courtroom No. 3, Oregon City, Oregon.

Appearances 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 October 22, 2012 Proceedings Case Called Defendants' Rule 21 Motions/Second Amended Complaint Defendants' Argument by Mr. Andries Plaintiffs' Argument by Mr. Smith Defendants' Argument by Mr. Andries Plaintiffs' Argument by Mr. Smith Court's Ruling Reporter's Certificate * * * GENERAL INDEX VOLUME 3 Proceedings recorded by digital sound recording; transcript provided by Certified Shorthand Reporter. * * * KATIE BRADFORD, CSR 90-0148 Court Reporter (503) 267-5112 Robert Steringer, James Leuenberger and Colin Andries, Attorneys at Law, Appearing on behalf of the Defendants. * * * APPEARANCES Tyler Smith, Attorney at Law, Appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs;

107

Page No. 108 108

108 108 113 125 129 130 132

108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 back there. (Volume 3, Monday, October 22, 2012, 9:16 a.m.) P R O C E E D I N G S (Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in open court:) THE COURT: I see a room full of people Let's --

Is everyone here on Reeves?

let's -- everyone here? Okay.

Let's give that another try.

The status, as I understand it,

is this is Defendants' Rule 21 motions on the second amended complaint. So who wants to go first on that? That's correct. For the

MR. ANDRIES:

record, Your Honor, Colin Andries, Bar No. 051892; Andries, A-n-d-r-i-e-s. This was my -- and if you

don't mind, I will be seated throughout my oral arguments, if that's okay with you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. This was my motion that I

MR. ANDRIES: submitted to the Court.

Before I begin, have you had Would you -- do

an opportunity to read the motions? you need me to rehash it? THE COURT:

I've read the motion.

This

was assigned to me on the objections to the last complaint -MR. ANDRIES: THE COURT: Mm-hmm.

So I think I'm pretty well

109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 up to speed, but I have an open mind if you have more you'd like to say. MR. ANDRIES: Thank you. And I just And to

asked that 'cause I just wanted to make sure. my right is Bob Steringer. He represents the

Libertarian Party of Oregon.

And to his right is

James Leuenberger, who represents Mr. Wes Wagner. THE COURT: I remember you from before. Wonderful. Good morning. Morning, Your Honor.

MR. ANDRIES:

MR. STERINGER:

MR. LEUENBERGER: MR. ANDRIES:

The motion that we are

presenting to the Court has been brought under -- for subject jurisdiction. It's a Rule 21 motion. While

the plaintiffs' response has stated that jurisdiction has already been decided, this is a motion that's brought pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. And Lake County v. State, 142 Or App 162, which states that when APA review is available, APA jurisdiction is exclusive. So while there has

been jurisdiction, has been decided previously pursuant to Chapter 28 in the Declaratory Judgment Act, saying that there is jurisdiction in this case for that matter, in this matter, we're saying that

110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there had been a final order previously brought to the Court's -- that had been previously provided by the Secretary of State's department. As a result, the Administrative Procedures Act, the review in that procedure in the APA is exclusive and any jurisdiction that's going to come through is pursuant to the APA. THE COURT: And if I rule in your favor,

they're too late and they'd be out of court. MR. ANDRIES: THE COURT: That is correct.

Okay. And as a result, the --

MR. ANDRIES:

the order that was granted, that was determined back in, I believe, September of 2011, 60 days has passed. There's a 60-day window for when a review can be brought. And whether you like the decision or not, whether you don't believe that the Secretary of State had the authority to make that order, that can be brought in that 60-day window to be brought to the Clackamas County Court. THE COURT: Repeat to me what it was

that the Secretary of State decided. MR. ANDRIES: The Secretary of State --

and I will -- the letter, the order is very brief and

111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 today? I will actually read the whole thing. But here

stated that he recognizes Wes Wagner and -- as the chair of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and he's going to continue to recognize that group of individuals as the leadership of the Libertarian -THE COURT: Is that what's before me

Is it -- is it, who is the chairman or are we

talking about a -- a set of bylaws and what set of bylaws applies? MR. ANDRIES: That's a good question.

It's my understanding and in my review of the complaint, while plaintiffs have stated that this is about bylaws, in reality, the issue at hand is who gets to determine who gets to be put on the ballot for the Secretary -- for any election that's brought forth, and who the Secretary of State is going to recognize, 'cause there's a dispute between which bylaws are at hand and which bylaws are in charge. However, the plaintiffs have viewed this, couched it as an argument that the bylaws are at issue. And, in reality, it's trying to determine

who is going to be able to make a determination and talk to the Secretary of State and -- and recognized by the Secretary of State for any elections-type issues that come up.

112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And so while plaintiffs have made arguments that bylaws are at issue, in reality, I believe that's an end run, an end run around to get the Secretary of State's Office to recognize their -their candidates and their -- their leadership. If you look at the second amended complaint, they ask that the defendants, if they were to succeed, defendants direct the Secretary of State's Office to recognize the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' situation. I believe, while they have couched it in a bylaws argument, the crux of the matter is that it is about who's the leadership. And then you look at

other complaints and other motions and other issue -writings to the Court, the plaintiffs have actually recognized that. I believe it was in their motion for an expedited hearing, they stated that, "The crux of this lawsuit is about which group of officers is the legitimate leadership of the Libertarian Party of Oregon." And that was Page 2, Line 2 of the

plaintiffs' motion to expedite trial. So while the excerpt is issued with the bylaws, the main point of this entire litigation is to determine who the Secretary of State can

113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 microphone. Your Honor. Before I go too far into my argument, I will point out the -- the single case they cited here was a Lake County case. County. Notice first thing Lake Okay. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Your Honor. recognize. The Secretary of State has made that order and created a final order in September of 2011, 60 days past from that. And, therefore, jurisdiction

should no longer be in this court. THE COURT: I'm with you. I understand.

I'm not saying I agree, but I understand what you're saying. MR. ANDRIES: THE COURT: Yeah. Interesting point.

Okay.

Before it gets too far into my arguments, I will point out -THE COURT: If you're comfortable being

seated, you're welcome to be seated. MR. SMITH: Might be better for the Thank you,

I have no problem.

This is a government actor. All the cases and all the authority that

they're citing, the entire rubric that they're citing

114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 apply here. here involves government actors when there's a government -- you know, when there's an administrative procedure involved. Here we have two private parties. entire crux of this case is two private parties having a dispute about their own government -governing documents. And the issue here, obviously, is a simple one, simple question of law, is does the APA apply here when you have one private party with a dispute against another private party? And for two reasons, the APA does not One is based on the law. There's a The

simple legal preclusion of having the APA apply here. And the second is on the facts of this particular case, the APA wouldn't apply either. As to the law, ORS 248.011, which we've discussed extensively before -- and I'm glad Your Honor is sitting before us today, because you know the background and you know the background and complexity of some of these issues, ORS 248.011 explicitly prohibits the Secretary of State from getting involved in enforcing the rules of a political party. Now, the other two defendants vehemently

115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wrong. made that argument the last time we were here and suggested that neither the Secretary of State nor this Court could even adjudicate this matter. They

said that nobody can adjudicate this bylaw dispute. And that was the dispute we had last time. Obviously, this Court ruled they were As to this Court's jurisdiction into And, you know,

litigating this -- this dispute.

we've come to the agreement that the Secretary of State cannot -- could not have before, cannot now have adjudicated this dispute. THE COURT: The --

And your -- your opinion of

what the dispute is, just tell me in ten words or less. MR. SMITH: bylaws, Your Honor. THE COURT: MR. SMITH: THE COURT: MR. SMITH: THE COURT: MR. SMITH: All right. The 2009 bylaws -All right. -- versus the 2011 bylaws. Go ahead. The Secretary of State, when It's a dispute about the

this -- when this occurred, the Secretary of State themselves said, "Go to court and get an order." We -- we asked them, "How can you accept these bylaws

116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when these guys aren't the officers anymore?" They said, "Our hands are tied. 248.011

says we cannot get involved in determining party rules or making an adjudication." It's -- it goes

without saying, the Secretary of State is not equipped for this kind of litigation. The Secretary of State never litigates breaches of duties, contract disputes, challenges to corporate officers. So the -- the plaintiffs here,

Plaintiff Libertarian Party of Oregon agrees with the Secretary of State in that regard. 248.011 means what it says. of State can't do this. Secretary

It's Defendant Karlock and

the other board of directors who have just been added because they may have some supposed interest in this organization are the ones that have a dispute with the Secretary of State as to that statute. It's kind of unusual that they would suggest that the plaintiffs in this case would have to file a lawsuit against the Secretary of State, overturn ORS 248.011 and -- and get a judge to say, "Secretary of State, that law is invalid. It doesn't

prohibit you from doing what it says it prohibits you from doing in order for plaintiffs to then file suit against another private party." It doesn't square.

117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And that's why the APA simply doesn't apply here. As to the facts of this case, the APA does not apply to the facts of this case either. facts show that it's a private party against a private party. pleadings. This Court's familiar with the The

We've talked about the pleadings

extensively. There's not a claim or allegations against the Secretary of State. There's not It's As

allegations against any government actor.

allegations primarily against Defendant Wagner.

we argued last time, we don't even think some of the other defendants even need to be a part of this case. It's primarily against Defendant Wagner, particularly with respect to the second and third claims for relief, because he's punitively acting or alleges that he's the chairman. So -- and then

again, with respect to the remedies, as I pointed out in our brief, the Secretary of State is not even mentioned in the remedies. We're not asking this Court to do anything to the Secretary of State, to overturn any order of the Secretary of State. Of course, every

corporation, every political entity, every person that does UCC filings, has interactions with the

118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relief. Secretary of State. Lots of people have interactions

with government entities all the time. Two people get in a car crash with each other, they don't go to the DMV and ask for an APA hearing about it. in court. It's a dispute that's adjudicated

Just as in this case, we have specific

statutory statutes that are being adjudicated in this case. ORS 28.010 is only the first claim for But I've got to recap some of the facts to It's

show why this is a dispute between the parties. been a long time since our last argument. March 12th of 2011, the Libertarian Party had its annual convention.

At that

-- at that convention, and this is an uncontested fact that's been admitted by the two parties that have filed their answers already, that the 2009 bylaws controlled that convention. At that same meeting, Defendant Wagner was the one that moved to adjourn the meeting until May. May. At that May 21st meeting, the plaintiff Libertarian Party of Oregon met to continue the convention. They elected the plaintiffs' officers as So it was March 12th, moved to adjourn until

119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 convention. the new officers of the LPO and continued operations thereon after. Meanwhile, during that period of time, Defendant Wagner took the chairmanship, because the former chair resigned. Defendant Wagner, from

March 12th to March 31st called a separate independent meeting of his own -- which, again, they have admitted in the defendant Libertarian Party of Oregon's answer. Paragraph 16 they admit that that was not a convention. The bylaws require -- and during

that meeting, they replaced the bylaws in their entirety. They've admitted that meeting was not a While under the 2009 bylaws, which are

acknowledged by all the parties that have answered so far to have been the governing documents at that time, Article XV1, Section I says there must be advance notice of bylaw changes. That's cited in

Paragraph 10 of our second amended complaint. "The proposed amendments to the Constitution and bylaws shall be entered on the agenda at the next annual convention to be held in odd-numbered year unless the state -- central and state committee authorizes a special convention to be

120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 held sooner for that purpose." required. Secondly, in Section II of that same thing, that, "Amendments can only take place at a convention." Article XVI, again, Section II. "Amendment in convention: Any delegate to an annual So advance notice is

convention held in an odd-numbered year or during a special convention held to consider amendments they propose any amendments to this constitution and bylaws if such amendment is presented in writing to the secretary before that convention finishes considering amendments and if at least 10 percent of the delegates present request its consideration." So it's required to be at a convention. Third, Article XI requires 45 days notice for a convention. It goes without saying, between

March 12th and March 31st, there were not 45 days. Therefore -- and they've admitted it wasn't a convention. So their proposed bylaw changes on March 31st can't have taken place, even according to their admissions that are already on this record. Therefore, the 2009 bylaws are still controlling and all operations done after that date should be

121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 our brief. is about. according to the 2009 bylaws. That's what our first claim for relief But we make three claims for relief.

They're all separately stated, they're all separate laws and they're all private party versus private party. The declaratory judgment is ORS 28.010. We've litigated about

We've cited that already. that.

So it gives this Court the authority to determine the rights, status and legal relations between parties and 020 says when it -- when it's a written document the Court can do the same thing. Bylaws -- as we've talked about before, bylaws give judicially enforceable contract rights. The cases that we cite on that were in That's Dentell (phonetic), 273 Or 31,

Delaney (phonetic), 278 Or 305, Brewster (phonetic), 212 Or 177. And I apologize for having to repeat

these from the last hearing, but those say quite clearly that bylaws create judicially enforceable contract rights. That's where we're at. These are

judicial enforceable rights. So none of the -- none of the three claims are precluded from being in this court. again, they make no substantive argument to the But,

122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ballot. second or third claim for relief. Their -- their

argument is that somehow we're skirting the APA, when the Secretary of State themselves said, "This doesn't -- you don't apply. You've got to go to

court if you want to dispute this as a private dispute." And we believe that the state law says what it says. private. that. So all claims are private versus

The pleadings and the prayer both show

There's no state actor, no state action, no

allegation against the government, no remedy sought against the government, no ruling sought to be overturned. The e-mail that they produced was a question about who was going to be the replacement candidate for the first congressional district election that came up suddenly. There is no -- the

ballot right now has already been printed. We're not here litigating today who's going to be on the ballot on November 6th. not -- that's not why we're here. good question as to that. We're not about deciding who's on the We're about deciding who's in control of That's

Your Honor made a

this organization for tomorrow -- well, it's

123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obviously a decision that can go out tomorrow, but -THE COURT: Are you sure you want to say Or do you

that, that this is about who's in control?

want to say the core issue for me is what set of bylaws apply, according to your pleadings? MR. SMITH: go hand in hand. documents. Well, Your Honor, they both

The bylaws are the governing

State law says that -- for instance, in

our third claim for relief, a breach of a duty of a corporate officer. State law is very clear that a

corporate officer must follow his bylaws, so they go hand in hand. We've claimed in our third claim for relief that Mr. Wagner breached his corporate duty, his fiduciary duty to follow the bylaws. bylaws are the precursor of all of this. The 2009 This whole

thing is about if -- if the 2011 bylaws are somehow valid; then, yes, all of our -- this case -- this case would probably be over. We'd have to review the -- the rest of the pleadings and see if there's anything left. It's

about the 2009 bylaws, are what the substance of all the case is about. There are certainly things that

will cascade downwards and facts and law that could be applied, depending on which set of bylaws is

124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 valid. And one of those, obviously, we have two competing groups of leaders. You can't deny that.

Those are the plaintiffs and those are the defendants. bylaws. But the crux of the dispute is about the

What are the governing documents of this

organization and then, therefore, what acts after that date are valid or invalid. THE COURT: So you're saying for the

record that you're not trying to overturn a decision of a governmental official? MR. SMITH: Yes. That's what we're --

that's what we're doing, Your Honor. THE COURT: That would be your position

as far as a trial court is concerned? MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. There's --

the Secretary of State has stated their position and told us to go to court. THE COURT: MR. SMITH: Okay. Anything else? So the --

Yes, Your Honor.

as -- as I pointed out, the Secretary of State doesn't even have the capacity -- they're prohibited from adjudicating this type of dispute. They've said

they can't litigate or adjudicate this type of -- of dispute between private parties.

125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 plaintiffs? Okay. Mr. Andries. Yes. A couple of points. They don't -- aren't even set up to do things like contract breaches to interpret private party documents, do corporate power struggles. When

there's a derivative action by shareholders against a corporation, do they go to the Secretary of State, even though the Secretary of State has registered that corporation and say, "We want an APA hearing?" No. This entire argument is tangential to the facts

of this -- and circumstances of this case. THE COURT: I don't want to cut you off,

but I think I understand your position. MR. SMITH: Okay. With that said,

Your Honor, I'll answer -- I'd be happy to answer any questions. THE COURT: Anyone else with the

MR. ANDRIES:

Mr. -- plaintiffs' counsel has stated a couple of times that the Secretary of State's Office has said we -- they will not -- they will not enter this decision and they will not make a decision on this issue and they need to go to court and get an order from the Court to determine who's going to be the leader and who -- which bylaws are in charge.

126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If that is the case, through discovery, we have requested communications about that issue. The only communications that we have received in regards to the Secretary of State's decision about and making a statement that they need a court order, it was provided to the court on Exhibit 2, Page 3 to my motion. I mean, in it was an e-mail from the Secretary of State's division to plaintiffs' counsel saying that, "The only way we can remove the qualification of the LPO is that if we were presented with a valid Oregon court order stating that the LPO can no longer exist because the LNC, the Libertarian National Committee, will not allow their use of the name libertarian." Now, if there is other communication that say that they're not going to make a decision, they're not equipped, through the discovery process, that has not been provided. The determinations from the Secretary of State's Office and where they have stated that we have seen through discovery that there needs to be a court order is in that one e-mail and in regards to the use of the name Libertarian. As a result, I don't believe that the

127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Secretary of State's Office has said, "You need to go get a court order." If you look at the order that

they actually provided, we provided to the court Secretary of offices -- State's Office has actually made. They actually said, "We are attempting to stay out of your internal party processes and its clear that we will have to make a decision." have made a decision. So they

And while plaintiffs' counsel

has stated over and over that this is a private party verses a private party matter, that just -- it isn't true. There are -- the Secretary of State has made a decision. They are the Elections Board. The

Libertarian Party provides names for elections processes and the Secretary of State's Office is a party to this. While they're not a named party, just because they haven't been named as a party doesn't mean they are not a government -- there isn't a government actor in this situation. Further, there have been -- on May 9th, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to Secretary of State's Office again asking for a determination and asking that their leadership be put in charge, be

128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rightfully placed into -- as the leaders of the party. So while in this situation on this -- in this case they haven't named the Secretary of State's Office as a party to a litigation, they are. If you

look at -- on the complaint, while it wasn't stated in the remedies, spelled out in the remedies, and plaintiffs' counsel was careful not to phrase that, the first and second claim are asking that actions be filed with the Secretary of State so that their officers could be recognized based on that prior election. So while they say that it's private party versus private party, there was on order. we need to get that -- Lake County says if Administrative Procedure Act is -- review is available, that is the exclusive remedy here. And so while we can talk about all the prior dates and the calendars and when actions happened, there was an order that was made. was a final order. Plaintiffs' counsel has not disputed that the letter was there. And looking at the terms As a There And

of ORS 184 and 183, that was a final order.

result, the remedy -- if the proper remedy is through

129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you. That letter is quite interesting for them to cite that out. party. That was to a different the APA, and as a result, they had 60 days to file a review of that decision. THE COURT: MR. SMITH: One minute. Your Honor, if I may, yes.

While my name was on that letter, I was

actually representing the Libertarian National Committee at the time. election matter. And so it's interesting that they bring that up and say that that was somehow involving or adjudicating the rights of my clients. As you And it was about a federal

pointed out, the Secretary of State has never decided any of these issues that are before this Court. They never decided whether there was 45 days to have a convention. They never decided

whether the 2009 bylaws and the 2011 bylaws were properly adopted. They never adjudicated the quorum They

dispute about that meeting, which is at stake.

never adjudicated the meaning as you've seen, the -the interpretive disagreements about what the bylaws say. They never adjudicated any of these

130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 minute up. All right. I'm going to make the same I things. So I don't want to go past my minute. THE COURT: Okay. You've used your

-- I see people in the back on the courtroom.

assume some of you are parties to this litigation; is that correct? I see nodding heads. I'm going to make the same

Okay.

observation I made the last time this was before me. The lawyers on both sides have done exceptional work in briefing this matter. the Court. I spent most of Saturday morning reading the file, so I believe I'm familiar with the -- the issues. I'm denying the motion. And, Mr. Smith, if you will prepare the appropriate order. MR. ANDRIES: THE COURT: Your Honor -So that's always helpful to

Yes. If I could ask for a Is it your ruling that

MR. ANDRIES:

little bit of clarification.

there was not a final order -- a final order was not made or that jurisdiction does not -- there was a final order and jurisdiction not apply? THE COURT: My -- my reasoning is that

131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 what the Secretary of State decided is not before me in this lawsuit. And I think we should put that in

the order in case, you know, you want to cite that and if you should decide to appeal this. MR. ANDRIES: THE COURT: to add in there? MR. ANDRIES: THE COURT: No, Your Honor. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.

Anything else you'd like me

Okay.

MR. ANDRIES: MR. SMITH:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you, Your Honor.

* * * (Court adjourned, Volume 3, 10-22-12 at 9:42 a.m.)

Reporter's Certificate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ___________________________ Katie Bradford, CSR 90-0148 Court Reporter (503) 267-5112 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

132

I, Katie Bradford, Court Reporter of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Fifth Judicial District, certify that I transcribed in stenotype from a CD the oral proceedings had upon the hearing of the above-entitled cause before JAMES E. REDMAN, Circuit Judge, on October 22, 2012; That I have subsequently caused my stenotype notes, so taken, to be reduced to computer-aided transcription under my direction; and that the foregoing transcript, Volume 3 of 5, Pages 106 through 131, both inclusive, constitutes a full, true and accurate record of said proceedings taken from a CD and so reported by me in stenotype as aforesaid. Witness my hand and CSR Seal at Portland, Oregon, this 10th day of March, 2014.