==1== [(BEGIN STAMP) FILED 2001 OCT 9 P 12:11 Hopkins County Hopkins Circuit Court <signature> DC. (END STAMP) ] FILED Volume 1 Exhibits: See Index COMMONWEALTH 0F KENTUCKY HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT MADISONVILLE, KENTUCKY 42431 ----------------------- LAURA VANNOY PADGETT, : Petitioner : v : Case No. : 92—CI—00444 THOMAS CARTER PADGETT, : Respondent : ------------------------ VIDEOTAPE DEPOSITION OF THOMAS CARTER PADGETT, taken on behalf of the Respondent, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure, before Carol A. Fierimante, Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, (#134693), at the Jericho Christian Center, 17 Jericho Road, Middleborough, Massachusetts on Monday, August 27, 2001, commencing at 8:53 a.m. REPORTERS, INC. GENERAL & TECHNICAL COURT REPORTING FIFTY-TWO FRONT STREET HOLLISTON, MASSACHUSETTS 01746 TELEPHONE: 508/429/4034 FACSIMILE: 508/429/7767 ==2== APPEARANCES: WILLIAM R. WHITLEDGE, ESQUIRE 24 Court Street Madisonville, Kentucky 42431 On behalf of the Petitioner WM CLINT PROW, ESQUIRE 123 East Main Providence, Kentucky 42450 On behalf of the Respondent ALSO PRESENT: Jack Cunha, Video Operator ==3== INDEX WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS THOMAS CARTER PADGETT By Mr Prow 6 276, 299 By Mr Whitledge 74, 296 EXHIBITS NO PAGE A Laura Padgett Litigation Update 77 B Affidavit of Julie Padgett 103 C Affidavit of Beau Padgett 103 D “Help Us, Please” flyer 103 E Flyer 103 F Printout 123 G Letter dated May 17, 2001 147 H Letter dated September 13, 1999 147 I Medical record 150 J Medical record 150 K Notice of Appeal and two checks 231 L Copy of Check No. 0185 231 M Southwest Airlines itinerary 231 N John W Padgett Revocable Trust Agreement 231 0 Second Amendment to the Shirley T Padgett Revocable Trust Agreement 231 ==4== EXHIBITS, cont. NO. PAGE P Letter dated August 11, 1998 231 Q Fax dated May 1, 1998 231 R Southwest Airlines itinerary 231 S Check and certified mail receipt 246 T Tax Return Listing for 1995 and letter 246 U Motion 304 V Gross Income History 304 W Response to Petitioner´s Motions 304 X Two—page internet document 304 ==74== CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WHITLEDGE: ==75== Q. Very good. Mr Padgett, you know me very well. I think we have met numerous times. I would like to remind you that you are under oath and I would also like to remind you that the Commissioner in her ruling said that you would be subject to Kentucky´s laws in this deposition. A. Um hmm. Q. And you are aware of the law of perjury? A. Yes, I am. Q. And you are aware that that is a felony in Kentucky? A. That is correct. I am. Well, if you say so. Q. And I also noted on the internet a quote from Judge Boteler in which you had quoted Judge Boteler that you made the statement that if either party in this action makes any false statement or misrepresentation before the Court, that it would be referred to the Commonwealth attorney. A. Yes, um hmm. Q. Now, you recall both of those statements? A. I——yes, I do. Q. Now, there is posted on the internet what is ==76== called a Laura Padgett Litigation Page? A. Um hmm. Q. You are familiar with that? A. Yes, I am. Q. And I think you put that together, didn´t you? A. No. That is not my web page. Q. Who put the web page together? A. It is a news group out of Holland. Q. Do you have any participation in what goes into that internet — — A. Only that I provide —— I provide information to the parties involved putting together that, that website. Now, I do have my own website that I —— Q. And what is that website of yours? Is that your meditation or mediation page? A. Yes That is the title of it. But I have an exact URL that you can go to it. Q. You have a what? A. URL, which means a universal locator Q. And what is that? A. HTTP://community.WebTV.net/TommyBoy5O8/Tom Padgetts, plural. Q. Bear with me just a second. I thought I had ==77== this marked but I apparently — here it is. I will hand you a copy of a printout as printed from that internet and ask you to examine that and state to the Court whether or not that is a true copy of that internet website. (Witness perusing document.) A. It looks like a fairly accurate paper backup copy Q. Now, there is a picture? A. And there is a picture of me and my children. Q. A picture of you and your children. And you have that picture with you this morning, don´t you? A. It is a similar pose but not the exact one. Yes, it is similar but it is not the exact one. Q. And that is your understanding of the Laura Padgett web page update? A. Yes. Identified as such, yes. MR. WHITLEDGE. All right. I move that we make this a part of the record and then mark it as Petitioner´s Exhibit A. MR. PROW: No objection. (Document marked as Exhibit A for identification.) ==78== Q. Now, the first area that Mr Prow addressed was the area of visitation. Now, Judge Boteler ruled back in 1996, I think, that your visitation would be restricted. A. Um hmm. Q. Now, what was your understanding of her reason for that restriction? A. I never had an understanding for the visitation restriction, why it was restricted. The order actually said -- my understanding of the order was that based on the expert testimony of Donna Nichols, that it should be restricted. Q. All right. Now, part of that dispute was your failure to return the children on time, wasn´t it? A. Well, it wasn´t a real -- it wasn´t a real issue. That was misrepresented. I did return my -- I think how that confusion happened is during the time that I had my children in 1995, that the -- the -- I mean I had them in June -- no, July And then during that time, the final ruling came in which allowed me to have them through the first week in August. Q. So you - ==79== A. So I was in compliance with the current visitation order but I think -- will be very frank with you. I think Laura´s prior attorney misrepresented the fact that I didn´t return them from the time of the pendente lite order. Q. That is what the visitation originally started out over, wasn´t it? A. Was — Q. The pendente lite order? A. I am not certain. Well, the final ruling was already in effect so - Q. But the scheduled visitation that had been scheduled through your attorneys was to end two weeks prior to your actually returning those children, didn´t it? A. Well, it was a — I don´t recall it was set up through the attorneys. It was set up through Laura and I through correspondence. Q. So then there was this problem about you keeping the children two weeks longer and not returning them on the agreed date? A. Well, it was a perceived problem because an order of the Court had came in and I was in compliance with the legal order of the Court and ==80== I just simply exercised that right. Q. And that was part of the problem that Judge Boteler had when he restricted your visitation, wasn´t it? A. I am not sure. I think I believe he was misrepresented in that. Q. Now, Judge Boteler misrepresented it? A. No. He was misrepresented — Judge Boteler was misrepresented by Laura´s prior counsel in that particular area. I did return them based upon the current order. I did return them within that time. Q. Now, another problem that the Court had with that particular visitation, I think, was some affidavits that you had the children sign. Is that not true? A. The children did sign various documents. I think two of them were called affidavits. Q. And those two are on the internet now, aren´t they? A. They are part of the Court record. Q. They are on the internet, aren´t they? A. That is correct. Q. And I have two copies here of two separate ==81== affidavits which was on your internet designated as Exhibit R-7 and an affidavit signed by Julie Padgett. And I will hand this to you and I ask you if this is a copy of that affidavit. (Witness perusing document.) A. it appears to be what is on the internet. It is not in the same — it is not the same — it is not like a scanned — I am not a computer person so but it doesn´t -- it is not a scan of the actual. But I have checked it for the people who did it. It is the actual — Q. It is the same verbiage? A. Same verbiage, yes. Q. And you also had your son sign an affidavit addressed to his mother which is also on the internet? A. Yes. It is a letter. It is not an affidavit. Q. And but it was notarized, wasn´t it? A. It was witnessed by a pastor counselor of the Presbyterian Church, who appeared, who appeared in the Hopkins Circuit Court from Florida on March 13th and testified that this was an accurate request of my son. Q. And that, the Court found that that was ==82== traumatic to those children to be exposed to the problems of this divorce, didn´t it? A. Based on the testimony of Donna Nichols. Q. All right. Now, also, I think that another problem that the Court had with your actions up to that time — — A. Um hmm. Q. -- was the distribution of various flyers within the community. A. Um hmm. Q. And I will hand you one such flyer which is styled, “Help Us, Please, Beau and Julie.” A. Um hmm. Q. And I ask you if you are familiar with that flyer (Witness perusing document.) A. Yes, I am. Q. And that flyer was distributed throughout Hopkins County, wasn´t it? A. I was told that it was. Q. Who distributed that flyer? A. l am not sure. Q. It has an IPASS on the bottom. Was IPASS, do you know anything about IPASS? ==83== A. My recollection, it is some friends in Kentucky, in Lexington that stands for Independent People Against the Suffering of Scientology Q And the Court was quite upset with those flyers that were distributed within the community wasn´t it? A. I believe they were. Q. Now, also there was some contact on your part with Julie´s friends, writing one of her friends a letter about Julie and the divorce action and your opinions of Scientology Is that not true? A. I believe it was her parent — her parents of her friends. Q. Parents of her friends? A. Yes. Q. Now, based on these actions and the having the children sign the affidavits during visitation, the Court had you examined by a Ms. Donna Nichols. Is that not true? A. No. Q. Were you -- were you examined by Ms. Nichols? A. No. Q. You never discussed anything with Ms. Nichols? A. From the time of the visitation restriction or [were?] ==84== moved for, I had — as a matter of fact, I asked to be examined by her on a clinical one-on-one interview but she refused to meet with me so I was never examined. Q. You never talked to her one on one? A. In 1993, during the custody issues, yes, we met on a one-on-one basis. Q. All right. And how many times did you consult with her at that time? A. I think it was one. Well, there was one initial meeting, an extensive meeting where I met with her and the children together Q. Now, Ms. Nichols became very upset with your actions and became fearful of you. Is that not true? A. That is what she stated. Q. And the Court issued some orders at that time for you to cease those threats to her, didn´t you? A. My recollection is that an order was drafted that said I am supposed to cease harassment. And that was never an order of the Court but a verbal order of the Court, but the Court´s signatures got on it. So it to me was like me ==85== telling the cameraman here stop beating your wife, implying that he beat his wife, which implied that I harassed Donna Nichols. The -- when the visitation restriction was being moved for and they wanted to involve her as a child psychologist and an expert witness, I simply wanted to be examined to have an -- in a clinical environment and to be as Laura did with the Court -- that I was able to meet with her and the kids And when I wrote her and tried to telephone her, she considered that harassment. Q. All right. But you had met with her before and she had filed a report with the Court prior to that in ‘93, I think it was that you just said? A. Yes. Q. Now, based upon these problems, it is my understanding the Court made a finding that visitation with you was traumatic to the children. Is that not — is that your understanding of it? A. No. It is not my understanding. Q. All right. Then what is your understanding? A. My understanding, that an order was drafted to the effect that my children were traumatized. ==86== But no experts, there was no expert testimony to that effect from people involved in trauma and the problems that exist between Laura and myself. Q. Now, you say there was an order drafted. That order actually got signed by the judge, didn´t it? A. Yes, it did. Q. And in that order it said that the children were exposed to traumatic situations in visiting with you. And as a result, your visitation was restricted. Is that not true? A. Yes, that is correct. Q. Now, do you also recall in that order, and I will read the exact statement that was contained in that order to you and ask you if you recall this. “It is the hope of this Court that the restrictions placed upon the Respondent through this order shall continue only a few months. If the respondent proves to the Court that he has stopped and is not likely to resume the above stated activities, this Court will allow visitation between the Respondent and the parties´ children to resume in the previous ==87== ordered visitation.” Now, does that sound like an exact quote from that order? A. Yes, it does. Q. Now, what I would like to do is to go over exactly how you have changed your actions since this order was entered to show that you want quality visitation. Now, before I get into that, I would like to ask you a question about your communications with Laura. A. Um hmm. Q. You and Laura had problems communicating, is that not true? A. Yes, there are communication problems. Q. And part of those communication problems are that you wind up in an argument every time you talk, is that not true? A. No, that is partially true but not entirely true. Q. Part of the problem that you have in talking with her over the phone is that you have the phone conversations monitored, is that not true? A. In the past, distant past I have. Not recently Q. So you have actually had your brother listening ==88== in and you have taped the conversations, haven´t you? A. Yes. I believe the last time that, that was in ‘99, 1999, September of 1999 Q. And I think one of those conversations is on the internet that your brother overheard? A. It was an affidavit, yes. Q. Now, didn´t you feel that that was an awkward way to try to communicate with your former wife about having the conversations listened to by other parties and placed on the internet? A. Slightly. But nowhere near as awkward as the grotesque length and disposition and demeanor of this litigation after nine years. Q. Now, I think also there was another problem recently when you were in Kentucky visiting with your children, child, that you were to return the child and you were staying at the Travel Lodge and you didn´t return the child on time and Laura actually came to the Travel Lodge and quite an argument ensued in which she almost ran over you that night. Is that not true? A. Yes. Q. And that was an argument over Scientology and ==89== the proceedings and her not listening to you, is that correct? A. No. I don t recall that being the -- Q. What was the basis of that argument then? A. Just trying to convey that Beau wants an end to this horrid dispute his -- between his mom and dad. And there was not the -- my recollection of that particular incident was that there was a Court order, there was an agreed time, and then she moved it up from six or to four or to six, from six to five or something like that. And she wanted me to take him to Gerry´s. That wasn´t an agreement. And Gerry´s or is it Jerry´s, it is now — Q. Denny´s? A. Dennys. I am sorry And that I had communicated to her, Well, you can pick, it is okay, you can pick Beau up where I am, which was just down the block. That she could come there. I don´t see that as any kind off problem whatsoever Q. All right. Now, let´s get back on the changes. One of the problems that Judge Boteler found in his original hearing was that when you had ==90== visitation with the children, there was continuous discussion about Scientology and about this divorce proceeding. Is that not true? A. Yes. But again, he found those based on the testimony of Donna Nichols. Q. Now, when you got your visitation for last summer or this summer and Christmas with Beau, that original order from Judge McClure stated, or from Commissioner McClure, that you were to refrain from discussing any of this litigation with the children. Do you recall that? A. Um hmm. Q. And you filed objections to that. Now, why did you file objections to that? A. I believe what I filed was clarification because it was a very broad -- it was very misunderstood. Is it that I am not supposed to talk about the Petitioner´s religion and litigation. So I would want to know, you know, it becomes very confusing because I talk about -- the assumptions could be made that we are not going to talk about Christianity And I am a Christian and my children are Christian and we ==91== can´t talk about Christianity. And then the other thing is my children have seen their father indicted, arrested and imprisoned and in the front page of the Madisonville Messenger as a convicted felon. That yes, we don´t talk about the civil litigation but I want to know we can talk about the criminal litigation because their father is now a criminal and it has affected every part of his life. And I would guess that there are people who read this stuff in the Madisonville Messenger, and it is not very good for them. So I would want to waive a normal conversation with my children of things that — Q. So you did try to explain to your children then about the criminal litigation? A. Absolutely Q. And you did try to explain to your children during this period of time about the divorce action? A. Only as it related to -- well, for example, in the summer visitation that there was a major problem with, with the time schedules and the flight times and so forth. And it cost a lot of ==92== disruption on the end of my family here, trying to arrange somebody at the last minute to come and pick them up when - Q. We will go over that in a minute. But my question was did you discuss with the children during those, the most recent visitation this present civil litigation? A. You mean - Q. Between Beau or Julie or either one? A. Um hmm. Q. Between you and Laura Padgett, did you discuss with them that litigation? A. Yes. A discussion was brought up. Q. Now, the Court also found that you had sent letters to Julie´s friends which were damaging or it was felt by Julie that it was embarrassing to her that her father would write the parents of her friends A. Parents of her friends, yes. Q. Now, and that was part of the trauma that Judge Boteler wanted to restrict. A. I — is it in writing? Is it — the trauma — Q. That was one of the problems that he found. A. I just want to clarify. You keep referring to ==93== Judge Boteler. Judge Boteler´s recommendations were based on the expert testimony of Donna Nichols, a clinical psychologist. So that is where he got his rulings from. But in terms of trauma, psychological trauma to my children, in no deference to the office of the Court, in terms of trauma which is a psychological mental health issue, I would prefer that -- or that those would be assessed by experts in those fields. Q. That was one of the areas that — A. I am sure it was very politically incorrect of me to do that. Q. That was one of the areas that concerned the Court and that that was addressed in that order about writing her parents, wasn´t it, the parents of friends? A. It was brought up to the Court, yes. Q. Now, is it not true that since that hearing you have written to her high school teachers -- A. I -- Q. -- concerning this divorce action? A. I don´t recall. No, I do recall talking with Beau´s teacher. But actually, that was -- ==94== Q. You don´t recall writing to the teacher at North Hopkins concerning Julie and this divorce issue? A. It might have been her guidance counselor. You don´t have to help me. I just want to know Q. You wrote to the guidance counselor. A. I may have. I am not sure. I have done a lot of communication to try to get through this problem. Q. Yes. And you have communicated with her guidance counselor about the emotional problems from this divorce? A. Divorce? Well, family issues. Q. Family issues? A. Right. Q. Did you feel that was appropriate for you to address that to the guidance counselor concerning this emotional problem? A. Once I found out that Donna Nichols was essentially a fraud through her licensing board, yes. I would want my children to have help, to have them understand problems in their family I believe it is important that any service, health care service provider, educational or emotional support people should be aware that ==95== there are problems. And you keep referring to divorce, this as being a divorce problem. My understanding, the divorce was finalized in June of 19 — June of 1995. Q. What I am referring to, Mr Padgett, is the litigation that is going on now A. Right. Q. That´s what you were addressing the issue of to the guidance counselor? A. I don´t know if I specifically addressed litigation. Q. But you addressed Scientology in that letter, didn´t you? A. As an alternative mental health belief, not religion. Q. And you also addressed in that letter your concern that her mother was involved in Scientology? A. Yes. And I was formally and the children had been. Q. Now, also you have written a couple of letters to the college where Julie is going to in South Carolina? A. Yes. ==96== Q. And those were basically the same type of letters? A. I don´t recall writing anything to do with Scientology or divorce or whatever. I do recall writing her coach at Francis Marian University Q. Right. A. And letting them know I used to be a former coach in high school soccer. And the same case in University of South Carolina, with her coach. And I think that was done through e-mail because they — it is called Lady Pacers are on e-mail now, University of South Carolina in Aiken. So I can´t tell you — I don´t recall contacting these people, but that I don´t know, and saying hey, you know, Scientology, Scientology, Scientology Q. But did you write to them? How did you think that that letter to Julie´s guidance counselor concerning her family problems was going to affect Julie in high school with her school with her teachers and with her friends? A. I would like to reserve that for expert witnesses in this — Q. Well, what was your opinion when you wrote it? ==97== A. So that she would -- Q. What effect was that going to have? A. That she would have somebody to go to if she needed, somebody that she could talk to to sort through family issues that were not being apparent to her as being told by her mother, Oh, dad and I are just going through this terrible divorce. Q. All right. Now, this was this clause in the most recent visitation about not discussing these issues with the children during this visit? A. With Beau. Q. But it was discussed, wasn´t it? A. There were some issues that were discussed. Q. That was in violation of Ms McClure´s or Commissioner McClure´s order Is that not true? A. Well, yes and no. It all depends. Again, there is another clarification. It says that the children should not discuss the particular — Mr Padgett should not discuss the Petitioner´s religion or religious beliefs or, I forget the exact word, when he is with his son Beau during the visitation. And that is again Laura says ==98== she is a Christian, I am a Christian, Beau is Christian. So to me, it is saying I can´t talk about Christianity And even when we go to church together, If I talk about anything about the Bible I am in violation of a Court order And that gets -- now, if you are talking about Laura´s mental health release, are you talking about did I violate the order by talking about mental health issues in our family? Yes, that probably was brought up but it was not a major thing. It was not a lengthy focus. Q. And it was brought up about your dissatisfaction with Laura´s handling of this divorce, wasn´t it? A. Laura´s handling of the divorce? No. I wouldn´t put it in that terms, no. Q. Let me ask you this. You were on your way to New Hampshire and the State Police stopped you and it was discovered that you were a felon. When you got back in the truck, you had some pretty choice words to say about the children´s mother in the children´s presence; is that not true? A. Very -- I am sure it was very frustrating at ==99== that time. I don´t recall. Q. It was very frustrating? A. Um hmm. A. And so you don´t know whether there was any mention of the mother, of these children´s mother in your bitterness towards her when you got back in that truck from being stopped by the State Police. A. I don´t recall, Mr. Whitledge. But I am now a felon. I agreed to some terms and I lived up to it in the Commonwealth of Kentucky I am now a felon and I get stopped and it is on my record that l am a felon. So I have some emotional issues with that and I am dealing with that. And I am dealing with that with counseling Q. And you dealt with that in front of those children? A. So you are trying to ask me, you know, did I sit down and intentionally, you know, bombard my children with anti-Mom propaganda, the answer is no. Q. So there was no mention then of bombarding Laura when you got back in the truck after being stopped? ==100== A. No. My frustration would have been some activities of a lot of people against me to destroy my character Q. Now, also one of the problems the Court had was the flyers that were sent out in the community A. Um hmm. Q. And at the beginning of this summer there was another flyer sent out And I will ask you to examine that and state whether or not you have ever seen that flyer A. Yes, I have. Q. And who distributed that flyer in Madisonville? A. I am not sure but I think I have a pretty good idea. Q. All right. Who do you think it is? A. I received -- I received a copy of this in the mail postmarked Evansville, Indiana I believe it was some time in June. And I believe it was a party from -- Q. And you had nothing to do with that? A. No. Q. You didn´t give them any of the information that is contained in that? A. No. That is all pulled from the Court records ==101== and the information on the internet. Q. All right. And you are saying to the Court here today that you had no input nor knowledge of this flyer being distributed in the community? A. No. I was told by —- there was an issue where we were trying to get money back from a bank that was -- Q. Told by who? A. By an individual. Q. Who? A. An individual in the State of Kentucky Q. Why can´t you tell the name? A. My brother-in-law, Harold Sloop. Q. Harold distributed these? A. Absolutely not, no. He said to me that these are in banks and they are all over town and that people are upset down there. No, he informed me of them being distributed. Q. Are you saying to the Court here today that you had no knowledge that these flyers were going to be distributed in Madisonville prior to their distribution? A. I was —- I can´t say that, no, I can´t. Q. You can´t say that? So you might have had some ==102== knowledge of it prior to it being distributed? A. I do know that the people were trying to -- ever since I was incarcerated that there has been a lot of — Q. No, Mr Padgett. Look, Judge Boteler has instructed you don´t mislead the Court and all we are trying to get to is the truth. We want to be fair with you but we are expecting the truth. A. Absolutely Q. Now, you knew this flyer was coming out, didn´t you? A. Was coming out Q. Yes. A. I can´t say that, no. Q. But you knew it was being prepared? A. I knew that several people had prepared things for me on the internet. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I will move that both of those last two flyers be made a part of the exhibit, the flyers concerning “Help Us, Julie and Beau, and the last flyer that came out that we just discussed, the yellow flyer And mark those Exhibit B and C. ==103== (Documents marked as Exhibit B and Exhibit C for identification.) MR. PROW: No objection to that. MR. WHITLEDGE: And also I would like to mark the two affidavits that have just been submitted and I would like to make them the affidavits from the internet and I think we are at the time that the man needs to change the tape so we are going to take a break. (Documents marked as Exhibit D and Exhibit E for identification.) (Brief recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Stand by. It is now 11:12 a.m. on August 27, 2001. This is tape number two of Thomas C. Padgett´s deposition. Q. All right. Now, we have gone over some of the restrictions that he has placed and some of the things that have been done since then. During this time of the restrictions on your visitation being placed on you, how many times did you visit with your children? You were allowed to visit with them, weren´t you? A. From the time the visitation restrictions were started until the time which was April of 1996, ==104== the next time I saw them was in July of 1998 So it was a period of longer than two years where I didn´t see them. Q. Now, that was because you wouldn´t come visit them, wasn´t it? A. I was under legal counsel not to step foot in the Hopkins County or there was hostile attitudes towards me which would incarcerate me. Q. And what attorney advised you of that? A. Counsel, legal counsel. Q. Which attorney? A. Client-attorney privilege, I believe. Q. Now, he advised you not to come to Hopkins County, your attorney did? A. During the times that I was unrepresented without counsel, yes. Legally in the community Q. Now, was the reason you wouldn´t come to Kentucky is because you were not paying child support as you were ordered to? A. No. The reason was because I had a civil warrant out for my arrest. Q. And that was -- that civil warrant was because of a contempt proceeding for your failure to pay child support, wasn´t it? ==105== A. It was contempt for failure to provide signed documents or something is my recollection. Q. And it was also a contempt proceeding for your failure to pay child support, wasn´t it? A. Not in the civil, no. But there was a time, to answer your question there was a time from March or from April through July, there was only four months, it was child support arrest which was criminal. Q. So you are saying then that the whole visitation, the reason that you wouldn´t come to Hopkins County to visit with your children for those two years was because of the civil contempt because you wouldn´t sign certain papers? A. Not to enter Hopkins County until l am represented by counsel in the State of Kentucky Q. And none of those civil warrants had anything to do with your failure to pay child support, is that what you are telling the Court here today? A. No. From my recollection, it had to do with other issues. Q. Did it have anything to do with your failure to pay child support? ==106== A. I don´t recall, Mr Whitledge. There has been so many -- MR. PROW: I think that has been asked and answered twice. MR. WHITLEDGE: Right. A. There has been so many arrest warrants out for me. Q. Now, how have you changed which would convince the Court that these restrictions should be lifted? A. I am -- I don´t know how to answer that. How have I changed? Q. Yes. A. Mr Whitledge, I am under the understanding that I didn´t do anything wrong in the first place. And my answer to that would be upon the restriction placed upon me by the Court, which was solely based on Donna Nichols´ testimony, that my prior counsel, Milt Toby advised me strongly to file a complaint against her with her licensing board. And the result of that complaint was devastating. Each individual issue brought up was extremely compelling, but combined it was damaging if not fraudulent. ==107== Now, I do understand the order said that I am supposed to cease these things. But may I have — this is the written testimony If I made read from here, it was Donna Nichols´ written testimony Q. We are not addressing Donna Nichols — A. This is Donna Nichols´ testimony Q. -- at that point. What I am addressing is how you have changed. A. Okay. And I can answer it by addressing this how I have changed. Q. No. Because Donna Nichols, the Court, if you recall, I read to you if the respondent proffers to the Court that he has stopped and is not likely to resume the above stated activities. The flyers, has that stopped? MR. PROW: I would object. The flyers are not mentioned in the order at all. There is no reference to the flyers in the order so that is not -- I would note my objection on that. Q. The communication with kids concerning the visitation, their mother, has that stopped? A. Has it stopped? I attended a child, a parent training class. And if in that — actually, I ==108== attended several. And I also attended the Hopkins Circuit Court parent training class which is Judge Boteler´ s training class. And one of the issues that came up, and it was actually brought up by a mother who was going through the divorce, and she brought up the issue what happens if the children are getting wrong information from the other parent, what would you recommend. And the psychologist providing that or was facilitating that course suggested that you sit down with the child but don´t get into a disparaging issue with the other parent but correct the information and then quickly move on to normal activities and normal discussions. So on those occasions where they have gotten wrong information about me, about proceedings, about any kind of thing that I believe I have the right not only legally or constitutionally but parently and psychologically to correct information, and those, you know, my children are getting it, that is one of the recommendations that Donna Nichols made, that I attend a parent training class. And the second recommendation she made ==109== is, until I am further evaluated, that the restrictions should be placed upon, and I have been evaluated several times since then. Those were her words. It is in writing. Until I am further evaluated that the restrictions, and that goes back to November of 1995 And I have been evaluated many times since then, which would indicate that, first of all, that I did nothing wrong to begin with, and my, am I doing something now? No expert has testified in the behavioral social sciences or counseling role that I have done anything wrong with my children in the first place or continue to do so. Q. Did you feel that having your children sign those affidavits were the proper — was the proper thing to do? A. In retrospect, I -- if — I would have done something different. In retrospect, yes. But if you want to -- MR. WHITLEDGE: Let me have that order MR. PROW: I do. MR. WHITLEDGE: If I could see it. I am having trouble finding it and I would like to — MR. PROW: There you go. It is only a fax ==110== copy that I have. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. Thank you. Q. All right. Now, you have continually bombarded the children with questionaires was one of the things that the Court found is a problem. A. Um hmm. Q. Have you done that since then? A. No. To my recollection, I haven´t, Q. Did you call that to Julie´s attention recently about the questionaires -- A. The questionaires? Q. -- in an internet e-mail to her? A. As I don´t know — I want to ask my counsel is my daughter an issue here today? MR. PROW: No. Q. I am just asking what have you stopped. And I think that is part of the issue. MR. PROW: Well, I don´t believe -- I would object to respond that Julie is an emancipated child and is not an issue to this proceeding. She is no longer before the Court in any capacity. This is solely in regard to Beau. Julie is no longer a party She is a daughter ==111== who can -- who can deal with her father how she desires. MR. WHITLEDGE. I realize that. And part of the problem was that the trauma that these children were experiencing. And the question is has he continued to bombard her with these. And I realize she is not an issue before the Court right now MR. PROW. Well, I will allow him to respond. He can answer But again, I would object that it is not relevant to this case. A. My response would be you keep bringing up the word that my children are traumatized. I believe they are traumatized but I don´t believe they are traumatized because of the actions of myself. And the only way we are going to get to the bottom of that is to involve experts in trauma. Q. All right. Now, my question again is have you bombarded and attempted to bring up these issues of those questionaires and things with Julie since this order was entered? MR. PROW: I would continue to object. But you can go ahead and answer ==112== A. Using the word bombarded, absolutely not. Q. I want to hand you a copy of an internet transcript and ask you if that does not refer to the questionnaire. (Witness perusing document.) A. The comment at the top doesn´t sound like my daughter. Q. Pardon? A. It doesn´t sound like my daughter Q. That doesn´t sound like her? A. No. Q. Does that e-mail to her from you, is that the e-mail you sent? A. It looks -- Q. And could I see that just a second? A. Yes. It looks -- it looks like one I sent her Q. And it does say, Do you remember, you and Beau, a questionnaire, where would you prefer your parents´ money to go. And you are still discussing that with her? A. She is an adult. Q. And you are still discussing that with Beau too, aren´t you? A. Both of my children prefer -- answered that ==113== questionnaire, Mr. Whitledge. Do they want their parents´ money to go to their attorneys, more of this stuff, more of that Scientology? They have answered that question. They have wanted their money to go to that. You are arguing that I have done something traumatic. And I am going to ask that these questions be addressed to a psychologist, not myself. You are not one, I am not one. So we need to involve professionals, I believe. Q. So you have discussed that same thing with Beau about the money discussion? A. Not in the same light though. Q. Not in the same light? A. Not in the same detail. Q. But you have discussed it with him? A. Yes. Yes, I have. And it is issues a lot of times that the kids will bring up because dad doesn´t have the income that he had. Q. And it also referred to other members of the community, of communicating with them. I think you showed that you had communicated with her school and with other people since this order was entered. So how else have you changed? ==114== That is my question. Judge Boteler said if you can show to the Court that these things have stopped, then his restrictions would be lifted. Now, could you tell us how you have stopped those things that Judge Boteler was addressing? A. Yes One of the things that I did was to attend the parent training class at Judge Boteler´s so that we could get, you know, at least an overall jurisdictional thing that what applies to all people in Hopkins County also applies to me. And recently when I was pro se I filed a motion that both Laura and ourselves get counseling to deal with her problems. The results of the Hopkins Circuit Court ruling was that Judge Boteler wanted that and to provide suggestions and I have provided suggestions back when I was pro se to you and provided suggestions to you and Laura an ways as the Court ordered to provide suggestions or a plan of action for to getting counseling for some of our problems. And - Q. Let me stop you right here. A. Excuse me. Q. You are saying Laura´s problem. What is Laura´s ==115== problem? A. No, our problem. We are having problems. We are here today because -- Q. You are saying Laura´s problem, a psychiatrist to address it. What is her problem? A. Counseling. No, you are saying counseling is an issue where the parent training class says that the best way to resolve parent issues is to receive some counseling, if you have got anger issues, frustration issues, money issues. Q. And my question is, and you are beating around the bush, you say you have got a problem that counseling should address and Laura has got a problem. Would you please explain what Laura's problem is to the Court? A. My perception of her problem? Q. Yes. A. She has cultic anger towards me. Q. And why does she have that? A. Because of her alternative mental health beliefs. She believes that I am a terrible enemy, suppressive, declared suppressive person. She believes that I am a threat. Q. If you were in her position, would you not be ==116== upset if you didn´t return the children -- A. I am in the same position. I am in the same position. Q. No, I am asking you. If you had custody of those children and Laura didn´t return them back to you until two weeks after she was supposed to, you would be upset? A. The answer to that question is yes, I would be upset. But I didn´t violate any agreements or any order Q. All right. And would if you were in Laura´s position and Laura were putting on the internet the children´s affidavits and things like that, and advertising this proceeding, would you not be upset with Laura? A. I am equally upset that there are all kinds of things printed in the Madisonville Messenger that are completely and utterly false and one sided, so yes. So Laura and her family goes to the Madisonville Messenger about how bad Tom Padgett is or that all the legal proceedings and everybody reads about it. And that is a media forum. And my side of the family wants their side told, the paternal side, and so it is on ==117== the internet Q. You know, I find it interesting. How do you — how do you know that they went to the Messenger? A. I had a conversation with Tom Clinton. Q. And Mr. Clinton told you that the Padgetts were coming up there with -- I mean the Vannoys were coming up there with that story? A. Mr Clinton told me flat out we don´t deal with outsiders. Q. All right. Now, let me ask you this. There was also an article -- Mr Clinton told you that? A. We don´t deal with outsiders. Q. All right. Now; Mr — there was also an article in the Boston paper about a deadbeat father, wasn´t there? A. Cape Cod Times. This is it right here. Q. And that was referring to you, wasn´t it? A. Um hmm. Q. Did they go to the Boston paper about that? A. I don't know if it made the Boston paper or not. This is the Cape Cod Times, which is my regional hometown paper Q. Now, let´s start off with these visitations. The Christmas visitation, I think you said you ==118== went to New Hampshire? A. Yes. Q. How far is New Hampshire from here? A. The border from here is about an hour, an hour and 15 minutes. Q. How far to the ski resort that you went to? A. It was about an hour and 45 minutes beyond the border so it would be two hours and 45 minutes from here, probably three. Q. All right. And you drove? A. No. Julie drove most of the way Q. And you went in your truck? A. Yes. I had my seat reclined. Q. All right. Now, what kind of truck is it that you have got, isn´t it a Dodge? A. It is a Dodge Dakota. Q. And it is the year 2001? A. No. It is 2000 Q. And whose name is that truck licensed in? A. My brother and myself. Myself and my brother Excuse me. Q. And who paid for that truck? A. It was a -- well, it is not completely paid for It is a liened out. ==119== Q. Who did you finance it with? A. It is through family and friends. Q. Would you tell me who you financed it with? MR. PROW: I will object to its relevance. MR. WHITLEDGE: Well, here is the problem I have got with this and why I am addressing it. If this guy is as flat broke as he is, how is he out financing a truck, a 2000 truck? And I think that this is competent evidence for the Court to hear. Q. Who did you borrow the money from? A. Family and friends. Q. Who was the family and friends? A. Family and friends, Mr Whitledge. Q. You are not going to tell us who? MR. WHITLEDGE: Certify the question for the Court, if you would. I would appreciate it. Q. And in financing that, did you file a financial statement? A. No, because it is not a lending institution. For the record, my credit over the years has been destroyed so I can´t go to an institution. Even now if I go to a bank and ask for any kind of loan, it pops up that I am a felon in ==120== addition to what income do I have. So I have to seek out, if I am to pay for living and attorneys´ fees and child support and I don´t have the means, that I have to go and seek help in some way, in some manner And so but I don´t know, you know, it has been -- it is over the years it has been like it is anybody trying to help me is like either a criminal or some kind of dog, some kind of wrongdoing. And so I don´t want to drag other people into this. Q. Well, what are the terms and conditions of repayment at that loan? A. It is actually until things can change. Until I can get a chance to so there is no -- it actually has no — Q. What are the terms and conditions of the repayment of it? A. There is no terms other than they will eventually be repaid. Q. Is there a lien on that truck? A. Yes Q. And who is that lien in favor of? A. John F Padgett. Q. That is your brother? ==121== A. That is correct. Q. And his name is also on the title to it? A. It is on the title. Q. So John -— A. As the lienholder Q. So John F Padgett, your brother, is the one who financed the truck for you? A. He is the lienholder, yes. Q. All right. Now, how much was that truck? A. It was about 20, a little over 20,000 Q. A little over 20,000 Now — A. It has crank windows. It has a manual transmission. There is no door locks. It is a basic vehicle. Q. Now, during that, I think we addressed a while ago during the Christmas visitation the episode with the police officer and your frustration, you were frustrated in front of the children over there, weren´t you, being stopped then and checked as a felon? A. If you say so, Mr Whitledge. Q. Now, on your recent visitation, where did you all stay? A. We stayed at a friend of a friend´s. It is ==122== called the “On Cranberry Pond” Bed and Breakfast in Middleborough. Q. “On Cranberry Pond”? A Yes. Q. I will hand you a copy of an internet printout concerning Cranberry Pond and ask you to examine that and state to the Court whether or not that is a copy of or what appears to be a copy of describing Cranberry Pond. A. I haven´t examined -- I know she has got an internet site but I have not — Q. Does that appear to be a picture of Cranberry Pond? A. Yes, it does. Q. All right. And look through the pictures of the various rooms. What room did you and the children occupy? A. Beau and I occupied the southwest room and Julie occupied the hat room. Q. The hat room. So you had two rooms in the bed and board. How many rooms are there there? A. I think there is six. Yes, there are six. Q. So you had a third of the rooms that were available for rent? ==123== A. That would be correct, yes. Q. Now, did you give her any compensation for occupying those rooms during that visit? A. Only for -- well, for Julie´s room, yes. Q. And how much was that? A. It is $50 a day Q. So you paid her $50 a day for Julie to stay there? A. It hasn´t been totally paid for yet. Q. Now — A. No. I will say that I am doing odds and ends chores for her. So it is not all, it is not cash necessarily MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I would like that to be made a copy, an exhibit to his testimony, Exhibit F. (Document marked as Exhibit F for identification.) Q. Now, let´s go over this, this trip and this summer visitation. The Court sets specific times for the visitation? A. Um hmm. Q. And do you remember those dates? A. Yes. It was the last two weeks in July ==124== Q. Now, why did you change those dates? A. I didn´t change them, Mr Whitledge. Q. You didn´t purchase any tickets? A. I purchased tickets for Beau the last two weeks in July Q. But you purchased them for a Sunday rather than the Friday that the Court had ordered? A. Yes. They -- you never come into Cape Cod, this area, well, at the time I purchased them I was living on Cape Cod. You never come into Cape Cod on a Friday because of the traffic. It is just you don´t do it. Q. All right. Now, so you purchased them for that Friday and you were going to keep the kids two extra days or three extra days? A. Keep the kids? Mr Whitledge, I mean help me here. Visitation order was for me to purchase airline tickets for my son. Q. Right. A. And you know that Julie was sent here to supervise me on her mother´s behalf. Q. Let me ask you a question on that. A. Um hmm. Q. Now, did you make a threat to Julie that if she ==125== testified against you, you would turn against her? A. Absolutely not. Q. Did you discuss with her — A. Mr Whitledge. Q. — during her visitation up here that she should not testify against you? A. Absolutely not, Mr Whitledge. Q. You had no discussion with her concerning her testifying? A. Yes, we did. She said she does not want to be involved in her mother´s ongoing litigation against her father. She does not want to participate. Q. Now, there was some discussion about her testifying, wasn't there? You had some discussion? A. Julie and I had discussions, yes. Q. And you told her not to testify against you, didn´t you? A. No, I did not tell her not to testify against me, Mr Whitledge. Q. So if Julie comes up and says that, is she telling a fib? ==126== MR. PROW: He has asked and answered. Q. Am I assuming the answer is she would be fibbing? A. No. My answer would be that during the divorce between Laura and myself, since 1992, my children have never had any kind of emotional, proper emotional counseling of any kind from any kind of expert in the field of behavioral or social sciences regarding their parents´ issues. So I am going to defer that to those people rather than myself, whether I have done horrible things. You are trying to say that I have done horrible things to my children and I haven´t. Q. All right. Now, we are back on this, this visitation. And you say that Julie was sent up here to spy on you. And there were some discussions about her testifying. Again, why did you not purchase the tickets for the dates that were set forth in the order? A. Because it was on a Friday and I can´t -- Q. Okay. Did you -- A. I was living on Cape Cod at the time. Q. All right. Now, did you notify your attorney of that problem so that he could bring it to the ==127== attention of the Court? A. No. I notified my son. I didn´t think it needed to involve attorneys. Q. And how did you -- A. You have got to understand. Your client believes that everything, everything involves an attorney Q. How did you notify your son? A. Every move she makes involves an attorney I don´t believe that and I don´t believe my attorney believes that either Q. All right. How did you advise Beau, your son? A. Via e-mail. Q. Now, did you get any confirmation from him that he had actually received that e-mail? A. I received confirmation the day — like the day before that he didn´t. Q. That he didn´t get it? A. Right. Q. So it was not known, I mean you didn´t tell your attorney and you didn´t in any way attempt to notify Laura that you had purchased the tickets, did you? A. I would assume that Beau had. ==128== Q. So you were relating that strictly to Beau. You didn´t attempt to notify Julie? A. Julie -- well, I was trying to follow the order And Julie was supposed to make her reservations and her mother was supposed to make her reservations for her. And when Beau was here during visitation, you know, part of that order attached was a letter from Beau to Susan McClure saying I want my sister to come with me. My son told me while he was here that that was a crock of poop, that he — Q. So you discussed that with your son? A. Mr Whitledge, Mr Whitledge, I am going to answer -- Q. I am asking you a question. A. I am going to tell you what my son told me. That he was forced to sign that piece of paper and he didn´t believe in it, that he wants time with his father, he would like to be with Julie and I and then he would like to be with, with, you know, time with his father Q. So the only way that anyone was notified of your purchase of the tickets which changed the visitation date was this e-mail to Beau? ==129== A. Um hmm. Again, in retrospect, I would have communicated that differently now. Q. Now, did you get that information of when the flights were scheduled from Laura´s purchasing the tickets? A. I think it was two days or a day or two before. And then I called the kids and they said they didn´t have it. And then I asked them to write down the information, to check the e-mail, to write down the information of that. And they kept telling me, Well, Mom has made the reservations. And I — so then I actually didn´t get the actual written — her reservations that she booked until like apparently you faxed them to Clint and Clint faxed them to me. And I didn´t get them until nine o´clock the night that they were supposed to arrive or the day before they were supposed — or the night that they arrived. Q. Now, where were you when they arrived? A. I was in -- actually, the Friday night I believe I was up in -- I believe I was up in Boston. Q. In Boston? A. Yes, um hmm. ==130== Q. Why didn´t you when you got word of it come and pick up the children, why was it the next day, almost 24 hours after they had gotten here? A. Because Laura had called around to various relatives, it was very very important for Laura to insist that our children go on the reservations that she booked for them and they weren´t known by me until the last minute. So she called the children's cousins. They were trying to find someone who could come off Cape during a very horrible travel time. Q. To pick them up? A.. To go get them. And that was very very very disruptive to our family Q. Well, why didn´t you come down and pick them up? A. Because I was scheduled, because I booked the reservation per the Court order and I was going to pick them up Monday They had known about that. I told them to write it down. So Laura disregarded my — Q. All right. You had purchased tickets for them to fly up here on that Friday per that Court order? A. No. On Monday ==131== Q. All right. So that you had violated a Court order to that point? A. Do you call that a violation? It just said the last two weeks in — do you want to do minutiae stuff? You are trying to make me feel like I am just this contentious person. The order said the last two weeks, the last two weeks in July. Laura and I are 51 years old. Can´t we communicate in terms of - Q. It set forth the actual dates of the visitation in that order, didn´t it? A. In rereading it, yes, it did. Q. And that was the date that she put them on a plane because she hadn´t gotten any tickets from you. A. Southwest Airlines is ticketless. She is not going to get tickets. There is a confirmation sent forward. Q. She was not aware that you had bought the tickets. How were you expecting her to be aware of that? A. Through the e-mail to my son. She has monitored his e-mail. She has disrupted all communications through my children. ==132== Q. How do you know that? A. I know that for a fact. Q. How? A. I know that for a fact. Q. Tell me how A. For years and years and years, my children tell me that. You can have a phone conversation in the background and she is always in the background, telling them what to say Q. Ever? A. Not necessarily Q. All right. Now, let me ask you this. Again, why did you not come to the airport on that Friday evening and pick those children up? A. Because, Mr Whitledge, I didn´t know they were coming in that evening until they were here because I informed them the night before what reservations I made for Beau. And I told the children to tell their mother that that is the time that I expected them to be in. And then I also said go to your e-mail and I will e-mail you again or share those with you so that you will have these. So you have the information, the time that I had them. It was a major mixup. ==133== It was a major mixup in communication, I would suggest. Now, I am going to tell you, in retrospect, i should have communicated that better But did Laura communicate — how come I didn´t know Laura booked things until the day Q. Did your attorney not send to you the copies of the tickets that she had purchased and the schedules? A. Yes. I received them nine o´clock the night they arrived. That is when I got them. I believe he was trying - Q. Why didn´t you go that night and pick them up? Why did you wait until the next evening to pick your children up? Where were you that day? A. During the Saturday? Q. Yes. A. They came in Friday and I didn´t get them until Saturday night. Q. Right. A. Oh, I had -- I had things that I had to accomplish. Q. Oh, in Boston? A. On the Saturday, no. I was in Boston on Friday ==134== Q. All right. And what were you in Boston for that Friday? A. Business, personal business. Q. All right. And what about on Saturday, what did you do Saturday in Boston? A. Saturday, I wasn´t in Boston. Q. Where were you Saturday? A. I was in Middleborough. Q. Where were you? A. Middleborough. Q. And then you picked up your children after dinner that evening, didn´t you? A. They were at their cousins´ house in Orleans. Q. And you picked them up later that evening? A. That is correct. Q. All right. Now, when you had these children for the visitation recently, you were going to send Julie back on the Friday that she was scheduled to go back on and you were going to keep Beau over until that next Monday. Is that true? A. What is true is that Beau, Julie and I had sat down and we all agreed that Daddy should have some time with them together and individually, and there should be no problem with that. And ==135== my kids totally agree with that. Q. All right. A. And then we discussed options, how to accomplish this. Because Julie is very much into sports and athletics, she has different concerns than Beau´s into theater and drama, more electronical things and mechanical things and cars. So there are separate interests. So we were trying to arrange a time when we could have that. Mind you, there was not a Court order that Laura — that Julie was supposed to be with Beau. It was this allegedly it was set up so that Beau would write a letter to whatever so that Julie could come along and play supervisor Q. Right. And that order set out — A. Which is, I think is traumatic to do to a child. Q. For the Court to do that, you felt was traumatic, So Commissioner McClure, you are saying that Commissioner McClure was wrong? A. No, no, no. You are trying to have me say that Commissioner McClure was bad. I am saying that it is traumatic to put a child in a supervision to supervise the relationship of another child and a parent, to be put in a position to write ==136== back to the Court and to report back that he said this and he did that. It is like a spy You have already proven that, that she is now going to be Laura's material and eye witness and expert witness. I think that is terribly damaging to do to my daughter Q. All right. Now, let me ask you something else. During either of these visits, did you expose these children to any persons that will be testifying as to their well-being or testify about the children and you in these proceedings? A. Would you please define the word “expose”? Q. Did you bring any of the prospective witnesses that will be testifying in this matter to these children and allow the children to communicate with that prospective witness? A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. Reverend Bob Pardon, P-A-R-D-O-N. Q. And so you arranged that? A. Well, one arrangement was that Reverend Pardon, I guess, does tree work on a part-time basis. And he was over at this establishment doing tree work because they are good friends. That is how ==137== I met this person that owns the bed and breakfast. And Julie went out and did some shopping, and he hung out with him for two hours and worked on some tree work together Q. And that was at your suggestion? A. What do you mean it was at my suggestion? Q. That Mr Pardon meet with Beau - A. Yes. And also — Q. -- for the purposes of testifying in this matter A. He also met with my children. Reverend Pardon met with my children also last December too. Q. And you were planning on him serving as a witness in this proceeding? A. Yes. Q. And that was the reason that you were exposing your children to Mr Pardon? A. Well, not entirely, Mr Whitledge. Mr Reverend Pardon is also in a counseling role too. He has interests of myself and my family and my children. So it is not just from a forensic testifying against somebody. It seems like that is all we are doing here is testifying against somebody ==138== Q. All right. Now, the Court order said that you were to return those children on Friday or to return Beau on Friday A. Um hmm. Q. You were not intending to return Beau on Friday, were you — A. The schedule — Q. — at the beginning of the visitation? A. Yes. I had scheduled him from Monday to Monday But obviously, it was going to be a problem. It was communicated there was going to be a problem, it was going to be made to be a problem, which I think you are trying to do now is to say Mr Padgett just can´t live up to any Court order. So I got him back on the plane on Friday so that wouldn´t be an issue. Q. Now, let me ask you this question. A. Um hmm. Q. Did you tell those children that the Court order stated that you were to have visitation with Beau through that Monday? Did you tell that to the children? A. No, no. The last two weeks in July Q. Did you tell the children that the Court order ==139== said that you should have some one-on-one visitation with Beau? A. No, I don´t recall saying that. No. Q. You don´t recall saying that. Was there any discussion about your visitation just with Beau? A. Yes Q. And that concerned what was allegedly in that order, is that correct? A. I -- I don´t know what you are saying. Clarify it, please. Q. Now, actually, the order was faxed up here to Julie while they were here, wasn´t it? A. I am not aware of that. I am not aware of that. Q. All right. Well, what changed your mind to send the child back on that Friday? A. I believe there was a hearing that you were at with Mr Prow and we talked about it. And you know, it is client-attorney privilege what went on. But I got the impression that Laura and her counsel will continue to present me in the light as a contemptuous person who disregards everything that comes from the Court. So just go ahead and do it. I -- again, I would insist that the Court, since Donna Nichols has ==140== acknowledged that she is not an expert in this case, and therefore, we have never had an expert in the counseling or behavioral sciences, that I would still insist that my relationship with my children, and in particular the issue now with my son, be addressed by people in the counseling role, family issues, rather than everything having to be legal and Court ordered. Q. Well, that is not addressing the question. Now, there has been a lot of discussion about visiting with the family A. Um hmm. Q. Did your brother John or any members of his family see those children when they came up this summer? A. Um hmm. Q. And when did they see them? A. A couple of occasions. Q. Pardon? A. A couple of occasions. My sister, their cousin Scott, actually — Q. Did you take them down to the Cape? A. Well, I picked them up there. Q. And at that point in time, did you take them ==141== over to your brother´s? A. Um hmm. Q. And did you take them by your sister´s? A. Um hmm. Q. And then you brought them back up here? A. Yes. Q. Now, you got them about eight o´clock that Saturday night, didn´t you? A. No, I think it was closer to five. Q. They had already had dinner though, hadn´t they? A. Yes. They just were having pizza with their cousins. Q. And when else did they see your brother and sister? A. We came back to the Cape one day and went over my brother´s house and picked up a boat that we own jointly and went out boating for a long afternoon. And both picking up and dropping off the boat, we saw my brother and his wife. And then we went to —- there was another time we went back out to the Cape. I had a doctor´s appointment I had to attend to and then we had what was considered a late lunch, almost early dinner with their Aunt Betty, who is very ==142== popular and affectionate in our family And then my sister Gail, which would be their Aunt Gail, and then from there we went up to Provincetown. As a matter of fact, I think that might have been the last afternoon, night they were here. MR. WHITLEDGE: Now, let me -- I think I am just about to a point where we are going to be changing horses and I don´t know whether to — change the directions. Do you want to break for lunch for say 30 minutes? MR. PROW: That would be probably best. It is noon. MR. WHITLEDGE: Wait just a second here. All right. I think that that is going to kind of wrap it up right there because I am going to start on another area when we get back. VIDEO OPERATOR: 11:56, going off the record. (Brief recess.) ==143== AFTERNOON SESSION VIDEO OPERATOR: Stand by, please. It is 12:45 We are back on the record. Q. Okay Mr Padgett, let me remind you, you are still under oath. A. Um hmm. Q. And you acknowledge that? A. Yes. Q. Now, originally you had filed a motion for this reduction in child support and in lifting the visitation restrictions. There was a hearing in July of 1999. Are you aware of that hearing? Do you recall that hearing? You were not present. A. It was a — help me. I mean I think it was a motion hearing rather than an evidentiary hearing. Q. It was a motion hearing on your motion for reduction in child support and on uplifting the visitation restrictions? A. Right. Q. And Judge Boteler wouldn´t hear that because you were not present at that time, is that correct? A. I don´t recall. I —- it sounds familiar, yes. ==144== Q. Mr Mobley or Mr Lloyd offered to introduce your testimony by telephone, didn´t he? A. Yes. Q. And why did you not want to come to Kentucky at that time to be heard on your motion? A. I had — at that time I was receiving treatment for my back, which was a severe problem. Q. And this is a copy of a letter that was addressed to your brother that was later submitted in that action. A. Yes. And a copy to my attorney, Russell Lloyd. Q. Now, the Court stated in that that they would not hear this until you were present. Do you recall that? A. No, I don't. Q. Did you get a video of that hearing? A. I believe there was, yes Q. You ordered a video of every hearing, didn´t you? A. Yes, I believe, yes. I have or my attorneys have. Q. All right. Now, when was the last time you saw this doctor? And would you pronounce his name again? ==145== A. Monighetti. Q. Monighetti? A. Yes. Q. And you had seen Doctor Monighetti back in ‘99? A. Yes. Q. And you again saw him, I think, last year or this year? A. Yes. Q. And what was the purpose of that visit? A. It was a secondary problem with the knee and a fallout from the back. But primarily the knee. Q. Now, this hearing was originally scheduled in May, and you didn´t show up at that time because of this back problem? A. May -- Q. Of 2001. A. No. The original hearing was supposed to be July or August. April 10, 2000 It is right here. Q. And then it was rescheduled for February, wasn´t it? A. I believe so, yes. Q. And we didn´t have that hearing because you had hired Mr Prow to represent you? ==146== A. Right. Q. And it was rescheduled for May of this year, wasn´t it? A. Yes. Well, let´s back up. You filed a motion that you wanted me represented. You didn´t want to deal with me so I got Mr Prow. Q. All right. Now, it was originally scheduled then for May of this year? A. Yes. Q. And you couldn´t attend that hearing, and you notified us at the last minute, because of this back problem? A. Well, it was the back and combination knee. And now it is a hip issue too Q. All right. So the Court then instructed you to obtain some medical proof to submit to the record? A. Um hmm. Q. I want to hand you a letter which was addressed to Mr Clint Prow that was filed in this Court. Is that a copy of that letter? (Witness perusing document.) A. Yes. Q. And that doctor was saying you could not travel? ==147== A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. He is — well, I don´t have a primary care physician . That — he is a physician that I had had a physical with back in January Just a general physical. So he was familiar with a lot of my current medical issues. And he works for — Q. All right. A. It is kind of a walk-in clinic. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. Now, I would like both of those letters to be made a part of the record, a part of the Court record. MR. PROW: No objection. (Documents marked as Exhibit G and Exhibit H for identification.) Q. After the Court had requested of you to get additional medical proof, you went back to see the original doctor Is that correct? A. Yes Q. And that is the first time you saw that doctor in two years, isn´t it? A. That is correct. Q. And in that that doctor refers to you being ==148== retired. May I see that for just a second? I am sorry. This is the wrong one . All right. But this is the result of that medical exam recently by him, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that was done for submission into the Court record? A. Yes. Because the Court had requested additional information. But also -- Q. Yes? A. I am sorry. Q. And would you state to the Court what has been crossed out on that? A. I believe there are personal issues that I am —- Q. The Court was interested in what those issues were and would like to know. A. Well, I don´t have the original with me. But I know there is other physical issues that I am not necessarily, you know, prostate exam, I don´t think is — there is some personal things that I don´t think the Court should -- Q. Well, is that all that it relates to is prostate? A. No. I don´t know . An elasticity of my scrotum . ==149== What do you want to —- Q. Well, I would like to know what you crossed out there A. I don´t know what I crossed out there. Q. It was something that you didn´t want the Court to know about, is there? A. No. I discussed it with the attorneys. There was some things -- no. It had nothing to do with the Court. It had something to do with open records of personal information. We have never gotten a medical history of your client and psychological history, never. And we will probably never get one so -- Q. All right. Now, Is Doctor Sargent had examined you in January, I think. That true? A . Um hmm. Q. And is this a copy of that examination? A. Yes . Q. What was crossed out on that one? A. These were, I believe, the ones that were more intimate issues. Q. Would you state to the Court what has been crossed out on those? A. I don´t know. But I know they had to deal with ==150== intimate issues that would not relate to the current concerns of the Court. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I am going to ask that both of those be made a part of the record . (Documents marked as Exhibit I and Exhibit J for identification.) Q. Now, I would like to go back to this January medical exam by Doctor Sargent. Why did you go see him? A. It was a required — actually, it was a physical for a -- required for attending a two-week intensive counseling program with Wellspring Retreat. Q. And where is Wellspring Retreat located? A. It is in Albany, Ohio . Q. And when were you planning on going to Ohio? A. It was in January. Q. Now, what was the purpose of going to Wellspring Retreat for? A. Victim abuse counseling, and dealing with trauma . Q. Counseling, abuse counseling, you say? A . Yes. Actually, it was part of a thing that I ==151== [(BEGIN STAMP FILED 2001 OCT 9 P 12:16 HOPKINS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT BY <Signature> D.C. END STAMP)] submitted to Laura, your client and yourseif, regarding proposed counseling that the Judge agreed that would be helpful. Q. All right. Now, you were over there two weeks? A. Yes. Q. What had changed in your condition from this medical report to the medical report that he gave in June saying that you couldn´t travel to Kentucky? A . Reoccurrence of back issue, sciatic nerve problems, and the complications of the knee. Q. So am I to assume that you couldn´t travel in ‘99, you could travel in January of 2000 but you couldn´t travel in May of — January of 2001, but you couldn´t travel in May of 2001? A. Yes. These — these problems subside and then they get worse and they subside. I haven´t had permanent surgical intervention to address any of these on a permanent level. . Q. All right. Now, would you explain to the Court what you did at that retreat that required you to have a physical? A. Well, I don´t know that it required a physical. It is just part of their requirement to have a ==152== physical, I would suggest probably for legal reasons. But it was mostly psychological counseling. It is run by a Dr. Paul Martin, who is a psychologist. Q. And what was the cost of that? A. It was -- well, the cost of it was -- I think the program cost $5,000. But I was given it, it was given to me free. Q. And who paid the $5,000 for you? A. It was -- it was pro bono. It was complimentary. That is a hotel term. Q. Why did they give you a complimentary? A. Based on my financial situation. Q. Now, who paid for the travel over there? A. I believe it was monies that came from my girlfriend Judy, if I recall. Q. All right. Now, how long were you over there? A. It was a two-week program. Q. How many times have you been over there this year? A. Once. Q. How many times have you been to Florida this year? A. None. ==153== Q. You have not been to Florida this year? A. No. Last time I was there was December. Q. December? A. Yes . Q. That was when you participated in a seminar, wasn´t it? A. A seminar? No. Actually, I had an interview for a job and then I was visiting my girlfriend and spent some time with her. And then I went over to Clearwater, Florida and participated in a picket. Q. In a picket? A. Um hmm. Q. Now, how many times did you go to Florida last year? A. I think twice. I know when I was let out of prison in between one of the times when I was pro se, I mean it was like you had filed a motion to wanting me to be represented and that was like going to be two weeks out. So instead of going back to Massachusetts, i went down to Florida. Then I came back and then that was in — I believe that was in — it is probably September . I think it was September, late ==154== September. And then I went down in December. Q. All right. Were you down there in March of 2000? A . I may have been. I may have been. Q. That was when you went down to the Leo J. Ryan Foundation conference? A. No. That was in Connecticut. Q. That was in Connecticut? A. It is about a four-hour drive. Q. And did you drive down to that in March? A . I drove with people, yes. Q. All right. Now, from that, when — you delivered a speech that is over the internet now. Do you recall that? A . Yes. Q. And in that speech you cut down your former wife about the money spent, et cetera. Do you recall that? A. I recall giving a speech. Q. Now, that is not the only speech that you have given that is on the internet now, is it? A. I think there is another one too. Q. There is another one from the Orlando meeting the year before, isn´t there? ==155== A. No. If I recall, it was a press conference in Clearwater of December of ‘97. Q. All right. So then you traveled last year then three times to Florida in 2000? A. I think it was only two times. Q. March, you didn´t go down in March? A. I don´t recall. I went this — you said this was Florida. This was Connecticut. But I know I was down there in September and December . Q. And how many times were you in Madisonville last year? A. Well, I had one extended visit for 35 days in an orange jumpsuit. That was one trip. Q. How many times, how many times did you travel there last year? A . I traveled to Kentucky in April based on an agreed order that you had signed that we were all going to be there and resolve these issues. I was there . You were not. And your client was not there. Q. You were there on the criminal part at that time, weren´t you? A . Yes. But this is — Q. And that is the reason that issue was not ==156== addressed at that time was because of the criminal matter, wasn´t it? A. No, Mr. Whitledge . This says civil action, April 10th, I am supposed to be there. Q. I know what that says. A. Okay. Q. And I know why that hearing was not held and you knew too? A. No, I don´t know . People don´t clue me in. Q. It was just because of the criminal action. People didn´t -- Mr. Lloyd did not advise you of the problem that developed? A. The problem that developed, what do you mean? Q. On that hearing. A. No. Q. Okay. Now, so in ‘99 you couldn´t travel but in 2000 you could travel, and in the earlier part of 2001 you could travel to this retreat? A. Um hmm. Q. But you can´t travel now, is that what you are saying? A. I am advised not to travel, yes. To limit certain activities. Q. Is any of this because you are afraid to come ==157== back to Kentucky? MR. PROW: Objection. It is in the record. The Mr. Padgett´s treating physician has advised that he cannot travel and he has answered that is the reason that he cannot travel. And that issue is no longer before the Court. The Court has already allowed his testimony to proceed by deposition. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I realize that. I realize that. But we are addressing the issue of the cost of it because Mr. Padgett has testified before that he wouldn´t come to Kentucky because all those warrants were out for him . And my question was is he now afraid to come back to Kentucky because of those warrants. A. There is no warrants out for me. MR. PROW: I am not aware of any warrants out for Mr. Padgett´s arrest, If you are aware of one, we probably need to advise Mr. Padgett. Q. I am asking you, Mr. Padgett, is that the reason why you are reluctant to come back to Kentucky? A. I am not aware -- my answer would be the same as my attorney. I am not aware of a warrant. Q. You have no problem with coming back to Kentucky ==158== then? A . I would defer that to an expert witness in the behavioral sciences, if I have any fears or problems or concern that they be addressed to them. Q. Well, I am asking you. Do you not want to return to Kentucky? A . In all honesty, yes, I have — I have fear of going back there. Q. Now, if the Court would restrict your visitation strictly to Kentucky, would you not return and visit with your children? A. I don´t know how to answer that question. Q. So you don´t know whether if the Court should restrict your visitation to Kentucky, you would not — you don´t know whether you would come to Kentucky to visit with your children or not? A. Bill, I showed up August 8th of last year and with information to resolve this quickly, with pending issues in criminal, and I went through -- I was put in jail and eventually ordered to stay in jail for five years. And that is on appeal. And the person who put me in jail for five years was your client, it was Laura ==159== Padgett. She testified that she was missing two checks . And we found out those two checks were missing. You bet you, I am afraid of any jurisdiction that full well knowing -- that the officers of the Court know that Laura´s mental health belief system believes in using the legal system to cause harassment and deceitment and ruin, there is an element of fear there. Yes . Q. All right. Now, you say that you are aware of the crime that you committed, is that correct? A. I am aware of the crime that I committed? Q. You are aware of the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky concerning the failure to pay child support? A. Yes, I am aware of that law, the statute. Q. And you are aware that at any time the child support arrearage reaches over $1,000, that is a crime against the Commonwealth of Kentucky? A. Yes. Or I also think is another issue of longer than six months. Q. Longer than six months? A. Yes. Between those two. Q. All right. Now, you understand that if you don´t pay child support for over six months and ==160== you also understand that if it should reach $1,000, then that is a felony offense to leave a child in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and not support that child when you are under a Court order to support it? A. Yes. I understand that law, yes . Q. All right. Now — A. I will state for the record that I didn´t know that that was a law before I was indicted for that. Q. So are you saying that you did commit the crime but didn´t know that that was the law? A. Well, what I will state is what I confessed to on a plea agreement in November 16, 1999, and that was that I admitted to a period of longer than six months, actually it was longer than six months where a child support check had not been written. I did not admit to any amount, whether it be a nickel, a dime, or thousands of dollars. I did not admit to any amount. Q. All right. Now, let me ask you this question Hold on here just a second. Let me find it. Did you -- you were found in contempt of court in 1995 of being $11,000 or $10,100 in arrears? ==161== A. Um hmm . Q. And that arrearage arose before the final decree became effective, wasn´t it? A. No . It was two days afterwards. Q. Now, the Court then gave you the option of paying $5,000 at that time? A. Um hmm. Q. And deferred the other $5,100 to a later date? A. Correct. Q. And you paid the $5,000 that date to keep from going to jail, didn´t you? A. To be in compliance with it, my girlfriend Judy Vanator wrote a check for $5,000. Q. All right. Now, that $5,000 check that was written was for that arrearage that occurred prior to the entry of the decree, wasn´t it? A. No. My understanding was that it was a -- it was for the $5,000 that was for a motion filed two days after the final decree, which resulted in a judgment against me that I owed $10,000 based on the testimony of a private investigator that I was in fact working, when in fact I wasn´t working. And I hired a private investigator too that investigated Laura´s, your ==162== predecessor´s private investigator and found out he was not licensed, he wasn´t even a private investigator . He had a ficticious address and he was a principal of the Church of Scientology. Q. I will hand you another document here that you filed in the record. Do you recall that document? A. Yes. It looks familiar. It has been a while though. Q. All right. Now, hold on just a second here. I have got one thing that I still have to find. THE WITNESS: I don´t know if — okay. I am sorry. Q. Now, does that fairly and accurately relate what support was paid by you? (Witness perusing document.) A. I believe that is correct. Q. All right. Now, is it true then that there was nothing paid from ‘95 until August of what year, what do your records there reflect? A . Oh, here? Q. Yes. A . Oh, yes. From 1995 till July of 1997. Q. And how much was paid during that period of ==163== time? A . $5,000. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I am going to take just a break here. I am trying it too hard. I have got something I have got to find that is going to take a second. VIDEO OPERATOR: It is 1:00. Going off the record. Please stand by. (Brief recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Stand by, please. It is 1:04. We are back on the record. Q. Now, according to that last record that you just examined there, you did not pay any child support during ‘96 or until August of ‘97, when you paid 120 dollars in July and August of ‘97. Is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And you were under an order at that time to pay 260 something dollars a month, weren´t you? A. Um hmm . Q. Now, that is over ten months that that went unpaid, wasn´t it? A. Um hmm. Q. And there is over $2,000 that was unpaid during ==164== that period of time, is that correct? A. I believe this was not for -- because I had a pending motion to reduce child support based on statutes. That is where the 60-dollar figure came from . But it was not prepared for the legal — the Hopkins County Legal Aid attorneys to have a quick overview of my interpretation of how this should be calculated because I had a motion pending that I had filed. You have got to understand, I am not an attorney so -- and I was unrepresented at that time so, you know, as far as the statute of being, paying, not paying, writing a check for longer than six months — Q. You are guilty? A. Absolutely. Q. And you are guilty of the amount being over $1,000, aren´t you? A. No. I am not going to claim any guilt to that. Q. You are saying to the Court here today that your arrearage owed was never over $1,000? A. Is this civil or criminal or — MR. PROW: He can ask the question. A . It is still pending. I mean we haven´t had discovery issues since 1994 so I am not ==165== comfortable admitting to any dollar amount. If I am awarded, then I need to pay it, I go to jail, it is probably going to get paid. Q. All right. The Judge ordered you or found that you were $21,000 in arrearage in January of 1999? A. Um hmm. Q. Now, you said that there was $10,000 worth of bond money that was applied on that, is that right? A. That is correct. Q. That reduced it to 11,000? A. Um hmm. Q. How much more of that 11,000 has been paid? A . How much more of it is paid? Q. Yes. Has anything been paid on the $11,000? A. I -- it is sitting in the Court. It was offered to be paid to Laura´s criminal attorney, David Massamore, who is also a neighbor of Laura´s It was offered to take this money to resolve the criminal case and they didn´t want it. Q. My question to you is has any of that arrearage that the Court found of $11,000 been paid to Laura? ==166== A. I am not Clerk of Court. I don´t know if they have paid anything. MR. PROW: I will state, as Mr. Padgett testified before, the Court is holding $11,935.95 that Mr. Padgett has provided as being held by the Circuit Court Clerk. And there is a letter verifying that, awaiting instructions which would be the order of the Commissioner in this action . So that money is being held. Which party to return it to, whether it is Mr. Padgett or Mrs. Padgett, the Circuit Clerk is awaiting orders from the Court. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. Q. So then there is a sizable sum of money that is owed or that is outstanding, and that is part of that criminal action, isn´t it? A. Mr. Whitledge, it is still pending. We still have -- it goes back to the supplementary pre-agreement that we were supposed to deal with this past and present. So in answer to your question, this amount equals the — plus the $10,000 equals the 21 based on that order from is it January 19, 1999. But that order was not based on evidentiary information. ==167== Q. Now, did you think that by depositing that amount of money with your attorney would relieve you of the criminal action? A . Yes. They told me it would. Q. Who told you it would? A. My attorneys. Q. If you robbed a bank and you got caught, and you gave the money back, would you get out of being tried as a bank robber? A. I don´t know. I don´t get the analogy there. My attorney said -- Q. The crime was committed, Mr. Padgett, when the money was not paid. Now, did your attorney advise you of that? A. My attorney advised me to sign a plea agreement and we would get this thing dismissed and expunged . And I have done everything that the pretrial diversion agreement had. It is now on appeal. But he also advised me that if we go ahead and give this, come up with this money from family or friends or whatever and we turn it over to the Court, then full restitution would have been made, and still go on with the civil to determine what that amount was and then ==168== it could be refunded or applied for future or whatever. But to go ahead and just — because I had a pending criminal action that I wanted to get dismissed because it was affecting, you know, you fill out a job application, are you in a criminal action, are you whatever, I wanted to get that over so it didn´t affect me. Q. Did you think that Laura could have had the Commonwealth drop that criminal action? The crime was against the Commonwealth of Kentucky for not supporting your children. Do you think Laura could have relieved that and erased that? A. I believe both you and Laura and the Vannoys could have, could have said, Listen, we want this over with, he has done full restitution, please, Mr. Massamore, let´s get rid of it. Q. And you were offered a chance to do that and but you didn´t comply with the diversion, did you? A. Absolutely, every bit of it. Q. Mr. Massamore had to call you back into court two or three times, didn´t he? A. He called me in a lot more than that. It is called legal harassment, Bill. Q. And there was one time that he filed that there ==169== was an order entered, about a 15-page document, that showed all the violations that you had in reference to that diversion? A . I don t recall that. There were alleged violations . Q. Alleged violations that the Court had signed asking that you come back to show cause why your diversion should not be yanked, was it? A. Yes. And I was there on April 10th, along with I was supposed to be there in the morning on the civil, I was there in the afternoon and I asked David Massamore what did I violate in the pretrial diversion agreement. And his answer was -- he got very angry and he eventually said nothing and the Judge said nothing. And then they asked me to sign a piece of paper. I signed it and gave it — Q. And the Court gave certain findings of what you had done because you wouldn´t sign the proper diversion form, would you? A. I did sign it. Q. But not the form that was recommended, was it? A. Because it was a modification . They were trying to modify. It is on appeal, Mr. Whitledge . ==170== That is an appeal issue . They were trying to have me sign something different from my original agreement. Q. Now, Mr. Padgett, then at that point in time the Court revoked your diversion, is that correct? A. Yes, the Court did. Q. And sentenced you to five years in the penitentiary? A . Yes. Q. Now, you served 34 days of that? A. 35 days. Q. And you are on probation now? A . Um hmm. Q. You are on probation here in the State of Massachusetts for that crime? A. Right . Alleged, I would say alleged crime. Q. Now, parts of that probation, part of that probation is that you abstain from alcoholic beverages, isn´t it? A. Not -- I covered that with my probation officer. It has nothing at all to do — all he says, Mr. Padgett, is make sure that those checks get there on time and that is the issue. Q. Well, now why did you send 130 dollars for the ==171== month of August? That wasn´t the amount you were supposed to send. A. 130 dollars for the month of August? Q. That is all that was sent. A. Oh, okay. Q. What happened? A . Yes . I will explain it to you . As a matter of fact, I have a copy of it that I can provide for you while you are here. In the tax refunds for 2000 and ‘91, they took out X amount of dollars and X amount of dollars . And I deducted it from the 699 so that is what was left over . So those three amounts would equal the 699.60. Q. So, so you let your tax deduction pay part of it? A. No. It had already been paid to Laura. She already received those through the federal tax. Q. So then -- A. I didn´t get that money. Q. You are saying that you don´t know whether that money is applied on arrearage or whether that money was applied on the August payment, do you? A. Well, I applied it on the August payment. Q. You applied it on the August payment? ==172== A. Right. We don´t know what the arrearage is. Q. So you do acknowledge, you do acknowledge here today that in the month of August you only paid a little over 130 dollars of your child support obligations to Laura? A. No . Mr. Whitledge, in the month of August, took what has already been paid to Laura. Those two amounts based on what was deducted and 130 dollars would equal $699 and so much change. That is the amount. Q. All right. Now, you were presently charged with driving under the influence in the State of Massachusetts, aren´t you? MR. PROW: I will object. That is not relevant to these proceedings. It has no relevance in regard to visitation, child support or arrearage of child support. MR. WHITLEDGE: In fact, all right. I would like to address that because of the fact that the abstaining from alcoholic beverages by a felon on probation is one of the requirements, and i asked him long ago if he was complying with the requirements . And he has been charged back in April or May with DUI. And we would ==173== like to know the status of that and whether or not that would be a violation of the criminal things and what is his understanding of it were he to be brought back to Kentucky. MR. PROW: We will stipulate that Mr. Padgett has been charged with DUI in Massachusetts and the case is pending. It is set for trial. MR. WHITLEDGE: Well, when is it set for trial? MR. PROW: Is there a specific date? THE WITNESS: Sometime in October . MR. PROW: October of this year. Q. It was set for September, August, wasn´t it, and it got continued? A. Prior to that too, yes. Q. And it got continued in August? A. Um hmm. Upon advice of counsel. Q. Now, have you been advised that that would be a violation of your probation? A. No, no. I talked to my probation officer. It is not a violation of probation. Q. Which probation officer did you talk to? A. My probation officer, John Morahan. ==174== Q. Here in the State of Massachusetts? A. That is correct. Massachusetts . Q. And he says that abstaining from alcoholic beverages is not a condition of the probation? A . Absolutely not. Q. It is not? A. Yes. But I am — I was charged with the DUI thing. I wasn´t convicted and I wasn´t -- no chemical test — there is no -- I mean that is still pending so I — I don´t know where you are going, Mr. Whitledge. Q. All right. Now, I am not trying to get you in what you call a double jeopardy type situation. I am just trying to figure out whether or not you violated that probation, the conditions of probation. And it is my understanding that one of the conditions of your probation is that you abstain from alcoholic beverages. A . I think if you want an accurate update you can go on the internet to altreligionscientology. It is a discussion news group the Church of Scientology has . It is a Gestapo-like organization called Office of Special Affairs and they have been monitoring this case. It is ==175== an arm of the Church of Scientology that is interested in, specifically interested in some of the people who are designated as real bad enemies in their eyes. And Special Affairs -- and they have been visiting the Court every time it has gone on here so it goes to the internet. So I see a link between the Church of Scientology´s interest and your interests so kind of lump you in together. I am sorry. That is how I see it. Q. All right. Fine with me. Now, have you had any alcoholic beverages — MR. PROW: Objection. This is not relevant . Q. — since that date? MR. PROW: We are not in the criminal court and the Petitioner is not the Commonwealth of Kentucky. We are not at a probation revocation hearing. These issues have nothing to do with the remaining issues before the Court with regard to child support, child support arrearage or restricted visitation. We are not here to determine whether probation has been violated. This not the criminal Court so I am going ==176== to — MR. WHITLEDGE: You addressed the issue of his criminal action. I didn´t object. And you addressed the issue of the diversion and the probation . MR. PROW: And he has stipulated — I mean he has admitted to pleading guilty and it is under appeal that — that is in the record and he has testified to that today. It is one thing to say it is in the record. We are not here to have a revocation hearing on behalf of David Massamore or any prosecutor from Hopkins County. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. Q. Now, as a result of that plea, you sent quite a lengthy affidavit to your son, didn´t you? A. I don´t recall. I may have. Q. Saying that you were forced into that plea? A. I may have given him a copy of that, yes. Q. And who else got a copy of that? A. I am not certain. My attorneys. Q. Why did you send that to your son? A . I thought they should have — my children should have all the facts . Q. Have you kept your children aware of all the ==177== facts that have gone on in this? A. Not all of them, no. I have kept a lot of it from them. Q. All right. Now, who else did you send that, that affidavit to? A. When was the date on that? Q. It was right after you pled guilty. A. Oh, probably to my girlfriend, brother, sister, family, cousins, aunts, uncles. I wasn´t on the internet so I — it wasn´t on the internet or I did not have access to the internet so I don´t think it is on there . Q. All right. And what did you actually say in that affidavit? A . It has been a while . Q. And that was part of the reason for the revocation of your diversion, wasn´t it -- A. No. Q. when you made the statement in there that the Court forced you to make that and that you were not free and voluntarily making that statement to the Court? A. No. No, sir. It was my plea agreement was revoked based on an allegation, on an allegation ==178== that I didn´t sign and return a certain piece of paper . MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I have got to find this affidavit. Hold on. Off the record again. I am sorry. THE WITNESS: It was an issue,that David Massamore brought up of concern. But to sign -- the fact that I had an affidavit did not violate the plea agreement or disrupt any -- VIDEO OPERATOR: It is 1:21. We are going off the record. THE WITNESS: Okay. (Brief recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Stand by, please. It is 1:23. We are back on the record. Q. Now, you have continued to explain to your son that you were not guilty of any crime, is that true? A. In various conversations, yes. That your father knowingly, willfully, deliberately did not intentionally commit a crime, which is an accurate statement. Q. Now, let´s go over your educational background. A. Um hmm. ==179== Q. What is your education? A. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Plymouth State College, of the University of New Hampshire . Q. From the University of New Hampshire? A. Yes. Q. And what was your area of concentration? A. I had a -- it was a Bachelor of Science in business administration and a minor in art. Q. And a minor in art? A. Art. VIDEO OPERATOR: Mr. Padgett. THE WITNESS: Yes, a minor in art which does not mean I have any artistic talents . just had enough credits for a minor. Q. All right. Now, when you were divorced where were you working at that time? A. Decree or filed? Q. When the divorce was filed. A. Southfield, Michigan. Q. And how much was your income in 1993? A. I believe the salary was somewhere around a little over 90,000, but I also — it was either ‘92 or ‘93 that I had a bonus which brought it ==180== up over $100,000. Q. Would it be fair to say that it was $107,000? A. It could be. I was thinking of 106 and some change, something like that, from my recollection. Q. Now, when you went to the original hearing, they found that the Court made a finding that you and your family had a pretty high standard of living at that time, didn´t they? A. Yes. Pendente lite hearing, September, 1992. Q. Yes. A. Or October. Something like that, yes. Q. And the Court ordered you at that time to pay $1,100 or $1,200 a month in child support? A. Yes. $1,123 or something like that. Q. And that was based upon the high standard of living that you and your, and Laura and the two children enjoyed at that time? A. I thought it was based on our combined incomes in a grid and two kids and this is what you pay. I thought that is what it came out to, the calculation. Q. Well, what 1 am asking is this. Now, prior to the starting of this divorce — ==181== A . Um hmm. Q. You all had a nice house, didn´t you? A . Yes. Q. You had a sizable income, didn´t you? A. Yes. Q. And Laura had a sizable income? A. Pretty good income, yes. Q. The children had anything they wanted? A. They were very comfortable. Q. And you would say that probably their standard of living at that time was costing you anywhere from five to $600 a month per child, wasn´t it? A. It is hard to break it down. Q. But you spent a lot of money on your children, didn´t you? A. Oh, absolutely. Q. And they had just about anything they wanted? A. They were just shy of being spoiled. Q. And would it have been true that yours and Laura´s income was in excess of $135,000 before you -- before the divorce started? A. Yes. Q. It was quite a bit more than that, wasn´t it? A. I believe it was. I don´t recall Laura´s actual ==182== income when she filed. But combined, it would certainly be 140, 150. Q. 100 -- A. 150 or something like that. I don't know. Q. Maybe 150? A. It could be. Q. Well, of that total income, would five percent of it go to the children? A. Would five percent of it? Q. Five percent of the gross income. Q. I would think more than that. Q. You would think more than that? Q. Yes. It depends on twhat you mean for children. For fun and games or for clothes or for -- Q. For clothes. I mean, they had the best of clothes, didn't they? A. Yes. They had some -- Q. Very expensive stuff? A. Not as nice as they have now. They have really nice clothes now. Q. All right. They went on trips? Q. Yes. Q. And they did a lot of things, they participated in a a lot of activities? ==183== A. (Witness nods.) Q. And would it be fair to say that you were spending $500 a month per child for the clothes and their extra-curricular activities and entertainment, et cetera? A . That sound about right. It could be more. It might be. Q. So then at the time of the divorce these children were really enjoying a good standard of living . A . Right. Q. Now, when after the divorce was started, you were terminated with Radisson shortly thereafter, is that correct? I think the divorce was started in ‘92 and you were terminated in ‘93 or ‘94. A. ‘94. Well, it was — it was — I think it was June of ‘94, they put me on a loaner situation where I was working with other franchises so I was no longer working for that hotel. It would be kind of like a consulting kind of like situation . But my services were being told to me pretty much that they were no longer required . ==184== Q. Now, you have gone over where you have applied for employment. What is the basis of your application for SSI benefits? A. Primarily back. Q. Primarily back? A. Um hmm. Q. Who is representing you in that proceeding? A Legally? Q. Yes A. Nobody. It is just I have a - Q. And through which office have you applied? A. Hyannis, Massachusetts. Q. Hyannis, Massachusetts? A. Yes Q. And when was that application made? A. Last winter. Yes, last winter. Q. Last winter? A. I think it was February or March. Q. All right. And so but you haven´t had a ruling on that as yet? A. No. Q. Now, what other employment have you sought in, say, the last six months? A. I am sorry? ==185== Q. Have you sought any employment in the computer field? A. There was -- there was one job, I think it was a consierge position at Awaquasett Inn in Harwich. Q. And that is the last employment that you applied for? A. Yes. And then prior to that, it was two interviews in Florida in December Q. Now, do you own any interest in Hoyt´s Cinema, either stocks, bonds, or does any member of your family own any interest in Hoyt´s Cinema, either stocks, bonds or property? A. No. Q. Who was your boss at Hoyt´s Cinema? A. I had two bosses One was Jennifer Campbell and the other one was Rhonda Fleming. It is not the actor Q. Rhonda Fleming? A. Yes. Q. And was she at the local office, the local theater? A. Yes. Harwich theater Q. Well, Hoyt´s Cinemas is all over the world, isn´t it? ==186== A. I believe the ownership is out of Australia. But my understanding is that their concentration of cinemas is in the northeast, primarily Massachusetts. They have a -- their U.S. office is in Boston and they are concentrated Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Delaware maybe, and maybe in Vermont, New Hampshire. Northeast. Pennsylvania, I think. Q. All right. Now, Thomas, I mean Mr Padgett, let´s talk about your parents for a while. Where did your father work when you were growing up? A. He worked in Manhattan . He was in the Wall Street District. Q. Who did he work for? A. It was a company called Moore & Munger Q. And what were his functions? A. He was a -- well, first he was a chemical engineer. But he was a partner, it was a small chemical -- a combination chemical research and wax distribution company. Q. He owns an interest in that, didn´t he? A. Yes. Through partnership. Q. Now, he held quite a few patents, I understand. ==187== A. Yes, he did. Q. And as a matter of fact, he owned a patent on a coating for cups, didn´t he, the Dixie cup and other cups? A. Um hmm. Q. And what other patents did he hold? A. Well, it was not the actual cups but it was the formula used for the coating. I think it was Lily Tulip. Also other product, the wax used to mix with sawdust to make Duraflame logs and things like that. Q. He had held a patent on that? A. Well, in all of his patents the patents were under the company, so they weren´t his personal patents from my recollection. Q. But your daddy had done quite well, hadn´t he? A. He was comfortable, yes. Q. As a matter of fact, he had a home out in Orleans, Massachusetts? A. Um hmm. Q. That was his summer home. He had a home in Boca Raton? A. It was an apartment. Q. But he had a home in Boca Raton, is that ==188== correct? A. Yes. It was an apartment. Q. For the winter? A. Right. Q. And he -- and you grew up without wanting anything, didn´t you? I mean you had just about everything? A. I wanted a lot of stuff I didn´t get. Q. But I mean financially, your father was in real good shape, wasn´t he? A. Well, my recollection is early in my childhood we were struggling. But towards the -- towards the end, we were -- I would consider us certainly middle class. I think they were very comfortable once they got their three kids out of college. Q. All right. Now, your father died in 1990, prior to this divorce, didn´t he? A. That is correct. He died -- Q. He died in your home in Lexington, Kentucky, didn´t he? A. That is correct. Q. Now, his entire estate was left in trust, is that correct? ==189== A. I am not sure of the details. But it combined with my -- I mean it all went to my mother´s control. Q. Now, what do you mean went to your mother´s control? A. I don´t know the details of it I am not — I am not a trustee or a -- of either of my parents. Q. Now, is your interest in that trust in the neighborhood of a million and a half dollars? A. Oh, God, no. That would be nice though. Q. If Laura were to testify to the value that you had related to her when you all were married as to the amount, would she be fibbing? A. She would be flat out lying. She would be perjuring herself. Q. She would be perjuring herself? A. Um hmm. Q. Now, Mr Padgett, when your father died he left a Will, as I understand it, right? A. I believe so. I - Q. And you have seen that Will, haven´ t you? A. No, I haven´t. Q. You have never seen your father's Will? ==190== A. No, I haven´t. Q. Now, your father left a trust, is that not true? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Now, I am going to hand you a copy of this trust which is a public record and I want you to examine this and state to the Court whether or not that is a copy of your father´s revocable trust. (Witness perusing document.) A. I couldn´t state whether it is or it isn´t. Q. Now, you have no idea of your father´s trust, you are going to tell the Court here today? A. I don´t know a lot of details. Yes, that is correct. I don´t. As a matter of fact, I -- my prior attorneys had advised me that you were interested in parties, non parties to the litigation like my parents and any other people that had money for you and your clients. So we filled out a release so that you could work with them because I am not a trustee or executor of my parents´ estate. And I didn´t get involved in this. My brother and sister. And that was probably set up because I wasn´t -- my brother and sister stayed close to home and I didn´t. I ==191== traveled. Q. But what I want to ask you, though, is you have never before today seen your father´s trust agreement? A. Oh, I may have years ago. But this doesn´t look familiar at all. I would -- I have -- I know I haven´t seen this. Q. Well, now that document provides that your father's estate is to be divided into two parts, one part is for your mother and the other part, the income off the other part is to provide for your mother´s needs. A. Um hmm. Q. Now, were you aware of that? A. No. Not the details, no. Q. You have no idea about the two separate trust accounts that were established in your father´s estate? A. No. Q. Now, in that your father provided that your mother could direct in her estate how her share went. A. Um hmm. Q. Were you aware of that? ==192== A. Not in detail, no. Q. Now, were you aware of the fact that upon your mother´s death the balance of that trust would come to the three of you children? A. The exact details of how it is split, I have never seen that in writing either. Q. You have never seen it in writing? A. No. I would defer - Q. Have you had discussions with your brother and your sister concerning this estate? A. Yes. Q. And have you had discussions -- A. Primarily — Q. And have you had discussions with your brother and your sister concerning the value of that estate? A. Not in detail, no. Q. Now, have you received any benefits from your father´s estate under that trust agreement? A. No, not to my recollection. Q. Not to your recollection? A. Um hmm. Q. Now, has any of your interest gone into a foundation? ==193== A. Explain it. I don´t know what you mean. Q. Has any of your interest gone into a foundation that is taxed by the Internal Revenue Service? A. I have no idea. Clueless. Q. You have no idea? A. Um hmmn. Q. So there could be a foundation out there that is paying taxes on your interest from this estate that is supporting you? A. Oh, no. Not at all. As a matter of fact, I can´t answer these questions. You are asking me to represent -- I am not an attorney I am not a trustee. I am not an executor You are asking me to represent parties not to this litigation. I can´t do it, Bill. Q. All right. Now, Mr. Padgett — A. I gave you -- I gave you -- Q. What I am asking you is this. A. Please let me finish. I am under oath to tell the truth. I will tell the truth and nothing but the truth. I signed a release for you to work, because you showed concern that you wanted to involve other people in Laura´s litigation against me. I signed a release over two years ==194== ago for you to have access to those people because I don´t have -- I am not executor. So you have that. Q. Yes. And I got back from your brother that he would not be a party to it until I showed him what statute in Kentucky allowed me to delve into your father´s trust. A. Well, I am not my brother. Q. I know it. And what I am asking you is, Mr Padgett, you have got a college education? A. Um hmm. Q. People have paid you up to $107,000 a year to run hotels? A. Um hmm. Q. And your father had a sizable estate and held a bunch of patents. And you are here today telling this Court that you have no idea of anything about your father´s estate, no idea about how much money was in your father´ s estate, and you didn´t care when you are as flat broke as you say you are today? A. I am here to testify as my income was that high and it is really low now. And I think you and your client know how that demise went down from ==195== the six—figure income. Q. That is not the question about your income. The question is you are telling the Court here today that you have no knowledge or information at all concerning what was in your father´s estate? A. In detail, no. Q. You have -- I am not asking in detail. In general terms A. In general terms, you need to address the trustees. Now, I have — Q. So you are not going to tell us what your understanding of your share of that trust was? A. I am going to tell you that I have reported income in ‘98, ‘99, and 2000 regarding taxable income from the residue of my parents. Q. All right. Now, is there any of that trust from your father that has not been distributed as yet to your knowledge? A. I — I believe — I don´t know I don´t know the answers to that, Mr Whitledge. Q. You mean you are not even interested in whether or not your brother is sitting over there holding money that belongs to you? A. I think you need to talk to the people — ==196== Q. So you are not going to answer that question, is that what you are saying? A. No. I just said I don´t know the answer Q. You haven´t even inquired? A. I will tell you why I don´t know the answer It is because I tried to get my kids to visit their grandmother before she died and I went to Court on it and they said I can´t represent my mother because I am not an attorney at law. And now you are asking me to represent my father and my mother in this litigation. And I mean you are asking me to represent other people You want to bring in non parties. Q. I am not asking you to represent anybody I am asking you for your understanding of what you were to receive under your father´s trust. But you are sitting here today telling the Court that you have not inquired of that and have no knowledge of it Is that what you are saying? A. I have some knowledge of it. Q. Tell us what knowledge you have. A. I have some knowledge that it is -- I am what is called a conditional benefactor Q. All right. Well, explain what your ==197== understanding of conditional benefactor is. A. It is that certain conditions need to be met before I can receive benefits. And those conditions have been established and the determination of whether those have been met will be done by the trustee, the -- Q. What are those, what are those conditions? A. The trustees. They are complex and I would rather have the trustees refer to this. I don´t want to get into that. I don´t want to represent my brother or my sister or — Q. It is something that your mother signed prior to her death in which said that as long as Laura Padgett had this litigation going on, you couldn´t get anything from her estate, wasn´t it? A. No, I am certain it has -- it is not that. Q. You didn´t supply to your attorneys that document? A. I didn´t. My -- someone else might have. Q. There was a document that was given to me by your attorney, Mr. Lloyd. Now, I wish you would look at that document and see — A. I will let my attorney see it first. Was there ==198== a cover letter that came with that or — Q. Uhuh. That was given in Court. A. When was that given in Court? Q. I don´t remember the date when we were up there. Well, Mr Padgett, as a matter of fact, it was that same day that I asked that why didn´t he file a motion for reduction in child support and he said what you had inherited would probably result in you paying more than what you were paying now A. My attorney -- MR. PROW: I will object. MR. WHITLEDGE: He said that. That has come out in Court. That has been brought out to the Judge. MR. PROW: As long as it has been recorded in Court. I would like this on the record. I don´t know if we can — we can ask Mr Padgett if he has seen this before. We may have some problems authenticating this. I can´t make out the signature of Shirley D. Padgett. There is a signature line and there is a faded, there is a faded signature there. Unless Mr Padgett can testify to prior knowledge of this, I would ==199== object to the authenticity of this until we -- until somebody can testify to the -- that this is in fact part of the trust agreement. Go ahead and ask him. (Witness perusing document.) Q. Are you aware of that document? A. I am aware of its existence, yes. Q. And that document was drafted because of the allegations that Laura Padgett was stirring this litigation up? A. Allegations? Q. Yes. A. If you use the word “allegations”, no. This is my mother´ s document. I don´t represent my mother Q. I know you don´t represent your mother A. There are behavioral issues in there, I believe. Q. Now, your mother died, I think, in ‘98? A. Correct. Q. And she had a sizable estate of her own, didn´t she? A. What is sizable? It was -- my knowledge is it is very small. Q. All right. What is your knowledge of it if it ==200== is very small? A. It is very small. Q. What is your knowledge of it? You said it is very small. A. I want -- I signed a release for you to deal — these are not parties to this litigation. It you want to deal with non parties, I want you to deal with the people who represent them. I don´t represent my mother. Q. All right. So you are saying that you are not going to tell us any of your knowledge here today, you are going to force us to come back up here and take your brother´s and your sister´s deposition and go into the bank accounts? A. No. I am going to say that I provided for you back on April, and I still will, income that I have shown to the -- that I provided with my I.R.S. returns. Q. Now, you had supplied that. And I am going to show you a letter from your brother, which he carbon copied me, in which he said he was not going to give us that information. (Witness perusing document.) Q. Do you see in the last paragraph down there - ==201== A. Yes Q. Now, he wouldn´t give us any of that information, would he? A. I don´t represent my brother Q. All right. So then what you are saying is that you gave permission for your brother but your brother wouldn´t give it to us, you don´t have any knowledge of how much was in your mother´s estate or how much was in your father´s estate, you have not inquired and have no idea about how much you will be receiving from those estates. Is that your testimony today? A. My testimony today is that I am a conditional benefactor and these are issues of my late mother, who was also alive acting on behalf of my late father And my brother and sister represent that. So you are asking me - Q. Mr Padgett, all I am trying to get to — A. You are asking me to try to represent people I don´t represent. I can´t legally — Q. I am not asking you to represent anybody I am asking you to tell the Court today - A. Um hmm. Q. -- how much you expect to receive or how much ==202== you have received either from your mother´s or your father´s estate. A. The first question, I don´t know. Second question, I have provided income from my parents on the tax returns for ‘98, ‘99, and 2000 Q. Now, let me ask you again because I — I mean this is going to force a lot more expenses than have been incurred up-to-date. You do not have any form of a general idea of the value of your father´s estate? A. Not totally, no. Q. Not totally. But do you have a general idea? A. I think I have answered your question. I want - Q. Would it be a million? A. A million? Q. Yes. A. I would say it would be much less than that. Q. Your father´s estate — A. After tax and my mom´s expenses, medical expenses, I don´t know the exact amount. All I know is that she set up this thing that she said that makes me a conditional benefactor And I am not going to address those -- ==203== Q. Which makes you a conditional benefactor, that letter from her and the trust? A. Yes. Q. Both of those? All right. Now, was her trust the same as his trust; that upon her death it was to be distributed to you? A. I don´t recall. Q. All right. You don´t recall, you have no idea? A. I — the exact details, no, I don´t. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. Now, let´s take a short break here just a second. VIDEO OPERATOR: We will conclude this tape. (Brief recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: It is 1:53. This concludes tape number two of Thomas Padgett deposition. (Brief recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Stand by, please. It is now 2:08 p.m. on August 27, 2001. This is tape number three of Thomas C. Padgett´s deposition. Q. All right. Mr Padgett, let me remind you you are still under oath. Now, a while ago you stated you have one bank account? ==204== A. Actually, I have a savings accounts and a checking account. Q. Where is that checking account? A. Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank. Q. Five Cents Savings Bank? A. Um hmm. Q. How long have you been banking there? A. Three, four years. Q. Now, the Bank of Boston is now Fleet, I understand? A. Um hmm. Q. You had an account in Fleet, in Bank of Boston, is that correct? A. I had a savings account. Q. And you had a checking account there A. I think I did. I think it was Bank of Boston. Q. Here is a check that you wrote to your children on the Bank of Boston. Does that refresh your memory? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you have any money with the Bank of Boston or its successor bank? A. No, I believe this account was shut down. Q. When was that account shut down? ==205== A. I am not sure. Q. Now, that check is to your children? A. Um hmm. Q. That was to reimburse her for medical expenses that the Court found you owed, wasn´t it? A. It was for reimbursal of medical expenses. The Court didn´t find any. Again, there wasn´t discovery. I have asked for medical expenses since ‘94, 30 or 40 times, and it has never been produced so -- Q. And those were sent back to you because you made the checks payable to the children, didn´t you? A. Oh, I guess so. Um hmm. Q. You pulled that more than once of making the support checks or checks payable to the children, didn´t you? A. Pulled it, what do you mean pulled it? Q. I mean you have made the checks, the support checks more than one time payable to the children. A. Yes. Well, way back on child support. But as far as this, I wanted the children to know I am trying to support them additionally per Court order for their medical expenses when their mom ==206== refuses, she still refuses to involve me anything in their mental health care, medical health care. Q. Well, I am asking you about that though. You had done that and there was some expression in the Court by Judge Boteler for you to stop making the checks payable to the children, wasn´t there? A. You are alleging that I have, this is some kind of a behavioral issue and I would wish that you would address this not to me but to a behavioral scientist. Q. All right Did the Court instruct you, your belief, not to make the checks payable to the children anymore? A. I think, yes, there was -- your predecessor, Hallyburton, says no more, Michael Hallyburton. There is no Court order that addresses that though. Q. But there was some instruction by the Court not to pay it that way anymore, was there, Judge Boteler -- A. Pay what that way? Q. Make your child support payments payable to the ==207== children? A. I believe there was. Q. Yes. All right. Now - A. Not medical expenses. Q. I also noticed here two bank accounts, one at Nations and one in a Florida bank. Now, what is the Florida bank? A. Those were accounts that I had when I was living in Florida. Q. Now, do you have any money on deposit in either of those accounts or their successor banks? A. Excuse me. No, they have been both shut down. As a matter of fact, one of the banks, Nations Bank, the branch was closed. But these, these accounts have been closed. Q. So you are saying that you have no money in either of those accounts or in — now, do you have any money in any bank account in the State of Florida? A. No. Q. Now, would you supply to the Court the last 12 months of your bank statement from your Five Cents Savings Bank account and make those a part of your testimony here today? ==208== MR. PROW: That doesn´t matter A. If we are going to have discovery of both parties on bank accounts, I think — Q. I am asking you, will you make those available as a part of your testimony here today, your last 12 months bank statements? Now, I am not interested in your checks, Mr Padgett. I am just interested in the statements that are filed each month. A. Well, I would guess that if we are going to have discovery of me and Laura and those kinds of things, I would guess that - Q. So are you refusing to supply those to the Court? A. No. I am just -- MR. PROW: Let me ask -- THE WITNESS: I have always asked the Court to — MR. PROW: Let me ask counsel, will Mrs. Padgett provide her income -- MR. WHITLEDGE: That is no problem. We have never been asked for that. I am asking him now and he is not answering. MR. PROW: Well, we will do reciprocal ==209== discovery If she provides 12 months´ worth, he will provide 12 months´ worth of his bank statements. MR. WHITLEDGE: Okay. Q. Now, Mr. Padgett, in supplying all of your bank statements, I want all of your accounts, that includes your savings account. A. You just asked the Five Cents. So now we are going - Q. To all of your bank accounts. All bank accounts upon which you can draft a check. A. Oh, okay And so we get all bank accounts for Laura, we get all of our accounts in Scientology, there is no limit to discovery here. Am I getting this? There is no limits to discovery? Q. I don´t know that you are getting it, Mr Padgett. What I am asking is - A. I don´t think I am. Q. -- for you to supply to the Court copies of the last 12 months of all bank statements on any bank accounts or institutions, financial institutions in which you can withdraw money MR. PROW: Only if we can have an agreed, ==210== an agreed order that Laura Padgett would provide the -- MR. WHITLEDGE: Laura Padgett is going to supply -- this man is giving his deposition today and I am asking him as part of that evidence MR. PROW: I understand. I am saying -- MR. WHITLEDGE: Now, if you want to make a formal request, you can make your formal request. I am not trying to be difficult, Clint. We are going to supply you all of that information. But this man, and I will ask you, he has mentioned Scientology. She has no money in Scientology. THE WITNESS: I just got $2,000 from them so -- and there is a lot more available for us. MR. PROW: He will provide, and we are requesting you now, he will provide an agreed order that he will provide those 12 months´ worth of bank statements if Laura Padgett by September 10th, the date of the hearing, will provide that same information, 12 months´ worth of all bank and financial institutions in her name or that she has access to. ==211== MR. WHITLEDGE: And we are asking for him any bank accounts in his name or that he has access to or he can withdraw funds from MR. PROW: And assuming an agreed order is signed — MR. WHITLEDGE: Are you making that restriction on this man's testimony here today? MR. PROW: If we agreed to an order is signed that she will provide the exact same discovery, if -- and you told me she will. MR. WHITLEDGE: You can ask my client the same thing. We are not trying to be difficult. MR. PROW: Well, that is a yes, as long as you sign an order MR. WHITLEDGE: This man, I don´t think we have to sign an order. MR. PROW: Well, I would request an order signed. MR. WHITLEDGE: So you are not going to supply this man´s records? Certify that question to the Court. MR. PROW: You can certify it. But I am trying to answer your question yes, he is going to provide it. You are telling me your client ==212== will provide that information. I am telling you my client will provide that information. So I don´t understand why an agreed order for both of them to — MR. WHITLEDGE: I am going to sit here and be restricted, I have just asked a question and he can make that a part of his deposition. Now I will give them to you. I am not trying to be difficult. All I am saying is is Mr Padgett going to supply these records and make them part of his evidence? MR. PROW: And the answer to put in the record is that he will if an order is signed or the information is received from Laura Padgett before an order is signed, then he will provide that information MR. WHITLEDGE: He is not going to supply them to the court reporter? MR. PROW: He is not. MR. WHITLEDGE: You are saying he is not? MR. PROW: He is not. He will supply the information as long as the reciprocal information is provided by Laura Padgett´or an agreed order where she agrees to supply that ==213== information by September 10th. We can say all the information will be provided on the date of the hearing on September 10th. THE WITNESS: Well, I want to go on the record. MR. WHITLEDGE: No, Mr Padgett. Let me move on a little bit further here. Q. What is CASH, C-A-S-H? A. Oh, the first question, I was going to say it is money. It is currency That I think the abbreviation started by a group down in Florida. It is Citizens or Campaign — Citizens Against Scientology Harassment. And it is a networking thing. Q. Do you have any interest in CASH? A. I have about seven dollars on me. Q. Do you have any interest in this organization called CASH? A. It is not a corporation or anything. I have no — there is no money or nothing. Q. There is not? A. No. Q. Where is CASH located? A. It is -- I believe it had several mailboxes ==214== around the country. Q. It has a phone listed in Orleans, Massachusetts, doesn´t it? A. Well, that would have been my part of it. It is a networking. Q. Your part of the phone? A. Yes. How old is that piece of paper? Q. All right. Let me ask you though. What does CASH do, what does it stand for now? A. It is Campaign Against Scientology Harassment or Citizens Against -- Q. What does CASH do? A. It is just a communication network to, to transcend all this religious protection against a behavioral science thing. And it is a group of people, who were deeply harmed by this organization, who network and use this as a communication link. Q. Does CASH have any money? A. I don't -- -- no. Q. Bank account? A. No. Q. It doesn´t? A. No. ==215== Q. All right. I am going to hand you a fax that you sent to me in 1998 A. Um hmm. Q. And I want you to look at this. And attached to it is an airline ticket for you to fly from Boston to Nashville in October of 1998 A. Um hmm. Okay Q. Now, why would anybody such as an airline extend credit to CASH that didn´t even have a bank account? That airline ticket was charged to CASH. A. That would be a good question. Q. So you don´t know why you got an airline ticket free that would have been charged over to CASH? A. Where does it say that? Q. Look at it again. See where it says bill, bill to CASH? A. Oh, bill to CASH. Q. CASH. A. And the -- I would guess the address to the CASH, to the address, not the organization. Q. All right. Did you then draft a check on CASH to pay that airline ticket? A. I am not sure how I paid for it. ==216== Q. Pardon? A. I am not sure how I paid for it. It could have been — Q. It could have been a CASH checking account? A. It could have been a credit card too. Q. It could have been a CASH checking account? A. I don´t recall. I don´t recall a CASH checking account . Q. But CASH was actually you, wasn´t it? A. CASH was me? Q. Yes. A. It was — it still is a network of people. They have changed -- they changed names. Q. But you were the head of the local office here? A. Head of the local office? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. Where the phone number is now that is CASH, that is your phone number? A. No, no. That is a — that is a not correct characterization. Q. All right. But the phones, your phone that you said a while ago there is a phone listed in Orleans, Massachusetts for CASH. Now, you said ==217== that is your phone? A. This is my phone, yes. That is handwritten in here. Q. No. The phone that is listed in Orleans, Massachusetts now in the name of CASH, you said a while ago was your phone. Is that correct or incorrect? A. Then I don´t even understand your question. Q. I am not asking about that phone number on there. A. Um hmm. Q. The phone that is listed over there currently, if I go in there and call that phone number listed for CASH, would that be your phone number? A. You will have to show me the list where it says there was a phone number for CASH. This is my own phone. Q. Is there a phone in your home or that you have control over that is listed in the name of CASH? A. No. Q. No? A. No. Q. All right. Now, I also noticed where when you ==218== flew in, you flew Julie to Providence and paid for it, it was put on your Visa card. Was that CASH´s Visa card or was that yours? A. I don´t even remember this, Julie visiting me in December of ‘98 Q. But it does reflect on there Visa, doesn´t it? A. This is after my daughter´s emancipated age. Where are you getting this information? Where are you getting this stuff from? Are you extracting it from my daughter? Q. You supplied all this to us. A. I supplied this all to you? Q. Yes. This is the purchase of your son´s most recent trip on here where you purchased a ticket and that ticket was purchased on American Express. A. Um hmm. Yes. Q. Now, you said you had seven dollars in your billfold? A. Yes. Q. Could we see how many credit cards you do have in your billfold at this time? MR. PROW: I would object to the -- MR. WHITLEDGE: Are we to assume there are ==219== so many credit cards that he doesn´t want to reveal how many he has got? MR. PROW: Well, you are saying that he has one. THE WITNESS: My attorney will testify that we went out for dinner last time and I used the American Express card and they returned it. It was rejected. MR. WHITLEDGE: Well, let´s see. If he has got nothing to hide, show us all the cards you have in your billfold. THE WITNESS: I will show you all the cash that I have. MR. WHITLEDGE: I am not asking about cash. THE WITNESS: Yes. You asked about cash so -- MR. WHITLEDGE: All right THE WITNESS: One, two, three, four, five, six. Sorry I said seven. it is six. Q. I think you said seven. But what I am asking you, Mr Padgett, is now how many credit cards are there in your billfold at this time? A. I believe I have a Sears card. I have a Shell card. I have an Amoco. ==220== Q. Could you show us, please? A. Sure. Well, I would -- I guess I would want to consult my attorney and make sure that we have the same discovery of Laura. Q. I think he can ask her the same question. Can I see the credit cards? MR. PROW: I can ask her the same thing, yes. THE WITNESS: Because there hasn´t been the same discovery for years. Q. I am asking you, can we see them or not? Are you refusing to let us see them? A. I will let you see the cards I have. Q. Put them up on the table so we can view those. A. Yes. Here they come. Q. That was American Express. Where is your Visa? A. It is coming, Bill. Q. Shell. Now, this Visa is issued by the U.S. Bank? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any money on deposit in that bank? A. No. I owe money on it. Q. Now, can you withdraw funds from that bank? A. No. ==221== Q. Could you at any time withdraw funds from that bank by virtue of this credit card? A. Not now, no. Q. Could you at any time withdraw funds from that bank account by virtue of this credit card? A. You are asking me a question for a yes or no answer and there is not a yes or no answer believe I am maxed out on it or pretty close maxed out on it in terms of credit. And I know that the American Express is — my — I don´t know if my attorney is allowed to testify that that is — Q. And this is a PLUS card? A. Um hmm. Q. And it is honored at a lot of any-time teller machines? A. Um hmm. Q. Have you ever withdrawn cash from an any-time teller machine with this card? A. The answer is no. Q. You have never withdrawn any cash? A. Never Q. All right. A. Never ==222== Q. It has just been charges? A. That is correct. Q. All right. Now, you still maintain your credit then. Who is paying those credit bills? Is your brother paying them? A. Well, they are not all being used. Sears is not being used. J.C. Penney isn´t being used. Texaco is gas. Amoco and Shell, they are gas. I have -- and I have been receiving assistance, private victim assistance. And I can tell you where to go to find out more about it if you are -- Q. Well, I am going to ask you because I would like to know myself A. Um hmm. Q. You have referred throughout this proceeding and the criminal proceeding about a benefactor? A. Um hmm. Q. Who is your benefactor? A. Benefactors, plural. Q. Who is your benefactors? A. Benefactors, brother, sister, friends. I am sure if you go through the page that you had entered as the first exhibit you will see also a ==223== defense fund. Q. Yes. A. To pay for attorneys fees in the - Q. Now, how much money has been raised by the defense fund? A. I don´t know Q. Who maintains the defense fund? A. That is, I think, client-attorney privilege. Q. You have no control over the defense fund? A. Some, yes. I have input. But as far as - Q. Can you ever draft any checks out of the defense fund? A. I would rather have -- I would rather have counsel or people who are administering that to—— Q. Who is administering it? A. It is — — well, a lot of the money is being held through my brother And the checks come in, they get deposited. Q. Is your brother the benefactor? A. Is my brother the benefactor? Q. Benefactor A. He would be one of them, yes. Q. And he is managing the defense fund? ==224== A. Yes. For the legal harassment that I am receiving Q. And he is making the payments out of that? A. Some of them, yes. Q. Well, now where did the $10,000 cash bond come from when you were arrested in 1998 and brought back to Kentucky? A. The $10,000, I think — I don´t -- that came from my brother Q. From your brother? A. Yes. Q. Now, was there any arrangements to pay him back? A. Yes. There is a tab that is growing. Q. Was there any arrangement on that for that to be charged against your inheritance? A. Not per se, no. Q. Not per se? A. It wasn´t structured that way Q. It was not structured that way? A. No. Q. Well, how was it structured then? A. It is you are asking about a defense fund and you are talking about criminal behavior and having me come back here. I am very ==225== uncomfortable of me talking about how my attorneys are funded because I believe that Laura is being funded by Scientologists and her parents and — Q. Well, that is what you believe. A. And benefactors. What is what I believe. Q. Well, your attorney can ask her all of those questions. Now, I am asking you the question about this defense fund. A. Um hmm. Q. Now, your brother is managing it. The $10,000 was paid out. Now, are you going to tell us how that was to be handled on your - A. Well, wait a second. I am not saying the $10,000 came from a defense fund. Q. Oh, the $10,000 came from your brother? A. Came from a check from my brother, yes. Q. All right. Now, that $10,000 was a check that he had paid from your share of the estate? A. It is money that — the origin, I am not -- I can´t tell you. The check was written, I think, to the Hopkins Circuit Court. But Joe Mobley handled it on July 20, 1998. Q. All right. Now, your brother wrote the check. ==226== It was sent to the Hopkins Circuit Court to release you from jail. Now, what was the — A. No, no, no. Q. Where did the $10,000 come from? A. Mr Whitledge, Mr. Whitledge, it was posted as bond. Q. Right. So you didn´t have to wait in jail until your trial was disposed of? A. Correct. Q. Now, your brother sent the $10,000. What was the agreement between you and your brother concerning the repayment or concerning that advance of $10,000? A. I think that is something that you need to address with my brother Q. You don´t have any idea of it? A. I am -- I get money from brothers and sisters. I get money from the internet. I get money from my girlfriend. Q. You get a lot of money. A. Are you asking about arrangements and people who care about me in trying to resolve this issue? Q. Well, you ought to be able to answer that question, Mr Padgett. ==227== A. Well, I don´t - Q. I mean your brother sends down $10,000 and you don´t know what the agreement was? A. The agreement was -- the agreement was that the $10,000 got applied and that the $11,000 get applied and then you expunge and decease the case. That was the agreement. Now, you are interested -- you are asking me to represent other people. And I can´t do that, Mr Whitledge. Q. All right. So your brother just - A. If you want to -- Q. So your brother just voluntarily gave you that $10,000? A. I would suggest if you want to involve other people, then include them in the litigation and subpoena them or whatever I -- Q. All right. A. I am not going to do this. Q. So we are to assume then that the $10,000 was an advancement on your inheritance? A. You cannot assume that. Q. Why? A. Because you are assuming. You are assuming ==228== Q. Tell us why. I mean you know where the $10,000 came from. Now, tell the Court. A. I mean you say you assume. I don´t know why you assume. You assume a lot of things. Q. Tell us where the $10,000 came from. A. It came from my brother. The check was written from my brother Q. And your brother has just voluntarily wrote the check for $10,000? A. I think I have answered this question. MR. PROW: You have answered that question. He has asked and answered at least ten times. Q. Now, the $1,000 that Mr Mobley was sent was sent on a check by ABUSE. Where did that $11,000 check come from? A-B-U-S-E. MR. PROW: You may answer, ABUSE, who the organization is. A. It stands for A Better Understanding of Scientology Ethics. And again, it is a communication thing for dealing with these issues. Now, but I am very concerned. Q. I am really concerned, Mr Padgett, about where all this money is coming from that you don´t have any idea ==229== A. And I am very concerned too. I think I need a break from — where are you getting this stuff, from my attorneys, from my former attorneys? Q. It is in the record. A. It is not in the record. Q. Your attorney verified that to show the Court what they had on deposit. A. Then I need to see a record. Q. All right. Look at that. A. I need to see a record of a video. Q. Is that not a money order from ABUSE — A. Are you asking -- Q. -- for Julie and the child? A. Yes. It appears to be. THE WITNESS: I am just concerned. How did you get this? Were you engaged in an activity to violate my client-attorney privilege from my previous attorneys? You have a serious bar complaint coming, Mr Whitledge. MR. WHITLEDGE: Well, you have already turned me into all the bar, local bar associations in Madisonville, saying that I have a drinking problem. THE WITNESS: Well — ==230== Q. How many times have you filed complaints on attorneys that are involved in this? You filed a complaint on Mr. Hallyburton. You filed one on the Judge too, didn´t you? A. A bar complaint on the Judge? Q. A judicial complaint, didn´t you? A. A judicial -- I need to know - Q. You filed a complaint - A. I need to know where you are going with this, I think. MR. PROW: I object. I don´t think it is relevant to these proceedings at all. MR. WHITLEDGE: I don´t either. i just -- you need your break or you want to go on? MR. PROW: Let's take a five-minute break. (Brief recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Stand by, please. 2:44, back on the record. MR. WHITLEDGE. All right. Are we ready? I would like to formally introduce this exhibit, which was the Notice of Appeal and two checks. And if you will keep it turned over and I will just do them in order. This one check that was to children for reimbursement of medical ==231== expenses that he said he wanted them to know about; the Southwest Airlines purchase; the trust agreement; and his mother´s trust agreement revocation; the letter from his brother; the fax from CASH along with the check; and the Southwest Airlines purchase. Now, we are talking about at this point in time this check from ABUSE. And you can just do those in order. Will that be any problem with you? (Documents marked as Exhibit K through Exhibit R for identification.) [Direct links to exhibits K through R: Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit O Exhibit P Exhibit Q Exhibit R ] Q. Now, have you had time to consult with your attorney about that check that ABUSE sent to Mr Mobley and Lloyd? A. Yes, I had a chance to talk to him. Q. Where did that $11,000 come from? A. I don´t know. It is not ABUSE or it is made out to them. I think it would probably be again best to deal with the people who -- Mobley and Lloyd could probably tell you also. Q. All right. A. This was for -- what I -- what I can testify to, this was provided to, to -- $10,000, $11,835.95 would equal the $21,000. It was provided to ==232== Mobley and Lloyd with the stipulation of making full restitution in the criminal case and getting it dismissed. That was the intent of this check. Q. All right. So you are saying that you have no idea of how those funds originated? Are you indebted to anybody for those funds? A. Yes. Q. Who are you indebted to? A. Lots of people. Q. Who? A. Lots of people. Q. Have you signed any promissory notes to those? A. To this amount, I don´t think so. I am indebted to a lot of people for a lot of help. Q. All right. Now, was any of that money your advancement on your trust? A. No. I can´t say that that was. I can´t -- no, I can´t say that. Q. You can´t say that it was an advancement? A. No, I can´t. Q. All right. Now, when you were going off to prison, $50,000 was sent to the Court by your brother? ==233== A. Um hmm. Q. Now, where did that $50,000 come from? A. You´d have to ask my brother Q. It came to Mr Harold Sloop. You were aware of that $50,000, weren´t you? A. Um hmm. Q. You were? A. Um hmm. Q. Now, you don´t know where that money came from? A. I do know that once I was incarcerated there was a big stir and in my family and on the internet and so forth. So the cumulative amount, I couldn´t state -- I would guess that it could come up with lots of money and lots of -- if people are trying to incarcerate me when it is not needed. And so it is a lot of people. I know my brother -- I can´t speak for them but I know their feelings were that this is like — — this is like an act of extortion, you come up with all kinds of cash, we will give you your brother´s body back, he would still be alive though. That is how I perceived that. Q. So if the Court should grant to Laura $1,000 a month child support, you would be able to pay ==234== that because you have got all of these different connections out there. Is that not true? A. No. Child support is based on an income, I believe, by law. If you are going to -- if you are going to state to me now the child support laws and we can go out and change them and any person that doesn´t make what the other person wants them to make, that they go raise it up and they will come up with it because they will go to jail, you know, did you want to go down that route? Q. All right. Well, now I am just interested in where all this money came from. I mean your brother has bought you a truck? A. There is a lot of stuff on the internet. Q. And he has got a lien on it. And your brother sent you that 11,000 or 10,000 The 11,000, he sent you the 50,000 And you don´t have any idea where all of this money in the last couple of years has come from? A. There are -- here is some sources I can help you answer this question. You can go on the internet and there are people out there who are willing to help victims. It is called Private ==235== Victims Assistance. You can go On www.freedomofmind.org and they can refer you. You go to www.lisatrust.net, and they can refer you, www.Wellspringretreat.org. There are others. And they can hook you up with people who can help you emotionally, financially, all kinds of things when you are going through these types of trouble. And so these are not -- I mean they are available for you to find out more about the kind of assistance. Q. Well, what I am asking for is these people have all come forward and helped you, you say? A. Yes. Q. I would like to know some of their names. A. Under the circumstances, i don´t -- they are anonymous. You are dealing with -- you are dealing with an organization that stalks people and - - Q. You are not going to tell us? A. And harasses them. Q. You are not going to tell us who has put up 11,000 and 10,000 and 50,000 and who spotted you the truck? A. Well, I think that we have determined that the ==236== 10,000 and the 11,000 and change was a check written by my brother Q. All right. Now, and there is your brother just gratuitously gave that to you? A. Gratuitously? Q. It is your understanding — — A. You are using the word gratuitously. No. Q. So there were some strings attached to your brother advancing that money, is that not true? A. The strings are attached that I have family, friends, loved ones, a girlfriend, brother and sister, that people are going to try to help me out from your client´s obsession with litigation. Q. All right. A. Just to keep me out of jail or just to satisfy bringing this to a conclusion. Q. Now, the $50,000 that was sent to Mr Sloop, you have no idea of where that money came from, is that what you are telling the Court here today? A. I -- well, I was in jail so I can´t say I can´t testify I know exactly where it came from at that time. But I have an idea. Q. What is your idea? ==237== A. That it came from family Q. So your family put up the $50,000? A. Um hmm. Q. That would be your brother and sister? A. Um hmm. And I believe it was to dismiss everything, dismiss the criminal case, dismiss everything. And Laura rejected it. So and then it went back to them. Q. Now, did Laura reject it or did you reject it? A. No, Laura rejected it. Q. There were numerous offers made to you at that time, weren´t there? A. There were numerous offers made to your client too. Q. And one of the problems was that you had committed a crime against the Commonwealth of Kentucky and not against Laura Padgett? A. I don´t believe I committed a crime against the Commonwealth of Kentucky or my children. I don´t believe that, Mr Whitledge. You are talking about criminal behavior Q. Now, you have a savings account for Laura and you haven´t contributed anything to her college education, have you? ==238== A. You mean Julie. Q. Julie, yes. A. There is a savings account. Yes, there is a savings account with Paine Webber, with 54, approximately $5,400 Q. All right. Now, have you contributed any money to her college education? A. Are you talking about tuition? Q. Any money at all towards her college education. A. Through the savings account, I intend to cash it in and apply it. Q. You intend to? A. This fall. Q. Have you contributed any money to her books, her tuition, her room and board, clothing, anything else financially to your daughter Julie to go to college? A. Her freshman year I provided her with -- actually, it was a freshman and part of her sophomore, I provided her a credit card that she could use for gas and expenditures. And she used it. And then it had to stop because the litigation was just -- - - you do recall that in October of 1992, that I made an offer to Laura ==239== to put all anticipated court costs and attorneys fees into a savings account for her children. And she has rejected it many times since then. And that would be in excess of $100,000 so I think -- Q. All right. Now - A. -- you have got most of that. Q. Have you ever told your daughter Julie that as soon as this litigation was finished, you would start helping her with her college education? A. Not in those terms, no. Q. But it was contingent upon the litigation ending, is that not true? A. No. It was contingent upon requiring -- remember, you filed a motion to have me be represented. So I am being represented by a man who makes over $100,000 because Laura and I, you don´t want her to communicate with me and you don´t want to communicate with me so that is a very expensive process and my income is very limited right now. So all I am saying is when the costs of this protracted resolution stop, then I would be in a better position to help her. That is not the same thing as saying to a ==240== child from a parent, you know, your mom stops her litigation and I will help you out. Q. You have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation, haven´t you? A. Hundreds and thousands? Q. Yes. A. I believe it is in attorneys´ fees, it is in excess of $100,000. I am sure it is. Q. All right. Now, how many attorneys have you had representing you? A. Several. Q. Over six, wasn´t it? A. I believe so, yes. Q. More like about eight? A. More like six or seven. All of them -- Q. Well, we count Mr McCauley and Rachelle, I think it would be up close to ten, wouldn´t it? A~. Well, yes, yes. And so —— and so there is — — every one of them, every one of them have said to me that they can´t believe the way I am being treated in the Hopkins Circuit Court. Q. All right. Now — — A. Except for current counsel. 2. Now, do you think that Laura´s fees, legal fees ==241== would have been pretty well equal to what your legal fees were? A. Probably not because of the travel expenses. it would probably be nowhere near as much. Q. So you say that you are saying here today that your legal fees at this point in time have exceeded $100,000? A. Yes, most definitely Q. Now, and there is a savings account for Julie´s education? A. Um hmm. Q. But that is not being depleted or used for her college education at all, is it? A. Well, for the record, I think that is between Julie and I. I don´t think there is any issues here with my daughter today Q. So you are not going to say whether or not you have actually helped your daughter in any way You have left it all up to your wife, haven´t you, former wife? A. Well, wait a second, Mr Whitledge; The child support stops at an emancipated age and she is getting child support for two children based on an income that I made in 1995. So I would say ==242== yes, she is getting half, you know, a good portion she should be getting from Laura from 1999 Q. Yes. Now, I would like to for a minute address that issue concerning the 1997 increase in child support. A. Um hmm. Q. You recall that, don´t you? A. Um hmm. Q. You saw the video of it, didn´t you? A. I — — yes, but I don´t recall. But I am sure I saw it. Q. All right. Now, in the original decree, you claimed to be unemployed and were drawing Unemployment. You were to supply your wife with information concerning your employment on a monthly basis, weren´t you? A. Umhmm. Q. You didn´t do that, did you? A. I complied with that for the most part, yes. I did and I have. Q. All right. Now, in 19 — — we had gone to court on numerous occasions trying to force you to give us authorization to go to the Internal ==243== Revenue Service for your taxes. Is that not true? A. When you say we, who is we? Q. Mr Hallyburton and myself both have filed motions requesting those documents? A. Well, is there anything that you requested and been ordered that I haven´t been provided you, Mr Whitledge. Q. Well, every time you would send in the request for the documentation concerning your income, there was always a restriction on it, wasn´t there? A. This goes back to -- what are you talking about 1996? Q. Yes. But you don´t recall that? A. What do you mean I don´t recall that? Q. You don´t recall all of the various restrictions you put on those - - A. I think I put restrictions on there because, again, I was concerned because the Court was ordering discovery of me and the Court was never ordering discovery of Laura. Q. All right. So then — — A. So you can say easily here today, Mr Padgett, ==244== you know, has got bad behavior because he put restrictions on it, and Mrs. Padgett is good because she complied with the Court but she was never asked for discovery of the Court and she still hasn´t been. She is being — — we don´t know anything. We don´t have here is what Laura makes and here is what I make. Q. Well, you have had all of these eight or nine attorneys? A. Um hmm. Q. And you have had the same access to discovery that she has had? A. No, I haven´t. That is not a true statement, Mr Whitledge. Q. Well, all right. So finally, we have got authorization in 1997 to approach the Internal Revenue Service? A. Yes. Q. You were aware of that? A. Um hmm. Q. And this is a copy of that result of the letter from the Internal Revenue Service. A. Um hmm. Q. Now -- ==245== A. I —— I can´t tell —— this is what you received. I didn´t receive it. Q. Well, does that look like your ‘95 income? A. ‘96 is missing. Do you have ‘96? Q. Is that your ‘96 income? A. No. I don't -- don´t see - Q. I think that reflects that you didn´t file a tax return in 1994 or ‘96 and the only tax return that the Internal Revenue Service had for you was the ‘95 taxes A. You mean in 1997? They should have been filed. Q. All right. Now, when we received that information, what did it show as your income for that year of 1995? A. Adjusted gross income? Q. Um hmm. A. No. Gross income. I have never seen this printout here. 44; 44,855. Q. Does that sound about right? A. Um hmm. Q. Now, you were talking a while ago about your filing the various motion for reduction in child support, et cetera. A. Um hmm. ==246== Q. On about that same time you were actually filing a motion for reduction in child support and for the Court to award you alimony, weren´t you? A. I believe I even -- yes, I believe I had. That was pro se. Q. And this is a copy - - A. Mind you, I remind the record I am not an attorney at law Q. That is the copy, that is the copy of the motion that you filed. A. Right. It was copied to Mr Hallyburton. MR. WHITLEDGE: Right. Now, the motion, and I am going to ask that the taxes be made a part of it and that this be made a part of the evidence. (Document marked as Exhibit S for identification.) (Document marked as Exhibit T for identification.) Q. All right. Now, in 1997, you again filed another motion for a reduction in child support and a motion for alimony, I think. A. I think there is two of these too for this time frame. I have a second one of these too. ==247== Q. And you were asking for alimony and in your original motion in 1995, when in fact you had in 1995 made $46,000 Is that not true? A. When was — — when was the date I motioned? MR. PROW: August 29, 1995 THE WITNESS: Okay Q. And you made $46,000 and you were asking the Court to award you maintenance from your wife? A. Mr Whitledge, you recall I had a fairly high income and that ceased in May. So from May of 1995, which would include the time which I filed this motion, I had a very low income, extremely low income. Q. Now, I understand that your sheet there that is written on CASH again, and I am not going to say I -- you don´t know or will not explain to the Court what your connection with CASH is. Does that fairly accurately depict an exhibit that you have filed in this action previously? A. I believe it does. It looks familiar Q. So at that time with the $46,000 income, you were wanting maintenance from your wife? A. I am -- how would I know in August 25th of 1995 what I made in ‘96? This isn´t attached. This ==248== is in Massachusetts. I think that was filed in Florida, wasn´t it? Yes, it was in Florida. Are you saying this is an attachment to this? Q. No, I am asking you if you recognize this document right here. A. Yes. Q. And that is a document that you prepared? A. Um hmm. Q. And it is on the head of CASH. Why did you use CASH in that one? A. Citizens Against Scientology Harassment. Q. And why did you use that organization to relay this information? A. Because I was a citizen, and still am, to prevent harassment. Q. All right. And this 1997 motion, I find an interesting sentence. And I am going to read it to you. A. Um hmm. Q. And I think this is basically the Respondent, who is you, believes he is the one deserving of relief and the Petitioner is a party deserving of punishment and owes support in the form of alimony? ==249== A. Um hmm. Q. Was that your truly feelings that she should be punished financially? A. I think the best way to describe that, if you go back and look at all the motions, these are motions that I filed. If you go back and look at all the motions that Mr Hallyburton filed and a lot of them that you filed, both of you gentlemen have used the word “punished”, that I need to be punished and punished for this, to be punished for something I did to my children, to be punished financially, to be punished for whatever. So if I used the word “punished”, I got it from you and Mr Hallyburton. Q. All right. Now — - A. I want to finish — - we shouldn´t wanting to punish people. We should be wanting to get this over with and resolved and stop it, and get on with my life. Q. And Mr Padgett, we really could, if you would just do one thing. If you´d just be fair with us in telling us what you were receiving from your father, if you would tell us what — A. I have been extremely fair with you. ==250== Q. - - and keep trying to mislead the Court. You are living a pretty good life. And what was it, $70,000 was posted on those three things right there in that period of time. A. Fair, are you talking about fair? Q. And you are trying to lead the Court to believe that you don´t have any access to funds? A. I am trying to get the Court to believe what I have provided is documentation for my income. I have done that. I have repeatedly done that. If we are talking about fair, I mean let´s bring in people to determine the behavioral issues of what needs to be punished and what doesn´t need to be punished. And I believe I even brought in an expert witness that flew in from Florida who testified as a witness who saw my children sign these documents and he testified, he was admitted as an expert witness, his name was Reverend James Klucow, that litigation was damaging these children. That was in 1996. And the litigation is still going on. You are coming to Massachusetts to litigate and litigate, to litigate, and I could go on for a half hour and use that word litigate. It is ==251== still going to be litigation. Q. Now, Mr Padgett, when you were locked up in the jail - A. Um hmm. Q. Did your daughter write you a letter asking you to please stop all of this? A. My daughter wrote me a communication and I wrote her back a communication. And my daughter has - - both my children had been misled and continue to be misled about their father. They get bombarded, bombarded by Carl and Betty Vannoy, and newspapers and court papers about how terrible their father is. And no behavioral or social scientist has ever reported that there is anything wrong with my behavior - Q. All right. And my question is — — A. Mr Whitledge. Q. To you, and it is going to continue to be until you answer it yes or no, did your daughter write you while you were in the jail awaiting to go to the penal system, asking you to please quit all of this? A. No. Q. She did not? ==252== A. She wrote me. Q. She wrote you? A. Um hmm. Q. And what was the basis of that letter? A. She was writing me as her father Q. And she was asking you to cease and desist, wasn´t she? A. No. She eventually told me that she couldn´t -- my son told me that her mom wouldn´t let her be -- my son visited me while I was in jail. She didn´t ask me to cease and desist. What does my -- how does my daughter - - Mr Whitledge, you bringing in my 21 year old daughter as a witness as to my behavior in what should be cease and desist. My daughter is a victim of your client´s cultic behavior. Now, if you can bring in a psychologist, a sociologist or somebody that says — — Q. Well, how do you know she is a victim if you are not qualified and you are saying we´ve got to bring in a psychiatrist or somebody? A. Because you are here bringing in my daughter, you are making allegations that my daughter is telling me that her father needs his behavior ==253== corrected. That is absurd. And you know, I think that is kind of slimy Q. You do? A. I do. Q. Very good. Now, I would like for a minute to discuss standard of living. Pardon me. IPASS, I—P—A—S—S, what does IPASS stand for? A. The acronym for that I believe was Independent People Against Suffering of Scientology Q. Now, are you a member of that organization? A. A member, no. Q. Yes. Have they contributed financially to you? A. Years ago I received assistance. Not just financial. Q. All right. Now, has IPASS contributed anything to you financially over the last three years? A. Not that I recall. Q. Not that you recall? A. No. I am certain the answer to that is no. Q. Now, there is now before the Court, the Court is holding some $11,000 that Mr Sloop, which was a balance of the $50,000 that has been turned over to the Court. You are aware of that, aren´t you? ==254== A. Mr. Sloop? Q. Mr. Sloop has turned some money into the Court or asked the Court for some direction. Are you aware of that? A. No. Q. Now, are you aware of any money that Mr. Sloop is holding or had held up until now? A. Mr. Sloop -- no. I think what you are saying is the $11,000 is the money that Clerk of Courts Summers is holding. Q. All right. And that is —— A. Held now in trying to negotiate, you know, getting this whole criminal thing, Harold Sloop was trying -- I know he was trying to work with you. But he told me you were pretty much belligerent and didn´t want to deal with it so-- Q. All right. A. But we decided before the Court with Mr. Rachelle and David Massamore that one of the things they try to do as a proposal is to prepay it now. Again, I had families and friends who came up with enough money to prepay Beau´s current child support even though we are still ==255== motioning to get it down to discovery, to prepay it so Laura could never ever ever be in a position to testify in court like she does and says I didn´t receive two checks. And that testimony put me in jail for five years. And then the two checks we found out were not missing. Q. Well, did you discuss the cutback to 130 dollars in August with Mr. Massamore or anyone from his office? A. Did I discuss it? Q. Yes. A. I copied my probation officer. Q. In Madisonville or your probation officer up here? A. My probation officer is in the Orleans District Court. Q. Now, back on IPASS. Were you aware that your brother had written to the Court this year asking for that money to be returned to him as -- A. IPASS? IPASS or ABUSE? Q. IPASS, I—P—A—S—S. A. I am not aware of that, no. ==256== Q. Well —— A. The money that was in the account with Harold Sloop? Q. So if there is money that is in the Court or money with Mr Sloop, you have no idea of your brother requesting that money to be refunded to him through IPASS? A. Through IPASS, no. Q. Right. A. No, I am not aware of that. Q. With a check payable to IPASS? A. No, I am not. Q. So if that, if that is in the criminal record, you have no knowledge of it? A. It may be that he requested — - I know that he requested the money back because of the -- the settlement of it which was full restitution, they rejected it. And I think he requested it back as the source of the money which it came from, which would have been ABUSE, which would have been where the check —- I think we already have the check that came from ABUSE, which is $11,000, which was written out to Mobley and Lloyd, with the instructions that that money was ==257== to be used to dismiss the criminal case because that would mean full restitution. Q. All right. So have you ever received any money or benefits from IPASS? A. It has been a long time ago. Q. How long ago? A. I don´t — — I don´t -- years. Q. Has IPASS in any way helped you financially in the litigation of this? A. No. Actually, the defense, as far as litigation, defense fund was set up when the criminal -- -- when I got arrested. Q. And who manages that? Your brother manages that defense fund? A. Manage is not the right word, no. Q. What is the right word? A. I don t know what is the right word. Q. But the money goes to your brother and he pays it out? A. A lot of checks are written by my brother Q. Are any checks written by you? A. I believe I have — - I am -- I am able or given signing privileges once I was let out of jail in his absence. But most of them try to come from ==258== my brother. Q. So you do have writing privileges on IPASS? A. No. Q. On CASH? A. No. Q. On the defense fund? A. ABUSE, yes, to write checks as does -- - Q. That is ABUSE? A. Right. Q. All right. So that is one of those accounts that you have in addition to your Five Cents Savings Bank account? A. That wouldn´t be considered my personal account, no. Q. What, ABUSE is not your personal account? A. No. Q. But that is an account that you can draft funds out of? A. I have signing privileges, but that is not going to be my -- it is not my checking account. Q. My question to you a while ago was how many accounts can you sign checks on or have writing privileges on as you referred to. When you first answered that, you only said Five Cents ==259== Savings Bank. Now we are seeing that CASH has one. A. CASH doesn´t have one, Mr Whitledge. Q. All right. ABUSE has a checking account? A. Um hmm. Q. How many others? A. There are no others. Q. So you can write checks on the Five Cents Bank and on ABUSE? A. I can write -- you asked me for my accounts And I have a savings account and I have a checking account at Five Cents Savings account. Now, there is a defense fund at which - — Q. At ABUSE? A. Which is ABUSE, which I also have a signing privilege on. But it is not a checking account. It is not, you know, I can´t go pay bills with it or whatever. It is a defense fund — — Q. All right. A. -- situation. Q. Now, this ‘97 increase, when we -- that motion for an increase in child support was based on the first time that any reliable information was received concerning your earnings. Is that not ==260== true? A. I am sorry? Q. By the Court? A. Repeat that again. Q. That motion that was filed, an increase in child support in 1997, incorporated this statement from the I.R.S. as to your income. That was the first verified income from someone other than you that had ever been received by Laura since the entry of that decree. Is that not true? A. I don´t think that is a true statement or not. Q. Had you — — A. I had—— Q. Had you supplied on a monthly basis your income? A. I am trying to answer your question, Mr. Whitledge. The Court ordered for discovery of, for me to provide my income back when Hallyburton was representing it. And I wanted discovery of Laura so we could put down the income. And I wasn´t getting it. And I was asking it from Hallyburton and then I was asking it from you. But I still went ahead and provided it for you and a release to sign it. And you come up with -- and it was in 1997, ==261== there was 1997. I had given you, because if I didn´t file it, I had given you my paystubs for 1996 or what I -- my W—2 forms and what I had made through 1997 And you went to the Court. I wasn´t there. I wasn´t represented. And in your mind, you are saying, Well, I am an attorney at law, he wasn´t there, we filed a motion, it is all legal. But you only provided my income from 1995 in late ‘97 We didn´t get Laura´s income. We didn´t get my income from ‘97, and so it was -- Q. There were some -- A. I would say - - Q. Mr Padgett. A. Mr Whitledge, I am not an attorney at law but I believe I was totally railroaded and you railroaded me through on a choo-choo train, toot toot. Q. Now, is that -- that is the same motion in which you filed some seven documents in, wasn´t it, with the Court? A. What kind of documents? Q. A document for a reduction, an affidavit, various other information. You got a video of ==262== that hearing, didn´t you? A. Um hmm. Q. And I showed up in Court and stated that I didn´t care if the Court called you to talk to you —— A. Um hmm. Q. — — at that time, and the Court didn´t want to. Do you recall that? A. I don´t recall the particulars of that. Q. The Court had all of the affidavits and everything else that you had supplied in the record at the time of that hearing and it made its ruling thereon to increase child support. Is that not true? A. Yes. So I -- it didn´t have complete discovery. It didn´t have all the facts. Q. Now, the Court, though, had all of your statements that you wanted to say to the Court because you had filed some seven documents. A. Statements, but it didn´t have all the income. It didn´t have all your client´s income. It didn´t have all my current income. Q. My client´s income had been established. The problem that we were trying to get to — - ==263== A. No, Mr. Whitledge. Q. All right. Mr. Padgett, let's try to keep it down if you can. A. Well, you are putting words in my mouth and you are altering things, Bill, and we don't need to do that now. We still haven't had discovery from your client. We don't today. Q. All right. Let's just say that -- A. And you have discovery from me and I wasn't there. I wasn't represented. You obviously took advantage of the situation. And then you encouraged your client to go to David Massamore and incarcerate me, get the money up in advance and then stick me into jail. You, sir, are abiding by Scientology's policy of legal harassment. Now, you will have to come up with some kind of expert that says my behavior is just fine, Laura's behavior is just fine, there is no problem there, Mr. Padgett is the deadbeat dad, which is in the paper. He is all these terrible things. He has done all these -- this is horrible for him to file a motion. It is okay for my client to file motions, post file mostion, but Mr. Padgett can't, it is bad ==264== behavior for him to defend himself in the continuing battering of litigation from you and your clients. It is absurd. Q. Now, let´s go back to this question. I appreciate your speech there. Back to the question concerning that motion for an increase in child support. You had not supplied the information to Laura concerning your income as you had been directed by the final decree, had you? A. That is not true. Q. What proof do you have that you supplied that information? A. Well, I think one of the best proof is that I told her in May of 1995 that I was going on Unemployment. Hallyburton files a motion, it is heard two days after the final ruling, that they want child support arrearage set because she has a private investigator investigating me that says I am fully and whatever employed. And that motion was filed during a time where I had my children for visitation in Florida and I couldn´t be represented and that got railroaded through. I was not represented then. ==265== Q. Yes. Let´s go back. A. And so there is another $10,000 Q. Can we go back to 1997? A. And then we found that that private investigator was a fraud. It was a fake. He wasn´t for real. He was a Scientology dude. Q. All right. Can we go back to my question on the ‘97 increase? A. Um hmm. Q. What information, verified information did you supply to Laura Padgett from the entry of the decree until 1997 concerning your income? A. The release that I signed for you. Q. All right. And that release resulted in us discovering for the first time that you had $46,000 worth of income, when you were telling the Court that you only had $1,300 a month? A. Yes That was my unemployment amount from Florida. Q. And originally, the Court made that order retroactive back to ‘95, didn´t it? A. Yes. I also saw - Q. And we agreed to consent and drop that until 1997, didn´t we? ==266== A. You agreed and consent? I don´t recall agreeing on that. I don´t recall agreeing on - Q. That was in the order finding the $21,000 worth of arrearage? A. Well, that is an appeal, it is interlocutory Q. So you are not — — A. No, no. I had nothing to do with that. That order was negotiated between you and the Court and Mobley and Lloyd, who were obviously giving you information that I wasn´t aware that they were giving you. So -- Q. All right. A. That was a cute little deal there, I thought. Q. Now, let´s see. All right. So the Court made that ruling based upon your income in ‘95 And did you start making those payments? A. Did I start making them? Q. Yes A. I don´t think right away Q. Now, in that same year I had a conversation with your brother, who was claiming to be representing you at that time. Your brother is an attorney and he had tried to enter his appearance in that action at this time, hadn´t ==267== he? A. During what year? Q. I think it was either ‘96 or ‘97 A. I think he was trying to work with you to try to settle this as a communication vehicle or a buffer. I don´t think he was trying to practice law in the State of Kentucky. So that because Laura didn´t want to work this out — — Q. Well, in fact - A. Laura wanted to do everything in litigation that required an attorney, so he was willing to help. Q. Now, your brother, though, filed a motion with the Court to be allowed to practice in that case, didn´t he? A. It was -- yes, it was through Mobley and Lloyd. And he was pro hoc vice for a while. Q. Right. All right. Now, did he relate to you the conversation that I had with him advising him of the criminal action of failure to pay child support in the Commonwealth of Kentucky? A. I don´t recall that conversation, no. Q. Shortly after that conversation, you started making some payments. Did your brother advise you to start making those payments? ==268== A. I think my brother and also I consulted the Massachusetts Child Support Division, which is done under the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, that to at least show good faith effort, while you are still trying to find work, you are still trying to, you know, regain some employment. And so I think I started making 60-dollar-a-month payments and then I started making 100—dollars-a-month payments so that I could show good faith. How do you expect me to make 699 when you full well knew that was old old old information and the product of a railroad job? Q. Well, what I am having a problem with, Mr. Padgett, is that you are saying that is old old information. A. Um hmm. Q. And what I have heard here today, you stand over there at a bed and board and you have got a truck, your brother is the lienholder. You come up with $10,000 cash bond, you don´t know where that came from. You came up with $11,000 from ABUSE, you don´t know who that came from. And then the $50,000 that Mr Sloop had. You ==269== continue to go on, you have gone to Wellspring, you have done pretty well for yourself. I am having trouble -- and you have no idea of what is in your father´s estate or your mother´s estate. I am having trouble understanding how you are maintaining that standard of living. Is it to avoid paying child support? A. No, absolutely not. Q. Do you have a desire to support your children? A. Very much so. Q. Do you have an opinion that it is your wife´s obligation to support those children? A. Both of us financially, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, to give all that we can to our children. We need to love them and to work together and to stop the cultic litigation. Q. All right. Now, if you have had all of these benefactors as you have referred to and you don´t know any of them, why haven´t some of them come forward and paid your child support? A. Why some benefactors haven´t? Q. Why haven´t they? A. Because they care. They care about me. They ==270== care about my children. They don´t want severe -- -- they don´t want that stuff happening again. They don´t want any more extraditions. They don´t want my wife´s attorney coming here and talking about probation violations and drinking and just hearing total character assassination. They want you to go away, Mr Whitledge. And that is -- I am doing pretty well I am staying -- I stated that my kids stayed there for $50 a night. I am staying there for a much reduced fee in exchange for doing some favors. And I am moving out at the end of the week. Q. What kind of favors are you doing for her? A. Just little things. Marketing projects, minor things that don´t require a lot of heavy physical labor. Q. You were in Boston that Friday, what type of work were you doing in Boston that Friday? A. That was -- I —— actually, it was a personal issue. I was working with the University of Boston. It wasn´t a job income kind of thing. I was working with a group called FOCUS. Q. And what was that for? ==271== A. You can find FOCUS on the internet. Q. I am asking you. I have been referred to everything on the internet. Why can´t you answer some of the questions about what some of these things are? A. Well, then you must know all of the answers if you - - all of the answers are on the internet, Mr Whitledge. But I will answer your question. Why was I in Boston the Friday - - Q. Yes. A. FOCUS. Q. And what was FOCUS? A. Focus is a group of people that get together that have been in abusive groups and they meet once a month. Now, that is usually on the first Wednesday of each month. But this I think it was a social outlet. Q. Did they provide you with financial support? A. No, they don´t. That is not - — Q. Did your benefactor in any way help with the Wellspring Retreat? A. No. Q. Was there -- who paid for the airfare over there? ==272== A. Well, that could have been help from friends. Q. From friends? A Friends, family, benefactors. That is a good word. Q. Now, you have access to that defense fund. Would you please supply the court with a list of everyone who has contributed to that defense fund? A. I have signing privileges. There is people who do not want to divulge that they are trying to help out somebody from an organization that you support. And Hopkins County, you know, I don't want to get into supplying names because then we are going to -- I mean Laura should supply names of all the people she has had and retained to harass me, to make sure that disconnection is required between my children and to give false testimony, and all the people that she has gone through training to behave in a certain way that she has. And all the doctors -- I mean I am sorry. I am digressing on that. the answer to your questino, there is a lot of people that want to remain anonymous. Q. You are not going to supply that list? You ==273== are not going to tell us your knowledge of where the $10,000 bond, 11,000 - A. I already have. I think the record in the Court has supplied - Q. And that is all you were going to say? A. There were checks written from my brother in both of those things. I believe I answered those questions. Q. And in excess of $100,000 you spent on legal fees, you don´t know where that came from? A. Well, a lot of that came from money that I used to make. Remember, we established that I used to have a much larger income. Q. Yes. But that decreased in what you are saying in ‘95 down to almost nothing? A. Um hmm. Q. Now, do you have any foundations to which you are receiving benefits from? Do you have any charitable organizations that are giving you benefits? What I am referring to, benefits, I am talking about gas money, cash, any form of spending money. Do you have any fraternal organizations that are paying you or supporting you in any way? ==274== A. Foundation, no. Fraternal organization, no. Charitable, you know, that would be — — that could be included into some benefactors. There are private benefactors, private victim assistance. For example, Wellspring, they usually charge a lot of money to go there. I -- they gave me what is called — — it is a scholarship. I think they called, used the word scholarship. And so I went there for free based on my income. Q. All right. Now - A. And I am moving into a 24-foot trailer, used trailer this weekend. That will be my new residence. Q. And do you have any other means of financial support coming to you in any way? A. Other than what has been discussed. Q. That we have not discussed here today? A. No. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I think I am pretty close to being done. I would like to take about a ten—minute break. Let me regroup from my notes. And I am trying to get her out of here before five. ==275== MR. PROW: Yes. I will probably have maybe 15 minutes or so follow-up, and then try to get Pardon in. MR. WHITLEDGE: Okay Let me step out. VIDEO OPERATOR: 3:34. Going off the record. (Brief recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: Stand by, please. 3:44, we are back on the record. Q. I just have a couple more last-minute questions here. I have one more affidavit that is on the internet which is styled “Fair and Equal Treatment by Beau and Julie Padgett” I ask you if that is - — if you would examine that and if that is a document that you had them sign. A. That I had them sign? Q. Yes A. I will verify this is a document that my children signed. Q. Is that a pretty accurate and verbatim statement of the document they did sign? A. Yes. It is not a scan of the actual — — it is not the real but it is the—-I am certain it is the same words. ==276== Q. And that affidavit was put on the internet? A. Yes. Well, it was picked up. It is a record of the Court so it was picked up as a court record. The margins are taken off on the left. It is off on the right here. MR. WHITLEDGE: All right. I pass the witness.