SUPERIOR
COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY
PART
MERCER COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
DOCKET NO. FV-11-878-02
A.D. #_______________________
MARTINE L. BAYES, )
)
Plaintiff,
) TRANSCRIPT
)
OF
v. ) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
)
HEARING
NATHANIEL WALLACE, III, )
)
Defendant. )
Place:
Mercer County Civil
Courthouse
175 South Broad Street
Trenton, NJ 08650
Date:
June 13, 2002
BEFORE:
THE HON. JANE GRALL, P.J.F.P.
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY:
NATHANIEL WALLACE, III
APPEARANCES:
PAULA MENAR, ESQ.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
DAVID PERRY DAVIS, ESQ.
Attorney for the Defendant
Transcriber, Marlene Fattore
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
268 Evergreen Avenue
Hamilton, NJ 08619
(609)586-2311
FAX NO. (609)587-3599
E-mail: jjcourt@optonline.net
Audio Recorded
Audio Operator, M.A.M.
I N D E X
PAGE
WITNESSES
KURT ZITSLER
Direct Examination
by Ms. Menar 4
Cross Examination
by Mr. Davis 5
OFFICER RON GAYDA
Direct Examination
by Ms. Menar 9
Cross Examination
by Mr. Davis 15
TREVOR BAYES
Direct Examination
by Ms. Menar 16
Cross Examination
by Mr. Davis 20
Redirect
Examination by Ms. Menar 23
AMANDA BUREK
Direct Examination
by Ms. Menar 25
Cross Examination
by Mr. Davis 26
Redirect
Examination by Ms. Menar 28
I N D E X (Cont.)
PAGE
WITNESSES
NATHANIEL WALLACE, III
Direct Examination by Ms. Menar
30
Cross Examination by Mr. Davis
39
Redirect Examination by Ms. Menar 50
DECISION
By The Court 52
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.
I just didn't hear what he said.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
Q Okay. And, what happened after that? After the tire was punctured, what happened
then?
A He got on his bike and then left because
Martine had her friend call the cops.
Q Okay. And, the police came to the scene then?
A Yes.
Q As you recall? And, what do you do after that? After the police came, did you talk to the
police?
A Yeah.
Q And, what happened
after you talked to the police at the scene?
A They weren't going to drive out and look for
him so they suggested that she file a --
MR. DAVIS: Judge, I
object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. MENAR: Okay. I withdraw that, Your Honor. I don't have anything else.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, do you have any questions for the
witness?
MR. DAVIS: A few,
Judge. Also, I'm supposed to be in
front of Judge Kelly for a case management conference at 2 o'clock. Obviously, he knows that this is going to
take precedence and I'm just wondering whether, you know, somebody can give him
a call and let him know.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. DAVIS: Thank you.
CROSS
EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVIS:
Q What did you state the
nature of your relationship was with the plaintiff? How did you two know each other?
A I knew her from middle school and she also
dated a friend of mine.
Q And, did you date her?
A No.
Q Now, you testified
that when you pulled up with the plaintiff that there was an argument between
the plaintiff and the defendant?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear what they
were arguing about?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear the
defendant say that, where were the kids, that he expected the children to be
brought by earlier?
A Yes, he did.
Q Did you remember if he
gave a time?
A No.
Q Now, didn't you at some point interject
yourself and say, look, she was with me, here's the tickets, we were at a
hockey game?
A Yes.
Q And, did he tell you that this was none of
your business?
A No.
Q He never said that?
A No.
Q There was no heated exchange at all between
the two of you?
A No.
Q He never said -- I might have just asked you
this, --
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, he's already
testified to that, Your Honor, on direct.
THE
COURT: That makes it a good question
for cross examination.
MS.
MENAR: I mean, I apologize, the same
answer that he's trying to --
Q But, there was no heated exchange, correct?
A No.
Correct.
Q All right.
You didn't at any point say that this is -- he didn't at any point say
to you, the defendant, this is a matter between the plaintiff and I, correct?
A No.
Q But you did overhear
him expressing that he was upset over not seeing the children?
A Yes.
MR. DAVIS: I have
nothing further, Judge.
THE COURT: All
right. Thank you. I have a question. You said that after you were hit that the plaintiff went to her
friend's house and then the knife was pulled after that.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DAVIS: I omit a
question, Judge, if I could, I'm sorry?
THE COURT: I think we'll
end it right there.
MR. DAVIS: Can I just --
THE COURT: Thank you
very much. No. Thank you.
Thank you. You can step down.
MR. DAVIS: Judge, it's
extremely significant, can I make a --
THE COURT: No. I reopened it.
MS. MENAR: Your Honor,
but I have a clarification to make.
THE COURT: No.
MS. MENAR: Okay.
THE COURT: I've heard
everything I need to hear from this witness.
Thank you. Yes, you can stay
outside or you can wait inside, sir, wherever you want.
MR. DAVIS: Judge, just
for the record I had one more question that was --
THE COURT: Mr. Davis,
let's go ahead. You're finished, right?
MS. MENAR: No, Your
Honor, I'm not. I have another
witness. The police officer Mr. Gayda.
THE COURT: The police
officer didn't see anything.
MS. MENAR: Your Honor,
he did see the -- he questioned both of the parties.
THE COURT: He saw the
ripped tire. There's no dispute that
the tire was ripped.
MS. MENAR: He saw the
ripped tire. He has firsthand knowledge
as to the statements that were given by the witness and by the plaintiff
immediately after.
THE COURT: I have their
testimony, I'm not taking hearsay testimony.
It's hearsay. I'll allow it if
there's an inconsistency. Get him.
MR. DAVIS: Judge, I'd
ask for a proffer as to what the police officer's going to testify to.
THE COURT: We just had
it. Go ahead, get him.
MS. MENAR: Yes, Your
Honor.
(Tape Off, Tape On)
THE
COURT: It's been a very long morning.
O F F I C E R R O N
G A Y D A, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN
THE
CLERK: State your name and spell your
name for the record, please.
THE
WITNESS: Ron Gayda, G-a-y-d-a.
THE
CLERK: Thank you. You may be seated.
THE
WITNESS: Thank you.
THE
COURT: All right, thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Menar.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. MENAR:
Q Officer Gayda, where do you know the parties
from? Do you --
A Referencing a police report from November
24th of --
MR.
DAVIS: Judge, I object to him
referencing any police report at least until there's some indication that he
was on call.
THE
COURT: Correct.
Q Can you please just let us know, you know,
out of your memory if you came to a call on that day that involved any of the
parties on November 24th?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
A A disturbance between the two people here.
Q Okay.
And, do you remember where this was at?
A Yes, 1255 Klockner Road, it's an apartment
complex.
Q Okay.
And, on that incident did you have an opportunity -- you got to the
scene after the incident had already taken place?
A Yes.
Q Was the defendant at the premises?
A No.
Q Okay.
Was the plaintiff in the premises?
A Yes.
Q Was there anybody else on the premises?
A Yes.
There was another girl there and another gentleman was there. Mr. Zitsler, I believe his name was.
Q Okay.
And, on that date did you have an opportunity to observe the scene of
what had taken place?
A Yes.
Q What did you observe?
A The auto that she had had a rear driver's
side flat tire.
Q Okay.
A And she said it was slashed from a knife.
MR.
DAVIS: I object as to what she said,
Judge.
THE
COURT: All right.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, the declarant is
here.
THE
COURT: It's an exception to the hearsay
rule.
Q Do you have any knowledge as to -- or, what
are your recollection as to the state of mind of the plaintiff at the time that
you were at the scene?
MR.
DAVIS: Judge, I object to asking the
witness for a legal conclusion as to what --
THE
COURT: No, observations.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, it's an observation
of the state of mind.
THE
COURT: All right. All right.
MS.
MENAR: Of how, you know, --
THE
COURT: No. Observation of her demeanor.
Q Can you tell us what was going on with the
plaintiff at the moment that you were at the scene?
A She was upset, physically, you know, I could
tell she was upset and she was scared.
Q Okay.
Do you have any recollection as to any statements made by the parties
that would have led you to believe that they were in fear?
MR.
DAVIS: I object, it's hearsay, Judge.
THE
COURT: It is. We don't have a foundation for what you're going for.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, --
MR.
DAVIS: It's also cumulative, Judge.
MS.
MENAR: It took place immediately after
the incident where a statement is made immediately after an incident that shook
the parties.
THE
COURT: Get the foundation. Get the foundation.
MS.
MENAR: Okay.
BY MS. MENAR:
Q When you appear in the -- you know, when you
got to the premises, to your observation had an incident of domestic violence
just taken place?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
And, both parties were how far into -- between the ending of the
incident and the time that you were at the scene, how much time had transpired?
THE
COURT: No personal knowledge.
MS.
MENAR: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
THE
COURT: No personal knowledge.
MS.
MENAR: Okay.
Q Did you happen to --
(Pause)
Q At what time did you get the call?
A It was in the evening, I don't recall
without referencing a police report.
Q Okay.
Now do you have any personal knowledge at to the time that transpired
between the time that you received the call and the time that you appear at the
premises?
A Very short period of time, minutes. I don't know how many.
Q A few minutes?
A I would say so, without referencing a police
report I wouldn't be able to say.
THE
COURT: Well, you can reference the --
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, --
THE
COURT: -- police report if you need it
to refresh your recollection.
THE
WITNESS: Yes, I do, Judge.
THE
COURT: You may use it.
THE
WITNESS: Okay.
A According to the report, five minutes.
THE
COURT: All right. Thank you.
Q Okay.
And, at the time then when you -- five minutes had transpired from the
call. What did you observe or what
things did you hear as to the defendant's reaction to what had happened? What statements did you recall at this
point?
A From the defendant?
Q I'm sorry, from the plaintiff.
A She stated that --
THE COURT: All
right. I'm not going to allow it. We don't have an excited utterance
here. We just don't have it.
Q Okay.
THE COURT: All
right. The police have been called and
they have come to the scene and so this is not a statement made relating to or
starting a comment while under stress or excitement, cause without opportunity
to deliberate or fabricate. We have the
plaintiff's own testimony about what happened and we have another eyewitness'
testimony about what happened. So, to
admit what the plaintiff said to the police officer on the direct case would be
merely to introduce a prior consistent statement of the plaintiff which at this
point we don't have any basis for admitting that and it can't be done by your
side.
MS. MENAR: Okay, Your
Honor. I withdraw the question, I don't
have any other questions for the officer.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Is there any cross examination, Mr. Davis?
MR. DAVIS: Just one.
CROSS
EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVIS:
Q You're trained by the
police to take a police report after an incident, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And, is it your
practice if there's a threat spoken, would it be your practice to include that
in your report?
A Yes.
MR. DAVIS: I have
nothing further.
THE COURT: All
right. Thank you, Officer Gayda.
THE WITNESS: Is that it,
Judge, I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Yes, it is.
MS. MENAR: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Okay. Sorry.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you very much for your time.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MS. MENAR: I have
another witness to call, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Witness to
what?
MS. MENAR: To one of the
prior incidents, Your Honor. The father
of my client.
THE COURT: All right,
I'll allow it.
(Tape Off, Tape On)
T R
E V O R B A Y E S, PLAINTIFF'S
WITNESS, SWORN
THE CLERK: State your
name and spell your name for the record please.
THE WITNESS: Trevor
Bayes, T-r-e-v-o-r --
THE CLERK: You're going
too fast. T-r --
THE WITNESS: Sorry. T-r-e-v-o-r, B-a-y-e-s.
THE
CLERK: B-a-y?
THE
WITNESS: E-s.
THE
COURT: All right.
THE
CLERK: You may be seated.
THE
COURT: Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
Thank you.
THE
COURT: Go ahead.
MS.
MENAR: Okay.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. MENAR:
Q There was an incident that took place on
June of 2000 at your home. Can you tell
us what happened?
A Yes.
That was the time that Nate came over and he was kicking my door. It was just before getting dark and he came
over and he started arguing with me and I told him to go home and then he
started kicking in my door and he broke a real nice flower pot that I had given
my wife for a present, and that was real unusual, real nice. I was real annoyed at that. And, that was the first time that he had
sort of got very quick off the mark, he would just become annoyed very quick. He wouldn't --
THE
COURT: I'm sorry, could you speak up?
A Sorry.
He became annoyed very very quickly.
Very quick. And, just started
kicking in my door. And lucky enough, I
locked it. And that was the first
instance.
Q Okay.
And that was on June of 2000?
A Right about there, I'm not sure of the dates
there.
Q Okay.
And then there was another incident.
Did any other incident take place on June of 2000?
A There was another instance, I'm not sure of
the dates, I'm getting mixed up with the dates, where he did exactly the same
thing. That is when he came over and he
started arguing with me for I have no idea what reason, and I said, you must go
home, please leave. And then he started
kicking in my door, pulled a knife, threatened to shoot me, went like that with
his hand. Was just going to shoot --
THE
COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't, you have to
speak up, sir, I'm having trouble hearing you.
A Oh, I'm sorry. My accent.
THE
COURT: No, I don't think so. I think it's my ears. Go right ahead.
A He started kicking in my door again. Martine was out with the baby. And then he went and threw something in the
back of my truck, picked up something and threw it down. This was the second incident. Then he tried to get into the door, while he
was there he spits on my wife, and said to me, threatened to shoot me by
pointing his hand at my hand like it was a gun, and as he went out the door,
went down the step, turned around pulled a knife out of his right-hand pocket
and then my wife got on the phone and we called the police. And the police came and they looked for him
and couldn't find him.
Q Okay.
A And I took him to court.
Q Okay.
And, at that time was, you know, Ms. Bayes, was your daughter still in a
dating relationship with Nate -- with the defendant?
A I'm not sure what was going on, and I think my
daughter at that particular time was sort of torn in between what she was doing
and didn't quite know but was sure that -- she wasn't quite sure which way she
was going. And she was trying to get
out of this relationship.
Q And, do you have any other knowledge of
incidents of violence between the defendant and your daughter?
THE
COURT: Personal.
Q Personal knowledge. Firsthand knowledge.
A That I have seen?
THE
COURT: Correct.
Q Or that you heard of, that you've been
there?
THE
COURT: No.
MR.
DAVIS: No.
Q Not that you've heard from somebody else.
A Only from Martine. I --
Q Not from Martine. Anything --
A Not from Martine, I have seen.
Q That you have seen or that you have been a
witness, or has there been any phone call or anything of the sort that you've
received or that you've heard?
That's what I mean
when I mean heard, firsthand heard, not from somebody else. You, yourself, from the defendant's mouth.
A Trying to think of, there's been so much
going on. Yes. Well, no, I'm not sure if he did it or
not. But there was a lot of stuff going
on in my house that I know he had something to do with. But I can't prove anything. No.
No, I just can't remember.
Q You can't remember any other thing that
you've heard?
A I can't remember, no.
Q Okay.
THE
COURT: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. You were finished,
right, Ms. Menar?
MS.
MENAR: Yes, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Go ahead.
MR.
DAVIS: Judge, if I may just have a
second.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q All right. You indicated that there were two incidents,
sir, in which you had a confrontation with the defendant at your house?
A Yes.
Q And, during the second
incident you indicated that he kicked the door and you had initially said he
kicked the door, pulled a knife and then made a finger gun, is that correct?
A No, I did not. I said that he had kicked the door, it had come slightly open, he
spat on my wife, spat on me, then he pointed his finger like a gun, gone out
the door, went down the steps, went into his right-hand pocket, turned around,
had the knife waived to me like that and that is when I was shouting to my
wife, I think he had a gun, I think he's got a knife, no, he's got a
knife. And that's when the police came.
Q Okay. In fact, your wife called 9-1-1 during this
incident?
A Correct.
Yes.
Q And, do you recall
whether or not she told the police that he had a gun pointed at her husband?
A She told the police that she said that, I --
hang on -- no, she did not.
THE COURT: All
right. What -- it's not proper to cross
examine this witness about what his wife told the police.
MR. DAVIS: It's not
consistent, Judge.
Q Did you yell in the background at the time
that he had a gun pointed at you?
A No.
I yelled, "I think he has a gun, no, he has a knife." That's what I yelled. That's exactly my words.
Q Now, in fact, you did file charges
concerning the gun?
A Yes.
Q And those charges resulted in the defendant
being acquitted, isn't that true?
A No.
Q Not guilty of --
A No.
No, that's not true.
Q -- of pulling a knife?
A I filed charges and when I went up to the
judge I said to the judge, "I think he needs some help." That's what I said. And, you know, the judge was going backwards
and forwards, well, I don't want to put him in jail, I don't want to do this, I
don't want to do that. And I says,
well, it's up to you what you want to do.
And I don't even know what the outcome was. I went there and went to court and said my peace and that was it.
Q The plaintiff is your daughter, is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q Biological?
A Excuse me?
Q Biological.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, that's irrelevant,
where's the relevancy to that?
THE
COURT: Sustained.
Q You love your daughter?
A Of course.
Q You angry at the defendant?
A Yes, I am.
Yes.
Q You've had quite a few arguments with the
defendant about a car seat?
A Yeah, I thought that he should buy car seats
for his children, sure.
Q He was paying $500 a month --
A No, he was not.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, that's --
THE
COURT: Mr. Davis, argumentative. Stricken.
Q So you had arguments about a car seat. You had different arguments --
A Yeah, would you like me to tell you what
went on?
THE
COURT: No. Thank you. Thank you very
much.
THE
WITNESS: Okay. Okay.
MR.
DAVIS: Nothing further, Judge.
MS. MENAR: Well, I just
have one more question, Judge, that was redirect.
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MS. MENAR:
Q Is that probably, you
know, well caused anger that you have towards the defendant would that cause
you to lie under oath?
A No, certainly not.
Q And the love that you
have for your daughter, would that force you to lie under oath?
A No.
No. Certainly not.
Q And are you afraid for
yourself or for your daughter?
A Yes.
Q And, are you afraid of
your life or are you
--
A I believe that Nate at some time will hurt
somebody, yes.
MR. DAVIS:
Objection. Objection.
MS. MENAR: Okay. I don't have anything else, Your Honor. I withdraw that question.
THE COURT: Thank
you. You can step down, sir. Thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you,
ma'am.
THE COURT: All
right. You're finished, right?
MS. MENAR: Your Honor, I
have one more witness that is to the event that took place in the Wawa. However, you know, if the defendant's
willing to --
THE COURT: Bring the
witness in.
MS. MENAR: Okay.
A M
A N D A B U R E K, PLAINTIFF'S
WITNESS, SWORN
THE CLERK: State your
full name, spelling your last name.
THE WITNESS: Amanda
Burek, B-u-r-e-k.
THE CLERK: I'm sorry,
B-u?
THE WITNESS: R-e-k.
THE CLERK: Okay. Thank you.
Have a seat in that chair.
DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MS. MENAR:
Q Okay. Amanda, there was an incident that took
place on --
MR. DAVIS: Judge, I
object to the statement that an incident, I mean, I just --
MS. MENAR: I apologize,
I withdraw it, Your Honor.
Q Something happened in
November of 2000 in a Wawa that you were a witness to. Can you tell us about it?
THE WITNESS: Between
these two parties?
Q Yes, between the two
parties. What did you see?
A There was a Wawa incident where he threw her
up against the wall when she was pregnant with her son at the time, and I threw
myself in the middle of that to stop that fight and a bunch of other people
came over to stop that one. And then
there was another incident over by Klockner School where he came after us with
a golf club.
Q When did that happen about?
A In 99
Q Okay.
Tell us about that incident in 99.
A After when he chased us we went over towards
Ms. Sutton's (phonetic) house, and we went over on the porch and we were
talking to Ms. Sutton for a little bit.
And then after that he came back but we stayed out on the porch and then
he left, and then we went towards Wawa again and that's when we saw my friend,
and I yelled for him to come back and he drove back, and we hopped into my
friend's car and we left.
Q Okay.
THE
COURT: Mr. Davis. You're finished, right?
MS.
MENAR: Okay, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Yes or no?
MS.
MENAR: Yes, I am.
THE
COURT: Okay.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DAVIS:
Q You testified that in
November of 1999 there was an incident with a golf club?
A Yes.
Q And this occurred on a
porch?
A No, it happened in front of the playground
side of Klockner School.
Q Okay. And so, where were you when it happened?
A I was right next to Martine at the time.
Q And where was she?
A Martine was right next to me.
THE COURT: In a
car? On the park?
THE WITNESS: Oh, no,
standing outside on the sidewalk.
Sorry.
Q You were standing on
the sidewalk?
A Yes.
Q Was there any other
incident earlier that day concerning a golf club?
A No, just that time.
Q Any other incident
afterwards?
A Not, just the Wawa one, too. That's about it.
Q Not about the golf
club on that day, no?
A No.
Q At the Wawa you
indicated that you saw -- that the defendant pushed her?
A He picked her up like this and threw her up
against the wall. By her shirt. And picked her up like a couple feet off the
ground and threw her. Like slammed her
against the wall, actually.
Q And this was when?
A In 99.
Q November 1999?
A Yeah.
MR. DAVIS: Nothing
further, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. MENAR: I have
redirect, Your Honor.
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MS. MENAR:
Q I got a little
confused on this. You testified that
you were on the grounds of this school or by the sidewalk of the school prior
to the defendant appearing? What is
your testimony?
MR. DAVIS: Judge, this
is a tremendously leading question.
Were you there? Are you --
Q Where were you when
the defendant showed up?
A Where --
Q Once the defendant
showed up with a club, --
MR. DAVIS: Objection.
Q -- with the golf club,
where were you?
THE COURT: Fine.
A Where were we? We were on the side of Klockner School, right by -- where were
we, I forget. We were like right by --
we were on the side of Klockner School at the time. But I forget where we were coming back from.
Q Okay.
MS. MENAR: I don't have
anything else, Your Honor.
MR. DAVIS: No recross,
Judge.
THE COURT: All
right. Thank you very much. All right.
That's it for your witnesses, Ms. Menar?
MS. MENAR: Yes, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Davis.
MR. DAVIS: Okay. Make the standard application to dismiss and
submit that the plaintiff hasn't credibly demonstrated even if you give every
inference of fact at this juncture.
We've had two supporting witnesses who were on the other side of the
world from what the plaintiff testified to.
Mr. Kurt
--
I'm sorry, --
THE COURT: We still have
enough to raise a fact issue. I have to
resolve it by some credibility questions.
MR. DAVIS: I will call
the defendant.
THE COURT: We have ample
testimony of the criminal mischief.
MR. DAVIS: I always make
the motion, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. MENAR: Your Honor, I
have a short closing summation. Very
short.
THE COURT: No.
MS. MENAR: Okay.
THE COURT: We're a
little short of summations, Mr. Davis has --
MS. MENAR: Oh, I'm
sorry.
THE COURT: -- some
witnesses, I think he wants to put on first, okay? Mr. Davis.
MR. DAVIS: I would call
Nathaniel Wallace, III.
THE COURT: All right.
N A
T H A N I E L W A L L A C E, III,
DEFENDANT, SWORN
THE CLERK: State your
full name.
THE WITNESS: Nathaniel
Wallace, III.
THE CLERK: Okay, thank
you. Have a seat in the chair right
there.
(Mr. Wallace appears to speak with an
accent and speaks fast, and at times is difficult to discern)
DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVIS:
Q All right. Mr. Wallace, what's your current address?
A My current address is Naval Air Station,
Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Q And, are you employed
there?
A Yes, I am employed with the United States
Navy.
Q And, are you in school there?
A Yes, I am.
Q And, what's your relationship to the
plaintiff?
A I went out with her for two years, prior to
joining the Navy, she's the mother to my children.
Q Can you slow down, I couldn't hear that.
THE
COURT: I could. The mother of his two children.
Q I'm going to skip over a lot of the
background. Beginning in November of
1999, you heard testimony from the plaintiff and some of her witnesses
concerning some incidents that occurred between you. Let's first discuss the incident at the Wawa. What, if anything, occurred at the Wawa in
November of 1999?
A I seen Martine at Shoprite, she was smoking,
I didn't say nothing to her then. Me
and my friend Mike Ramos (phonetic) proceeded to walk through the woods. Came across the Wawa and Martine was sitting
outside of the Wawa on the curb, I went
up to her and asked her why she was smoking a cigarette when she was
pregnant. She said, it's my body, I can
do what the hell I want with it, if I want to smoke a cigarette I can have a
cigarette. I told her shouldn't be
doing that because it could kill our child or he could have bronchitis when he
gets older. She said she would do what
she want. So, when she stood up, she
backed away from me and everybody -- we started being in an argument, started
yelling, everybody jumped between us, and a uniformed officer came outside the
Wawa and asked her what was going on and she said nothing. And he told me to stand to the side, he
asked her again, anything happen, and she told him no. He asked her, you want to file a complaint,
she said no. He said, all right
then. I left. Proceeded to go to my home.
I walked back in front of -- I went and got a golf club from my house,
went to the school parking lot to hit golf balls, after that I walked Martine
on Ms. Sutton's porch, then Ms. Sutton came out and spoke to me, proceeded to
go to the parking lot and hit golf balls.
MS.
MENAR: I didn't hear one word.
Q So we're leading into the second incident
that --
THE
COURT: All right. I'm sorry.
Could you repeat that? Ms. Menar
didn't hear it.
MS.
MENAR: Yes, that very last sentence I
didn't.
THE
COURT: Neither did I.
A The very last sentence?
MS.
MENAR: And then you went to hit golf
clubs?
A Golf balls, yes.
MS.
MENAR: Okay. Golf balls. And what did
you say after that, that's what I didn't hear?
A In the school park. Klockner School.
Q You heard the testimony of the plaintiff
concerning your chasing a car, smashing a curb, and other allegations
concerning the golf club attack. What
happened?
THE
COURT: Ms. -- okay, go ahead.
A We were outside hitting golf balls, Martine
drove the car with her, Amanda, and three other guys in the car. They pulled up, when the guy said something
to me I didn't hear what he said because he was about a good 50 feet away from
me. I walked to the car to the side of
Martine just so I'd ask her what she was doing, and she didn't say
anything. The guys proceeded to tell me
to leave Martine alone, (indiscernible) like Harvey, (indiscernible). So, I told him he needed to get away from me
and to leave, and they drove off.
Q And, all right. You saw some e-mails that were entered into evidence and some
letters. Can you explain briefly what
happened in your relationship between your leaving for the Navy and the end of
this relationship as far as it being (indiscernible)?
A Before I left for the Navy we were supposed
to get married, originally, and she never wanted me to go to the military. Why was I moving to the military, I told her
I was doing it for her and my children, and when I left, half-way through boot
camp she broke up with me. And, she
sent me letters, some were nice and some were, you know, telling me unless I
get money I wouldn't see my children, basically. And, it was just bad from there.
Q Have you ever punched the plaintiff?
A Never.
Q Ever kicked her?
A I have never kicked her.
Q Slapped her?
A No.
Q Threatened to do any of those things?
A No.
Q Have the two of you had some conflicts
concerning parenting time and visitation?
A Yes.
Q Have you been, in fact, permitted to see
your kids?
A Excuse me?
Q Have you been allowed to see the kids in the
last seven months?
A No.
Q Has your mom been able to see the kids?
A No.
Q All right, the incident that led actually to
this order. November of 2001. November 24th. Can you tell the Court in your own words what if anything
happened at that time?
A On November 24th Martine was coming by with
the children at 8 o'clock in the evening.
I waited for her to come by, she did not show up. At 9 o'clock I left the house because my
friend was going away, it was time for him to go home back to Virginia.
THE
COURT: I'm sorry, you've got to speak a
little more slowly or a little more loudly.
One or the other.
MR.
DAVIS: Or both.
THE
COURT: I'm having trouble hearing you.
MR.
DAVIS: Or both, Judge, I can't hear him
from here either.
THE
WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
Sorry.
A At 9 o'clock I left the house, I went to go get
some friends because it was my last couple days here before I go back to
Virginia, back to my duty station.
Q Okay.
Just for clarification, the first sentence you started to say something
about 8 o'clock. I couldn't hear it
from here, it was too fast.
A At 8 o'clock in the evening Martine Bayes
was supposed to bring the children over and stay until midnight for me to see
my children. She did not bring the kids
over, I waited an hour for her to come by, she did not come by. At 9 o'clock I proceeded to leave my house,
I visited friends on the way, then went to James Etten (phonetic) house, he
lives in same apartment complex as her friend.
As we were walking through the area, talking to each other, I see her
car outside in the parking lot, I knock on her friend Melanie's house, I
knocked on her door. Asked her, Martine
there, she said, no, Martine's not here.
I said, well, her car's right there, she said, she's not here. I said, all right, if you see her you tell her
I want to see my kids before I go. She
said, all right, and I said goodbye. We
walked around, he departed to walk the dog, I went to go get my bicycle because
I was leaving it in the parking lot, she pulled up the curb. I turned around, went back, they got out of
the car, I asked her where she was at, she was supposed to bring the kids by
she did not bring them by. And,
basically I told her, you know, I made dinner for her and the children and she
acted like she didn't care. She said, I
didn't know you did all that. She got
kind of (indiscernible) about it. So,
while I was talking to her Kurt interjected (sic) in the conversation and he
was in his car, he stood up, after that we got in a scuffle, then I got mad and
I proceeded to cut her tire. She went
to call the cops and I left. That's
what happened.
Q Did you threaten her at any point?
A No.
Q Did you chase Kurt around the car with a
knife?
A No.
Q Would you have any objection to the Court
entering an order under your FD docket that would put some kind of restraint
between you and the plaintiff?
A No.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, that's got nothing
to do with --
THE
COURT: Yes, it does. I'll allow it.
MS.
MENAR: Okay.
A No.
Q What are your future intentions with the
plaintiff?
A With the plaintiff? My future intentions, I would like to see my
kids. If she's willing to speak to me
anytime in the future or we resolve this, be civil for the children, then so be
it. As long as I can see my children.
Q Are you angry with the plaintiff?
A No.
Q If no restraining
order was entered -- withdrawn. Do you
have any desire at this point to harm the plaintiff in any way?
A Absolutely not.
THE COURT: All
right. Ms. Menar. I'm sorry, were you finished?
MR. DAVIS: Nothing
further. You're right, Judge.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. MENAR: Okay.
CROSS
EXAMINATION BY MS. MENAR:
Q You just testified
before that you slashed -- in your exact words, if I have it right on my notes
-- you slashed the tire and then she went to call the cops. Is that --
THE COURT: Right.
A Yes.
THE COURT: He admits he
-- excuse me. I'm sorry, I didn't hear
the question.
Q You know, if I wrote
down your answer right you testified that you slashed the tire and then she
went to call the cops?
A Yes.
Q Okay. So at the time that you pulled the knife out
and you slashed the tire, the plaintiff was standing in your proximity?
A She was standing about a good eight feet
from me. Kurt car was parked in the
middle of the parking lot, her car was parked on the other side. I walked over and cut her tire.
Q Were you talking at that point while you
were slashing the tire?
A No, I was not.
Q You weren't talking?
A I was not talking to her, no.
Q Did you say anything?
A No.
Q You said nothing?
A I said nothing.
Q Okay.
And, did you punch the witness before, Kurt?
A Yes.
Q And at what point did you punch him?
A We were talking (indiscernible), he
interjected and he stood up.
Q And that was before you pulled out the
knife?
A This is before I pulled out the knife, yes,
ma'am.
Q And, where was the plaintiff at that point?
A She was standing about a good foot from me,
ma'am.
Q I'm sorry?
A She was standing about a foot from me.
Q A foot from you?
A Yes.
Q And, you're in the Navy now, right?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q You testified that you are. And, you have access to weapons in the Navy?
A No, I do not, ma'am, it's not my job to
access weapons. My job's a
multi-aircraft, aircraft carrier, ma'am.
Q Are you ever going to have access to weapons
in the Navy?
A No, that's not my job, ma'am.
MR.
DAVIS: Objection, speculation.
THE
COURT: Sustained.
Q Do you have training on -- you don't have
any type of training how to use any type of weapon then?
THE
COURT: Sustained.
MS.
MENAR: Okay.
THE
COURT: It's irrelevant to whether or
not there should be a restraining order in the first place. All right?
MS.
MENAR: Okay.
THE
COURT: It's totally irrelevant.
Q How much longer do you have in the Navy?
A In the Navy, about two and a half years,
ma'am.
Q Two and a half years?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And what do you plan to do after that?
A I plan to do after that, ma'am?
MR.
DAVIS: Objection, relevance.
THE
COURT: Sustained.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, it is relevant
because it's got to do with whether the defendant does place a significant
threat that's going to be a long term threat or not.
THE
COURT: Fine. I'll allow it.
MS.
MENAR: Because if he continues to be in
the Navy he will eventually have --
THE
COURT: I'll allow it.
A I can not possibly say what I will do in the
future, ma'am, it would come down to my re-enlistment, if I relist or not, I'll
decide then.
Q I'm sorry.
MR.
DAVIS: I couldn't get it either.
THE
COURT: He might re-enlist, he might
not. Doesn't know.
A I don't know, that's too far in the future,
ma'am.
Q You haven't decided?
A Have not decided.
Q So you haven't decided yet to have a
military career yet?
A No, ma'am.
Q Okay.
And, you testified that in the incident of the Wawa, you testified that
you were afraid for the child's health because the plaintiff was smoking a
cigarette.
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Did that concern cross your mind also when
you picked her up and put her against the wall?
MR.
DAVIS: Objection. Hasn't been --
THE
COURT: There's some testimony. It's the plaintiff's testimony.
MS.
MENAR: It is.
MR.
DAVIS: Well, Judge, it hasn't been
established and he shouldn't even ask about picking him up.
THE
COURT: It's the plaintiff's testimony, she's
allowed to ask the question. There's a
basis for it.
A As I recall, ma'am, my testimony, I did not
say I picked her up and put her against the wall.
Q What was your testimony then?
A I said she stood up, I did not put her
against the wall, did not throw her against the wall.
Q Did you ever grab her arm?
A No, I did not grab her arm, ma'am.
Q Did you bruise her?
A No, ma'am.
If I had bruised her the cops --
Q Did you pull her chains?
A Ma'am, if I would have bruised her the cop
would have seen it and I probably would have been in jail that night.
Q Did you ever pull her chains though?
A I did not pull her chains, her chains came
off.
Q How did the chains come off?
A They came off when everybody was in between
me, the chains popped off. Everybody
jumped in between us, we got in an argument now, her chains came off in the
mix.
Q Oh.
So your testimony is the chains came off in between you. Were you forcing yourself at all on
her? Was there any physical contact between
you and the plaintiff?
A No, ma'am, I stood up and everybody jumped
in between us.
Q I can't hear what you're saying.
A I stood up, everybody jumped between us, he
jumped between us, he was arguing, (indiscernible) anything from happening
now. That point, when the officer came
outside, uniformed police officer came outside asked everything okay, she says,
fine, yes, everything was fine.
Q She said --
A Yes.
Q Well, that wouldn't have been her
testimony. All right. And, you also testified that right after
that with the golf club by the school, right, on that date? That there were guys there that talked to
you?
A Yes.
Q How many guys were there?
A About three, ma'am.
Q Okay.
And, although it's hearsay, he testified that, you know, that they told you
to leave her alone. Why did they ask
you to leave her alone, were you threatening the plaintiff? Were you saying anything at that point?
A I was not saying anything at that point, I
was minding my business playing golf in a field, ma'am, they pulled up to my
position.
Q And asked you to leave her alone without
anything that you said -- you never said anything to them or you didn't say
anything before that?
A Ma'am, I did lore these people to pull up in
the car, they came up and asked me to leave her alone. I had no idea what she told them.
Q And, now you also testified that you were
very concerned about seeing your children, and you know, you want to see your
children. How many times have you tried
to contact the children since you've been in the Army?
A Since I've been in the Navy, ma'am?
Q Since you've been in the Navy and prior to
the temporary restraining order, it wouldn't be fair for me to ask you after
that because you probably wouldn't, but prior to the temporary restraining order
how many times have you tried to contact your children?
A (Indiscernible) my children
(indiscernible). Numerous times while I
was at boot camp, ma'am, I asked her to write letters, asked how my children
was doing, she replied to me they were doing fine. I asked her to send pictures via e-mail, letter, and she said
they were in the mail and should have came and never came out. I asked numerous times, I asked the Navy to
help me with my children and see my children.
When she filed a restraining order I went down here and filed --
Q No, I didn't ask you that, I asked you how
many times have you tried to contact your children.
A I was letting you know now.
MR.
DAVIS: He's giving the story, Judge.
THE
COURT: It's responsive. It's responsive.
A I'm letting you know, ma'am. And while she was in a restraining order, I
tried to get -- it was like, to force her to let me see the children before I
go back on sea duty.
Q How many times did you send birthday cards
to your children?
A Birthday cards, ma'am, I was in the middle
of a ship. Ma'am, I was on a boat. I was sailing out in the Atlantic. When both of my children's birthdays had
passed I was out on the U.S. Virgin Islands, I had no access to birthday cards
--
Q Did you send them e-mails to wish them a
happy birthday?
A Ma'am, I had no access to computers, I
worked and I don't know if that would be a violation of the restraining order and I wasn't taking
that chance.
Q Prior to the restraining order, I'm
referring to?
A Prior to the restraining order I was in boot
camp, ma'am, and was not allowed to write then.
Q But you were allowed to write to the
plaintiff because we have letters that were sent from boot camp, is that
correct?
A Not during the time -- I went to boot camp
April 25th, my son's birthday's on April 30th.
That beginning of the first week we were not allowed to write at that
time, even to write her, (indiscernible) to write my mother, ma'am.
Q Okay.
So, at no point did you ever send any direct correspondence for your
children?
A I told them happy birthday in a future
letter, but that was it. And I had no
other way to get in contact with them because there was a restraining order on
the next birthdays.
Q Prior to the restraining order how many
times did you speak to your children on the telephone?
THE
COURT: For the record, the children are
--
MR.
DAVIS: Two.
THE
COURT: -- they were born on April 30th
of 2000 and April 9th of 2001.
MS.
MENAR: They were too young. I withdraw the question, Your Honor, I
apologize. I don't have --
Q Oh, also, do you have any knowledge as to
what time do the children go to bed?
A What time do the children go to bed? She wrote it to me in a letter but I did not
call her at that time.
Q Okay.
Do the children go to bed before midnight?
A Yeah.
She tries to put them to bed before midnight, ma'am.
Q Do you recall a time then?
A No, ma'am.
Q And you testified then that the plaintiff
had agreed to meet you with the children between 8 p.m. and midnight with a --
how old were they at the time? They
were one year old -- Your Honor did the math before, they were very very
young.
A But this was a special circumstance because
I was leaving back for the military in three days, it's not like I was there
everyday and I asked to keep them up past midnight, ma'am. Haven't seen my children once since that
time.
Q Did you have to leave in three days?
A Yes, I did have to leave in three days.
Q Did you have to leave from the Army when you
came to visit?
A I did not have leave from the Navy, ma'am.
Q I'm sorry?
A Did not have leave from the Navy.
Q You did not have leave from the Navy?
A No, ma'am.
Q And, why were you in New Jersey then if you
didn't have leave from the Navy?
A Because when I talked to Martine on the
phone prior to me leaving she had some problems with people who were
threatening her because of an issue that occurred and I was worried about her
and she had a lot of people looking for her, and I came down. Supposedly to give some aid to her and make
sure my children were fine.
Q And, you were leaving in three days so there
could have been opportunity on the next two days, you didn't have to meet her
between 8 and midnight?
A I had to be back within three days.
Q And, why did you slash her tire?
A Because, I was upset at the time, she said
not to slash my tire.
Q I'm sorry?
A She said not to slash her tire.
Q You were upset at the time and she said not
to slash the tire?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Why was she saying not to slash the tire?
A I had no idea, ma'am, that's what came out
of her mouth.
Q So you wanted to slash the tire?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q Did you threaten her with the knife at any
point?
A No, ma'am.
Q And, --
THE
COURT: Anything further?
Q Were you enraged when you slashed the tire?
A I was not enraged, ma'am.
Q So did you slash the tire out of what, a
hobby?
A No, ma'am.
Q You weren't enraged when you slashed the
tire?
A I was not enraged, ma'am, I was upset.
MS. MENAR: Okay. I don't have anything further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Davis,
anything?
REDIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MR. DAVIS:
Q What happens to your
career in the Navy if a restraining order is entered against you under the DVF?
THE COURT: Irrelevant.
MR. DAVIS: Well, Judge,
isn't it -- it's --
THE COURT: Irrelevant.
Q One omitted
question. Have you been contacted since
the TRO was entered by the plaintiff?
A Yes, ma'am.
I mean, yes, sir.
Q And, what was the
nature of that contact?
A She contacted me via e-mail while
(indiscernible) the top gun, told me that Mike Ramos had died. Had died.
And told me that the children were fine.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I
didn't understand.
MR. DAVIS: I --
MS. MENAR: I have no
idea what that was.
MR. DAVIS: Neither did
I.
A I'm sorry.
I was in the state of Nevada, ma'am, at Top Gun, she contacted me via
e-mail that Mike Ramos, one of my friends that was with me had passed
away. He had a motorcycle accident, she
told me the children were fine.
THE COURT: All right,
that was nice.
MS. MENAR: Your Honor,
--
Q And that was
subsequent to the TRO being entered?
A Yes, it was, sir.
MR. DAVIS: I have
nothing further.
THE COURT: All
right. Thank you. Ms. Menar.
MS. MENAR: Well, Your
Honor, I had no first knowledge as to that.
There was no testimony on direct as to that e-mail. I haven't seen the e-mail, you know, I
object to even the consideration of that post temporary restraining order
e-mail.
MR. DAVIS: That's why I
said it was an omitted question, Judge.
THE COURT: All
right. You can step down, sir, thank
you.
THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: All
right. This matters's before the Court
for a hearing on a complaint filed under the domestic violence act. The Court has jurisdiction under the act
because the parties have two children together. There is no question that there's a qualifying relationship under
the domestic violence act.
Now,
the Court has jurisdiction for that reason under the act and also because the
incidents complained about occurred in New Jersey. Further, we have the right venue here because that's where the
plaintiff resides and where these incidents occurred. And, the defendant does not currently reside in New Jersey but
was in New Jersey at the time these incidents happened. He's on active duty in the Navy.
There
is no question that there was an act of criminal mischief in this case, that's
not in dispute. Criminal mischief is
purposely or knowingly damaging the property of another. And, by the defendant's own testimony, by
the plaintiff's testimony, by her witness' testimony the defendant took out a
knife, a pocket knife, a simple pocket knife and jabbed the plaintiff's
tire. So that's an act of criminal
mischief. The question is whether
because that act of criminal mischief a restraining order ought to issue in
this case. And, I find that it ought
not issue in this case. We do not, in
this case, have proof to by a preponderance of the evidence that the Court can
credit with respect to any of the other incidents complained about this, nor do
we have a consistency that makes the Court think that the protections of the
domestic violence act should come into play at this point in time.
The
testimony of the plaintiff and her witnesses was all over the lot. And the inconsistencies are blatant, anyone
was paying attention. I don't know if
it's because people weren't paying attention at the time. The plaintiff has herself hearing the
terroristic threat because she was standing next to the car at the time the
defendant pulled out the knife and stabbed her tire, and said, "If this is
how you want it to be I can make it that way." According to the plaintiff's witness who was with her at the time
she wasn't even there when the knife was pulled out, she had gone to her
friend's house to call the police. So,
the plaintiff puts herself in one place and her own witness contradicts
her. She has an incident between her
father and her in June of 2000, her father has the incident between -- not her
father and her. Her father and her are
involved in an incident with the defendant.
Her father testifies he has the incident between the father and the
mother and the defendant.
The
plaintiff when she amended her complaint here to add the Wawa incident put it
at 11/2000, today it's 11/'99, and has the defendant grabbing her around the
neck, in what she had the Court add to the complaint, and shaking her, and
today she's lifted up and pushed against the wall. The testimony is fraught with inconsistencies. In the meanwhile the golf club incident, I
credit the plaintiff, you know, the plaintiff has testimony about the defendant
having the golf club, there's nothing in the evidence that would support the
conclusion that the defendant was lying in wait for the plaintiff or something
like that. He says he was out there
hitting some golf balls. The
plaintiff's testimony is shes kind of riding around with her friends and
happens to go by the defendant. So this
is a chance encounter in which the defendant has a golf club and what does he
do, not go after the plaintiff, he hits the sidewalk with it.
Even
taking all of plaintiff's testimony to be true, which is difficult given the
numerous, numerous inconsistencies in this case, I am however convinced that
the parties should have restraints not under the domestic violence act because
I can't find that there's a need for an order to prevent further violence
between these parties, but there's going to be a restraining order under the
FD. What is the FD number in this case?
MR.
DAVIS: Judge, it's FD-11-1788-00.
THE
COURT: All right.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, if I just may note
for the record?
THE
COURT: There's nothing to note.
MS.
MENAR: Okay.
THE
COURT: The --
MR.
DAVIS: I believe it's the same
plaintiff and defendant designations, Judge.
If that's --
THE
COURT: Same plaintiff and defendant
designations, and the plaintiff and her mother under the FD, and the defendant,
all have joint legal custody of the children, is that right?
MR.
DAVIS: That's correct, Judge.
THE
COURT: All right. That remains. With respect to primary residential custody, it's the plaintiff
and her mother. With respect to
parenting time, where are you now, sir?
MR.
DAVIS: When do you have to go back?
THE
COURT: I mean, I know you're in the
courtroom right now. Where are you
stationed?
MR.
DAVIS: Judge, he would like to see them
today if possible. He's going back
tomorrow --
THE
COURT: Mr. Davis, can I get somebody to
answer one question?
MR.
DAVIS: Yes, Judge, I'm answering
it. He has to go back tomorrow.
THE
COURT: All right.
MR.
DAVIS: When will he be back on leave again,
is that your question, Judge?
THE
COURT: Yes. I don't want to address tomorrow first, I want to address the
long term first, all right?
MR.
DAVIS: Going on a cruise, they'll be
back December 23rd, he's going to be at sea until then.
THE
COURT: He's going to be at sea until
December 23rd of 2002?
MR.
DAVIS: Apparently, Judge.
THE
COURT: Okay. Then, you are going to have some leave? When defendant has leave the plaintiff has testified here today
that she does not want to keep him from his children and that she wants him to
be involved in his children's life.
That's what her testimony was.
So, when the defendant returns, if available, through the grandmothers
who have both been present in this court proceeding, parenting time is to be
arranged. Not through the mother and
the father, through the grandmothers.
Do either grandmother object to that.
So, in other words, Mr. Wallace's mother will call Ms. Bayes' mother, is
there objection to that on your part, Ms. Bayes, to arrange the parenting time?
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: Your Honor, (indiscernible).
THE
COURT: You're not willing to play that
role?
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: No, I don't --
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, could it be court --
UNIDENTIFIED
SPEAKER: There are a lot of reasons for
it.
THE
COURT: That's fine.
MS.
MENAR: Could it be court --
THE
COURT: Then, Ms. Wallace will call the
plaintiff Ms. Bayes. And those two will
discuss a time. The defendant's only
going to be here on leave and the time for parenting time can be worked out
then when he's here. The time should be
worked out at that point in time. In
the meanwhile the parties are to have no communication with one another.
MR.
DAVIS: E-mail regarding the children,
Judge.
THE
COURT: They may write each other about
the children. There are to be no
personal remarks. The e-mails that the
plaintiff introduced, not constitute harassment in the sense that they are not
-- excuse me, did not constitute threats in the sense that they are not
threatening e-mails, they are disgusting, but good taste is of the test for a
restraining order. But there's no
reason that parties should be addressing each other in that manner who are
parents of the children. And every
e-mail and every letter, remember, is something that the other side is going to
have in writing. That's the only
communication, about the children.
Unless there is some kind of life threatening emergency for one of the
children.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, --
THE
COURT: And there needs to be contact
beyond e-mail.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, my client has a
suggestion that if the parenting time could be court supervised, --
THE
COURT: No.
MS.
MENAR: -- at least until a risk
assessment can be completed.
THE
COURT: No. I don't believe that there
-- on the basis of
the plaintiff's own testimony here in the courtroom today, she said that he was
a good father and that she was not trying to keep him from the children. Why do I need a court expert when I have the
mother testify to that way?
MR. DAVIS: Judge, just for the --
THE
COURT: There are consequences for
testimony, it's not a game.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, my client
didn't testify that he was a good
father. She testified that she wanted
him to be in contact --
THE
COURT: Correct.
MS.
MENAR: -- with the children, but not
that he was a good father. She never
said that he was a good father.
THE
COURT: Ms. Menar.
MS.
MENAR: She never said that he was a
good father.
THE
COURT: Ms. Menar, have a seat.
MR.
DAVIS: Judge, I know I --
THE
COURT: Have a seat. I have found the domestic violence complaint
unsubstantiated. When Mr. Wallace comes
back from the service in December he is going to be, I would imagine, Mr.
Wallace, you're going to be staying at your mother's home, is that correct?
MR.
WALLACE: Yes, ma'am.
THE
COURT: The visitation in the beginning,
because there hasn't been a lot, should not be overnight visitation until
there's been some time at home. It
should be blocks of hours during the day.
In the early evening, to coincide with their bedtime. All right.
Understood. That's the way the
--
MR.
DAVIS: Counsel and I should be able to
arrange that, Judge. The only hanging
issue and I know Your Honor didn't want me to raise it before because it wasn't
responsive to your question, but my client is going away for seven months and
he would really like to see his children today.
THE
COURT: I'm getting there.
MR.
DAVIS: I'm sorry, Judge.
THE
COURT: All right. What time are you leaving?
MR.
WALLACE: Tomorrow I'll be leaving at 3
a.m. in the morning. Tomorrow morning,
ma'am.
THE
COURT: All right. It is now five minutes to 3. Where are the children now, Ms. Bayes?
MS.
BAYES: They're at their godmother's
house.
THE
COURT: All right. We can have parenting time then today from 3
-- well, how far is it from here? Where
are the children?
MS.
BAYES: It's about a half an hour.
THE
COURT: All right. You're going to go pick them up now? All right.
And, Mr. Wallace and his mother will come to pick up the children. Do you have a car seat for them?
MR.
WALLACE: No, I do not, ma'am.
THE
COURT: You do not have car seats?
MR.
WALLACE: No, ma'am.
THE
COURT: All right. Well then, you're not going to put the children
in a car seat without a car, luckily it's a clear day, is it still clear
outside? All right. Then you could walk. Not going to put them in a car without a car
seat.
MR.
DAVIS: Can they be dropped off and
picked up at the defendant's residence, Judge?
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, my --
THE
COURT: Yes, do you have a car?
MS.
BAYES: Yes.
THE
COURT: And you have a car seat, I'm
sure.
MS.
MENAR: You have a car seat, right,
yeah.
MS.
BAYES: Yeah.
THE
COURT: All right. The plaintiff will then bring the children
to the defendant from 4 until 7.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, --
THE
COURT: She doesn't have to stay. The grandmother can go out to the car to get
them.
MS.
MENAR: Your Honor, my client -- the
parenting time has to take place at the paternal grandmother's house?
THE
COURT: Correct.
MS.
MENAR: Okay. My client has an objection to that, Your Honor, because there are
several circumstances that have taken place at that house. And, if the plaintiff wants to have --
THE
COURT: There has not been one ounce of
testimony in a three hour proceeding about anything that occurred at the
grandmother's house.
MS.
MENAR: Well, Your Honor, they were all
prior to two years.
THE
COURT: Good.
MR.
DAVIS: Counsel and I can also speak and
modify this by consent, if there's romp around or something else that perhaps
we can find mutually acceptable, Judge.
THE
COURT: That's fine. This is unless the parties agree
otherwise. Mr. Wallace.
MR.
WALLACE: Yes, ma'am.
THE
COURT: If there is one contact other
than what I have said, one word of harassment, there's no communication under
this order except in writing. If this
order is violated I will enforce this order.
It is a Court Order. Do you
understand?
MR.
WALLACE: Yes, ma'am.
THE
COURT: A violation of this order, just
like any other violation of any other court order can be punished civilly or it
can be punished as a criminal contempt.
And, I will not have an order of this court violated. Do you understand?
MR.
WALLACE: I fully understand, ma'am.
THE
COURT: There's no contact except in
writing. The parenting time is to be
set up by your mother when you're available.
And it's to be set up for daytime hours in blocks, and I saw the
grandmother shaking her head. She
understands what the reason for that is as well. It's not overnight parenting time now. These children through no fault of your own haven't seen you
since November, that's nearly half a lifetime at that age.
* * * * *
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Marlene Fattore, the assigned transcriber, do hereby certify
the foregoing transcript of proceedings on tape number F219-02-JAG, Index from
01 to 4339 is prepared in full compliance with the current Transcript Format
for Judicial Proceedings and is a true and accurate compressed transcript
of the proceedings as recorded, and to the best of my ability.
_______________________________
Marlene
A. Fattore AOC #526
J&J
COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC. Date:
___________________
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW
JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION, FAMILY PART
MERCER COUNTY, NEW
JERSEY
DOCKET NO.
FV-11-1328-04
A.D.
#_______________________
MARTINE L.
BAYES, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TRANSCRIPT
) OF
v. ) DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE
) HEARING
NATHANIEL WALLACE,
III, )
)
Defendant. )
Place: Mercer County Civil
Courthouse
175 South
Broad Street
Trenton, NJ
08650
Date: April 12, 2004
BEFORE:
THE HON. THOMAS P. KELLY, J.S.C.
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED
BY:
NATHANIEL WALLACE, III
APPEARANCES:
STEVEN D. JANEL, ESQ.
Attorney for the Plaintiff
NATHANIEL WALLACE, III, Defendant
Appearing Pro se
Transcriber, Marlene
Fattore
J&J COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC.
268 Evergreen
Avenue
Hamilton, NJ 08619
(609)586-2311
FAX NO. (609)587-3599
E-mail: jjcourt@optonline.net
Audio Recorded
Audio Operator, C.
Fiore
I N D E X
PAGE
WITNESSES
NATHANIEL
WALLACE, III
Examination by The Court 3, 19
Cross Examination by Mr. Janel 26
MARTINE
BAYES
Direct Examination by Mr. Janel
5
AMANDA
BUREK
Direct Examination by Mr. Janel 14
EXHIBITS ID. EVD. P-1 D.V.
Complaint, 11/25/01 11 40
P-2 Complaint, 11/13/02 12 40
P-3 Written Letter, 6/24/01 13 40
P-4 Electronic E-mail, 6/30/01 13 40
DECISION
By The Court 31
THE COURT: Is this the
matter of Bayes v. Wallace, Docket Number FV-11-1328-04. You may enter your appearance.
MR. JANEL: Thank you,
Your Honor. Steven Jenal on behalf of
the plaintiff Martine Bayes.
THE COURT: All
right. You are Nathaniel Wallace?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Wallace,
would you stand? Ms. Bayes, will you
stand please?
M A
R T I N E B A Y E S, PLAINTIFF, SWORN
N A
T H A N I E L W A L L A C E, III,
DEFENDANT, SWORN
THE COURT: All
right. Tell me your name please.
MS. BAYES: Martine
Bayes.
THE COURT: All
right. Please be seated. Your name again, please?
MR. WALLACE: Nathaniel
Wallace, III.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Wallace,
I've got to address you first.
EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q Did you receive a copy
of the domestic violence complaint filed by Ms. Bayes?
A Yes, sir.
Q I need you to speak a little louder because
we're recording you and you're very very low with your volume. Okay?
Can you do that please?
A Yes.
Q Did you receive a copy of the complaint, Mr.
Wallace?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you read the allegations?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do you understand that this is a
non-criminal proceeding here today. If
I determine that an act of domestic violence occurred I will be issuing a restraining order. The intent, of course, is to keep the parties to separate and
apart and to prevent further domestic violence. I will not be sentencing you under the criminal code of the state
of New Jersey. Do you understand that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Wallace, in view of those circumstances
that you received a complaint, you said you read it, I ask you, do you admit or
deny the allegations that are contained therein?
A I admit part of it.
Q What do you admit?
A The part about calling her a stupid Columbian
bitch.
Q Well, the next part is also in there and it
says, "I should have killed you when I had the chance."
A I did not say kill, I said, I should have
took care of you when I had the chance.
And I meant legally, about the children.
Q All right.
THE COURT: Are you ready
to proceed?
MR. JANEL: Yes, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All
right. You may proceed.
MR. JANEL: Thank
you. Your Honor, to dispense with
openings, I'd like to call my first witness Martine Bayes.
THE COURT: All right. How many witnesses are you intending to
apply?
MR. JANEL: I have one
witness who's sequestered outside, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All
right. Go ahead.
DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY MR. JANEL:
Q Ms. Bayes, could you
state your full name please?
A Martine L. Bayes.
Q And, how old are you,
Ms. Bayes?
A Twenty.
Q Could you state your
present relationship with the defendant?
A He's the father to my two children.
Q Okay. And, at some time were you in a romantic
relationship with him?
A Yes.
Q And when did that end?
A Three years ago.
Q Okay.
Did something happen on April 7th which brings us here today?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell the Court --
THE
COURT: Now you're whispering. Now, you got to keep your voice up, all
right. I want to hear you. He's got to hear you, and we need a nice
clear record, all right. Would you do
that, please? Pull that microphone
closer to you as well. Thank you. Last thing I heard was the relationship
ended about three years ago, okay? Go
ahead, counsel.
Q Ms. Bayes, could you tell the Court what
happened on April 7th of 2004?
A Okay.
I went to drop off the kids 10 o'clock in the morning so he could have
visitation time due to the fact he was home from the military. I dropped them off 10 o'clock, nothing
happened, his mother was there. I went
back to pick them up at 4 p.m. after my classes ended and the kids were not
dressed, were not ready, picked them up.
After getting them ready, was walking out of the house as Nathaniel
Wallace is following me out of the house, I'm trying to put my kids in the car,
he's hollering about how he's coming home in four weeks and he wants the kids
for the entire week when he comes home.
I told him, no, I explained to him he has the weekend. He told me, that's his mother. And I told him he could take me back to
court then, he said then he's going to partially take away some of the child
support that he's giving me now and I continued to walk my kids to the car. While I'm getting my kids in the car he's
yelling at me, "I should have killed you when I had the chance, you can
thank Tom Rubino for saving your life that day." I'm still getting my daughter in the car while he was standing
behind me yelling at me. I go around to
the driver's side of my car to get in my car and he's yelling at me,
"You're a stupid Columbian bitch."
And then I drove off.
Q You said that your children were with
you. How old are your children?
A My son will be four April 30th. My daughter is three.
Q Okay.
And, is the defendant the father of those children?
A Yes.
Q Was there anybody else there who heard the
defendant say what he said?
A Yes.
Q And who was that?
A My friend Amanda Burek.
THE
COURT: Who?
THE
WITNESS: Amanda Burek.
THE
COURT: Where was she?
THE
WITNESS: She was in the passenger seat
of my car.
THE
COURT: She was in the car.
THE
WITNESS: Yes.
THE
COURT: All right.
Q At the time that this was happening when the
defendant said what he had said, how did that make you feel?
A I was very scared of him, I've always been
afraid of him. I don't like when he
stands behind me and I can't see what he's doing, it scares me. And at the time that he was yelling at me
that he should have killed me when he had the chance, he was directly behind me
over my shoulder while I was putting my daughter in the car and I was very
scared and I rushed to the other side.
Q Okay.
And eventually did you call the Hamilton Township Police?
A I actually drove directly to the Hamilton
Township Police Station right after the incident.
Q And, just so we're clear, where did this
incident occur?
A At his mother's house, 71 Morgan Avenue.
Q In Hamilton?
A In Hamilton Township, yes.
Q Has there ever been any occasions prior to
this one where Mr. Wallace has committed an act of violence or threatened you?
A Yes.
Q And, could you tell the Court about that?
A Well, the previous one to this case, there
was one in November of 2001, 2002. It
was 2002, November of 2002. I was going
out, I had made plans to go out with a friend to a hockey game that evening and
I left my car at another friend's house because that's where we were going to
meet. Prior to returning to the car, we
saw him as we were driving up to my car, we saw him passing us on his
bike. We proceeded to my car and as I'm
getting to my car he's coming back on his bike and I wanted to go to my car and
just leave and he would not allow me to.
The guy I was with, the guy friend I was with, had gotten out of the car
and was trying to talk to him. He was
accusing both of us of doing something together and being together, and that
was not the case. He eventually hit my
friend and then he pulled out a knife, slashed my tires, and chasing me with
it.
Q Other than that, has he ever hit you or
physically hurt you in the past?
A Yes.
Q And, could you tell the Court about that?
A There was a time, do not recall the date,
but he had punched me in the face trying to get -- while I was trying to get to
my son in his room when I was living with him.
He pushed me down out in front of his house when I was coming home from
being out with one of my friends. He
has hit me several other times though I can not recall exactly what the reason
was. I have had several bruises from
him, I never went to the courts for it.
THE
COURT: You were saying you've never
went to the courts for it?
THE
WITNESS: No.
THE
COURT: All right.
A I was very afraid of him to do anything
about it. And he had complete control
over me when I was living with him and during the time that I was with him,
when he had hit me. Also, there was
another time that I did not file complaints about but the police do know about
in Hamilton Township, he had choked me up against a Wawa wall and my friend,
again Amanda Burek, had gotten in between the two of us to stop the fight.
Q Just to follow up with that. I have a copy of a domestic violence
complaint dated November 25th of 2001.
Could you take a look at that real quick. Just the first page is fine.
Ms. Bayes, would you agree with me that that's your signature there?
A Yes.
Q And you would agree with me that you did
make a complaint to the Hamilton Township Police Department. This was with regard to the slashing of the
tires and the hockey game incident, correct?
A Yes.
MR.
JANEL: Your Honor, can I have this
marked as an exhibit?
THE
COURT: You could have it marked.
MR.
JANEL: Thank you.
THE
CLERK: P-1.
MR.
JANEL: Thank you.
Q And, Ms. Bayes, what was the result of this
restraining order back in 2001?
A It was seen. It took about six months to get into the Court. But, it was seen in front of Judge
Grall. She had dismissed the case due to
the fact that she said that she did not want to ruin his career in the military
and dismissed the case and said that there should be no contact between me and
him unless it's regarding the children.
And, that is where it was left, nothing further was ever done about it.
Q Okay. And, if I may show you, on November 13th of
2002 you made a complaint with Hamilton Township Police Department. Is that your signature, Ms. Bayes?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And the complaint was based on the fact that
he had forwarded to you offensive and threatening e-mails, is that correct?
A Yes.
THE COURT: What was the
date?
MR. JANEL: November 13th
of 2002. And if I actually could mark
this complaint as an exhibit.
THE COURT: Can have it
marked.
MR. JANEL: Thank you.
THE CLERK: P-2.
Q Now, Ms. Bayes, was
this in regard to two e-mails that you had received from the defendant? Or, an e-mail and a letter that you had
received from him?
A Yes.
Q And if I show you
photocopies of those would you agree that those are the correspondences which
were forwarded from the defendant to you?
A Yes.
Yes.
Q Okay.
MR. JANEL: May I have
these marked, please, Your Honor?
THE COURT: When are they
dated?
MR. JANEL: The first one
is a letter dated June 24th of 2001.
The second is an e-mail dated June 30th of 2001.
THE CLERK: P-3 and P-4.
Q Ms. Bayes, presently how
do you feel about being around the defendant?
A I don't like it, I'm very afraid of
him. He makes me nervous and I feel
like I always have to watch what I'm doing.
MR. JANEL: I don't have
any further questions at this time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What are you
asking this Court to do?
MS. BAYES: I would like
to get a final restraining order so I don't have to have him around me, so I
don't have to be afraid for my life anymore.
THE
COURT: Before I hear from you, Mr.
Wallace, of your side, I want to hear the other witness, since it apparently
has to do with what happened on the date of the most recent complaint. What's that witness' name, please,
again? Is that Amanda Farek?
MR.
JANEL: Burek, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Burek.
MR.
JANEL: B-u-r-e-k.
A M A N D A B U R E K, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS, SWORN
THE
COURT: What is your name?
THE
WITNESS: Amanda J. Burek.
THE
COURT: All right. You may be seated. Ms. Burek, I'm going to ask you to keep your voice up nice and
loud like I am, all right, so I can hear you?
And we have a good recording.
Counsel, your witness.
MR.
JANEL: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. JANEL:
Q Ms. Burek, could you state where you
presently reside?
A I was in the passenger seat of Martine's
car.
THE
COURT: Listen to the question.
THE
WITNESS: Oh.
THE
COURT: We asked you where you
reside. You said in the passenger seat.
Q I know you're a little nervous. Just, if you could just listen to the
question and answer to the best of your ability. Ms. Burek, where do you live now?
A I don't want to --
Q You don't want to disclose it?
A Yeah.
Q Why?
A Because I don't --
THE
COURT: You don't have to disclose
it. All right? Do you live in Mercer County?
THE
WITNESS: No. I live in --
THE
COURT: No. Okay. Go ahead, counsel.
MR.
JANEL: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q Did you witness an incident between the
defendant and Ms. Bayes on April 7th?
A Yes, sir.
Q Could you describe to the Court what you
saw?
A I was sitting in the passenger seat and we
were talking and whatever, and I was talking to her kids, I had my back turned,
and he came over to the window and was -- I mean, threatened her and said that,
while we drove away, that he called her a stupid bitch, Columbian or whatever,
he called her a bitch Columbian or something like that. It was in those phrases. But, he said other things though. I mean, but he scared me. Q Well, --
A I didn't know what he was going to do when
he came up to the window. I mean, I had
backed up so fast.
THE
COURT: You said that he threatened
her. I mean, when you call somebody a
stupid bitch, you know, I mean, it's nasty, but --
THE
WITNESS: I mean, he even threatened her
for her life. He was like, --
THE
COURT: What did he say?
THE
WITNESS: He said that, "You're
lucky Tom Rubino saved your life."
And that means if he would have got -- if he never saved her life, that
means he would have killed her at that time, from before, with a couple other
incidents that happened.
THE
COURT: Do you know what that
meant? "You're lucky Tom Rubino
saved your life." Do you know what
that means?
THE
WITNESS: That means, I guess, because
he would have got to her. He almost
killed her a couple times already.
THE
COURT: Is that because someone told
you?
THE
WITNESS: No.
THE
COURT: Did you see that happen, or?
THE
WITNESS: I was there for a couple
witnesses, for what he did to her.
THE
COURT: Well, what else did you see him
do to her?
THE
WITNESS: This was a long time ago. That was over at Wawa when he threw her up
against the brick wall when she was pregnant with her son.
THE
COURT: Okay. Any other time you see him do anything to her?
THE
WITNESS: The other time when he chased
us with a golf club, when we hopped in our friend's car and we drove off with
them.
THE
COURT: Is it because of what your prior
experience has been that you were afraid on this last occasion?
THE
WITNESS: I've been afraid of him ever
since.
THE
COURT: All right. And, do you see the person who made those
threatening statements and did the things that you said in the past happened,
in your presence here today?
THE
WITNESS: I don't see him at all.
THE
COURT: I mean, is he here in the
courtroom?
THE
WITNESS: Oh. Yes, he is.
THE
COURT: All right.
THE
WITNESS: I'm sorry.
THE
COURT: Is that the man right there, in
the shirt?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All
right. Counsel, you have any other
questions of this witness?
Q Just, when you were
with Martine, Ms. Burek, (sic) on the date that this happened, how did she
appear to you?
A Scared.
We went to her mom. And then
after that we went straight to the police station.
Q And you're a good
friend with Ms. Bayes, correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And, you're a pretty
good gauge on how she's feeling and how she reacts?
A Yes, sir.
MR. JANEL: That's all I
have at this time, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All
right. You may step down, as they
say. Mr. Wallace, you've heard the
testimony that I've heard with respect to these matters. And, of course, the history which is
relevant in these cases and required to be heard about by not only the statute,
the law itself, but also the case law.
What do you have to say?
(Mr. Wallace appears to speak with an
accent and speaks fast, and at times is difficult to discern)
MR.
WALLACE: May I first ask a question,
please?
THE
COURT: Yes.
MR.
WALLACE: I didn't want to interrupt you
or anything, you know. My lawyer wasn't
able to be here today because he had other appointments prior to this.
THE
COURT: It's too late now.
MR.
WALLACE: It's too late.
THE
COURT: We've got everybody sworn in.
MR.
WALLACE: I'm sorry, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: And, you should have said
something right away and I would have entertained that. But now I already started this case and now
I took half the evidence already.
People have been sworn, so this case now has jeopardy attached, as far
as I'm concerned.
MR.
WALLACE: Okay.
EXAMINATION BY THE
COURT:
Q What do you have to say about this matter?
A She came over my house, dropped the kids
off, I came home from the military on leave prior to going to Dayton (sic),
Nevada. And, she came in, picked the
kids up, we didn't say anything. I got on
the phone and was talking to my friend and she was getting the kids ready to go
and she was walking out the door, I said, hey, I said, I'll be home in like
four weeks. She goes, "Eh",
like that, so I say, I want the kids for a week. Like that. This is prior
to me going on a six month appointment in the Navy. And she said, well, you only get them on weekends. I was like, what do you mean I only get them
on weekends, like that. I said, ask my
mother, we don't get them on weekends, like that, (indiscernible), every time I
come home I get the children for a reasonable amount of time. And, she's like, she turns around and says
like in a snotty attitude, well, I guess we got to go back to court then, won't
we? And she walked out the door, I
said, yo, what are you trying to do to me, like that. And she didn't answer me.
And so I said, we're being nice, you know, I'm not saying anything to
you, whatever, I said what are you trying to do to me? I said, why? Why? Why you coming to my
house, doing this to me? There was also
from a prior engagement where Amanda said she came to my house, start some
drama. But, she said I was behind her,
when I told her I should have killed, which I didn't say I was going to kill
her, because she was in the back seat, behind the driver's seat in the back
seat of the car putting one of the kids in the car. I leaned across the window with Amanda there, I said, "I
should have took care of you before", I said, "I'm done with
this." This meaning, legally with
the kids, child support, visitation, and everything, because this has been an
ongoing problem for about almost a year now, visitation wise. And she goes, "What?" Like that.
I said, yeah, you heard me the second time. And I repeated it. After
that she drove away, I said, "You're a fucking stupid Columbian
bitch", like that. And she drove
away, and next I know cops came to my house, said they got a warrant for me for
arrest because I threatened to kill her and I called her a stupid Columbian
bitch, which I did. But I didn't
threaten to kill her at all.
Q Who is Tom Rubino?
A Tom Rubino's my friend, he lives around the
corner from me. And, that's who he is.
Q Why do both witnesses against you mention
Tom Rubino, along with language that you said, "You should thank Tom Rubino
for saving you the last time." Why
did they both say that?
A The incident with Tom Rubino, told her Tom
Rubino should have saved her life. Tom
Rubino was not there at all for that incident.
So it was referring to know -- for Rob Nelson -- me, Rob Nelson, and Tom
Rubino was side the Wawa talking and arguing about a prior incident. Would you like to know about the prior
incident?
Q Well, they talked about several prior
incidents, both of the women. Of
course, the plaintiff here talked about filing prior domestic violence
complaints, prior quasi-criminal complaints, complaints. She said that you have punched her in her
face before. That you pushed her down. And these were things when you were living
together. He hit me other times, she
said. None of these got reported. There was an occasion where he pushed me up
against the wall and people had to come and separate us. In November of 02 you slashed her tires on
the car and chased her with a knife, she said.
These were things that were testified to, I just took the notes.
And
the other lady here, Ms. Burek said she was present when you threw the
plaintiff against a wall somewhere at one of the fast food places, I think I
heard her say, and he chased us, referring to you, with a golf club. Now, that's what I heard. Do you want to address any of those
things? Are they all figments of the
imagination of these people?
A No, they are not all true. All right.
At a prior incident, she says she's afraid for her life from me and she
doesn't like being around me at all but yet constantly she gave me her phone
number to talk to her on her cell phone, and we talked on the cell phone, I was
in Key West Port on a Det there. We
talked on the phone for like two or three hours at a time on certain days and
we had a good time on the phone talking.
She come to my house and I talked to her over my house. I mean, she comes by, was out in the
kitchen, she starts talking to me, whatever, and things like that. And, but the last time, I believe it was
after Christmas, the day after Christmas, I called her up, I wanted to see the
kids, she came to bring the kids by, and instead of brining the kids by,
because I yelled, can I talk to you for a minute? I was talking to see how she's doing and I noticed that she had
Amanda Burek in the back seat and Rob Nelson in the front seat of the car, and
for somebody to be afraid of their life, this is something I wouldn't tell
somebody if I was afraid for my life, I wouldn't tell them that, I don't sleep
with your best friend, and I hate you, and blah, blah, and all this stuff, but
she's afraid for her life when she comes up to me and said this to me. But at the same time I didn't get mad, I
didn't say anything to her. I spoke to
Rob. I spoke to Rob, I didn't get mad,
I didn't do nothing to him either. So,
to me that does not portray somebody that's afraid for their life to do things
like that. And, I have never made an
attempt on her life to kill her or anything like that. As
far as punching her in the face? Did
not punch her in the face. I'm 250
pounds, if I was to punch her in the face people would notice. Nobody said anything. My mom wouldn't go for that, because she was
living -- my ma does not play that. And
my uncle's a cop. I did not punch her
in the face. And as far as the Wawa
incident? She was sitting on the curb
smoking a cigarette, because she was pregnant, I did pick her up off the
curb. I did not choke her. I did not throw her against a brick wall. She said I choked her, Amanda said I pushed
her against the brick wall. I didn't do
neither one of them. And, I had to do
one or the other.
And as far as chasing them with a golf club. We went through
this before, the last restraining order.
I had a witness here for this. I
did not chase her with the golf club, they didn't even left the car. I was outside. We was in a field hitting golf balls, my friend Mike Ramo, he's
dead now. And, that's for that. And I never chased her or anybody else in my
entire life with a knife, ever. You
look at the previous court records, I did not chase her with a knife. It was known that I did not chase her with a
knife. Yes, I did cut her car
tires. Yes, I did hit her friend, but I
did not chase her with a weapon or at any time made an attempt on her life, nor
did I go after anybody with a weapon.
Q I understand what you
just said, is you said that you did slash her tires?
A Yes, we went to court for it and I did slash
her tires. Again, it was about
visitation because she did not bring the children over and was saying that she
was going to bring the children over.
And I happened to be in the same parking lot where she parked the car
because I have a friend who lives in that apartment complex and I see them on
the way out, I was riding my bike out.
And then, we were talking, we got in an argument and that was the end
result me cutting the tire. Yes, it was
wrong, but I did it, and it was paid for.
THE COURT: Counsel, any
questions of Mr. Wallace?
MR. JANEL: Yes. Actually, if I can show him P-3 and 4.
CROSS
EXAMINATION BY MR. JANEL:
Q Mr. Wallace, could you
look at P-3, please?
A Yes.
Q And you would agree with me that that's an
e-mail that you sent Ms. Bayes?
A Yes.
Q Could you read the highlighted portions to
the Court, please?
A "I hope you enjoy (indiscernible) life,
you stupid bitch, not our kids. You
will never get anything again. Try to
act stupid and I will (indiscernible) person you (indiscernible) candy ass, so
get high and play in the field while you're blindfolded." And this highlighted portion is, "Like
I said, you probably fucking somebody, also damn you to hell, you may -- devils
-- and fuck you, and obliviate with your pitchforks." Next highlighted area. Let's see, where does it start at. "So, fuck you up the ass with a hot
poker, you're a piece of shit, I hope you real mom can see how a bastard you
turned out to be, have a nice fucking life, you stupid cunt."
Q And on P-4, could you read the highlighted
portions of that?
THE
COURT: Is P-4 one of your e-mails?
MR.
WALLACE: No, it was not, it was a
written letter.
THE
COURT: It's a written letter?
MR.
WALLACE: Yes.
THE
COURT: Did you write it?
MR.
WALLACE: I'll read it --
THE
COURT: All right.
A "You're just full of shit." I did write this, yes. "You're just full of shit. I did this shit for you and our kids. I bet your ass, you couldn't wait until I
left, you go around sucking dick and fucking and drinking and getting high like
a dirty slut that you were born to be."
Q And then on the bottom, when you signed it,
what did the P.S. say?
A Oh.
(Indiscernible).
Q Okay.
And just so we agree, there have been incidents in the past where you've
slashed her tires?
A Yes, I slashed her tire, yes.
Q And you agree with that?
A Yes.
Q And, it's your testimony that you've never
hit her?
A I never punched her in the face or hit her
like that, no.
Q Have you ever grabbed her or physically held
her?
A Yes.
Q Against her will?
A I picked her up. I let her go. And her
friends just immediately jumped in between everybody. I did not choke her or anything like that.
Q Okay.
Have you ever threatened to hurt her or kill her before?
A Threatened to kill her? Never threatened to kill her.
Q Did you ever threaten to hurt her before?
A No.
Q Okay.
Do you have any type of prior criminal record?
A Prior criminal record?
Q Yes.
A I've had like criminal mischief on there,
but that's all due to my knowledge. But
now I don't know what's on there or what's not, I never really looked at
it. I went to court for certain things
but it got dismissed.
Q Okay.
So, just because I'm looking at the domestic violence temporary
restraining order and the Court checked off that you do have a criminal history
and I just wanted to ask you?
A Yes, I seen that, too.
Q So, to the best of your knowledge you do
have some convictions for violence under the criminal code?
THE
COURT: Well, that's recent, that. That's 2004. Maybe that's issued at the same time. If you look at the number W-2004 means Warrant for 2004, is your
year, and then there's the warrant numbers, 496 is the warrant, 1103 is
Hamilton Township code.
MR.
JANEL: I agree with that, Your
Honor. Actually, I was referring to question
number two, unfortunately they didn't attach --
THE
COURT: The SBI number is there. Yes.
MR.
JANEL: Yes, they didn't attach the
criminal case history to the complaint though, so I just was inquiring as to
whether or not the defendant had ever been convicted of any violations of the
criminal code.
THE
COURT: All right. Anything else?
MR.
JANEL: I just have one more question,
Your Honor.
Q At any time over the past years -- I believe
you testified that you guys would talk for hours and had discussions about all
sorts of things, correct?
A Yes.
Q Okay. I have here a copy of Judge Grall's order
dated June 12th. Says, "Plaintiff
and defendant may write or e-mail each other in regard to the children only. Parties should not address each other
personally." Do you agree, does
that refresh your memory of what Judge Grall entered in her order?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And you would agree with me that at times
you violated that provision of the order?
A She called and talked to me.
Q Okay.
A And she came over to my house.
Q Okay. So, you never actually started any
conversation with her at any time in the past two years?
A We both initiated the conversation. The way I understand it was that if she
wanted to speak to me about something and, it could be done. But, other than that, she didn't want to
talk to me, I could talk to her about the kids and e-mail. But other than that she talked to me about
everything, and she gave me her phone number, her cell phone number.
MR. JANEL: You know, I
would just ask that this whole order be marked.
THE COURT: We already
have it. I could take judicial notice
of all court orders anyway.
MR. JANEL: Okay. I wasn't sure if it was in the file because
it was on the FD docket, Your Honor.
THE
COURT: Yes. Can I have those e-mails, please? And that letter. All
right. You know, the allegation here is
that there is harassment. Now,
harassment is basically an act of domestic violence that is defined as all of
the different forms of domestic violence are.
It's really formed by the code, the criminal code that defines
harassment, 2C:33-4. It says, "A
person commits this petty disorderly persons offense of harassment if, with
purpose to harass another that person makes or causes to be made a communication
anonymously" which is not the case here, "or at extremely
inconvenient hours", that's not the case here, "or in offensively
course language or in any other manner likely to cause annoyance or
alarm." It's that last phrase,
"in any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm.", that
really I think is the theory of this case.
And, you know, when somebody calls somebody a Columbian bitch, that is
not really -- I mean, it's not nice, but it's not harassment just by that
language alone. And if that were the
case I probably say you don't have a basis for a restraining order. But this goes on, there's more to it than
that. Okay.
The
language that was heard by the plaintiff who obviously is an interested party
just like you are, Mr. Wallance, in the outcome of this case, you know, she
wants to win, you want to win, in a sense, so you're both interested, and both
of you have come up with different versions of what was said. We have an Amanda Burek who obviously is a
witness for the plaintiff. It's her
friend. She was in the car. And her testimony is that, you know, I was
just sitting there and he came up to the window and he threatened her. And I asked her, well, what do you mean he
threatened her, what did he say? And he
said, well, he said something about, you're lucky that Tom Rubino was there,
and in so many words, saved your life, because I should have killed you
then. And he called her a bitch, you
know. As I said, that language, calling
somebody a bitch or even something worse than that perhaps, in and of itself is
not language. But when you start using
language like, you're luck Tom Rubino saved your life, all right, and you have
to understand the context of this is I believe there was an argument because he
was after more parenting time with the child and she was denying it. So we have this energy going on here, all
right, an argument that led to this argument about, you know, his getting
access to his kids. And her saying no
to his overtures for more time, and you're going to have to take me to court.
Well, that's the framework of this thing.
Now,
even that kind of a statement alone, all right, about Tom Rubino and I should
have killed you when I had the chance, and I do find that that was said because
I do find that it's the kind of thing that I think this particular gentleman
would say under the circumstances based on what I find to be a rather
significant prior history. If you read
the e-mails, you know, it's pretty nasty stuff. And, you know, it has to do again with almost the same kind of
arguments. The same issues between the
parties. And, the prior history of
domestic violence that was reported here in this case, threatening e-mails,
those alleged, and tires were slashed, admittedly. And she says and he denies, that he's punched me in my face, he's
pushed me down on the ground, he's hit me other times, and this is all the time
when I was living with him and I didn't report it because he was very
controlling she said, I was afraid of him.
He pushed me against a wall, and then of course, that turns out to be at
some fast food place and that happened to be witnessed by Ms. Burek as
well. And she said, Ms. Burek said, you know, I'm afraid of
him. And when I asked her why it was
based upon her experiences with Mr. Wallace and she doesn't have the same
contact with him as Ms. Bayes has had.
And
then, you know, when you make a statement like that, I should have taken care
of you or I should have killed you when I had the chance, what useful purpose
does that serve? None. It has no useful
purpose whatsoever. You could argue all
you want about these kids, and your rights and her rights. And you could say nasty words to each
other. You can call each other every
name in the book, because we're not here to legislate or to punish for the lack
of social etiquette. But, when you
start saying things that have a threatening tone to them they lose their
constitutional protection of free speech.
Now, if there was no history, okay, maybe even then, you know, what's
that mean, you know? But the woman
says, I was afraid, I'm afraid of him, I don't like him when he's behind my
back. And then she says why she's
afraid of him, because of this history.
We
do know there is some history and I can see from the communications in the past
that, you know, there's some nasty language here. You know. When people
say, you know, fuck you up the ass with a hot poker, you are a piece of shit,
you know, certainly they're not communications of love. Words like, "You're just bull shit, I
did this shit for you and our kids, and I bet your ass couldn't wait until I
left so you could go around sucking dick, fucking, drinking, and getting high." Again, you know, there's a lot of animosity
in that language to say it mildly. This
is the kind of person who when they say that they're that angry that will do
things that are alleged as being the history here and I do find that that's
more likely true than not. Obviously it
may not be exactly the same way as it's been described here, but I believe that
it's more likely true than not true that it happened because I have to decide
which is the more credible version of it and credibility here really is what's
more likely true than not. It's not
proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this particular area.
I
think you were arguing about trying to get more time with your kids when you
were on leave, it was being resisted and denied, and you were angry about it
and you said the things that you said.
Now, you know, you could say things like, or call her all the names you
want, really, and I think they are as I said constitutionally protected, but
then when you say things like, I should have killed you when I had the chance
and you're lucky Tom Rubino -- and it's interesting, you know, that both
witnesses remembered that kind of language, you know? And it's those kind of oddities that make things have the ring of
truth, Mr. Wallace, and that's the reason I believe that it was said. And, that kind of language, based on the
history loses, because as I said, the constitutional protections of free
speech, and it becomes threatening and it does cause serious annoyance and
alarm. Now how do I know it did? Because immediately both parties not only indicated
that they had fear of you and they were afraid of you, but they went
immediately to the police department to file complaints about it. That's what people do when they're afraid. And that's my ruling. I believe that side of the case to that
extent. And therefore, I am issuing a
restraining order that will prohibit, hopefully prohibit, under the pain of
arrest any further domestic violence.
I
will not prevent you from seeing your two children because the children are not
involved in this dispute and should not be.
I don't know what their exposure has been, but. When is his next visitation to take place?
MS.
BAYES: I know his mother is supposed to
have the kids this Friday.
THE
COURT: And, until what time?
MS.
BAYES: Friday at 3, until Sunday at 4
p.m.
THE
COURT: Sunday at what?
MS.
BAYES: 4 p.m.
THE
COURT: 4 p.m.
MS.
BAYES: Yes.
THE
COURT: No, they can be lifted. The plaintiff, of course, retains the
custody. You're in the Navy, is that
right?
MR.
WALLACE: Yes.
THE
COURT: All right. All right.
You can see the kids on Friday at 3 o'clock. What do you drop them off?
MS.
BAYES: His mother normally meets me at
Burlington.
THE
COURT: I'm sorry?
MS.
BAYES: His mother normally meets me at
Burlington County Courthouse to pick up the kids.
THE
COURT: All right. That's how it's done?
MS.
BAYES: That's how it's done.
THE
COURT: And then how do you get the kids
back?
MS.
BAYES: She drops them back off to me at
the courthouse.
THE
COURT: All right. How often does he see the kids?
MS.
BAYES: It depends on his schedule. I have always made it a point to let him
have them when he comes home. I just
can't let him have them for the entire week because the kids do stuff during
the day.
THE
COURT: How long is your leave?
MR.
WALLACE: Actually, my leave got
extended until the 14th at 24:00.
THE
COURT: I can't hear you.
MR.
WALLACE: Actually, the 13th at 24:00 I
have to be back on the plane.
THE
COURT: You got to be back when, April
13th?
MR.
WALLACE: Yes.
THE
COURT: Well, today's the 12th.
MR.
WALLACE: Yes, I know.
THE
COURT: So, you're going back tomorrow
then?
MR.
WALLACE: If not tomorrow, today,
probably, yes, sir.
THE
COURT: All right. And when are you expected back again?
MR.
WALLACE: Anywhere's from --
THE
COURT: If you don't know I can accept
that, you know.
MR.
WALLACE: See, I Say, at the most six
weeks from now, (indiscernible).
THE
COURT: Where are you stationed?
MR.
WALLACE: Virginia.
THE
COURT: Norfolk?
MR.
WALLACE: No, NAS Oceana, Virginia
Beach.
THE
COURT: All right. How does his mother get in touch with you?
MS.
BAYES: She has my cell phone number.
THE
COURT: She calls you?
MS.
BAYES: Yes.
THE
COURT: All right. When you come home you can have your mom
call her and you can have further visitation.
I'm not trying to cut off his contact with his children, I am trying to
cut off his contact with you. All
right? For the reasons that I said.
Two
other things have to happen, Mr. Wallace, as a result of this court issued
restraining order. One is you have to
be fingerprinted and I will get it done today in view of the fact that you're
shipping out for Virginia Beach soon.
It's not for any criminal purposes, it's for the domestic violence
registry. It's done in the other
courthouse. Are you paying a -- penalty
under Title 25 is waived in this case.
Here's where you get the fingerprints, it's in the other
courthouse. All right? Down the street. I don't know, I always point that way but what I'm trying to say
is the old courthouse on Market Street on the corner, that's where you get it
done. That document tells you where and
when. I would get it done today so you
could get it cleared up out of there.
Otherwise the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office will deliver it for
you.
All
right, I'll bring an order out to both of you.
What I'm doing basically is restraining the contact, that I am taking
off the two children from him being restrained from having contact with,
obviously for the reasons he's going to visit with them. Your residence and your employment are
included in the restraints. 71 Morgan
Avenue is your place, right?
MR.
WALLACE: It's my home address, yes.
THE
COURT: And I have a social security
number here listed, tell me if I'm correct, 135-76-7689?
MR.
WALLACE: Yes.
THE
COURT: Is that correct? All right.
Ongoing support and medical coverage for the parties in question is
continued.
I am
retaining for the purposes of this record since I referred to them, P-1, P-2,
P-3 and P-4 in the file. P-1 is
something that I can recognize judicially, it's a domestic violence complaint
under a docket number. One is a
harassment complaint dated June 30th, 2001 out of Hamilton. And the others are the other written and
electronic communications.
Mr. Wallace and counsel, if you'll step into the hall we'll
bring the order out to you as soon as it's printed out and I get a chance to
review it. It'll be just a couple of
minutes.
MR. JANEL: Your Honor,
would the Court entertain a fee certification or not?
THE COURT: I don't think
so in this particular case.
MR. JANEL: Okay. Thank you.
* * * * *
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, Marlene Fattore, the assigned transcriber, do hereby certify
the foregoing transcript of proceedings on tape number F-156-04-TPK, Index from
420 to 3746 is prepared in full compliance with the current Transcript Format
for Judicial Proceedings and is a true and accurate compressed transcript
of the proceedings as recorded, and to the best of my ability.
_______________________________
Marlene
A. Fattore AOC #526
J&J
COURT TRANSCRIBERS, INC. Date:
|
