These are all the documents required for an emergent appeal of a final order. These apply only if the order is �final� � disposes of all issues as to all parties. If you have any doubt as to whether your order is final (as opposed to �interlocutory�), consult an attorney or at least research the issue � you will need to seek leave to appeal if it�s not final. It�s probably an automatic denial if the order isn�t final.

Steps:

1.          Call the Appellate Division and ask who the emergent judge in your county is.

2.          Call the emergent judge�s chambers and inform them you want to apply for an emergent appeal.

3.          Either complete (MODIFY EVERYTHING IN BOLD) the below or fill out the first form (same as below) the appellate division will fax you.

4.          The court will call within two hours or so and let you know if you may proceed on an emergent basis.

5.          If they say you can, complete the Notice of Appeal (below), Appellate Case Information Statement, Notice of Motion for Emergent Relief, Proof of Service, and letter brief. There is a $200 filing fee. If you are inidigent, ask in the motion for the court to waive the fee and explain your financial circumstances (attaching a few past-due bills, account statements, etc, also helps).

6.          FedEx or hand deliver the package to appellate judges� chambers and your adversary.

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

 

APPLICATION TO FILE APPEAL OR MOTION ON AN EMERGENT BASIS

 

TO: Hon. Dennis J. Braithwaite, JAD fax 609-345-1355 DATE: 6/20/05

 

FROM: David Perry Davis, Esq. TELEPHONE: 732-274-9444

The following questions are to be answered by the attorney or pro se litigant requesting emergent relief. This questionnaire is simply designed to determine if the application be handled in the ordinary course or on an emergency basis. COMPLETION OF THIS APPLICATION HARRISS NOT IN ANY SENSE CONSTITUTE THE FILING OF AN APPEAL OR MOTION. There is no right to be heard orally on an emergency application.

 

CASE NAME: Harris v. Harris, FV-11-1614-05

 

1. What is the vicinage of the matter? (i.e. what judge, in what county or what agency entered the decision?)

Mercer - Hon. Audrey P. Blackburn, JSC.

 

2. a) What is your name, address, phone number and fax number?

David Perry Davis, Esq.

31 Jefferson Plaza

Princeton, NJ 08540

732-274-9444

 

b) Whom do you represent?

Plaintiff

 

3. What is your adversary's name, address, phone number and fax number?

John Harris (changed to avoid Google hits on name)

244 Inland Avenue

Ewing NJ 08638 (pro se)

 

4. Do you have a written order or judgment entered by the judge or a written agency determination? YOU MUST ATTACH A COPY OF THE ORDER, JUDGEMENT OR DECISION.

Yes - attached

 

5. Are there any claims against any party below, either in this or a consolidated action, which have not been disposed of, including counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims and applications for counsel fees? IF SO, THE DECISION IS NOT FINAL, BUT RATHER INTERLOCUTORY, AND LEAVE TO APPEAL MUST BE SOUGHT. No

 

6. Have you filed for a stay before the trial court or agency? If so, do you have a court order or agency decision denying or granting same? Yes. The application (attached) has not been ruled on.

7. If the order or agency decision is interlocutory, are you filing a motion for leave to appeal?

Order is final

 

8. If interlocutory, are you filing a motion to stay the trial court or agency proceeding?

N/A

 

9. If the order, judgement or agency decision is final, have you filed a notice of appeal?

N/A

 

10. What is the essence of the order, judge or agency decision?

Dismissal of Temporary Restraining Order entered under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.

 

11. Has any aspect of this matter been presented to or considered by another judge or part of the Appellate Division by emergent application or prior appeals proceedings? If so, which judge or part?

No

 

12. What is the nature of the emergency?

See #20 below. In spite of a prima facie case of danger to plaintiff being made, the TRO was dismissed without adjudication.

 

13. What is the irreparable harm?

See #20

 

14. What relief do you seek?

Summary reversal, or, in the alternative, a stay

 

15. What citation is most important for the proposition that you are likely to prevail on appeal?

See #20. Also, see Domestic Violence Procedures Manual (pages attached).

 

16. Have you notified your adversary that you will be appealing?

Yes - verbally.

 

17. If this application is being made during trial, Harriss the judge know of it?

N/A

 

18. Have you served your adversary with all papers?

Will serve via fax or hand delivery today

 

19. Have any transcripts been ordered (particularly of the trial judge's challenged ruling)?

 

Yes - a request for an "hourly" transcript was made within 5 minutes of decision.

 

If so, when will the transcripts be available?

Transcript attached. Just received via fax from transcriber

Please give me a brief summary of the facts of your case:

On June 10, 2005, plaintiff Jane Harris (changed to avoid Google hits on name) applied for and received a Temporary Restraining Order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (attached). The complaint alleges that defendant has been stalking her (for example, sleeping in his car outside her apartment, going through her garbage), and harassing her by sending her threatening text message and voice mails. Her verbal testimony before the municipal court included allegations that defendant had called plaintiff literally hundreds of times over the preceding week and that a past history of domestic violence included defendant shoving, spitting on, and grabbing plaintiff and holding her down.

 

The municipal court issued a TRO under the DV Act, returnable today, June 20, 2005. On June 14, an emergent appeal was filed by defendant as to the parenting time provisions of the Order [switching a Saturday visit to Sunday for Fathers' Day]. The issue was resolved by Judge Ostrer.

 

At the hearing on the final restraining order, Hon. Audrey P. Blackburn, JSC, indicated that the complaint form before her was blank - that it did not contain the narrative / Confirmatory Order attached hereto. (The narrative / Confirmatory Order is a form order from the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual issued by the AOC).

 

Plaintiff's counsel supplied a copy of the narrative and indicated that defendant had a copy of same (it was visible from plaintiff's counsel table). Plaintiff's counsel then offered that, if this there were an issue as to service, defendant should be served with a copy of the complaint now and the matter re-listed for a final hearing. Plaintiff's counsel provided the summary to the court and asked that it marked for identification.

 

The trial court instead ruled that, as result of the court's file not containing the summary page, there was no basis for the TRO to have been issued and that the complaint was dismissed "ab initio." When respectfully challenged that the court now had the summary, Judge Blackburn indicated "this isn't a complaint - it's just the [municipal court ] judge's notes." The court then entered an order dismissing the complaint "ab initio."

 

This emergent application followed.

 

It is respectfully asserted that the trial Court should not have dismissed the complaint, but should have inquired with the defendant as to whether he had received the narrative. If he indicated he had not, he should have been served in open court and set the matter down for another date for a final hearing. This is the procedure dictated by the Domestic Procedures Manual issued by the AOC (attached).

 

On a prior application brought by this office on an unrelated matter, a trial court determination that incarceration was appropriate in spite of the complete lack of anything even resembling an ability to pay hearing was reversed after an application for emergent relief was filed, with the appellate division referring to the trial court's incarceration decision as "manifest error." With complete respect to the trial court, it is respectfully asserted that Judge Blackburn's decision was equally as erroneous - there is no question of law or fact here and it respectfully requested that this Court consider a summary reversal without further proceedings based on the transcript. Ms. Harris is a teacher earning $40,000 a year. Paying for a domestic violence trial was a financial stress in and of itself; she should not have to fund an appeal where the trial court committed was I respectfully assert was "manifest error."

 

On remand, this matter should be assigned to a different trial judge.

 

The Law Office of

David Perry Davis

31 Jefferson Plaza

Princeton, NJ 08540

(732) 274‑9444

(732) 274‑2050 (fax)

Attorney for plaintiff / appellant

Jane Harris,   Plaintiff-Appellant   vs.   John Harris,   Defendant-Respondent

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-   Civil Action     NOTICE OF MOTION FOR EMERGENT RELIEF

TO: John Harris

244 Inland Avenue

Ewing, NJ 08638

 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, at a time and place selected by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court, the undersigned shall move for an Order:

1. Summarily reversing the trial Court's June 20, 2005 Order and remanding the matter for further proceedings;

 

2. In the alternative, staying the trial Court's dismissal of the domestic violence complaint and TRO;

 

3. Compelling that any remanded issue be heard by a different judge.

Defendant shall rely on the enclosed attachment and letter brief. Telephonic oral argument is requested in the discretion of the Court.

 

___________________________ David Perry Davis, Esq.

The Law Office of

David Perry Davis

31 Jefferson Plaza

Princeton, NJ 08540

(732) 274‑9444

(732) 274‑2050 (fax)

Attorney for plaintiff / appellant

Jane Harris,   Plaintiff-Appellant   vs.   John Harris,   Defendant-Respondent

:::::::::::

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-   Civil Action       PROOF OF SERVICE

David Perry Davis, of full age, hereby deposes and says:

1. I am the attorney for plaintiff in this matter.

2. On this date, I caused the enclosed Notice of Motion for Emergent Relief, supporting certification, letter brief, and this Proof of Service to be served upon the following:

 

3. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.

 

 

 

___________________________

David Perry Davis, Esq.

DATED:

 

 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

superior court of new jersey - appellate division

 

title of action as captioned below   Jane Harris,   Plaintiff   vs.   John Harris,   Defendant

Attorney of Record   name David Perry Davis, Esq. address 31 Jefferson Plaza Princeton, NJ 08540   attorney for Plaintiff   on appeal from trial court or state agency Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division, Family Part Mercer   trial docket or indictment number FV-11-1614-05

 

notice is hereby given that Plaintiff appeals to the superior court of N.J. appellate division from the judgement ( ) order (X) other (specify)

 

entered in this action on 6/20 , 20 05 in favor of defendant

 

if appeal is from less than the whole specify what parts or paragraphs are being appealed. Whole

 

are all issues as to all parties disposed of in the action being appealed? yes (xx ) no ( )

 

if not is there a certification of final judgment entered pursuant to r. 4:42-2? n/a

 

priority under r. 1:2-5 yes ( ) no (xx ) applicable section under the rule

in criminal quasi-criminal and juvenile cases not incarcerated ( ) incarcerated ( )   confined at give a concise statement of the offense and of the judgement date entered and any sentence or disposition imposed

 

 

1/ notice of appeal has been served on: date of type of name service service   trial court judge Hon. Audrey P. Blackburn, JSC 6/20/05 FedEx     trial court clerk state agency Clerk of the court - Mercer county 6/20/05 FedEx attorney general or governmental office under r. 2:5-1 (h) n/a other parties name and designation date of type of name service service   Albert Harris 6/20/05 FedEx 244 Inland Avenue Ewing NJ 08638     i hereby certify that i have served a copy of this notice of appeal on each of the persons required as indicated above     20 signature of attorney of record

2/ prescribed transcript request form has been served on: (also indicate if sound recorded)   date of amount of name service deposit administrative office of the courts chief court reporting services ALREADY IN POSSESSION   court reporter's supervisor clerk of county or agency         i hereby certify that i have served the prescribed court transcript request form on each of the above persons and paid the deposit as required by r. 2:5-3(d)     19 signature of attorney of record

3/ i hereby certify that: ( ) there is no verbatim record (X) transcript is in the possession of the attorney of record ( ) a motion for abbreviation of transcript has been filed with the court or agency below ( ) a motion for free transcript has been filed with the court below       19 signature of attorney of record

 

superior court of new jersey - appellate division

civil case information statement

title in full for official use only

 

appeal docket no.

Jaime Harris

Plaintiff notice of appeal filed:

vs.

date sent:

Albert Harris

Defendant

appellant's attorney(s): Plaintiff Defendant Other (Specify)

name address telephone client

David Perry Davis, Esq. 31 Jefferson Plaza (732) 274‑9444 Plaintiff

Princeton, NJ 08540

 

respondent's attorney(s)*:

name address telephone client

Albert Harris 244 Inland Avenue Defendant PRO SE

Ewing, NJ 08638

 

[indicate which parties, if any, did not participate below or who were no longer party to the action at the time of entry of the order/judgment being appealed.]

 

give date and summary of terms of judgement entered below:

 

Are there any claims against any party below, either in this of in or a consolidated action,

which have not been disposed of, including counterclaims, cross-claims, third party

claims and applications for counsel fees? Yes No X

 

If so, has it been certified as final pursuant to R. 4:42-2? n/a Yes No

(If not, leave to appeal must be sought. R. 2:2-4, 2:5-6)

 

Is the validity of a statute, executive order, franchise or

constitutional provision of this State questioned? (R. 2:5-1) Yes No X

give a brief statement of the facts and procedural history:

 

Please see attached emergent application

 

 

to the extent possible, list the proposed issues to be raised on this appeal, as they will be described in appropriate point headings pursuant to r. 2:6-2(a)(5).

(appellant or cross appellant only.)

 

 

I. The trial court erred by dismissing the complaint for domestic violence rather than deteriming whether same had been served and, if it had not, adjourning the matter.

 

II. Such other points as research and preparation of the appellant's brief and appendix may reveal.

 

if you are appealing from a judgment entered by a trial judge sitting without a jury or from an order of the trial court, complete the following:

1. Did the trial judge issue oral findings or opinion? Yes X No

If so, on what date? 6/20/05

2. Did the trial judge issue written findings or opinion? Yes No

If so, on what date? __________________

 

Caution: Before you indicate that there was neither an opinion nor findings, you should inquire of the trial judge to determine whether findings or an opinion was placed on the record out of counsel's presence or whether the judge will be filing a statement or opinion pursuant to R. 2:5-1(b).

Date of your inquiry: __________________

Will the trial judge be filing a statement or opinion pursuant to R. 2:5-1(b)? Yes No

All civil appeals will be screened under the Civil Appeals Settlement Program to determine their potential for settlement or, in the alternative, a simplification of issues, abbreviation of transcript and any other matters that may aid in the disposition or handling of the appeal. Please consider these when responding to the following question.

 

State whether you think this case may benefit from a conference. Yes No X

 

Explain your answer. A negative response will not necessarily rule out the scheduling of a pre-argument conference.

 

Emergent relief sought

1. is there any case now pending or about to be brought before this court which:

(A) Arises from substantially the case or controversy as this appeal? Yes No X

(B) Involves an issue that is substantially the same, similar or related to an issue in this appeal? Yes No X

 

2. was there any prior appeal involving the case or controversy? Yes No X

 

if the answer to either 1 or 2 above is yes, state:

Case name: Appellate Division Docket No.:

 

 

 

Jane Harris David Perry Davis, Esq.

Name of Appellant or Respondent Name of Counsel of Record

 

6/20/05

Date Signature of Counsel of Record

 

The Law Office of

David Perry Davis

COUNSELLOR AT LAW

31 Jefferson Plaza

Princeton, NJ 08540-9541

(609) 279-0141

Fax: (732) 274-2050

E-mail: DPD@dpdlaw.com

 

June 20, 2005

 

Hon. Dennis J. Braithwaite, JAD

Superior Court of New Jersey

Appellate Division

Atlantic County Civil Court House

1201 Bacharach Blvd.

Atlantic City, NJ 08401

 

Re: Harris v. Harris

Docket No. A-

 

Dear Judge Braithwaite:

Please accept this letter brief in lieu of a more formal submission in support of plaintiff's request for emergent review of the trial court order dismissing plaintiff's Temporary Restraining Order and Domestic Violence complaint in violation of the rules promulgated by the Administrative Office of the Courts and without a plenary hearing.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 10, 2005, plaintiff Jane Harris applied for and received a Temporary Restraining Order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (attached). The complaint alleges that defendant has been stalking her (for example, sleeping in his car outside her apartment, going through her garbage), and harassing her by sending her threatening text message and voice mails. Her verbal testimony before the municipal court included allegations that defendant had called plaintiff literally hundreds of times over the preceding week and that a past

history of domestic violence included defendant shoving, spitting on, and grabbing plaintiff and holding her down.

Hon. Mary S. Brennan, JMC (West Windsor) found plaintiff's testimony to be credible and found that she had sufficiently alleged danger to her "life, health or well being" so as to warrant the entry of a TRO.

On June 14, 2005, defendant filed an emergent application in the trial court seeking a modification of the parenting time provisions of the TRO, which granted him (on plaintiff's ex-parte application) parenting time three days per week. The parties appeared before Hon. Mitchell Ostrer, JSC and resolved the issue switching a Saturday visit to Sunday for Fathers' Day.

On June 20, 2005, the parties appeared before Hon. Audrey P. Blackburn, JSC, for a final hearing on the restraining order. Defendant appeared pro se and plaintiff was represented by the undersigned.

Judge Brennan, JMC, had complied perfectly with the requirements of the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual and completed the AOC issued form ("Order Confirming Issuance of Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order and Summary of Sworn Oral Testimony Pursuant to R. 5:7A(b)" hereinafter "confirming order") pursuant to �4.1.6 of the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual, at page IV-2.

For reasons unknown, the "confirming Order" (Pa 1) which contains the judge's summary of the litigant's sworn testimony, was not included in the Superior Court's file.

When the parties appeared in Court, Judge Blackburn indicated that "there is no complaint that issued" (1T 4-1, 4-2) When counsel pointed out that a complaint had to be filed in order to obtain a docket number, Judge Blackburn indicated that the form in front of her was blank and that defendant "has no notice of the charges" and that, therefore "there was no probable cause for this to have issued" (1T 4-21 to 4-22).

Plaintiff's counsel then supplied a copy of the narrative and indicated that a proper proof of service had been filed. (Pa 5). Plaintiff's counsel then offered that, if this there were an issue as to service, defendant should be served with a copy of the complaint now and the matter re- listed for a final hearing. Plaintiff's counsel provided the summary to the court and asked that it marked for identification (1T ).

The trial court instead ruled that, as result of the court's file not containing the summary page, there was no basis for the TRO to have been issued and that the complaint was dismissed "ab initio." (5-16 to 5-17). When respectfully challenged that the court now had the summary, Judge Blackburn indicated "they are Judge Brennan's notes (6-18). In fact, the form was not a judge's "notes", but the AOC prescribed form (Pa 10, compare Pa 1)).

The court then entered an order dismissing the complaint "ab initio." (Pa 8).

This emergent application followed.

This court is asked to summarily reverse the trial court's order. In the alternative, a stay of the court's order should be issued. In either case, on remand this matter should be assigned to a different trial judge.

 

LEGAL ARGUMENT

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT RATHER THAN SERVING A COPY OF IN COURT AND, IF REQUESTED, GRANTING A SHORT ADJOURNMENT.

 

The general rule is that findings of a trial Court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence. Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 33, (1988) (quoting Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J.Super. 1, 5, (App.Div.1961)), Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). It is not the role of the Appellate Division to re‑weigh the factual determinations of the trial court, which alone has the opportunity to view the demeanor of and judge the credibility of witnesses. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 416 (1998).

However, a trial Court may decide issues without holding a plenary hearing only when to do so Harriss not require the resolution of a question of material fact. See, e.g., Tancredi v. Tancredi, 101 N.J.Super. 259 (App. Div. 1968), Shaw v. Shaw, 138 N.J.Super. 436 (App.Div.1976). See also Brill v. The Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995).

 

A. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT, IF THERE IS AN ISSUE AS TO NOTICE IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONTEXT, THE PROPER COURSE IS TO GRANT AN ADJOURNMENT, NOT DISMISS PLEADINGS.

 

It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the public policy of our State strongly favors resolving claims on their merits. See, e.g., S.E.W. Friel Company v. N.J. Turnpike Authority, 73 N.J. 107 (1977), James v. Francesco, 61 N.J. 480 (1972), Paxton v. Misiuk, 34 N.J. 453 (1961), Gnapinsky v. Goldyn, 23 N.J. 243 (1957).

New Jersey has also repeatedly held that, in the domestic violence context, adjournments should be granted when a defendant lacks notice of allegations in a domestic violence complaint. H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (2003). Additionally, the Domestic Violence Procedures Manual specifically states that, when there is an issue as to a defendant having notice of a matter, the court is to "grant a short postponement shall be granted" and the complaint "shall be served on the defendant with the complaint / TRO." DV Proc 4.9.9, page IV-II.

There is no support for trial court's decision to dismiss the complaint "ab initio." In fact, the court's decision was blatantly contrary to New Jersey's public policy of "assur[ing ] the victims of domestic violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide." See, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17, Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J.Super. 243 (App.Div. 1995), Peranio v. Peranio, 280 N.J.Super. 47 (App.Div. 1995).

 

 

POINT II

THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF THE APPEAL AND REMAND THE MATTER FOR A BRIEF PLENARY HEARING.

 

Applications for summary disposition are controlled by R. 2:8-3(b). While there is no published case law specifically addressing the factors to be applied when a request for summary disposition is made, the text of the Rule states that such applications should be granted when "the issues do not require further briefs or full record.[1]"

 

POINT III

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE COURT SHOULD GRANT A STAY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, REINSTATE THE TRO AND REMEND FOR A BRIEF PLENARY HEARING.

 

Stays are appropriately entered to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm of the subject matter during the pendency of the action. Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). A stay should be granted when the enforcement of an order, pending on appeal, would render it impossible to set the appellant right if he succeeds. Jewitt v. Dinger, 29 N.J. Eq. 199 (Ch. Div. 1878); McAlpin v. Universal Tobacco Co., 55 A. 999 (Ch. Div. 1903).

As Justice LaVecchia recently noted in her dissenting opinion in McNeil v. Leg. Apportionment Com'n., 176 N.J. 484, 487 (2003), the requirements for a stay pending appeal are well settled:

When seeking the equitable relief of a stay pending appeal of a judgment, the movant must demonstrate that: (1) irreparable harm will result from enforcement of the judgment pending appeal; (2) the appeal presents a meritorious issue, and movant has a likelihood of success on the merits; and (3) assessment of the relative hardship to the parties reveals that greater harm would occur if a stay is not granted than if it were.

[Id. (citing Crowe v. De Gioia, supra. 90 N.J. at 132-340)].

 

It is respectfully submitted that a weighing of these factors warrants the grant of a stay of Judge Blackburn's decision in order to preserve the status quo during the pendency of this appeal.

A stay was requested from Judge Blackburn, but was denied (Pa 9).

POINT IV

ON REMAND, THIS MATTER SHOULD BE HEARD BY A DIFFERENT JUDGE.

 

While not strictly a matter of disqualification, the appellate court has the authority to direct on a remand by it that a different judge consider the matter in order to preserve the appearance of a fair and unprejudiced hearing. See, e.g., Carmichael v. Bryan, 310 N.J. Super. 34, 49, (App. Div. 1998). A review of the record in this matter should convince this Court that, on remand, a "fresh judicial examination." is warranted. See R. 1:12‑1(f).

In In re Baby M., 109 N.J. 396, 463, (1988), reversing 217 N.J.Super. 313, (Ch. Div. 1987), the Supreme Court cited the trial judge's "potential 'commitment to its findings'" to support a determination that a different should hear a matter on remand. The Appellate Division also has remanded cases to be heard by a different judge on several occasions, both sua sponte and on a request by either party. See, e.g., P.T., A.T. and H.T. v.M.S., 325 N.J.Super. 193, 222 (App. Div. 1999); New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 617, (1986); J.L. v. J.F., 317 N.J.Super. 418, 438, (App. Div. 1999); Carmichael v. Bryan, 310 N.J.Super. 34, 49 (App.Div.1998).

CONCLUSION

It is respectfully asserted that the trial Court's June 20, 2005 Orders constituted "manifest error" warranting immediate reversal.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

David Perry Davis, Esq.

 

Cc: Jane Harris

John Harris (pro se, via FedEx)