I just discovered today that there is an administrative order regarding Notices of Hearing, H97-44. It was signed in Hernando County on August 29, 1997. I found it quite by accident.
While looking through my papers in the last couple of weeks, and also looking at a Notice of Hearing of a friend, I noticed that the Notice of hearing of my friend, and the one my attorney received for the hearing on 02/01/10 concerning the supposed fees I owed Hernando County AC were identical. They looked much different than the ones I received for my hearings on 10/23/09 and 10/29/09. BOTH are missing 2 things, which are specifically mentioned in H97-44 as having to be included in Notices of Hearing; one, is the time allowed for the hearing, and two, is whether or not a court reporter is to be provided. Why is this important, why do they have to let you know? Because an appeal is IMPOSSIBLE without a transcript of the hearing...and without a transcript, you can never prove that perjury was committed.
There is no possible way to reinterpret this administrative order other than how it is clearly stated in the original document below.
 |
| H97-44 |
 |
| NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 02/01/10 |
 |
| NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 10/29/09 |
 |
| NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 10/23/09 |
Yesterday, 5/7/12, I visited a web site given to me by the Hernando County Clerk's office, where I could view a list of documents pertaining to my case. I saw the Notice of Hearing for 2/1/10, and I scrolled down to see if I could see another one.
There was one filed the same day as the initial hearing on the 23rd, so I decided to purchase these 2 pages. They appeared to be the same as the pink page which I already had, and which was signed immediately following the one hour hearing, only this was a filed copy.
This is not what I was expecting to find. I was expecting to find somewhere in my file, a Notice of Hearing that looked like the one for the hearing on 2/1/12. The only mention of a court reporter is vague at best, and misleading...not at all how it is supposed to appear in a notice of hearing as stipulated in H97-44.
It says the following, and mind you, I have already completed the first hearing: "Each party is further notified that appeals from final judgements must be taken within 30 days after the judgement. Therefore, if any party wishes to preserve the testimony which would be required for an appeal, arrangements must be made with the court reporter prior to the final hearing. The party requesting the court reporter is responsible for the fee."
This, to me, with my lowly layman's mind suggests that there IS indeed a reporter, but one must arrange to pay for what is recorded. Nowhere does it say that there will or won't be a court reporter as it clearly states in the Notice of Hearing for 2/1/12.
I have seen other notices, and they all look like the Notice of Hearing for 2/1/12. Can this be right?
