COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

                                                                        )                                                          

TODD HORREX,                                         )        Appeal of Case Number 06DS1006ST         

Appellant                                                       )           Judge Raymond Crutchley

  1. )           Appellate Case Number A169606

MORIAH PEDEN,                                       )

nka, Moriah Peterson                                   )

Appellee                                                         )

                                                                        )

                                                                           )

                                                                        )

________

APPELLEE’S OPENING BRIEF

 

Todd Horrex,

Pro Se Appellant

16050 Pierce rd.

LaPine, Oregon 97739

 

Moriah Peden, nka

Moriah Peterson

1270 NW 17th St.

Redmond, Oregon 97756

 

Steve Bryant

Attorney for Appellee

888 SW Evergreen Ave.

 

 

 

 

Contents

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF APPELLEE, MORIAH PEDEN, TO SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FROM APPELLANT, TODD HORREX. 3

GROUNDS OF OBJECTION. 3

REQUEST NO. 1: 3

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: 3

REQUEST NO. 2. 4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: 4

REQUEST NO. 3. 4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST 3. 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF APPELLEE, MORIAH PEDEN, TO SUBPOENA AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FROM APPELLANT, TODD HORREX

The Respondent/Husband, hereby responds and objects to the intended Appeal dated ……………… 2019 and served upon him by the Appellant, TODD HORREX, as follows: –

GROUNDS OF OBJECTION

  1. That the trial court errored in finding that it is not in the best interest and welfare of the child to have regular, frequent, and continuing contact with the father.
  2. That the trial court errored in applying the wrong legal standards and principles in granting the Appellant motion for modification of the agreed parenting time and child support.
  3. That the decision of the trial court was unfair in the circumstances and the Appellee was denied the right to fair hearing.

REQUEST NO. 1:

That the trial court did not error in finding that it is not in the best interest and welfare of the child to have regular, frequent, and continuing contact with the Appellant.

Response to Request No. 1:

Respondent incorporates by reference his General Objections as set forth above. Respondent objects to Request No. 1 on the grounds the Court largely relied on the verbal and hearsay testimonies of the Appellant to castigate that the Appellee has a long history of verbal abuse. No substantive evidence was adduced to before court to prove this fact but still the court went ahead to hold that it is not in the best interest of the minor to have his father around. The court made this decision even after the child had all the intentions to testify alone and such request was declined.

REQUEST NO. 2

That the trial Court errored applying the wrong legal standards and principles in granting Appellant’s Motion for modification of the agreed parenting time and child support

Response to Request No. 2:

Appellee incorporates by reference his General Objections as set forth above. Appellee objects to Request No. 2 on the ground that the Trial Court errored in principle in applying a strange legal principle and standard that is different from a “best interest” standard. The Appellee respectfully submits that in determining the question of the best interest of the child, verbal abuse and other evidence adduced in court to that effect were not properly part of court recorts and proceedings. The court merely relied on evidence that were inadmissible to found that claim which in the circumstance are unfounded claims.

REQUEST NO. 3

That the decision of the trial court was not fair in the circumstances and denied the Appelee the right to fair hearing.

Response to Request 3

The Appellee incorporates by reference his General Objections as set forth above. Appellee objects to Request No. 2 on the ground the trial court the Appellee raised objections on several counts seeking the recusal of the trial judge in vain The Appellee submits that it is trite law that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Further the Appellee respectfully submits whenever an issue of prejudice is raised, the judge ought to investigate the matter and act in a manner that advances the rule of law and justice. In this case, the Appellee filed Notices to object to the proceedings on grounds of bias and unfair hearing but the Appellee’s objections were overlooked and no substantial reasons were given for the Judge’s refusal to recuse himself.

 

Dated this………………… day of AUGUST 2019.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

________________________

Respondent/Wife

Signature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, MORIAH PEDEN,  certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing Responses and Objections to Petitioner’s subpoena and subpoena duces tecum be served on counsel for the Petitioner this………….day of……………., 2019.

________________________

Appellee

 

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. If the above sounds reasonable to you, please do not hesitate to write back.