I

F/l ri
2
-. :,' .,i:II pt. .. .
,i
3 J L -l

*.**;.
4 t\ tH L ( l R ( r | ( o r RI o r t Hr s t A t f o t o RL L io N' ' ' ! : "

FORTHE COL\TY OF MULINOMAH

6 FamilyLaw Depaftmenl

1
In theMatterof the Marriageol
8 CaseNumber:1006-66084
I'{INE ANDREW HORMAN,
9 OBJECTIONTO RESPONDENTS
Petitioner, MOTION TO HOLD CASEIN
10 ABATEMENT;AND COL]}JTER
and MOTION FOR ATTORNEYFEES

TERzuLYNN MOULTON HORMAN,

t2
Respondent
l3

14 Petitioner,KaineAndrewHoman, by andthtoughhis attorneys,

LauraE. Rackner

t5 andGearing,Rackner,andEngelI-LP,responds
to Respor.lenl
lr MotiontctHoldCasein

l6 Abcrtement as follov:s:

17 I. OBJECTION TO MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABATEMENT

l8 Petitioner/ Husbandobjectsto theabatement

ofthe dissolutioncaseor a bifurcation

19 ofany issues.Respondent's
/ Wife'sMotionessentially
asksthe Coultto abateandbifurcate

20 thedissolutionproceeding
by delayingtheproceeding
until the conclusionofany possible

2l criminalinvestigation
againstWife or, in thealternative,
by gnnting theparties'divorce,but
1',' ,o1the specificreliefrequested
by Husbandandauthorized
by ORS S107.105.Thisincludes

a timely determination
oflegal andphysicalcustodyofa minor child,parentingtime,child

support,andthe divisionofpropertyanddebts.
*i:i:i#jffiii..f[T'"
Page
I - oBrECrIoN
ro RESPoNDEI,-r's
MortoNro HoLDcAsEN ABATEMENT;
ANDcolrNrERMorIoNFoRArroRNF.Y
FFFS ,,,i.i.iiiii,, ,,
1 Thereis no authorityor basisfor \\rife's requestto postpone
resolutionofthe pafijcs'

2 divorceandllusband'sclaimsfor relief. Suchdelaywouldbe derrimenral

ro therveLiare
of

3 theinvolvedchildrenandwouldviolatellusband'sdueprooess
rightto theadministration
of

{ j usricervithoutdelayunderAnicle I, ScctionI 0, of theOregonConstitution.

5 A. Generalruthorityallo{ing an abatement
or bifurcationofissucsin
limited instances.
6
An abatement \ henthereareextemalactiviriesthatmayhavean
maybc appropriate
1
effecton the outcomeor conductofthe proceeding.SLR 1.015(1). For example,abatements
It
aretypicalll useduhcn thcreis a ncedto sta,va proceeding
pendingarbitration.seeMotsigner
9
r. LithiaRose-Ft.,1rc.,
211Or App610(2007)ltostayenlorcement
ofajudgmentpending
l0
appeal(ORS $19.310):
to staya prcceeding
pendingbanlruptc,v
(1I USC 5362);or to allow
11
additionaltime contingent ofan event(OregonCivil LitigationManual
upontheoccurrence
't2
$15.44,$15.46).In thosecircumstances,
the courtis awaidngadecisionfrom anotherenti!

on parallelissuesinvolvingthe samepadies,suchasa.narbitration;
or the entirecJaimfor
t4
reliefis deferredrurtila specificeventoccurs.suchaswhendamages
canbe accurately
15
established,Noneofthesecircumstances
applyhere.
l6
Bifurcationsmaybepermittedat the discretionofthe trialcourt,but only if l-he
17
bifurcationis conducive
to expeditionandeconomyor wouldfurtherconvenience
or ar ert
18
prejudice.ORCP53(81 Bremnerr. Charles,M.D., 312Or 211,279(.1991).The Oregon
19
SupremeCounhasheldthat"lb]ifurcationofissuesfor trial is notto be orderedroutinely;
20
rather,a decisionto bifurcateshouldbemadeonly asa resultofan informedexerciseof
2l
discretion"ofthe tdal courl. Taylorv Ramsay-Gerding
Construction
Company,233Or App
22
272,292(20t0).

*iillfiffiililfii'"
Pase
2- oBrECrIoN
ro RESPoNDENIs
MorloNro HoLDcASE
iNABATEMENTi
ANDCOIjNTERMoTIoN FoR ArroR\-FY FFFS r,Lfr:{Ji!fli,"S"
F i r ( i n 2r .q r 3
I B. An abatement or bifurcation \r'ould bc contrar-! to Oregon DolicY
regardingthc adiud ic a lio no f d iro rc e p ro c e c d in ga\ n d t h e \ re lf a reo f
2 children.

3 andjudicialpolicl requireslhe expeditious

Oregonlegislative of family
adjudlcation

I andcustody
lau'procccdings detemrinatjons. ("[d]issolurion,
SecSI-R8.017(5) annulment

casesshallproceedto trial u'ithineightmonthsof thedateoffiljng, except

andseparation

6 * * * to theChicf l'anily Law Judge"):.Jeellatsan r lldtson,213Or 182

uponapplication

7 (1958)(indicatingthatthecourtjn a divorceproceedtng
is obligatedro makea cuslod,v
award

I withina reasonable
time');
seealsoStonebrink OrApp 328,233(1970)
r Stonebrink,2

9 (stating
thata delayor'rese 'ationofa decision * * * shouldbeusedonlyin
on custody

l0 caseswherethebestinterestofthe childrequiresit andshouldbe for theshodest

exceptional

!1 n r,.fi.'hip npr i^/ l"l Tha . ^ir r r ' c qr li., , l , t e , l ,rn,l i< t. nr,rri/]p fin,i;h a n , l r i i <F n t r n o l e t h P

12 pafiies'affairs.SeeSlausonandSlausoa,29 Or App 177,183-81(1977)(highlightingthe

in a dissolution
court'sobjectives to providefinaliq and"placethepartiesin a
proceeding

14 292Ot 197.207
positionsothattheycanbeginanew");seelldguelroodandHaguev,ood,

15 (1981)(emphasizing lhe palties'financialaffairsto the

thecoun'sgoalofdisentanSling

16 greatestextentpossible).

17 Ifthis caseis abated,it wouldbeplacedundera two-yearstayorderpursuanl

to SLR

18 by theCourt,theproceedings
claimsfor reliefareaccepted
1 015(l). If Wile's asseded could

t9 be stayedindefnilely. Thereis no guarantee

theoretically \\'henthecriminalaspects
ofthis

20 casewill beresolved(i.e.in one,two, five, or eventenyears)or horr longmediainteresrwill

21 continue.Ifthis caseis bifurcated, wouldbe officially"divorced,"but theweltare

I-lusband

22 of his childrenwouldbejeopardized of his legalrjghtsasa panf to the

andthebalance

marriagen'ouldremainunresolved.

Page ro RESPoNDENI's
3' oBJECrtoN "1ili#jffiii1'l::::'"
MorloN ro llolD cASElN ABATEMENT,
ANDcou\rERMorroNFoRATTORNEY
FEES r,.i,itii1:.;.r;"
I Anl delavolthis would be con to the bestinteresls
the childrcn.
2
'Ihis Courthasa legislatively detcrninalronand
duq lo makea custod-Y
mandaled
3
thepublicpolicyin ORS107149,andthedirectives
plantliatreflects
a parenting
develop sel
1
thecoun'sobLigation
all of t'hichemphasize
andORS107.147,
foth in oRS 107.101 to

focuson *the bestinterestsofthe children."\\'ifc s motionseeksabatement

for, apparentl),
6
places
Wile'smotion,essentially,
herconvenience. heroun convenience ovelthc
andneeds
1
children's*elfare andsafeq. KiaraandKylon Hormanhavea needandright to havethis
8
aspossiblesothattheirph)sicalandemotional
matterresolvedasquicklyandefhcicntl,v
9
predictable
theyhavea securehome,andthe.vhavea consistent
safetl-is notieopardized,
10
routineand schedule.Wife's Motionandthe supporting ofher attomeyfail to
Declaration

the children'swelfarezurdneeds.Theextraordinary
address is not
reliefWife hasrequested

by ORS 107et. seq.andis contraryto the legislati\'egoalssetforthin those

contemplated

statutes.
t1
11. 's rishts and interest
I:' or bilurcationofthis case.
abalement

16 is fixedin time or indefinite,or ifHusbandis nominally

Whetheran abatement

relief.Husband'slegalrightswill be
granteda dissolutionwithouttheunderlyingsubstantive

18 herein:
irreparablyharmedasdescribed

10 a) A divorcedpersoD propertyrightsandmake
is entitledto exercise

20 decisionsabouthis or her hnancialfuturewithoulrestdctionor conditionsplacedby a former

71 property,retiroment
spouse.Thesepartieso\m realandPersonal andtheyhave
accounts,

22 this divisionindefinitely
debtsandliabilitiesthatneedto bc dividedequitably.Postponing

in theiro$'nbest
unableto actindependentl,\'
wouldleavethepartiesfina:rciallyenmeshed,

interestsasunmaniedpersons.
page "i:',:l#ffiil.il;:::t"
ls MorIoN ro HoLDcASEINABATEMENT;
4 - oBJEcloN ro R€spoNuLN
AN'DcoLrNrERMoIoN FoRArroRtrEY FEES 1.Ji'iiiil",,,.;t,,
I b) ofthis case$ould directly
Deleyolthe economicandiinancialaspccts

2 affectHusband'sabiliq to providestabiLity for theparties'daughterKjara

andconsistency

3 andhis sonKyron. Suchstabilitycomesnot only fron providinga safeandsecurehon're

I but alsoincludesrhechildren'srightsto healthinsurance

environment, andhnancialsuppon

5 underthe Oregonchildsupportguldelines.

6 c) Abatemenr
or biluroationofthis matter\\'ouldcrealea viftualmjne

7 divisionandtheparlies'financialaffairs.Wife
field olproblemsrelatedto theproperl_v

8 herproposeddela-v
overlooksthefollorvingcomplications rvouldcreate:thepossible

9 continuation orderuntil theparties'propertvrightscanbe

of a mutualfinancialrestraining

10 addressed;
intestacy andestate-planning
rights,inheritance, consideralions;
thedispositionof

--.1 .^ ,1 n- r c ^h. l n. ^^- h in. l r r c e a n .l

' . lin. r h . r . . ^ . i r r c d r i o L r . r " , l , 'h l i o , r i n n . r n m a n - o e

disposeofthe propertyasa part-vmay deemappropriate;

healthandlife insurances
issuesfor

thejoint child;anddeterninationofsuppoltobligations.UndcrWife'sproposal,Husbandis

l,l requiredto maintainthe statusquoindefinitelyard be restricted

in his abilityto movefon\ ard

l: 1 with any hnancialplan]ringor decision-making.

l6 C, Thereis no lesalor factual basissupportinsWife's request.

11 Wife makesno substantive justiryinganabatement

argument in a famil-ylaw context.

18 why herpersonalinterestsshouldoutweighthe bestinterests

Wife hasnot demonstrated of

19 the children.

20 Wife's only statedbasisfor a delayor bifurcationoflhe divorceproceedings

is the

7l "intensescrutin)"resultingfrom "unflattering"mediareportsandlocallaw enforcement's

)) investigation how or why this "intensescrutiny"

ofKyron Horman.Thereis no explanation

affectsWifg's abilityto conductandexchange participate

discovery, in an) evaluations

24 perlainingto custodyandparentingtime,challengeHusband'srequests
for economicrelief,

Page
5- oBJECrloN
ro RESPoNDENIs "'i:::#ffili..f[::j*
MorloN ro HoLDcAsEl\ ABATEMENT;
AND COUNTERMOTIONFORATTOR}iEYFEES
I invohing theparlies'rightsashusband
defendherselfin a ci|i/ proceeding
or otheru'ise and

2 u'ile andlatherandmother.l)espiteWife's claimsotheruise,the partiescouLdhavea

3 rvhichcouldbe sealcd
confidentiale!aluationon custod,!andparentingtime ifnecessar]',

I frompublicdisclosure.

thatller primarybasisfor
bl Wife. it is understood
Althoughnot directlyasserted

6 is to avoidpossibleself-incriminalion
stallingthe dissolutionproceeding asto lhe ongoing

7 invcstigation
law enforcement ofher stepsonCerlainly,Wife hasthe
into thedisappearance

8 rightundertheFjfth Amendmentofthe l,niled StatesConstilutionnor to testii ifshe feels

hertestimonywill potentiallyincfiminateher- SeeKastingerv tinited Slalen^,

't06 US 411,

l0 ,14,1-45 in a civil or criminal

may be asserted
(1972)(theprivilegeagainstseli-incrimination

!1 i! a vollr:,ttary
prccee.jirg).Ererciseoflhe Filih ,4,!!e4dr!!e!1 !.t It allo$s specifrf

ofinformationthatcouldleadto
(i.e.,theright to silence)to avoiddisclosures
protections

cannotbe invokedby a par['

criminalchaigesor sanctions.However.theFifth Amendment

14 to discharge to proveor defendhercase.In

her burdento presentevidenceor testimony

t5 t. K.l, R (ln ReR C), 235Or App 1, 8 (2010)the OregonSupreme

Dep't of HumanSerNs.

t6 (1971),
Courtreliedon 1, /? .1, 66Misc2d 683,690,322NYS2d110,177-78 which

proceeding,
this issuein ajuveniledependency
addressed andexplained:

18 Thereis no mandatoryrequirementthal [a parent]takethe standandtestiry.That

wouldbe unconstitutional.Theconstraint upon[theparents]to givetestimony
19 *
arises * * simplyfrom theforceofcitcumstances andnot from anyform of
compulsionforbiddenby theconstitution.
20

21
* * * It maybe a difficult decisionfor thefuarentslandtheiradomeys.It is a question
22 ofprocedureandlega1optionsfor the defense, of
not oneof theconstitutionality
incrimination.

24 rightsdo notextendto give Wife therightto delaythe

Further,theFifth Amendment
pase MorroNro HoLD
ro RESPONDENIS
6- oBrEcrton- "iili#jffiiii:HT'"
cAsElN-ABATEMENT;
AND COUNTERMOTIONFORATTOR].iEYFEES
I of a civilrnatier,
adjudication oneinvolvingthewelfarcof a cfuld.Dep'lol
particulady

2 Or App ai 9 (delatingajuveniledependencl
HumanSe.".''s.,2li proceeding
to accommodate

3 "is notpalatablefor theobvious

rightagainstsell-incrimination
a parent'sFifth Amendment

,1 reasonthal promptdisposition is essential').SeeqlsoD A

proceedings
ofchild dependenc,v

5 I Stdtelst.lteexrcl Sl7, 2001UT App 307,37 P3d1166,432tltahAdv Rep2l (thebest

6 interestsofchildrenarenot sened\r'henjuvenileproceedings
arcstayedpendingtheoutcome

7 ofcriminalprosecutions), I C/otel,39 OhioApp3d 109,529NEld 480(1988)

Tedeschi

8 (affiming thotrial courl'srefusalto granta civil defendant

a pre-lrialstayofa contracts
suit

prevented
bas€don his claimthatcriminalinvestigations him fromtesti4ing on his behalfl.

10 D. Conclusion

1! Ui' 6. ! , ^r hc n, ha L- . ^' . ". . ', i c , - t ,lr-' rr nrir ^r.r

,h- h,(, i rpr-.r .1 .
''r

12 to publicpolicy. The factthatthis caseis subjectto mediaatlentiondoes

child is repugnant

notpreventitstimelyadjudication.
Delayis notconsistent
withthechildren's,
Husband's,
or

14 in thisproceeding.
theState'sandpublicinterest andequityrequires
Justice thatthiscase

tf proceed
in asnorrnal aspossible,
a fashion aspossible.
andasexpeditiorslt

It II. COUNTERMOTION FOR ATTORNEYSFEES

17 an awardofhis reasonable
IlusbaDdrequests feesandcostsin this
attorneys

18 proceeding
pursuant
to ORSS107.105, andORCP68.
S107.405,

19 DATEDthisl dayofAugust,2010.

20 -7.<
/ \'.
/
,-,/ /
^
21 LauraE. Rackner,OSB#843280
BrettE. Engel.OSB#95257
22 Of Attome,vs
for Petitioner

MorloN To HoLDCASEir\-ABATEMENT; ,,',il{i#:5ilij$'

PaseT- oBJECrloNro R-ESPoNDENT'S
AND CoL TTERMorioN FoRATToRNEYFEES j,#* ",
r.l"Xll-*i?;3,i
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Laura Ilackner, do hereby cenify that I serveda true copy of the O,,iection to Respondent's
Motian to Hol17Case in Abatemento\ STEPHENHOIIZE and PETER BUNCH, attorneysof
recordfor Respondent, as fbllows:

PeterBunch StephenHouze
Attorneyat Law Attorneyat Law
808S\\r Third Avenue 1211S\\rFifthAvenue
Suite570 Suite1240
Ponland,Oregon 9'72012428 Portland,Oregon9720,+

Faxr(503)961 1559 Fax:(503)299-6428

postagepfepaid
-f,by mailing a full, true, andcorrectcopy thereofin a sealed,first class
l0 envelope,to theaddress(es)shownabovewhichis/arethelastknownoffice address(es) of the
anddepositedwith theUnitedStatesPostalService
person(s), at Po.tland, Oregon on the date
tl . . i! f ar ! h h:l .q

1','
- by caLrsinga full, true,andcorrectcopythereofto be hand deliveredto lhe person(s)
at
theperson's(s')Iastknownaddress listedaboveon the datesetforth below.

-by sendinga full, true,andcorrectcopythereofvia overnightcourier in a sealed,

t1 prepaidenvelope,addressed asshownabove,rvhichis thelastknowaddress.
to theperson(s)
on thedatesetforth below.
l5

-L ly faxing a full, true, andcorrectcopythereofto the person(s)at the fax number(s)

16 shownabove,whichis/arethe lastknownfax number for theperson's(s') oifice,on thedate
set iorth below. The receivingfax machine was operating at the time of serviceand the
11 transmission wasproperlycompleted.

18 DatedthisZ dayof August,2010.

l9 GEARINGRACKNERAND ENGELLLP

'='a
\- I
,1 ., >:'
-/
LauraE.Rackner. OSB843280
Of Attorneysfor Petitioner
laura@grelaw.com

24
u_eh-c, al.n n t ENca Ltl
Page8 - OBJECTIONTo RISPONDENTS MOTIONTO HOLD CASElN ABATEMENT;
AND COLI,\TERMOTION FORATTOR\EY FEES
I
F/l- E.
2 ..--"*'';,;.,:.'-r' ttlil AIJE
r ,, lt PH3, atr
.. r, r, ;.",
': "-'t ' '"'i'til!?'"it
,l '...'..'...'. t-tt;':"1"i:'"""'
lNTHEclRculr couRToF THEsrATEoF oREGoN '
'__):-"-*
FORTHE COUNTYOF MULTNON,IAH
6
In the Matterol the Marriageof:
7 CaseNumber:100666084
I'A.INE ANDREW HOR]\4AN,
d PETITIONER'SREPLYTO
Petitionet, RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE
AND
9 COUNTERCLAIM
and
10
TERRI I.YNN-IUOIIt.TON HORMAN,

Respondent
11

KaineHormanby andthroughhisatiofney
Petitioner, LauraE. Rackner
andGearing,

l,l Response
Rackner,andEngelLLP, repliesto Re.tpo,rdent's to Petitionet'sMation1ndOrder

CauseRegardi?gSr?trtrlone)asfollolvsl
to Sllo\a'

l6 1.

l7 First,{ffirmativeDefensetPetitioner
As to Respondent's deniestheallegations

18 indicatesthatit cost
own writtenstatement
2. Respondent's
containedin Paragraph

l9 Stephen
to hirehercriminalattorney,
$350,000 Houze, in hertextmessages
asevidenced to

2t) partsof rvhichareattached

MichaelCook,thepertinent asExhibit"A."' If
hereto

11 priorwrittenstatement "grosslyinaccurate,'
is,asMr. Bunchclaims,
Respondent's

22 mustprovethatto theCourtthroughtestimony
Respondent anddocumented
evidence.

24
' Pctitioner'satomeyhasrle complet€
copyofthe aclualcellphone-relaied proYided
documenls b] law
enforcement, \rhichcanbe madeavailablefor examination
by theCouni, cdneld caeNr Rl.B.i &ENcrrLLP
PageI ' PETITIONER'S REPLYTO RISPONDENTS RESPONSE
AND COU\.TERCLAIM
I Neverthelcss, to be maritalpropert).mustbefully
anyfundspaidto -\4r.Houzearepresumed

2 discloscdin this proceeding. authofity ORS 10i.105

andarervithinthe Coun s disposjtional

3 rfequiringin a divorcecasethe "full disclosure b) the parties"in orderto

of all assets

I ''arriv[elat ajust propeftydivision"). Thesefundsaresubject!o disclosureanddistribulion

5 of whenor how theywereacquired,oI rvhedrer

regardless or not Respondenl that
contends

6 the moneyfurnishedto her attorneyis a marnalliabilitl. SeeKunzeattd Kua!, 337 OR 122'

1 13 3 .92 P 3d100(20(N)(lhecounis e mp o lv e re d t o ' d is lrib u t e a n y re a lo rp e rsporo

npa er
l ty

a thareitherof bothof the partieshold at the time of dissolution includingpropenythatthe

'

v fequests.
partieshad broughtinto the marriage").Despiterepeated hasrefusedto
Respondent

10 with any documentation

providePetitioner informationaboutthe moneyfurnished
or concrete

11 to Mr. Houze.

t1 Petitionefhasa valid claimto sLlilmoneybasedon Respondenl's reveallng

statements

the existenceof this marital propertyand resource.A party's accessto marital propenyanda

arebothrelevantfactorsfor theCoufi to considerin ewardingsuit

party'sfinancialresoufces

l5 marrcy.SeeHague\rootl OR i97, 213,638PZ(l Il35 (1981)'T'rner v

und Haguewtttttl,292

16 Turner,23'7OR 39,10-41, 390 P2d360 (1964).

17 2.

18 Petitioner
Counterclaim.
As to Respondent's theallegations
denies in
contain

r9 Paragraph
3.
ll
I'
R esp e ctfu l l ysu b mi tte dthis dayofAugust,20l0

71 Gearing, andEngel,LLP
Rackner,

22
i(t ul.,t'r-'"''
LauraRackner, OSB8,13280
Of Attorneysfor Petitioner
@gre-law.com
laura
c.{md, &1.6Ei trhcEL LLP
RESPONSE
Page2- PEIIIlONER'SREPLYTO RESPONDENT'S
r'D COUNTERCLAIM
 CERTIFICA'I'E OF SERVICE

I, LauraRackner,do herebycertify that I seNeda true copy of the foregoingPetitianer'\

Repl! tu Respondent'sRespo)^ednti Countercl^inon STEPIIEN HOUZE and PETER
BUNCH,attomeysof recordfor Respondent, asfollowsi

PeterBunch StephenI_louze
Atlorneyat Law Atlomeyat Law
808SWThirdAvenue 121ISWFifthA\enue
Suite570 Suite12.+0
Oregon 91204-2428
Portland, Portland,Oregon9720,1

F a x (r 5 0 3)9 6 1 -1 5 5 9 Faxr(503)299-928
l{l
j-Uy mailing a fiill, true. and correctcopy lhereofin a sealed,first classpostageprepaid
ll JIetope, to ttti odaressfes) shownabovewhichis/arethe lastknownoffice address(esl oi Lile
personis),antldeposited with the UniledStatesPostalServiceat Portland,Oregonon the dale
t2 setforth below.

by causinga lull, true, and correctcopy thereofto be hand delivcred to the person(s)at
-
lastknown adclress
theperson's(s') listedaboveon thedatesetforth below'
l,l
-by sendinga full, true. and correclcopy thefeofvia overnight courier in a sealed'
l5 prepaiiervelopi,addressed as shownabove,whichjs the lastkiow address'
to the person(s)
on the date setfoiih below.
16
\, Uy faxing a full, true, and correct copy thereof to the person(s)at tbe fax numbe(s)
l7 .ho*n utou., *hi"h is/'arethe lastknownfax numberfor lhe person's(s')office,on the date
set forth below. The receivingfax machinewas operatingat the time of serviceand ihe
18 transmission wasproperlycompleted

19 2010.
oatedthis1L dayof August,

20 GEAR]NGRACKNER,\NDENGEI,LLP

tl

LauraE. Rackner, OSB843280

Of Attorneysfor Petitioner
laura@gre larv.com

6an^.c, Ja4.h-rn & ENGfllrP

REPLYTo RISPO\DF.NI'SRISPONSE
PageI' PETITIO\ER'S
AND COLNTERCLAI\4
 il6 3! 2!'r1
rr:3 r !:l a Senr
tDt
-Irrr
liev on a src: note.
ile news :halle;s aii
lilsi ariitoililcac
[)ai: "]r2{j- vou'1e got StsDten
tr :: rli..rill
houze r nai !
P DT
3i'esomel iit s iD lh3
irervs so i iLg,i:ec l
3an taxi 1':l

0 6 '3 0 /1 0 1
0 :3 r1 14 l
PDT

n5,30r:.01

f- 0 1 3 :l 2 rl E
PDT
t-F
t-!I-
06,':0/20IYe. Guess

f- 013:11,:9 hoq'rn:chh:
PDT
0613]C i
costsl
P.ec.,

t- l :i ::ri 3
lD.
IillLon:i S.::

06'3!ri:li
l- PD:
Re : ,

06i3til|1
0 :j r:a rC l 3 5 i rK
PDT

Ir
0.4/3i,':irl
l 3 :1 4 :l l Se..:
"FDT
ll5 : lr'lall
| 13.14.24 Jea.t
PDI
-

r-ti*fF i-3c1

tr6iil-r110l EXHIBIT
.Ja3.)6:2'. !r-
PDT n