Part I: The Void

Disclaimer(s)

*I’m not a lawyer. God Gave me the words for the document below, hours before the hearing (that has now disappeared from evidence), neighboring this million-dollar view. The mind-blower, His only reference guides Were the Bible and the Kentucky Rules of Evidence– not the law itself, simply Kentucky’s rules for how to conduct a court proceeding. Apparently, this is a near impossibility even if I were a seasoned Kentucky laywer.

**God Said to redact all names except the lawyers, friend of the court, and judge. He Said to change my ex-husband’s name to ‘Judas’. Also redacted is the case number, though this information is a public record, obtainable by any U.S. Citizen under the Freedom of Information Act, my life and my freedom, along with my child’s life and freedom, were threatened, my constitutional rights were violated, and my dignity was shattered. Through it all, God Was there! God Spared my life and asked me to spread The Word. “Go Preach little darlin’!” He Said, loud and clear.

To confirm He Led my eyes to Acts 1:7-8! He Told me ALL who want redemption need to:

1.) Declare their faith in Him

2.) Share their testimony

3.) Spread The Words.

And because we live in America, and I am a U.S. citizen, naturally, there ain’t a whole lot y’all can do to stop me from doing what God has Told me to do. See here. 😉

All Rights Reserved Preachy Inquirer©

____________________________________________________________________________

[redacted]

Homeless in America

1/15/22 7:39a

Judge Bryan Gatewood

Jefferson County Circuit Court Family Division 8

527 W Jefferson St

Louisville, KY 40202

[[redacted] V. [redacted]]

20-CI-[redacted]

I, [redacted], do so solemnly state that the testimony I may give in the case now pending before this court shall be the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. I solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

To begin, a brief overview of the Kentucky Rules of Evidence, made available to me at https://apps.legislature.ky.gov I will follow that outline as a guide and I will breakdown all relevant statutes in accordance with and pertaining to 20-CI-[redacted] [[redacted] v. [redacted]]

The basic prerequisites of admissibility are relevance, materiality, and competence. In general, if the evidence is shown to be relevant, material, and competent and is not barred by an exclusionary rule, it is admissible. {corporate.findlaw.com}

****

Based on this definition I will adhere only to factual and admissible evidence in accordance with the Kentucky Rules of Evidence; pursuant to The Constitution of the United States of America, in case 20-CI-[redacted] [[redacted] v. [redacted]].

The Facts;

Judas KRE.201 was allowed to use videos on my YouTube Channel ‘Talk to [redacted]’(all content removed immediately, as per the court’s order.) to prove his case against me. Because of this and in accordance with the law, I too must be allowed to use this evidence that has been made admissible by the court, I believe the evidence presented below will be enough to garnish a misruling on this case.

To answer the court’s questions;

Your Honor, the reason I stated that I could not compete with Mr. Judas KRE.201, regarding your ruling on Walden had nothing to do with me. [redacted] asked Mr. Judas if she could attend Collegiate, he laughed at her and said he could not afford it. I could not compete FOR HER.

Your Honor, regarding the table, for whatever reason my journals did not burn in my house fire, and there in the soot-covered mess that is still my home, I found a journal, within it were the drawings for the table that I HELPED TO BUILD. Forgive me for selling it. I had to make a choice, I came to the conclusion that my kids would get over the loss of the table, they will never get over the loss of their mother. I could not bear the thought of a trashy, gold-digging, server from Bob Evans sitting at the table that I helped to build, for that space.

Article I. General Provisions

KRE.102 Purpose and Construction

  1. These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration and elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.
  1. Pursuant to KRE.102, I have been denied fairness in administration through the repeated sending of inoperable Zoom links, dates, and times for court appearances which led to the ruling to serve 60 days at the Jefferson County Metro Corrections Facility. (Manifest Injustice – KRE.103(e))

}KRE.103 Rulings on Evidence

a.) Effect of Erroneous Ruling.

  1. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected
  1. The denial of my right in accordance with KRE.102 and pursuant to KRE.103(a) as it directly contributed to the ruling to serve 60 days at the Jefferson County Metro Corrections Facility. (Manifest Injustice – KRE.103(e))

b.) Record of offer and ruling.

  1. The court may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. It may direct the making of an offer in the question-and-answer form.
  1. Pursuant to KRE.103(b) I have been denied my right to provide substantial material proof of evidence to virtually all of Mr. Judas’ KRE.201, egregious, and at times false accusations. Nor have I been able to provide substantial material proof of evidence to witness and friend of the court, Chancellor Kellner’s egregious and at times false accusations.
  1. Pursuant to KRE.103(b) allowing Mr. Judas KRE.201, to use my YouTube channel but disallowing me to use the same YouTube channel to provide evidence of motive, violates my rights per the Kentucky Rules of Evidence. (Manifest Injustice – KRE.103(e))

d.) Motions in limine.

  1. A party may move the court for a ruling in advance of trial on the admission or exclusion of evidence. The court may rule on such a motion in advance of trial or may defer a decision on admissibility until the evidence is offered at trial. A motion in limine resolved by order of record is insufficient to preserve error for appellate review. *NOTHING IN THIS RULE PRECLUDES THE COURT FROM RECONSIDERING AT TRIAL ANY RULING MADE ON A MOTION IN LIMINE.*
  1. Pursuant to KRE.103(d) I am invoking my right to ask the court, to reconsider ALL entered motions and rulings;
  1. Pursuant to KRE.103(b) I have been denied the right to provide substantial material proof of evidence against all accusations, motions, and rulings of the court.
  2. Pursuant to KRE.103(e) I believe there to have been palpable error(s).

e.) Palpable Error.

  1. A palpable error in applying the Kentucky Rules of Evidence which affects the substantial rights of a party may be considered by a trial court on motion for a new trial or by an appellate court on appeal, even though insufficiently raised or preserved for review, and appropriate relief may be granted upon a determination that MANIFEST INJUSTICE has resulted from the error.
  1. {MANIFEST INJUSTICE definition}: A specific finding by the court that the imposition of sentence is unreasonably harsh or shocking to the conscience of a reasonable person, with due consideration of the totality of circumstances;
  1. Pursuant to KRE.103(e) I am invoking my right to claim ‘Manifest Injustice’ has taken place, as per the definition of ‘Manifest Injustice’ previously stated before the court, the following MUST be considered HARSH AND SHOCKING TO THE CONSCIENCE OF A REASONABLE PERSON, WITH DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES;
  1. A mother has been separated from her children, for apologizing to them and mentioning the court. This separation has occurred pursuant to KRE.103(a)
  2. A child has suffered the loss of her siblings;
  3. $70,000 for damages and items PROVEN to the contrary, Mr. Judas KRE.201, Attorney fees, continuing “offsets”; KRE.106
  4. Lack of sufficient evidence as to why Mr. Judas KRE.201, and Denise Helline are still being allowed to hold my finances yet negating the fact that I am 4.a.) homeless, due to a house fire, as the court is aware with a VERY RELEVANT child; 4.b.) in need of counsel (see below); 4.c.) accruing higher and higher bills within in this case 4.d) the lack of financial stability, creates an inability to comply with the court’s orders;
  5. 5. a) Inability to obtain proper counsel; 5.b.) Inability to obtain a fair hearing or trial in the city of Louisville, pursuant to KRE.201, Judas himself is the well-known fact in this case, as he is CEO of an inarguably, well-known company, Sku[redacted]; 5.c.) Ineffective Counsel, as per the 6th amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America KRE.402; (see above)
  6. Finding me in contempt for exercising my 1st Amendment rights as per The Constitution of the United States of America; KRE.402
  7. 60 days in Jefferson County Metro Corrections facility (please see 4.a.))
  8. Lack of punishment for the ACTUAL crime in this case, physical ASSAULT, allowing the PUNISHER to speak of the crime without allowing the victim to rebut, question, or call witnesses; KRE.106
  9. EXTREME and PROVEN lack of Due of process pursuant to the 5th amendment of The Constitution of The United States of America KRE.402
  10. Conflict of Interest; not limited to and in accordance with KRE.201, (see above) KRE.104(b), KRE.104(e), KRE.106, KRE.403 (see below) Courtney Kellner;
    1. Courtney Kellner is a United Methodist Chancellor KRE.201. (I believe I have signed a document stating something like ‘I don’t care about this fact.’ – signed [redacted]) however, the following has occurred; (see below)
    2. Because I have waived my right to counsel, and because Chancellor Kellner falls within ‘counsel’ all correspondence regarding 20-CI-[redacted] [[redacted] v. [redacted]] may be released into evidence pursuant to KRE.503 (d.)3)) and KRE.503(d.)4)) including the correspondence from my father, United Methodist Reverend, [redacted], to Chancellor Kellner;
    3. Chancellor Kellner attends and is a member of the same United Methodist group of churches of which Mr. Judas and myself are members;
    4. Chancellor Kellner attends and is a member of the same United Methodist group of churches KRE.201, of which Mr. Judas KRE.201, grandparents, [redacted] and [redacted] were FOUNDING members;
    5. Mr. Judas KRE.201, and I have charitably donated monies to aforementioned organizations as is evidenced on our tax records which have been submitted into evidence;
    6. Because I have waived my right to counsel pursuant to KRE.506, my correspondence with Chancellor Kellner can be brought into evidence and will show
      1. The lack thereof;
      2. A mother’s desperation regarding her willingness to abide by Chancellor Kellner’s recommendation;
      3. Chancellor Kellner’s questionable competency pursuant to KRE.104(e)
      4. Undue bias KRE.403
    7. Chancellor Kellner is a United Methodist, Tarot is a violation of the spiritual law by which Chancellor Kellner KRE.201, abides, thereby, becoming a conflict of interest per her own beliefs;
    8. Please ask Reverend [redacted] about my tiny taco (strike from the record)
    9. The recommendation to an alcoholic to lie, to anyone, including their children violates the base principle of the twelve-step program, ‘Rigorous Honesty’ To suggest that I lie, is to suggest that I drink, to suggest that I drink means I die. If such were to happen, can Chancellor Kellner and Mr. Judas be charged with Manslaughter and accomplice to manslaughter? KRE.404
    10. If the findings of the court are in favor of palpable error, this will render Chancellor Courtney Kellner’s biased opinion of the facts placed before her, NOT RELEVANT, pursuant to KRE.403
  11. Mental Health Assessment – As per the court’s order I have completed a mental health assessment, twice, to state that this Mental Health Assessment is not long enough, or correct enough and cannot be included as sufficient evidence to recommend the procedure;
    1. (See Above regarding Conflict of Interest)
    2. Because the Conflict of Interest has been made admissible by the court pursuant to KRE.201, regarding Chancellor Kellner’s status within the United Methodist church; I would like to enter a statement from my childhood United Methodist, Youth Director and High School Counselor (psychiatrist), who will corroborate my high school transcripts, to depict the following; KRE.402
      1. I was a part of the gifted and talented program. KRE.402
        1. According to the findings of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia; “Twice-exceptional (2e) students demonstrate both high ability and a disability. With their unique combination of advanced abilities and academic challenges, 2e learners do not fit neatly into a single category and often tend to get lost in the system.” [Oxford Research Encyclopedia: ‘Students with Special Needs who are Gifted and Talented (Twice Exceptional) Publication Date October 27, 2020 https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1218] KRE.402
        2. As a member of the sub-group of our society who is categorized as “Mentally Disadvantaged”, in accordance with the ‘Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990’ KRE.402, my rights have been egregiously violated, as there has been, and is evident, clear and prohibitive discrimination in my efforts to pursue proper counsel, and to pursue proper health care as was ordered by the court, given the totality of circumstances.
          1. Shame on you Jefferson County Circuit Court Family Division 8, all of you.
  12. Arguably, as was made relevant by herself when posting a picture of MY children to her public Instagram on Dec. 25th, 2021, caption “Santa came for all 5 of our sweet kids, one of the best Christmas Eves I have ever had, with the best man I could ask for”. Kailee Davis([redacted]) has two children, they ARE NOT [redacted](8), [redacted](6), and [redacted] IV(1), Judas KRE.201, has 4 kids, [redacted] (15), [redacted] (8), [redacted] (6) and [redacted] IV. I, [redacted], AM THEIR MOTHER. This has been the cruelest manifest injustice on record.

}KRE.104 Preliminary Questions

a.) Questions of admissibility generally.

Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) of this rule. In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.104 (a.) KRE.402 to question the admissibility of the court’s appointee, friend of the court, Chancellor Kellner.
  2. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.104 (a.), KRE.105(1.) KRE.402 to question the admissibility of my personal business YouTube channel ‘Fulcrum Tarot’.

b.) Relevancy conditioned on fact.

When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.

e.) Weight and credibility.

This rule does not limit the right of a party to introduce before the jury evidence relevant to weight or credibility, including evidence of bias, interest, or prejudice.

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.104 (e) to question the bias and prejudice within the court’s appointee, friend of the court, Chancellor Kellner.

}KRE.105 Limited Admissibility

a.) When evidence that is admissible as to one (1) party or for one (1) purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and admonish the jury accordingly. In the absence of such a request, the admission of the evidence by the trial judge without limitation shall not be a ground for complaint on appeal, except under the palpable error rule.

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.105(a.) to question why have I been denied the right to prove my case based on the evidence entered into court by Mr. Judas and made admissible by the court.

}KRE.106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements

When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.106 to submit the treasure trove of evidence that, in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously with the evidence submitted by Mr. Judas, including but not limited to journals, videos, recordings, pictures, text messages, screenshots, and prenuptial agreements.

Article II. Judicial Notice

KRE.201 Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

(a) Scope of rule. This rule governs only judicial notice of adjudicative facts.

(b) Kinds of facts. A judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either: (1) Generally known within the county from which the jurors are drawn, or, in a nonjury matter, the county in which the venue of the action is fixed; or (2) Capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

  1. It is a well-known FACT in the city of Louisville, county of Jefferson, that Mr. Judas is a respected businessman and Sku[redacted] is a respected company, as Mr. Judas has been publicized in the Louisville Business First among other local publications MANY times, as such, I invoke my right pursuant to the 6th Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America KRE.402, to be given a fair hearing, and in accordance with KRE.201, IF a misruling is found, AND a new trial is set, IT MUST be in a county other than Jefferson County Kentucky.

Article IV. Relevancy and Related Subjects

}KRE.401 Definition of relevant evidence

“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

}KRE.402 General rule of relevancy

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by Acts of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

1.) I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.402 and as a citizen of the United States of America, to invoke my right in accordance with The Constitution of the United States of America, to have aforementioned rights honored.

}KRE.403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.403 to claim palpable error pursuant to KRE.104(e.) as Mr. Judas KRE.201, ‘evidence’ made admissible by the court, my YouTube business ‘Fulcrum Tarot’, where I read tarot was shown to Chancellor Kellner and has created undue prejudice, confused the issues, and was misleading to the court.

}KRE.404 Character evidence and evidence of other crimes

a.) Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.404(a.) and in accordance with KRE.402, as my YouTube channel ‘Fulcrum Tarot’ has been made admissible evidence for Mr. Judas KRE.201, I would like all likes, dislikes, subscriptions, and comments to be considered as character evidence for myself. As pursuant to KRE.201, as Mr. Judas is the CEO of Sku[redacted] KRE.201, and has based his character on his reputation as a businessman within the Louisville Community, and has been allowed by the court, so too must reputation be based on the company and thereby community for which I lead, which I believe is also pursuant to KRE.405 (see below)

b.) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible: (1) If offered for some other purpose, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident; or (2) If so inextricably intertwined with other evidence essential to the case that separation of the two (2) could not be accomplished without serious adverse effect on the offering party.

1.) I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.404(b.) to present to the court evidence for which Mr. Judas KRE.201, guns, do not need to be returned to him;

a.) I have witnessed Mr. Judas KRE.201, come within millimeters of taking a man’s life, with a bourbon glass, on Bardstown Rd. near Baxter Ave. This incident occurred because the man bumped into him haphazardly and was immediately apologetic.

b.) On March 4th, 2021, the physical assault of myself, on the garage floor of our primary marital residence, [redacted] Way, Louisville, KY 402xx

c.) Based solely on the facts, Mr. Judas KRE.201, has shown that he will do whatever it takes to induce my death by suicide via alcoholism as I expressed to Chancellor Kellner and to the public that IF Mr. Judas takes my kids from me, I fear I will drink again, and if I drink again I am 100% certain that I end up dead, relatively quickly. I amaze myself to know that I am fully capable of functioning on only ¼ of my heart. MY KIDS ARE MY LIFE.

}KRE.405 Methods of proving character

(a) Reputation or opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to general reputation in the community or by testimony in the form of opinion.

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.405 (please see KRE.404(a.) above)

Article V. Privileges

}KRE.501 General Rule

Except as otherwise provided by Constitution or statute or by these or other rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kentucky, no person has a privilege to:

(1) Refuse to be a witness;

(2) Refuse to disclose any matter;

(3) Refuse to produce any object or writing; or

(4) Prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.

  1. I invoke my right pursuant to KRE.501 to call my daughter, [redacted] as a witness, and all statements therein to be considered as evidence in accordance with but not limited to KRE.401, KRE.402

}KRE.503 Lawyer-Client privilege

503 d.)3.) Breach of duty by a lawyer or client. As to a communication relevant to an issue of breach of duty by a lawyer to the client or by a client to the lawyer;

503 d.)4.) A document attested by a lawyer. As to a communication relevant to an issue concerning an attested document to which the lawyer is an attesting witness;

  1. I am waiving my right to lawyer-client privilege pursuant to KRE.503 (d.)3.)) & KRE.503.(d.)4.))) so as to make relevant and submit into evidence all correspondence with my former attorney, Mary Chauvin, and all correspondence between Mary Chauvin and opposing counsel Ms. Helline.

}KRE.506 Counselor-client privilege

1.) I am waiving my right to counselor-client privilege pursuant to KRE.506 to make relevant and submit into evidence all correspondence and lack thereof between myself and Chancellor Kellner.

To Conclude;

I believe that I have PROVEN beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT that there has indeed been palpable error KRE.104(e.), thereby proving error of rulings KRE.104(a.), thereby, the court MUST declare a misruling on ALL rulings therein, including but not limited to the divorce decree itself.

**PLEASE REFER TO THE SETTLEMENT OFFER SEPARATELY ATTACHED** ( I did not attach it here. I asked for fairness in all that I too had worked for. I am nothing. I am no one. I am worthless.)

Please allow the following statement to Mr. Judas to be entered into court; never mind, please strike from the record, he isn’t worth the time.

Judas, I loved you, truly, madly, deeply. Checkmate.

To quote one of Judas’ favorite rappers, “This is a robbery, boy, gimme them dollars. We hit the lottery, boy, it’s in ya wallets!” – The RZA, Wu-Tang Clan

[Chelsea Brown, Friend of the Otherside, ad litem]