Legal Document Type: Legal Motion: OBJECTION TO PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY'S REQUEST FOR PHONE APPEARANCE AND REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING FOR IN-PERSON TESTIMONY

Case Information: Case 24SN-DR00104 | Status: OverRuled

Document Content:
COMES NOW, Respondent, Micheal Lawrence Salmon, pro se, and objects to Attorney Joshua L. Garrett�s request to appear via telephone for the hearing on March 26, 2025. In support of this objection, Respondent states as "follows":
Attorney Garrett�s Presence is Necessary � This hearing concerns Petitioner�s Motion for Attorney�s Fees, a matter in which Attorney Garrett has a direct financial interest and a conflict of interest due to his involvement with The Lane Project. His personal presence is necessary to allow the Court to properly evaluate his claims and permit cross-examination regarding his conduct in this case.

Attorney Garrett�s Misconduct and the Need for Accountability � Throughout this litigation, Attorney Garrett "has":

Repeatedly misrepresented facts before the Court.
Ignored the Court�s direct order to facilitate a resolution where Respondent could have access to his son.
Refused all communication from Respondent, effectively aiding Petitioner in creating a financial and procedural barrier to visitation.
Intentionally prolonged litigation, inflating fees while obstructing due process.
His in-person testimony is critical to ensuring transparency and preventing any undue influence or misrepresentation through a remote appearance.

Attorney Garrett Must Be Questioned Regarding His Connection to The Lane Project � Respondent has reason to believe that Attorney Garrett has conflicts of interest and external affiliations that compromise his role as an objective legal representative. His in-person testimony is necessary to address these potential conflicts and ensure they are fully examined before the Court.

Phone Testimony Would Prejudice Respondent � Given the complexity and the contested nature of this case, allowing Attorney Garrett to appear remotely "would":

Deny Respondent the ability to challenge his role in obstructing the Court�s orders.
Prevent full examination of his financial interests in prolonging litigation.
Allow Garrett to evade acc