ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

TSEPHANYAH Y. HAWKINS, }

YAHCHANAN Y. HAWKINS and }

Plaintiffs, }

}

v. }

}

CLAUDIA HUTCHISON, in her personal }

capacity and in her capacities with }

StenoScribe, Incorporated, and }

VocEdit, Inc., }

NORMAN OSTER, in his personal capacity }

and in his capacities with, } Civil Action No.

StenoScribe Incorporated, and } 1-05CV-184-C

VocEdit, Inc., }

STENOSCRIBE, INCORPORATED, }

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF REALTIME }

REPORTERS, INC., }

VOCEDIT, INC., }

CHARLES C. SELF, III, }

DONALD L. ANDERSON, JR., }

WHITTEN & YOUNG, P.C., }

ANSWER OF RIYYAHNAH TIPHARAHYAH HAWKINS

A/K/A CLAUDIA HUTCHISON, STENOSCRIBE, INC.,

QANAYAH YISRAYL HAWKINS A/K/A/ NORMAN OSTER, AND

VOICEDIT, INC.

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Come now RIYYAHNAH TIPHARAHYAH HAWKINS A/K/A/ CLAUDIA HUTCHISON,

hereinafter referred to as “Hutchison,” STENOSCRIBE, INC.,

hereinafter referred to as “Stenoscribe,” QANAYAH YISRAYL HAWKINS

A/K/A NORMAN OSTER, hereinafter referred to as “Oster,” and VOCEDIT,

INC., hereinafter referred to as “VocEdit,” such parties know

collectively as “Defendants,” and subject to any prior motions filed

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 15 PageID 1661
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 2

under Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., answer the numbered paragraphs in

the PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT hereinafter referred to as

the "Complaint' as follows:

1. Defendants deny that this Court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §1595 under the allegations set forth

in the Complaint.

2. Defendants deny that this Court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 under the allegations set forth

in the Complaint.

3. Defendants deny that this Court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1343 under the allegations set forth

in the Complaint.

4. Defendants deny that this Court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §1961 et seq. under the allegations set

forth in the Complaint.

5. Defendants deny that this Court possesses subject matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367 under the allegations set forth

in the Complaint.

6. Defendants deny that venue is proper in this District and

Division.

7. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations stated therein

because it lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their

truth.

8. Defendants admit the allegation contained in paragraph 8.

9. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations stated therein

because it lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their

truth.

10. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations stated therein

because it lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their

truth.

11. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations stated therein

because it lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their

truth unless otherwise stated herein. Voicewriter Systems, Inc. was

a corporation that was organized and incorporated under the laws of

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 15 PageID 1662
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 3

the state of Texas on or about August 15, 1997. Such name was chosen

by Defendant Hutchison. The Articles of Amendment to such corporation

not only have Plaintiff Tsephanyah Yisrayl Hawkins as an initial

director, but have one Micahyah Hawkins as another director. Such

person is Defendant Hutchison’s son. The name of such corporation was

subsequently changed by ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT filed on or about August

20, 1997, to StenoScribe, Inc. due to the name of Voicewriter already

being utilized by another company in the marketplace. That name was

also arrived at by Defendant Hutchison. Then, again, pursuant to

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT being filed on or about November 10, 2003, the

name of the corporation was changed to Courtroom Data Solutions, Inc.

12. Defendants admit the allegation that the The South Carolina

School of Court Reporting, Inc. mentioned in this paragraph is a

corporation formed under the laws of the state of South Carolina, on

August 31, 2004, with its principal place of business being in South

Carolina. (See Exhibit “A” attached to ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

filed by THE SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF COURT REPORTING, INC. and

incorporated herein for all purposes as if copied verbatim.)

Defendants deny all other allegations.

13. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations stated therein

because it lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their

truth.

14. Defendants admit that the Honorable John Weeks is a district judge

for the 42nd Judicial District of Texas. Defendants deny all the other

allegations made in such paragraph. Defendants believe and therefore

allege that Plaintiff Tsephanyah Y. Hawkins, who is a defendant in

that lawsuit, was not getting the favorable rulings he believed that

he was deserving of and therefore has come to this court to try to

circumvent such state court lawsuit and its reality.

15. Defendants admit that Victoria Carter is a lawyer licensed to

practice law in the state of Texas and through her law firm was

Hutchison’s attorney in the state court lawsuit for a period of time.

As to all other allegations contained in such paragraph, Defendants

deny.

16. Defendants admit that the named Plaintiff Tsephanyah Yisrayl

Hawkins is an individual who, to their knowledge, presently resides

in Clyde, Texas, and has since 1996. Defendants would show the court

that Hutchison and this plaintiff are cousins. Hutchison has a son

named Micahyah Hawkins, and he was named as a director of CDS. (See

Exhibit “D” to PLAINTIFFS’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Article Seven)

Such Plaintiff informed Hutchison at that relevant time that she could

not be a director until she moved to Texas. Hutchison would also assert

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 15 PageID 1663
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 4

that she is a 50% interest owner in CDS. (See allegations contained

in the PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION labeled Exhibit “A” to

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT.) Defendants deny all other

allegations.

17. Defendants admit that the named Plaintiff Yahchanan Y. Hawkins

is an individual who, to their knowledge, presently resides in Clyde,

Texas. Defendants neither admit nor deny the other allegations stated

therein because they lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as

to their truth.

18. Defendants admit that Stenoscribe, Inc. is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas.

Defendants deny all other allegations contained in such paragraph at

this time.

19. A. Defendants would show the court that CLAUDIA HUTCHISON had her

name legally changed or about September 26, 1996, in Cause

No.96-1082-N in the 326th District Court in and for Taylor County,

Texas. A certified copy of the DECREE CHANGING NAME OF ONE ADULT is

attached as Exhibit “A” to the ANSWER originally filed to the FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT and incorporated herein for all purposes as if

copied verbatim. Hutchison is in the process of having her name

changed back to CLAUDIA MARIE HUTCHISON.

B. Defendants deny that any of such Defendants nor any of their

authorized agents, servants, or employees have criminally conspired

with any other named Defendants or non parties in this action.

C. Defendants admit that Hutchison presently resides in South

Carolina.

D. Defendants admit that Hutchison utilizes a software program

that Hutchison has an interest in along with Plaintiff Tsephanyah

Hawkins.

E. Attached to the original ANSWER filed to the PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein for all

purposes, is a true and correct authenticated copy of the PROVISIONAL

APPLICATION FOR PATENT, the original of which was filed with the

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Such application was

filed by the Plaintiff Tsephanyah Y Hawkins. As is evidenced by such

document, it appears that RIYYAHNAH TIPHARAHYAH HAWKINS (Hutchison)

is a co-inventor with reference to the computerized court reporter

system that is the basis of the state court action and the computerized

court reporter system complained herein by the Plaintiffs. Therefore,

it is Defendants position that any usage of such reporter system would

have been legal since Hutchison is a co-inventor of such system and

would have authorized their use of such system.

F. From 1997 to 2001 Hutchison did not perform typing or

bookkeeping for the corporation. She funded the entire operation of

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 15 PageID 1664
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 5

StenoScribe, Inc. from the time of its inception, including, but not

limited to, programming materials to educate Hawkins, necessary

computers needed for the running of the corporation, hardware, all

startup costs associated with forming the corporation. She provided

these monies because she had a 50 percent ownership. The only reason

that she did not handle the bookkeeping at such time is because of

geographical restrictions to her being in the Northeastern United

States. The StenoScribe toll free number was always directed to her

personal phone lines or her court reporting agency. From 2001 forward,

she took control of the checkbook due to Hawkins’ ineptness of

handling payments to vendors and websites and phones being turned off.

She at all times handled most aspects of the corporation except for

check writing until she moved to Texas in February of 2001. Computers

were sent to her in Massachusetts for her to assemble. All financial

debt was charged on her personal and business credit cards. It was

always represented to her by such Plaintiff that she was a 50 percent

shareholder of such corporation. Defendants deny any criminal

conspiracy. Defendants deny violating any of Hawkins’ alleged rights

20. Defendants deny the allegations contained in such paragraph.

21. Defendants admit that Hutchison has been in the business of

marketing, selling, training, and supporting the computerized court

reporting system that she is a co-inventor of. Additionally, she has

had to support systems that Plaintiff Tsephanyah Hawkins has sold,

but, in her opinion, failed or refused to support or provide competent

support for. Defendants deny all other allegations stated therein.

22. Defendants deny such allegation.

23. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations unless admitted

herein because they lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as

to their truth. Defendants admit that Oster presently resides in South

Carolina. Defendants admit that Oster is employed as an instructor.

Defendants admit that Oster on or after August 31, 2004, has at times

been an agent, servant or employee of his employer, if applicable,

but never with any relation to any Plaintiff. Defendants deny they

have in any way shape or form criminally conspired with Defendant

Oster or any non party. Defendants deny any other allegations

contained within such paragraph.

24. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations because they

lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their truth.

Defendants deny they criminally conspired with the NIRR.

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 5 of 15 PageID 1665
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 6

25. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations because they

lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their truth.

26. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations because they

lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their truth.

27. Defendants admit that VocEdit, Inc. is a corporation organized

and existing under the laws of the state of Texas. Such corporation

was not formed until July 28, 2005. Defendants deny any and all other

allegations contained in such paragraph.

28. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations because they

lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to their truth.

Paragraphs 29 through and including 174. Defendants deny all the

allegations contained in any and all such paragraphs. Any orders

signed by the Honorable Judge Weeks in his capacity as the District

Judge of the 42nd Judicial District of Callahan County, Texas state

what they state and are in fact the best evidence, such being in Cause

No. 18,093 in such court. Defendant Hutchison is the Plaintiff in that

lawsuit and Defendants believe that a PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED PETITION

has been filed in such proceeding and is currently the live pleading

as to her cause of actions asserted against Plaintiff Tsephanyah

Hawkins, there.

Defendants would further assert that any and all of the claims

that Plaintiff Tsephanyah Hawkins has alleged in this lawsuit would

be governed by Rule 97 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in that

state court proceeding.

As to any actions alleged by the Plaintiffs against Self or

Anderson, or against Whitten and Young, these Defendants do not have

sufficient information to admit or deny any such allegations with the

exception that these Defendants did not conspire or act in any way

except in an adversarial manner, if applicable, as to such persons.

First Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Property Without Due Process

175. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-174 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 176 through 182, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Second Claim for Relief

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 6 of 15 PageID 1666
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 7

Deprivation of Liberty Without Due Process

183. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-182 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 184 through 190, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Third Claim for Relief

Deprivation of 13th Amendment Right to be Free From Enslavement

191. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-190 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 192 through 198, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Fourth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Freedom of Expression

199. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-198 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 200 through 206, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Fifth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Privacy

207. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-206 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 208 through 214, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Sixth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Property Without Due Process

215. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-214 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 216 through 222, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Seventh Claim for Relief

Deprivation of 13th Amendment Right to be Free From Enslavement

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 7 of 15 PageID 1667
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 8

223. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-222 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 224 through 232, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Eighth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Freedom of Expression

233. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-232 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraph 234 through 240, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Ninth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Privacy

241. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-240 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 241 through 248, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Tenth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Property Without Due Process

249. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-248 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 250 through 256, Defendants deny each and every. All

allegations stated therein.

Eleventh Claim for Relief

Deprivation of 13th Amendment Right To Be Free From Enslavement

257. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-256 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 258 through 266, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Twelfth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Freedom of Expression

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 8 of 15 PageID 1668
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 9

267. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-266 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 268 through 274, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Thirteenth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Privacy

275. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-274 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 276 through 282, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Fourteenth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Property Without Due Process

283. The Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-282 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 284 through 290, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Fifteenth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of 13th Amendment Right to Be Free from Enslavement

291. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-290 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 292 through 298, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Sixteenth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Freedom of Expression

299. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-298 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraph 300 through 306, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Seventeenth Claim for Relief

Deprivation of Privacy

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 9 of 15 PageID 1669
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 10

307. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-306 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 308 through 314, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Eighteenth Claim for Relief

RICO

315. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-314 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 315 through 326, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations stated therein.

Nineteenth Claim for Relief

RICO Conspiracy

327. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-326 if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 328 through 337, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegation stated therein.

Twentieth Claim for Relief

RICO

338. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-337 if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 339 through 348, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations as stated therein.

Twenty-First Claim for Relief

RICO

349. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-348 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraph 350 through 359, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations as stated therein.

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 10 of 15 PageID 1670
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 11

Twenty-Second Claim for Relief

Legal Malpractice

360-366. This Count relates to parties other than the Defendants

to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required

all allegations are denied by the Defendants.

Twenty-Third Claim for Relief

Unjust Enrichment

367. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-366 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 368 through 370, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations as stated therein.

Twenty-Fourth Claim for Relief

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

371. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-370 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 371 through 374, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations as stated therein.

Twenty-Fifth Claim for Relief

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

375. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-374 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 376 through 382, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations as stated therein.

Twenty Sixth Claim for Relief

Conspiracy to Deprive Rights

383. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to

paragraphs 1-382 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 384 through 392, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations as stated therein.

Twenty Seventh Claim for Relief

Neglect to Prevent Conspiracy

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 11 of 15 PageID 1671
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 12

393. Defendants re-allege and incorporate their answers to paragraphs

1-392 as if set forth separately herein.

Paragraphs 394 through 400, Defendants deny each and every, all

allegations as stated therein.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

First Affirmative Defense

Defendant VocEdit, Inc. was not incorporated in the state of Texas

until July 28, 2005.This particular Defendant was not in existence

during any of the alleged relevant time periods Plaintiffs make their

assertions upon.

Second Affirmative Defense

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the complaint does not allege cognizable

state action upon which such claims must be based.

Third Affirmative Defense

The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint fails to state any claim upon

which relief can be granted against any Defendant.

Fourth Affirmative Defense

The Complaint seeks to assert claims stated by Plaintiff Tsephanyah

Hawkins on behalf of the dismissed corporate plaintiff Courtroom Data

Solutions, Inc. One of the sales of the computerized data systems was

allegedly by and between Courtroom Data Solutions, Inc, during a

period when its former name was Stenoscibe, Inc., and NIRR. The

Plaintiffs allege that somehow they were damaged individually by the

money not being paid to them, individually, in some manner as they

believed it should have been paid. Those funds would have been

corporate funds. As stated by NIRR, a lien or notice has been filed

against it by the Internal Revenue Service for taxes owed by such

corporation. Plaintiffs would not have any right to any alleged cause

of action as to the business dealings by and between those two

entities.

Fifth Affirmative Defense

The Complaint fails to plead its allegation of special damages with

particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g).

Sixth Affirmative Defense

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 12 of 15 PageID 1672
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 13

The Complaint fails to plead with particularity the required

predicate acts necessary to set forth a claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961

and 1962.

Seventh Affirmative Defense

A. Based on information and belief, Hutchison’s real name at this time

is Riyyahnah Tipharahyah Hawkins. .

B. Attached to the ANSWER OF RIYYAHNAH TIPHARAHYAH HAWKINS

A/K/A CLAUDIA HUTCHINSON, STENOSCRIBE, INC., QANAYAH YISRAYL HAWKINS

A/K/A/ NORMAN OSTER, AND VOICEDIT, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein for all purposes,

is a true and correct authenticated copy of the PROVISIONAL

APPLICATION FOR PATENT, the original of which was filed with the

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Such application was

filed by the Plaintiff Tsephanyah Y Hawkins. As is evidenced by such

document, Hutchison is a co-inventor with reference to the

computerized court reporter system that is the basis of the state

court action and the computerized court reporter system complained

herein by the Plaintiffs. Defendants believes and therefore alleges

that any usage of such reporter system would have been with the express

consent of Defendant Hutchison, who is a co-inventor of such system.

C. Based on information and belief, Defendants believes that

Hutchison has a right to have the computerized court reporter system,

and market it and use it any way she wants. Defendants would show the

court that at all relevant times, Hutchison gave them permission to

utilize in any way such computer court reporting software.

Eight Affirmative Defense and Special Exception to Plaintiff

Yahchanan Y. Hawkins

As to Plaintiff Yahchanan Y. Hawkins, it is the Defendants belief and

they therefore allege that such Plaintiff was at all relevant times

either an employee of Plaintiff Tsephanyah Y. Hawkins, or an

independent contractor of Courtroom Data Solutions, Inc., who made

the sound cards or boards, and microphones for the computerized court

reporter system.

It is the Defendants belief and they therefore allege that at relevant

times, Plaintiff Tsephanyah Y. Hawkins was taking money out of

Courtroom Data Solutions, Inc. payable to himself and then would pay

cash to Plaintiff Yahchanan Y. Hawkins for the purchase of the sound

cards or boards or microphones utilized in the computerized court

reporter system. When such corporation did in fact pay funds directly

to Plaintiff Yahchanan Y. Hawkins, it is the Defendants belief and

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 13 of 15 PageID 1673
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 14

they therefore allege, his status with such corporation was as an

independent contractor in manufacturing such cards. The Second

Amended Complaint wholly fails to state any alleged cause of action

Plaintiff Yahchanan Y. Hawkins has against any of these Defendants.

In the Second Amended Petition there are no allegations that at any

time Plaintiff Yahchanan Y. Hawkins, an authorized agent, servant or

employee of such corporation, or of Plaintiff Tsephanyah Y. Hawkins,

or that he had any type of alleged relationship with any of these

Defendants.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, said Defendants, respectfully pray

judgment of the Court that the Plaintiffs claims against these

Defendants be dismissed, that Plaintiffs take nothing, that

Defendants recover their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, and

for such other and further relief, general or special, both at law

or in equity, to which each Defendant may be entitled.

Defendants demands a jury trial on all counts.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

_________________________________

Gary M. Brown, SBN 03123500

3041 South 7th, Abilene, Texas 79605

(325)673-9599; fax (325)673-5772

Attorney for Defendants

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 14 of 15 PageID 1674
ANSWER OF HUTCHISON, OSTER, STENOSCRIBE & VOCEDIT

TO PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PAGE 15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this the _8th day of February, 2006,

I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of

court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas,

using the electronic case filing system of the court. The

electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic

Filing” to the attorneys of record who have consented in writing

to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic

means.

I hereby certify that I made service by Certified Mail, Return

Receipt Requested, or by Fax if number is show, to the following

persons as addressed below:

Tsephanyah Y. Hawkins Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

3706 Private Road 2547

Clyde, Texas 79510

Yahchanan Y. Hawkins Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested

3471 Private Road 2541

Clyde, Texas 79510

/s/ Gary M. Brown_______________________________

Gary M. Brown

Case 1:05-cv-00184-C Document 108 Filed 02/06/06 Page 15 of 15 PageID 1675