Transcription
Sir, I made a finding on the merits in that previous order and then also made a comment about res judicata. But go on. Yeah, and you're, and you're wrong. It wasn't. If it was, if it was, if the, if it was litigated, show me exactly where it was litigated. That's not difficult. And that's, and you're supposed to be a hearing officer. You've injected yourself in quite a few of these hearings. If you have a witness, Mr. Vent, which I didn't know you were the attorney, had the witness come forward and produce the document so I can cross-examine the witness as to the veracity of the document, a veracity of the document.
There's a previous finding by Judge Ayers regarding Judge Rest deata. There's a previous finding on your. No, she did not. Judge Ayers decided the case. It did not apply to this case. She never addressed the 120-day service of process. And if she did, show it to me. And Judge DePal made a comment that res judicata appears to apply. On the appears, tell him to prove it. That's Judge Smith. Tell him to prove it. It's, she, Judge DePal handled the emergency hearing. Or she may have. She recited what, what Miss McCarthy said. I don't even know if they're listening or not. Whether she said it appears. Next order that that determined your hearing, your motion was not an emergency. No, that, that's fine. But the bottom line still exists. There's no evidence that you served within 120 days. Just have one of the judges say that the 120-day rule for service of process does not apply to Mr. Doss or people who, who are similarly situated to Mr. Doss. That question has never been addressed. Tell the judge before they rubber stamp it because we know that Gregory versus Rice stated that a judge should take your, uh, he can take your recommendation, but he's not merely to rubber stamp it. He's supposed to go and check the record. So it should be really easy for them to just write the doggone order out and then I can either mandamus or or what we have to, whatever we have to do because now that becomes a fundamental law, an issue of fundamental, uh, rights protection. But the 120, I need a judge somewhere to say the 120-day rule was strictly complied with. That's the issue.
Okay, anything else, sir? Well, I've challenged jurisdiction. I just need you all to put it in the record. And by the way, is Miss, is Mrs. Britt? What's Mrs. Britt here to testify to? She's here because she's a department representative. Nobody's called her as a witness yet. Okay, let me go ahead and cite, uh, Venetian Salty Company versus S.P.A.R.T.H.E.N.A.I.S., 554 So. 2d 44499, I'm sorry, comma, 502 out of the Florida Supreme Court. If a defendant, a defendant wishing to contest the allegation of the complaint concerning jurisdiction or to raise a contention of minimum contacts must file affidavits in support of his position. I've done that. The burden is then placed upon the plaintiff, which would be the Department of Revenue, to prove by affidavit the basis upon which jurisdiction may be obtained. Can I call Miss Britt as a witness? By the way, what purpose?