Preview
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL LAWRINENKO +) # 1 2 0 3 6 1
)
Petitioner, )
)
The Honorable Lori L. Jackson, _) STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Associate Judge of the District )
Court of Pontotoc County, y APR 22 2022
) JOHN D. HADDEN
Respondent, ) CLERK
)
Re Marriage of: )
MICHAEL LAWRINENKO, __) FILED
Petitioner, )
) FD-2021-11 APR 2-7 2022
) PO-2021-69
) mt oe
Vs. ) Deputy
LUDMYLA LAWRINENKO, )
)
Respondent, )
APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Comes now the Petitioner Michael Lawrinenko, prose, with his APPLICATION TO
ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
PROHIBITION WITH MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JACKSON FROM THESE CASES
because the appearance of a fair hearing and trial regarding a citation for contempt related to the
protective order case is not present. Pursuant to O.S. T. 12, Ch. 2, App., Rule 15.
Disqualification of Judges in Civil and Criminal Cases, 16 Notes of Decisions, Presumptions;
Recusal of the current judge and transfer of original jurisdiction to the Oklahoma Supreme Court
is sought because the Petitioner has been misheard, denied motions and requests in orders
stemming from a possible exparte hearing out of which the judge has denied orders and granted
motion which was never heard in court, received improper service of process, has been denied
proper discovery and his motions to compel and for sanctions were put off to a final hearing
while Ludmyla’s motions to compel and for sanctions were heard for which she was granted
custody of our minor child. Further, his discovery requests which were issued from licensed
attorneys were mischaracterized as an apparent pattern of harassment and abuse of discovery
code. This APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FORWRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION WITH MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE
JACKSON FROM THESE CASES is hereby filed as motions to recuse the judge in accordance
with Rule 15 were denied. In support of this application with petition and motion, the Petitioner
shows as follows:
1. The Oklahoma Constitution, Article 7, Sec. 4 grants original jurisdiction to this Court to
exercise superintendent control over inferior courts and state agencies,
2. Pursuant to Article.7, Sec. 4, this Court has the power to issue, hear, and determine writs
of mandamus and prohibition to inferior tribunals. Movers may therefore invoke the
original jurisdiction of this Court and petition it to issue, hear, and determine
extraordinary writs against an inferior court.
3. Unless this Court assumes original jurisdiction of this cause, the Petitioner will be
deprived of a fair hearing regarding divorce and trial for contempt lacking proper
discovery and exculpatory evidence which he is entitled to by the United States
Constitution and Amendments therein.
4. Misuse of Protective Order is abuse of judicial discretion that gave my ex-wife
undue advantage and should be prohibited: A protective order PO-2021-69 was heard
on 9-7-2022 where I appeared with my attorney. When Judge Jackson asked my ex-wife
how I have harmed or threatened her, her responses were that I made doctor
appointments for my son and that I took him to the gym. I understand that the emergency
hearing is exparte, however whatever evidence that was presented really should have
been presented at the hearing to justify a protective order. There are valid reasons for a
protective order, however this protective order has been an abusive process that has been
used for the exact reasons strictly prohibited by law: limitation of child visitation, gaining
of undue advantage in the custody dispute of our child, intimidation, and harassment. His
mother neglected our son’s medical and educational needs and the judge allowed
this. How can a protective order be justified by taking one’s child to the doctor, the gym,
or to the park? I suspect that my ex-wife with or without her attorney presented false and
misleading statements and I recently learned that she with her older son have been
staging firearms and alcohol containers with our child to give the appearance that I did
this. I should have been held accountable for evidence presented and yet there was no
evidence presented, only her testimony that I took our son to the gym and that I
scheduled a doctor appointment for him; yet a protective order was given which has
given undue advantage to my ex-wife which has precluded me from obtaining evidence,
deprived me of time with my son, and unjustly violated my Constitutional rights. US
Title 18 Sec. 240 strictly prohibits such abuse of power and I demand that protective
orders be properly heard and that evidence be presented to justify such orders; and that
this Court prohibits the issuance and persistence of protective orders designed to simply
give leverage to women so that they can gain custody and deprive fathers of their rights
to be fathers because men are people too and we also have rights.
5. Denied proper discovery: My ex-wife accused me of stalking and placing stalking
software on her phone. She made these accusations in her written statement on her
application for an emergency order of protection. A discovery request was made for her
phone and any electronic device she uses that tracks location so that the GPS history ofher devices could be compared to mine. A court approved forensic investigative service
was identified that could do this. Judge Jackson denied this forensic investigation which
would have yielded objective, exculpatory evidence that would clearly show that I never
stalked her. A recent case law and review of law literature clearly show that such
investigation is warranted:
a. Timms v. LZM LLC (No. 15-20700, 657 Fed. App’x 228 (5" Cir. Jul 5, 2016):
Plaintiff produced partial discovery and request was made for forensic
examination of electronic devices to complete discovery. Court granted this after
hearing and sanctioned Timms in costs and fees associated with forensic
examination.
b. Likewise, I requested Facebook and other information from my ex-wife and she
produced partial discovery and continues to accuse me of stalking, which yielded
a contempt citation specifically for stalking. Post hoc examination of GPS data
will demonstrate that I never stalked her and the photographs that her son Mykola
Mostbauer and friends took of my ex-wife driving by me, walking toward me, and
then accused me of stalking her, coupled with date, time, and location of
electronic images, in comparison with GPS data will clearly show that she staged
the incidents; that she approached me, then falsely accused me of stalking.
c. Literature review on forensic examination of electronic devices
i. Hamilton, M., Fisher, D., and Adams, S. 2019. How courts are treating
cellphone privacy in discovery. https://www.troutman.com/insights/how-
courts-are-treating-cellphone-privacy-in-discovery.html
ii, Gershowitz, A.M., 2016. The post-Riley search warrant: search protocols
and particularity in cell phone searches. Vand. L. Rev., 69, p.585.
iii. Giirses, S., Berendt, B. and Santen, T., 2006. Multilateral security
requirements analysis for preserving privacy in ubiquitous environments.
In Proceedings of the UKDU Workshop (pp. 51-64).
iv. Gavison, R., 1980. Privacy and the Limits of Law. The Yale law
Journal, 89(3), pp.421-471.
d. A brief perusal of law literature collectively indicates that forensic examination of
electronic devices is permissible under discovery code and while the Supreme
Court ensures that we all have a right to privacy, specific discovery requests
tailored for specific information should be compelled by the Court, such as my
request for GPS data to exonerate me of stalking allegations and video taken by
my ex-wife’s son who recorded an incident where she and her friends conspired
to have me arrested at child exchange and made a 911 call under false pretense.
Further, third party examination such as I suggested by a court approved examiner
should be made, yet I was denied this and now deprived of exculpatory evidence
with a final hearing upcoming and fear of incarceration based on fabricated and
otherwise circumstantial evidence.
6. Harassment and intimidation using a bogus protective order: I was arraigned for
contempt of court for stalking on 12-2-2022. Judge Jackson called me to the bench and
arraigned me. I asked “What did I do?” because I had no idea what was going on and shescreamed at me “You shut your mouth and speak when spoken to.” She then told me that
my attorney would explain everything. I was surprised and felt intimidated. No judge
should cite a person for contempt without cause. I was cited for allegations of stalking in
an Application for Contempt Citation dated 12-2-2021. There must have been some kind
of evidence presented, yet when I tried to present evidence in my filing and at the 3-17-
2022 hearing, the judge told me that evidence would be heard at trial. Why is Mr. Butner
allowed to present evidence that yields a contempt citation on 12-2-2022 and I am not
allowed to present any evidence to dismiss a protective order? Even the judge’s bailiff
told me that sometimes these dockets break out into trials. Obviously, presentation of
evidence shapes the case; however, I am not allowed to present anything while Mr.
Butner is allowed to make false accusations that result in me being arraigned for
contempt of court. This just does not seem consistent and suggests partiality.
. Mischaracterization of discovery that resulted in denial of motions, requests, and
subpoena: My discovery requests were mischaracterized as duplicative and an apparent
pattern of harassment in the judge’s ‘Order denying certain pending motions’ from the 3-
17-2022 final pre-trial hearing. I now see that when I make an explanation, my statements
will be ignored and ruling will be based on what is “heard.” Mr. Butner’s accusations of
duplicative discovery and motion for a discovery protective order hidden in the motion to
quash that was never heard in court in my ex-wife’s third pre-trial conference statement
which are included in the judge’s Order Denying Certain Pending Motions is a clear
indication that this judge will hear from Mr. Butner and ignore me. I stated during that
hearing that a discovery response I received from Mr. Butner was not response to what
was issued to his office. That statement is omitted from the transcript, was ignored, and I
was denied the audio record of the hearing so that I can prove what I say.
. Partiality regarding motions to compel and for sanctions: I lost custody of my son
because my first attorney Mr. Billingsley (my attorney at the time) decided to wait until
after court on 5-6-2021, after Mr. Butner’s motions to compel and for sanctions were
heard to even begin to work on my discovery response which I sent him months earlier,
yet when J asked about my motion to compel discovery on 3-17-2022, the judge told me
that this would be heard at the next hearing which was the final hearing. This statement is
missing from the transcript of the hearing. I find it illogical that a motion to compel will
be heard at the final hearing because the purpose of this motion is to seek the court’s
power to compel discovery. I requested the audio record of the hearing and was denied
this. I was denied discovery, my discovery was mischaracterized, my statements ignored,
and now I am set for final hearing and trial for contempt and have been denied discovery.
I feel that I am not being given a fair opportunity in court because my motions are
brushed off and unheard and yet my ex-wife’s motions are heard, This just seems partial
which translates to prejudice against me.
. Motion to quash in Respondent’s 3-17-2022 pre-trial conference statement was never
heard in court. Besides this motion never being heard in court, Mr. Butner had 14 days to
file an objection and never did. He had until 2-28-2022 to do this and ignored the
subpoena and filed a quash that was granted on 3-17-2022, This just seems to show
partiality toward Mr. Butner and Respondent.10.
11.
12.
The Judge disregarded dishonesty of the attorney: Rule 2.15(c) of the Code of
Judicial conduct states “A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a
violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial
question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other
respects shall inform the appropriate authority.” I pointed out how Mr. Butner made
several false statements to the court regarding important matters including improper tax
filing by my ex-wife which is illegal and designed to cost me more money and the fact
that she never took the Divorcing Well class which was also part of the 12-2-2021
Domestic Scheduling Order. In fact, Mr. Butner lied to the judge twice about this on 3-
17-2022. The judge’s response at the hearing for motion for recusal was that she did not
know who was lying when I pointed it out in the transcript of the hearing. This just seems
to me that she is ignoring the Code of Judicial conduct on this matter because an attorney
is supposed to be honest according to Rule 1.2 of the OBA’s Standards of
Professionalism and yet Mr. Butner makes false statements in open court and this was
brushed off. If other people make false statements, would this also be ignored? I feel that
there may be some partiality toward Mr. Butner.
Improper service of process: A pre-trial hearing was scheduled on 1-6-2022. Mr.
Butner wrote to the judge, exparte, at 4:15 AM that morning and requested more time to
review the motions that I filed, motions that he had accessed on ODCR. He claimed to
have COVID and that he was self-isolating. When we had the hearing, Judge Jackson,
called him by phone, started the hearing, where I asked about my discovery requests. Mr.
Butner then claimed to have COVID, that his office staff was limited (discovery requests
were made months before), then he declared some emergency and hung up the phone.
This terminated the hearing and nothing was heard. Mr. Butner was allowed to control
the court and now I am at a final hearing. I later determined that he lied about his and was
taking clients and not self-isolating. This issue was brought up at the 4-12-2022 hearing
to recuse the judge and Judge Jackson wanted to move on from that topic and not hold
Mr. Butner accountable for denying me due process and making false statement which
misled the court. I was denied due process, proper discovery, and now I am looking
forward to final hearing which I cannot expect to be fair because I am denied exculpatory
evidence and fear being jailed based on false accusations and statements regarding
stalking.
Exparte hearing of motions: Immediately prior to the final pre-trial conference on 3-17-
2022, Judge Jackson scolded me from the bench and accused me of staring at her. I was
standing at the courtroom entrance waiting for my case to be called. My ex-wife was
seated in the court and I was afraid to enter to be falsely accused of something as there is
a protective order against me. Judge Jackson then said something I could not hear and
went to her chambers and Mr. Butner and Joshua Edward (another attorney present in the
court room who has no party to this case) left the court and rapidly walked through the
judge’s bailiff’s office and to her chambers and met the judge in there. The door was then
closed. This meeting gave an appearance of impropriety and my ex-wife’s motion to
quash subpoena was granted, yet never heard in court, There was mention of her other
motions which were deferred to future hearing in the judge’s orders and none of this washeard in court. My motions, requests, and subpoenas were characterized as duplicative
and such other motions, requests, and subpoenas are also denied in the judge’s orders.
a. Motion to quash was never heard in court: Subpoena was issued to Mr. Butner on
2-10-2022 to comply with discovery as the court ordered deadline to comply with
discovery by 12-30-2021 in the 12-2-2021 Domestic Scheduling Order that was
ignored, Mr. Butner was found lying and misleading the court as usual, used
COVID as an excuse to avoid court on 1-6-2022 when I received improper
service of process (Mr. Butner appeared in court by phone, then hung up so
nothing would be heard, Mr. Butner wrote me by email on 2-2-2022 that he would
send discovery responses shortly, and I continued to wait patiently with an
upcoming final pre-trial court date of 3-17-2022. I needed to obtain discovery to
be ready for court and I clearly saw that Mr. Butner was refusing to comply with
discovery. Therefore, my discovery requests were never duplicative and subpoena
was issued because Respondent and Mr. Butner failed to comply with discovery
deadline on the 12-2-2021 ‘Domestic Scheduling Order’. In that subpoena duces
tecum, he was also ordered to provide wage information so that I could file
income taxes as Responded was required to pursuant to OS 43-110A.1. H(1) and
Vernon’s Oklahoma Forms with Practice Commentaries, District Court Part 5,
Chapter 82, ‘Domestic Relations Matters,’ Section 5357.5 ‘Tax Aspects of
Divorce’ (F. Tax Returns) which clearly states that until divorce is finalized,
parties must exchange wage earnings in order to file using the married status for
the most favorable tax result. Mr. Butner knew this and ignored my emails
regarding this matter. I brought up this issue at the 4-12-2022 hearing to recuse
the judge and Judge Jackson told me that that issue should be brought up with the
tax preparer, however it really should have been addressed in court. Mr. Butner
was also ordered to produce COVID test results for the 1-6-2022 hearing because
he claimed to have COVID and could not come to court that day. He admitted in
an exparte letter to the judge that he was tested for COVID on 1-5-2022. He was
also asked to produce those test results because he used COVID as a means to
avoid court and get more time. I later determined that he lied about this. Judge
Jackson called him from the bench by phone, I asked him about discovery, he
claimed that his office was sick with COVID (yet ignored discovery requests for
three months at that point), then he declared some emergency, hung up the phone,
and Judge Jackson stated to me that court is over. Nothing was heard and I was
denied proper service of process as a result, only to have the next, final pre-trial,
where again, nothing was heard from me with the exception of removing the
Respondent’s twenty year old son from the family phone plan. I don’t think that it
is fair that I have been forced to pay for other people’s phone usage for over a
year and a half and this was never heard in court-two people (20 and 14 years old)
that are not even my kids.
b. A Motion to Consolidate dated 9-8-2022 was never heard in court. This motion
was only mentioned on 12-2-2021 “summary order,” where it was considered,however crossed out. This motion was invalid anyway because Mr. Butner never
sent it to my lawyer as required by law Order of Protection dated 9-7-2021.
c. Finally, in the ‘Order denying certain pending motions’ from the 3-17-2022 final
pre-trial hearing, a final scheduling order for the protective order was filed which
included my son, her 14 year old son Ievgen, and her adult son Mykola-all who
were dismissed from the protective order on 9-7-2021. Mr. Butner got them re-
added so that I would not be able to see my son after divorce because of a pending
Motion for Mental Health and Substance Abuse assessment that was ‘preserved
for future hearing.’ This motion, motion to consolidate (which was not sent to my
attorney as properly required), and motion to quash were never heard in court.
Rather, they were heard ex parte when the judge summoned Mr. Butner and
Joshua Edwards to her chambers just before the final pre-trial conference. I restate
that in the transcript of the hearing, Mr. Butner noted that he just filed a third
pretrial conference statement which the judge was unaware of on page 2, line 23
of the transcript of the 3-17-2022 hearing. She stated on page 2, line 25 that she
looked yesterday and did not see anything in response and Mr. Butner then stated
that I was not provided with it yet and that he would give it to me in open court.
Mention of motions in her pre-trial conference statement were not heard in court
and were referred to in the ‘Order denying certain pending motions’ dated 3-17-
2022.
13. Mischaracterization of discovery: Exhibits 4 and 5 are discovery requests sent from
Mr. Billingsley and Mr. Wilson.
a. My first discovery request was merely a request for phones which was already
tuled on. I made request to have phones forensically examined, including mine, to
compare GPS coordinate history to disprove stalking allegations in defense
against a protective order and later, the associated contempt citation. This was my
exculpatory evidence pursuant to my Brady rights (Brady v Maryland 1963).
b. My second discovery request was Mr. Wilson’s standard discovery with
interrogatories because my former attorney Mr. Billingsley never issued proper
discovery. Respondent was violating the 12-2-2021 domestic scheduling order to
comply with discovery by 12-30-2021, therefore court order and subpoena was
fully justifiable. Mr. Butner wrote me on 2-2-2022 that he would send her
discovery shortly, yet waited until 3-10-2022 to do so and this first response was
not response to what was issued as I stated in court, however my statement is
abridged in the transcript from page 8, line 6 of the transcript.
c. My statement was ignored and judgement was based on what Mr. Butner
presented in Respondent’s third alias pre-trial conference statement where two
additional motions were slipped in the motion to quash. These were deferred to
future hearing. This conference statement was first made available to me in court
after the exparte meeting and can be referenced on page 2, starting at line 19 of
the transcript of the 3-17-2022 hearing where Judge Jackson asked if anything
new has been filed; that she looked the day prior and did not see anything. Again,
this motion to quash was never presented in court.d. Mischaracterization of my discovery was used to justify a ‘discovery protective
order’ in her third pre-trial conference statement, also mentioned in the Order
denying certain pending motions; for the alleged purpose of precluding me from
obtaining discovery for an appellate hearing. I explained this at the motion to
recuse the judge hearing on 4-11-2022 and Judge Jackson gave a discussion about
the purpose of discovery and completely ignored my explanation. I see that twice
now, my statements are ignored and the judge rules in favor of opposing counsel.
This is a clear demonstration of prejudice and I feel that I will not have a fair
hearing before this judge.
WHEREFORE, Michael Lawrinenko respectfully presents his APPLICATION TO
ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND
PROHIBITION WITH MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JACKSON FROM THESE CASES and
affirms that this PETITION and MOTION is immediately ready for hearing by the SUPREME
COURT and is hereby Motioned to be Scheduled for hearing.
L, Michael Lawrinenko, hereby certify that on this day of April 22, 2022, I mailed
Richard E. Butner, Attorney for Respondent, with a correct copy of this MOTION TO RECUSE
THE JUDGE and setting same for hearing by email and US mail to Butner and Butner,
Attomeys at Law, P.O. Box 1460, Wewoka, OK 74884, Judge Lori Jackson, Pontotoc County
District Court, 120 W. 13" St., Ada, Ok, 74820, and to James H. Kemp, 830 N Broadway Ave.,
PO Box 297, Ada, OK, 74821, Guardian ad Litem by US mail.
" Michael Lawrinenko
Phone: (580) 320-4117
Email: lawrinenko.mike@gmail.com
10094 County Road 1542, Ada, OK 74820 I; LL Co
He Michael Lawrinenko
Preview
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA MICHAEL LAWRINENKO +) # 1 2 0 3 6 1 ) Petitioner, ) ) The Honorable Lori L. Jackson, _) STATE OF OKLAHOMA Associate Judge of the District ) Court of Pontotoc County, y APR 22 2022 ) JOHN D. HADDEN Respondent, ) CLERK ) Re Marriage of: ) MICHAEL LAWRINENKO, __) FILED Petitioner, ) ) FD-2021-11 APR 2-7 2022 ) PO-2021-69 ) mt oe Vs. ) Deputy LUDMYLA LAWRINENKO, ) ) Respondent, ) APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Comes now the Petitioner Michael Lawrinenko, prose, with his APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION WITH MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JACKSON FROM THESE CASES because the appearance of a fair hearing and trial regarding a citation for contempt related to the protective order case is not present. Pursuant to O.S. T. 12, Ch. 2, App., Rule 15. Disqualification of Judges in Civil and Criminal Cases, 16 Notes of Decisions, Presumptions; Recusal of the current judge and transfer of original jurisdiction to the Oklahoma Supreme Court is sought because the Petitioner has been misheard, denied motions and requests in orders stemming from a possible exparte hearing out of which the judge has denied orders and granted motion which was never heard in court, received improper service of process, has been denied proper discovery and his motions to compel and for sanctions were put off to a final hearing while Ludmyla’s motions to compel and for sanctions were heard for which she was granted custody of our minor child. Further, his discovery requests which were issued from licensed attorneys were mischaracterized as an apparent pattern of harassment and abuse of discovery code. This APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FORWRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION WITH MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JACKSON FROM THESE CASES is hereby filed as motions to recuse the judge in accordance with Rule 15 were denied. In support of this application with petition and motion, the Petitioner shows as follows: 1. The Oklahoma Constitution, Article 7, Sec. 4 grants original jurisdiction to this Court to exercise superintendent control over inferior courts and state agencies, 2. Pursuant to Article.7, Sec. 4, this Court has the power to issue, hear, and determine writs of mandamus and prohibition to inferior tribunals. Movers may therefore invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court and petition it to issue, hear, and determine extraordinary writs against an inferior court. 3. Unless this Court assumes original jurisdiction of this cause, the Petitioner will be deprived of a fair hearing regarding divorce and trial for contempt lacking proper discovery and exculpatory evidence which he is entitled to by the United States Constitution and Amendments therein. 4. Misuse of Protective Order is abuse of judicial discretion that gave my ex-wife undue advantage and should be prohibited: A protective order PO-2021-69 was heard on 9-7-2022 where I appeared with my attorney. When Judge Jackson asked my ex-wife how I have harmed or threatened her, her responses were that I made doctor appointments for my son and that I took him to the gym. I understand that the emergency hearing is exparte, however whatever evidence that was presented really should have been presented at the hearing to justify a protective order. There are valid reasons for a protective order, however this protective order has been an abusive process that has been used for the exact reasons strictly prohibited by law: limitation of child visitation, gaining of undue advantage in the custody dispute of our child, intimidation, and harassment. His mother neglected our son’s medical and educational needs and the judge allowed this. How can a protective order be justified by taking one’s child to the doctor, the gym, or to the park? I suspect that my ex-wife with or without her attorney presented false and misleading statements and I recently learned that she with her older son have been staging firearms and alcohol containers with our child to give the appearance that I did this. I should have been held accountable for evidence presented and yet there was no evidence presented, only her testimony that I took our son to the gym and that I scheduled a doctor appointment for him; yet a protective order was given which has given undue advantage to my ex-wife which has precluded me from obtaining evidence, deprived me of time with my son, and unjustly violated my Constitutional rights. US Title 18 Sec. 240 strictly prohibits such abuse of power and I demand that protective orders be properly heard and that evidence be presented to justify such orders; and that this Court prohibits the issuance and persistence of protective orders designed to simply give leverage to women so that they can gain custody and deprive fathers of their rights to be fathers because men are people too and we also have rights. 5. Denied proper discovery: My ex-wife accused me of stalking and placing stalking software on her phone. She made these accusations in her written statement on her application for an emergency order of protection. A discovery request was made for her phone and any electronic device she uses that tracks location so that the GPS history ofher devices could be compared to mine. A court approved forensic investigative service was identified that could do this. Judge Jackson denied this forensic investigation which would have yielded objective, exculpatory evidence that would clearly show that I never stalked her. A recent case law and review of law literature clearly show that such investigation is warranted: a. Timms v. LZM LLC (No. 15-20700, 657 Fed. App’x 228 (5" Cir. Jul 5, 2016): Plaintiff produced partial discovery and request was made for forensic examination of electronic devices to complete discovery. Court granted this after hearing and sanctioned Timms in costs and fees associated with forensic examination. b. Likewise, I requested Facebook and other information from my ex-wife and she produced partial discovery and continues to accuse me of stalking, which yielded a contempt citation specifically for stalking. Post hoc examination of GPS data will demonstrate that I never stalked her and the photographs that her son Mykola Mostbauer and friends took of my ex-wife driving by me, walking toward me, and then accused me of stalking her, coupled with date, time, and location of electronic images, in comparison with GPS data will clearly show that she staged the incidents; that she approached me, then falsely accused me of stalking. c. Literature review on forensic examination of electronic devices i. Hamilton, M., Fisher, D., and Adams, S. 2019. How courts are treating cellphone privacy in discovery. https://www.troutman.com/insights/how- courts-are-treating-cellphone-privacy-in-discovery.html ii, Gershowitz, A.M., 2016. The post-Riley search warrant: search protocols and particularity in cell phone searches. Vand. L. Rev., 69, p.585. iii. Giirses, S., Berendt, B. and Santen, T., 2006. Multilateral security requirements analysis for preserving privacy in ubiquitous environments. In Proceedings of the UKDU Workshop (pp. 51-64). iv. Gavison, R., 1980. Privacy and the Limits of Law. The Yale law Journal, 89(3), pp.421-471. d. A brief perusal of law literature collectively indicates that forensic examination of electronic devices is permissible under discovery code and while the Supreme Court ensures that we all have a right to privacy, specific discovery requests tailored for specific information should be compelled by the Court, such as my request for GPS data to exonerate me of stalking allegations and video taken by my ex-wife’s son who recorded an incident where she and her friends conspired to have me arrested at child exchange and made a 911 call under false pretense. Further, third party examination such as I suggested by a court approved examiner should be made, yet I was denied this and now deprived of exculpatory evidence with a final hearing upcoming and fear of incarceration based on fabricated and otherwise circumstantial evidence. 6. Harassment and intimidation using a bogus protective order: I was arraigned for contempt of court for stalking on 12-2-2022. Judge Jackson called me to the bench and arraigned me. I asked “What did I do?” because I had no idea what was going on and shescreamed at me “You shut your mouth and speak when spoken to.” She then told me that my attorney would explain everything. I was surprised and felt intimidated. No judge should cite a person for contempt without cause. I was cited for allegations of stalking in an Application for Contempt Citation dated 12-2-2021. There must have been some kind of evidence presented, yet when I tried to present evidence in my filing and at the 3-17- 2022 hearing, the judge told me that evidence would be heard at trial. Why is Mr. Butner allowed to present evidence that yields a contempt citation on 12-2-2022 and I am not allowed to present any evidence to dismiss a protective order? Even the judge’s bailiff told me that sometimes these dockets break out into trials. Obviously, presentation of evidence shapes the case; however, I am not allowed to present anything while Mr. Butner is allowed to make false accusations that result in me being arraigned for contempt of court. This just does not seem consistent and suggests partiality. . Mischaracterization of discovery that resulted in denial of motions, requests, and subpoena: My discovery requests were mischaracterized as duplicative and an apparent pattern of harassment in the judge’s ‘Order denying certain pending motions’ from the 3- 17-2022 final pre-trial hearing. I now see that when I make an explanation, my statements will be ignored and ruling will be based on what is “heard.” Mr. Butner’s accusations of duplicative discovery and motion for a discovery protective order hidden in the motion to quash that was never heard in court in my ex-wife’s third pre-trial conference statement which are included in the judge’s Order Denying Certain Pending Motions is a clear indication that this judge will hear from Mr. Butner and ignore me. I stated during that hearing that a discovery response I received from Mr. Butner was not response to what was issued to his office. That statement is omitted from the transcript, was ignored, and I was denied the audio record of the hearing so that I can prove what I say. . Partiality regarding motions to compel and for sanctions: I lost custody of my son because my first attorney Mr. Billingsley (my attorney at the time) decided to wait until after court on 5-6-2021, after Mr. Butner’s motions to compel and for sanctions were heard to even begin to work on my discovery response which I sent him months earlier, yet when J asked about my motion to compel discovery on 3-17-2022, the judge told me that this would be heard at the next hearing which was the final hearing. This statement is missing from the transcript of the hearing. I find it illogical that a motion to compel will be heard at the final hearing because the purpose of this motion is to seek the court’s power to compel discovery. I requested the audio record of the hearing and was denied this. I was denied discovery, my discovery was mischaracterized, my statements ignored, and now I am set for final hearing and trial for contempt and have been denied discovery. I feel that I am not being given a fair opportunity in court because my motions are brushed off and unheard and yet my ex-wife’s motions are heard, This just seems partial which translates to prejudice against me. . Motion to quash in Respondent’s 3-17-2022 pre-trial conference statement was never heard in court. Besides this motion never being heard in court, Mr. Butner had 14 days to file an objection and never did. He had until 2-28-2022 to do this and ignored the subpoena and filed a quash that was granted on 3-17-2022, This just seems to show partiality toward Mr. Butner and Respondent.10. 11. 12. The Judge disregarded dishonesty of the attorney: Rule 2.15(c) of the Code of Judicial conduct states “A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.” I pointed out how Mr. Butner made several false statements to the court regarding important matters including improper tax filing by my ex-wife which is illegal and designed to cost me more money and the fact that she never took the Divorcing Well class which was also part of the 12-2-2021 Domestic Scheduling Order. In fact, Mr. Butner lied to the judge twice about this on 3- 17-2022. The judge’s response at the hearing for motion for recusal was that she did not know who was lying when I pointed it out in the transcript of the hearing. This just seems to me that she is ignoring the Code of Judicial conduct on this matter because an attorney is supposed to be honest according to Rule 1.2 of the OBA’s Standards of Professionalism and yet Mr. Butner makes false statements in open court and this was brushed off. If other people make false statements, would this also be ignored? I feel that there may be some partiality toward Mr. Butner. Improper service of process: A pre-trial hearing was scheduled on 1-6-2022. Mr. Butner wrote to the judge, exparte, at 4:15 AM that morning and requested more time to review the motions that I filed, motions that he had accessed on ODCR. He claimed to have COVID and that he was self-isolating. When we had the hearing, Judge Jackson, called him by phone, started the hearing, where I asked about my discovery requests. Mr. Butner then claimed to have COVID, that his office staff was limited (discovery requests were made months before), then he declared some emergency and hung up the phone. This terminated the hearing and nothing was heard. Mr. Butner was allowed to control the court and now I am at a final hearing. I later determined that he lied about his and was taking clients and not self-isolating. This issue was brought up at the 4-12-2022 hearing to recuse the judge and Judge Jackson wanted to move on from that topic and not hold Mr. Butner accountable for denying me due process and making false statement which misled the court. I was denied due process, proper discovery, and now I am looking forward to final hearing which I cannot expect to be fair because I am denied exculpatory evidence and fear being jailed based on false accusations and statements regarding stalking. Exparte hearing of motions: Immediately prior to the final pre-trial conference on 3-17- 2022, Judge Jackson scolded me from the bench and accused me of staring at her. I was standing at the courtroom entrance waiting for my case to be called. My ex-wife was seated in the court and I was afraid to enter to be falsely accused of something as there is a protective order against me. Judge Jackson then said something I could not hear and went to her chambers and Mr. Butner and Joshua Edward (another attorney present in the court room who has no party to this case) left the court and rapidly walked through the judge’s bailiff’s office and to her chambers and met the judge in there. The door was then closed. This meeting gave an appearance of impropriety and my ex-wife’s motion to quash subpoena was granted, yet never heard in court, There was mention of her other motions which were deferred to future hearing in the judge’s orders and none of this washeard in court. My motions, requests, and subpoenas were characterized as duplicative and such other motions, requests, and subpoenas are also denied in the judge’s orders. a. Motion to quash was never heard in court: Subpoena was issued to Mr. Butner on 2-10-2022 to comply with discovery as the court ordered deadline to comply with discovery by 12-30-2021 in the 12-2-2021 Domestic Scheduling Order that was ignored, Mr. Butner was found lying and misleading the court as usual, used COVID as an excuse to avoid court on 1-6-2022 when I received improper service of process (Mr. Butner appeared in court by phone, then hung up so nothing would be heard, Mr. Butner wrote me by email on 2-2-2022 that he would send discovery responses shortly, and I continued to wait patiently with an upcoming final pre-trial court date of 3-17-2022. I needed to obtain discovery to be ready for court and I clearly saw that Mr. Butner was refusing to comply with discovery. Therefore, my discovery requests were never duplicative and subpoena was issued because Respondent and Mr. Butner failed to comply with discovery deadline on the 12-2-2021 ‘Domestic Scheduling Order’. In that subpoena duces tecum, he was also ordered to provide wage information so that I could file income taxes as Responded was required to pursuant to OS 43-110A.1. H(1) and Vernon’s Oklahoma Forms with Practice Commentaries, District Court Part 5, Chapter 82, ‘Domestic Relations Matters,’ Section 5357.5 ‘Tax Aspects of Divorce’ (F. Tax Returns) which clearly states that until divorce is finalized, parties must exchange wage earnings in order to file using the married status for the most favorable tax result. Mr. Butner knew this and ignored my emails regarding this matter. I brought up this issue at the 4-12-2022 hearing to recuse the judge and Judge Jackson told me that that issue should be brought up with the tax preparer, however it really should have been addressed in court. Mr. Butner was also ordered to produce COVID test results for the 1-6-2022 hearing because he claimed to have COVID and could not come to court that day. He admitted in an exparte letter to the judge that he was tested for COVID on 1-5-2022. He was also asked to produce those test results because he used COVID as a means to avoid court and get more time. I later determined that he lied about this. Judge Jackson called him from the bench by phone, I asked him about discovery, he claimed that his office was sick with COVID (yet ignored discovery requests for three months at that point), then he declared some emergency, hung up the phone, and Judge Jackson stated to me that court is over. Nothing was heard and I was denied proper service of process as a result, only to have the next, final pre-trial, where again, nothing was heard from me with the exception of removing the Respondent’s twenty year old son from the family phone plan. I don’t think that it is fair that I have been forced to pay for other people’s phone usage for over a year and a half and this was never heard in court-two people (20 and 14 years old) that are not even my kids. b. A Motion to Consolidate dated 9-8-2022 was never heard in court. This motion was only mentioned on 12-2-2021 “summary order,” where it was considered,however crossed out. This motion was invalid anyway because Mr. Butner never sent it to my lawyer as required by law Order of Protection dated 9-7-2021. c. Finally, in the ‘Order denying certain pending motions’ from the 3-17-2022 final pre-trial hearing, a final scheduling order for the protective order was filed which included my son, her 14 year old son Ievgen, and her adult son Mykola-all who were dismissed from the protective order on 9-7-2021. Mr. Butner got them re- added so that I would not be able to see my son after divorce because of a pending Motion for Mental Health and Substance Abuse assessment that was ‘preserved for future hearing.’ This motion, motion to consolidate (which was not sent to my attorney as properly required), and motion to quash were never heard in court. Rather, they were heard ex parte when the judge summoned Mr. Butner and Joshua Edwards to her chambers just before the final pre-trial conference. I restate that in the transcript of the hearing, Mr. Butner noted that he just filed a third pretrial conference statement which the judge was unaware of on page 2, line 23 of the transcript of the 3-17-2022 hearing. She stated on page 2, line 25 that she looked yesterday and did not see anything in response and Mr. Butner then stated that I was not provided with it yet and that he would give it to me in open court. Mention of motions in her pre-trial conference statement were not heard in court and were referred to in the ‘Order denying certain pending motions’ dated 3-17- 2022. 13. Mischaracterization of discovery: Exhibits 4 and 5 are discovery requests sent from Mr. Billingsley and Mr. Wilson. a. My first discovery request was merely a request for phones which was already tuled on. I made request to have phones forensically examined, including mine, to compare GPS coordinate history to disprove stalking allegations in defense against a protective order and later, the associated contempt citation. This was my exculpatory evidence pursuant to my Brady rights (Brady v Maryland 1963). b. My second discovery request was Mr. Wilson’s standard discovery with interrogatories because my former attorney Mr. Billingsley never issued proper discovery. Respondent was violating the 12-2-2021 domestic scheduling order to comply with discovery by 12-30-2021, therefore court order and subpoena was fully justifiable. Mr. Butner wrote me on 2-2-2022 that he would send her discovery shortly, yet waited until 3-10-2022 to do so and this first response was not response to what was issued as I stated in court, however my statement is abridged in the transcript from page 8, line 6 of the transcript. c. My statement was ignored and judgement was based on what Mr. Butner presented in Respondent’s third alias pre-trial conference statement where two additional motions were slipped in the motion to quash. These were deferred to future hearing. This conference statement was first made available to me in court after the exparte meeting and can be referenced on page 2, starting at line 19 of the transcript of the 3-17-2022 hearing where Judge Jackson asked if anything new has been filed; that she looked the day prior and did not see anything. Again, this motion to quash was never presented in court.d. Mischaracterization of my discovery was used to justify a ‘discovery protective order’ in her third pre-trial conference statement, also mentioned in the Order denying certain pending motions; for the alleged purpose of precluding me from obtaining discovery for an appellate hearing. I explained this at the motion to recuse the judge hearing on 4-11-2022 and Judge Jackson gave a discussion about the purpose of discovery and completely ignored my explanation. I see that twice now, my statements are ignored and the judge rules in favor of opposing counsel. This is a clear demonstration of prejudice and I feel that I will not have a fair hearing before this judge. WHEREFORE, Michael Lawrinenko respectfully presents his APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION WITH MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE JACKSON FROM THESE CASES and affirms that this PETITION and MOTION is immediately ready for hearing by the SUPREME COURT and is hereby Motioned to be Scheduled for hearing. L, Michael Lawrinenko, hereby certify that on this day of April 22, 2022, I mailed Richard E. Butner, Attorney for Respondent, with a correct copy of this MOTION TO RECUSE THE JUDGE and setting same for hearing by email and US mail to Butner and Butner, Attomeys at Law, P.O. Box 1460, Wewoka, OK 74884, Judge Lori Jackson, Pontotoc County District Court, 120 W. 13" St., Ada, Ok, 74820, and to James H. Kemp, 830 N Broadway Ave., PO Box 297, Ada, OK, 74821, Guardian ad Litem by US mail. " Michael Lawrinenko Phone: (580) 320-4117 Email: lawrinenko.mike@gmail.com 10094 County Road 1542, Ada, OK 74820 I; LL Co He Michael Lawrinenko