The Divorce Is Final!!!

Judge Kelly Verbally Bitch Slaps Mark Halburn !!!

On Wednesday January 23, 2013, the final order in Mark Halburn's divorce case was entered. PutnamLIES.com's legal correspondent has obtained a copy of that order.
This is a PutnamLIES.com/Trash Bloggers exclusive!

We'll hit a few of the high points in the order and then let you read it for yourself. We present it here in its entirety.
 

You thought Mark Halburn was nuts? You don't know the half of it.
Truth is FAR stranger than fiction. We couldn't make up something this bizarre if we tried.

Let's go down the list.
 

Porn on his computer? Check.
The question is, what kind of porn?

He ignored numerous orders, at least six, from the Supreme Court to have no contact with them about his case.

He impersonated Judge Michael Kelly in a falsified letter to the Supreme Court. (45)

Voices.
He hears voices. (62)
He's not sure if they're in his head or someone behind him said it. Because he's DEAF IN ONE EAR.
Wait just a goddamn minute. Isn't Halburn the one that constantly complained about the excessive noise at the Walmart?

He got fired by another lawyer. (34)

How about custody, you might ask?
Get a load of this.
Before the divorce:

Wednesday nights, Every other weekend.

Now:

Every other Saturday and Sunday.
9 am-8 pm. (17)
44 hours a month.
And still no out of state trips.

All that crazy harassment must not have paid off.

That $50,000 settlement he was telling everyone he was going to get so he could buy a new house?

Sorry. Not going to happen.

He owes HER $1,981.73 to equalize his one-half interest in the marital estate.  (91)

And for her legal fees, $7,935.85. (116)
That's a grand total of $9917.58 that HE owes HER.
Looks like it's going to be a garage apartment for a long, long time.

Then there's his child support of $613.37 per month. (10) For the next 15 years.

There's the contradictions in the stories he told. 

He complained the judge wanted a travel budget. But, Halburn never even submitted one and can't produce anything to prove he did.
And then there's the dying mom.  The one that Halburn complained the Judge wouldn't let him take his son to see.
Halburn himself told his soon to be second ex-wife, "Mom is too far gone for (the boy) to visit. She is incoherent and might scare him." 

Yet, he still filed a motion the very next day to take the boy to California.

Then to top it all off, he complained about the final order not being handed down within 20 days, yet it was Halburn himself that asked for a 90 day extension. Fucking classic.

He may also be the first person in the history of jurisprudence to include the words "take care of my shit now" in a motion before the Court.

The Court also managed to work in the words unhinged, bizarre, irrational, divorced from reality, belligerent, obnoxious, provoking, enraged, rude, disrespectful, excessively demanding, threatening, contumacious and vexatious to describe Halburn and his behavior.

In the end Halburn turned what should have been a $2500 divorce case into one that's going to cost him close to $20,000.

What a fucking come-uppance.

Everything that happened was a result of his own actions.

The best part about this is the justice of him learning he cannot push everybody around.
All of the bullying only made things worse here.

It wasn't the trash bloggers that defeated him this time. Although we may have had a hand in it.  It was his actions. Proving, once again that he is a  LOSER!!! Mark Halburn is an EPIC FAIL!!!

And of course how long will it take for the nut who caused all this trouble in court to complain he's being retaliated against? Because we all know that's coming. 
Halburn claims to be meeting with an appeal lawyer on January 28th. Any lawyer will see this order and run the hell away. No lawyer is going to take this case on contingency. We'll be surprised if he finds one that is even willing to take this on for money.

You can download a full copy here.

It really doesn't need any comment, but ours are in red anyway.

So let's get right to it.

IN THE FAMILY COURT OF PUTNAM COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

In Re The Marriage Of: 

DJM, Petitioner

And

MARK VANCE HALBURN, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 11-D-516

Judge Mike Kelly

FINAL DIVORCE ORDER

On October 1 and 15, 2012 came the Petitioner and her counsel, Henry R. Glass, and the

Respondent and his counsel, Michael S. Bailey, for trial upon the verified Petition for Divorce,

the Response to Petition for Divorce, and Notices of Hearing, all duly and timely filed and served. Whereupon, the Court received the testimony of the parties and their respective witnesses, and the exhibits and other evidence of each party.

Based on all of the evidence, the pleadings, motions, and disclosures, and all other

matters of record, and after an assessment of credibility, the Court hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

I. JURISDICTIONAL FACTS

1. At the time of the filing of the Petition in this action, the Petitioner and Respondent were, and for mote than one year next preceding the date of the institution of this action had been, citizens and residents of Putnam County, West Virginia.

2. The Petitioner and Respondent were duly and legally married in Putnam County, West Virginia, on August 29, 1998.

3. The Petition was filed in this action in November 2011. The Respondent continued to live in the residence owned by Petitioner and her mother situate in Putnam County, West Virginia, until March 2012, at which time he vacated the residence and the parties separated. which separation has been continuous and interrupted.

4. There was one (1) minor child born to the marriage, XXXXXX Halburn, born August 29, 2007.

5. Neither the Petitioner nor the Respondent is incompetent, an incarcerated convict, or a member of the armed forces of the United States of America or any of its allied nations.
(We disagree. As you read on, you'll clearly see that the Respondent is dangerously incompetent.)

6. Irreconcilable differences have arisen between the parties, within the meaning of Chapter 48. Article 5, Section 201, of the West Virginia Code, 1931, as amended, as alleged and testified to by the parties, and a divorce should be granted on such grounds. Given this agreement, the court took only limited evidence from Ms. Halburn that other reasons she sought the divorce included the various arrests of her husband, the constant turmoil he created at home and in public, the pornography on his computer, their lack of sexual relations for at least four years. and his obsession with his website.
(PORNOGRAPHY! What kind of pornography does a "man" like Mark Halburn prefer? S&M? B&D? Kiddie? Bestiality? Scat?  Maybe it wasn't his website he was obsessed with. Could be that's why there were no sexual relations. Hope all his buddies at the Teays Valley Church of God don't find out about this.)

II. CHILD SUPPORT

7. The Respondent is presently employed as a substitute teacher, though he is seldom offered work, and, additionally, earns income through his internet website, PutnumLive. For purposes of calculating child support, he admits to a gross monthly income of $3,250,00.

(Seldom offered work. Hah! Wonder why? We call bullshit on the income. Sounds like puffery to us.)

8. The Petitioner is presently employed by XXXXXX and has a gross monthly income.

9. The portion of health, dental and vision insurance paid by Petitioner to insure the minor child is $147.20 per month. The Petitioner also incurs child care expense at Preschool and Daycare of $50 per week when school is in session, $30 per day during non-school holidays, and $135 per week during the nonschool summer recess, resulting in an annual expenditure of approximately $4,000 or an average of $333.33 per month.

10. Pursuant to the attached income shares child support formula, the Respondent shall pay child support in the amount of $613.37 per month for the support, maintenance and education of the minor child commencing February 1, 2013 and continuing each month thereafter until the further order of the Court and so long as the child remains unmarried, unemancipated, and so long as the child is enrolled as a full-time student in a secondary school or vocational school and is making substantial progress towards a degree; provided, that such payments may not extend past the date that the child reaches the age of twenty, The child support payments are to be reduced or terminated only in accordance with the West Virginia Code sections, 48-11-101, et seq ..
($613.37 a month. Looks like puffery bites Halburn right in his flabby ass.)

11. Pursuant to W.Va. Code § 48-14-401, income withholding shall begin immediately. All payments shall be made to the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement, Post Office Box 247, Charleston, West Virginia 25321.

12. The Petitioner shall continue to provide medical health, dental, optical, and pharmaceutical insurance for the minor child of the parties for so long as it available through her employment.
(It's a good thing since Halburn has neither a job nor benefits.)

13. Any medical, health, dental, optical, or pharmaceutical expense that is not covered by insurance shall be paid by the parties with Petitioner paying 45% and Respondent paying 55%. The party incurring uninsured medical, dental or ophthamological costs shall submit proof of the same within 90 days of incurring the expense. The other party shall pay his/her share within 30 days. If a party fails or refuses to pay his/her share without a lawful reason or good faith excuse. he/she may be held in contempt of court. Please refer to the attached Rules for Children's Medical Expenses.

14. Pursuant to W.Va. Code §48-13-801 the Petitioner is allocated the right to claim the dependent child for income tax purposes commencing for Tax Year 2012 and continuing until further' order of the Court.

15. DH is the designated custodian of the minor child of the parties pursuant to W.Va. Code§48-9-602. This designation shall not affect either parent's right and responsibilities as otherwise set forth in this Order.

III. ALLOCATION OF CUSTODIAL RESPONSIBILITY

16. The primary dispute in this case is the allocation of custodial responsibility for the parties' child, XXXXXXwho is five years of age.

17. Based on the evidence presented as set forth infra, the Court hereby allocates to Mark Halburn every other Saturday and Sunday commencing at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 8:00 p.m. each day beginning February 2,2013. At all other times, except as specifically set forth herein, the child shall remain in the care and control of DH. There being good cause for doing so, the current prohibition on Mr. Halburn removing the child from the State of West Virginia shall remain in full force and effect..

(That's way less time than before. Who was it that told his son he wouldn't live at his mommy's house anymore when daddy moved to his new apartment?)

A. The Forensic Psychological Evaluation

18. Pursuant to the motion of Mr. Halburn, the Court during the course of the proceedings entered an Order requiring each party to submit to a psychiatric evaluation as an aid to the Court in determining the appropriate allocation of custodial responsibility. When Ms. Halburn objected to the cost of the health care provider selected by the Court, each party was allowed to obtain an evaluation by a provider of their choice and at their own expense. Mr. Halburn complied. Ms. Halburn did not. Due to her' failure to adhere to the Order of the Court,Ms. Halburn is assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $100 payable to the Putnam CountyParent Education Fund on or before April 1, 2013.

(Smart move on her part. The shrink would have cost more than $100 and everyone knew the real nut in the case was Mark Halburn anyway.)

19. Mr. Halburn was evaluated by Clifton R. Hudson, Ph.D,  a licensed psychologist with Hudson Forensic Psychology who was chosen and paid for by Mr. Halburn. Dr. Hudson found, in pertinent part, as follows:

(a) Mr. Halburn reported having a "turbulent" childhood with a mother who "had a lot of mental problems growing up". Both parents had difficulty controlling their tempers. The mother "attempted to kill herself 6 or 7 times." His paternal grandmother "was in and out of psychiatric facilities" and his paternal grandfather was "abusive and alcoholic." He reported that his one sibling, a sister, has had problems with “meth and other things."
(Now he's even pulling the old "I had a bad childhood" out of his ass. Looks like the mental illness was hereditary. If Halburn was our son, we would have attempted to kill ourselves too.)

(b) Mr. Halburn also reported several arrests, all of which he attributed to "small-town retaliation against reporters." The arrests include a guilty verdict on a charge of trespassing in 2009.

(The sign said enter through the side gate.)

(c) Dr. Hudson found that Mr. Halburn " ... tends to present himself in a consistently favorable light, and as being relatively free of common shortcomings ... " This tendency leads him to "minimize, or perhaps even be unaware of, problems or other areas where functioning might be less than optimal." While Mr. Halburn denied problems with alcohol Or drugs, Dr. Hudson warned that " ... attention should be paid to the possibility of denial of problems with drinking or drug use as Mr. Halburn described certain personality characteristics that are often associated with involvement with alcohol or drugs."
(Judge Kaufman said the exact same thing in the trespassing trial. "You've got this in a picture in your mind that's very favorable to yourself that you weren't doing anything wrong.")

(d) Dr. Hudson found that Mr. Halburn “… sees little need for changes in his behavior."
(No shit. That's because he's never been held accountable for it.)

(e) Most importantly, while noting that Mr. Halburn likely poses no direct threat of physical harm to XXXXXX, Dr. Hudson was concerned that Mr. Halburn's continued interpersonal conflicts present an increased risk of harm to the child. Specifically, Dr. Hudson cautioned as follows:

Mr. Halburn's clinical interview was most significant for an apparent pattern of conflictual interpersonal relationships. While Mr. Halburn frames these in terms of his tenacity in standing up for his own rights and those of his family, it appears that he has a persistent tendency to allow his emotions to dictate certain aspects of his behavior, resulting in circumstances counterproductive to his own stated goals. He appears lacking in awareness of his own contribution to these conflicts, instead focusing on his perceptions of the inappropriate behavior of others and his expectations that others should treat him fairly even after he has angered them. It appears likely that Mr. Halburn will continue to generate interpersonal conflict and that his son will ultimately have some degree of exposure to that conflict. However, this examiner is aware of no credible allegations that Mr. Halburn has ever become violent with anyone or that he has ever mistreated his son. His past behavior in this respect is the most valid indicator of future behavior. While the currently opined personality disorder is indeed a risk factor for violent behavior, it is just one of many and does not by any means correlate precisely with violence risk. Mr. Halburn's history of having been physically abused as a child and his current level of life stress would also constitute risk factors for violence ... There is some evidence of a positive bond between Mr. Halburn and XXXXXX that should be construed as constituting a protective factor against future child maltreatment.

(f) Dr. Hudson made provisional diagnoses of:

Axis I: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood

Axis II: Personality Disorder NOS

Axis III: Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, obesity (per self-report)

Axis IV: Health concerns, ongoing family Court case, partial estrangement

from Son

Axis V: GAP = 65 (as of initial evaluation)

 (g) Dr. Hudson also made the following recommendations:

1. Mr. Halburn might benefit from individual psychotherapy focused upon mood, interpersonal relationships, affective regulation, and awareness of the consequences of his behavior for his own life.
(Do ya think? Possibly the understatement of the century.)

2. Psychiatric consultation is not clearly indicated at this time, though trials of SSRI antidepressants or mood stabilizers could potentially prove useful in assisting with mood regulation at times of heightened stress.
(Yes. And then stop taking them suddenly.)

20. In his report, Dr. Hudson made reference to a "Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation" of Mr. Halburn done by Dr. Daniel B. Thistlethwaite, M.D., in 2008 in connection with litigation between Mr. Halburn and Wal-Mart. Dr. Thistlethwaite found as follows:

IMPRESSION:

Axis I: Malingering. Significant symptom exaggeration was noted on psychological instruments designed to assess for exaggeration of cognitive deficits.

Axis II: Personality disorder. not otherwise specified, with narcissistic and paranoid traits.

Axis III: Hypertension; Diabetes Mellitus; Sleep Apnea.

Axis IV: Psychosocial Stressors - Litigation

Axis V: Current GAF - estimated at 60 to 65 with chronic impairment due to personality disorder.

DISCUSSION: There is no evidence that Mark Halburn suffers from a psychiatric illness as a result of any stress created by construction of a shopping center which is in the proximity of his home. Mr. Halburn has been distressed, upset, and angered by what he perceives as improper due process and believes that he is the target of the authorities. All of this is the result of a severe personality disorderwhich predates any of the alleged stressors.

It should be noted that Mr. Halburn's psychological profile and behavior would suggest that he has propensity for aggressive behavior, No history of overt violence is found; however, given his degree of agitation and volatility noted during our examination, any threats made by Mr. Halburn should be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.

(Given his degree of agitation and volatility noted during our examination,any threats made by Mr. Halburn should be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.)

21. Dr, Hudson, the psychologist noted his disagreement with Dr. Thistlethwaite, the psychiatrist, in certain respects:

Based on an observed pattern of chaotic interpersonal relationships and affective dysregulation, Dr. Thistlethwaite opined the presence of personality disorder not otherwise specified, with narcissistic and paranoid personality traits.

(Narcissistic and paranoid personality traits.)

Dr. Thistlethwaite's report arguably somewhat unfairly labels Mr. Halburn as a malingerer, as the results of two cognitive malingering tests were inconsistent and Mr. Halburn did not perform particularly poorly on an abbreviated IQ test or a brief measure of executive functioning. (Halburn arrived over an hour late for the scheduled testing. Think that was a coincidence?)
Dr. Thistlethwaite's assessment of Mr. Halburn's violence risk as being significant is also questionable. While it is true that personality disorder characteristics such as those that Dr. Thistlethwaite observed in Mr. Halburn constitute a risk factor for violence, this would be but one of many such risk factors and in isolation should not be construed as

significantly elevating violence risk in an individual without a known history of significant violence. This examiner notes that it would be reasonable to weight Mr. Halburn' s personality issues more heavily if a known history of significant violence had been substantiated.

B. Testimony of DH

22. In her argument in support of restrictions on Mr. Halburn's parenting time, Ms. Halburn cites the same personality disorder characteristic noted by the two mental health experts: her husband's inability to control his impulse to generate interpersonal conflict. She is concerned not that he will directly harm XXXXXX, but that he will create conflict with third parties whichmight scare or alarm or traumatize XXXXXX or place the young child in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm caused by others or, if Mr. Halburn is arrested yet again. might result in the child being placed in the temporary care of unknown private or public third parties until Ms. Halburn can retrieve him. She has particular concerns about Mr. Halburn being arrested out of state while XXXXXX is in his care, leaving the child at the mercy of unknown third parties for an extended period of time.

23. As proof of her reasonable concern for XXXXXX's safety while alone with his father. Ms. Halburn cites a 2008 incident in the Atlanta airport in which her husband became enraged at a clerk and they were escorted out of the airport by uniformed security. She testified credibly that Mr. Halburn was so out of control that she feared they would be arrested. She worries that if a similar incident happens when XXXXXX is alone with his father out of state that the child may be placed in emergency foster care until she could get to him. As predicted by the mental health experts, Mr. Halburn denied the gravity of the airport incident and blamed it on the clerk. The Court finds Ms. Halburn's version of events to be much more credible than the father's and credits it as true.
(It's always someone else's fault. What isn't mentioned here is that their 10 month-old infant son was with them at the time.)

24. Ms. Halburn's case for restrictions also relies on her husband's numerous arrests, two anecdotal incidents at hotels, his sustained harassment of private individuals and companies as well as various public officials and entities, and her claim that their application to be foster parents was denied because of his behavior. She argues that his volatile, uncontrollable and unpredictable rages unnecessarily increases the risk of harm to XXXXXX.

25. Mr. Halburn’s arrests follow the pattern clearly seen by the mental health professionals: he generates needless conflict and then overreacts when his bullying tactics are resisted. In January 2007 he was arrested for making harassing, obscene and threatening phone calls. In August 2008 he was arrested for trespassing and assault. In August 2009 he was arrested for trespassing. In October 2012, at the conclusion of the first day of trial in this case, he was arrested for making harassing phone calls. The fact that he was later convicted on only one of the charges is immaterial (the trial on the last charge is still pending). It is the arrest itself which could result in psychological and/or physical harm to the child. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that this pattern will change since, as Dr. Hudson, his own witness, noted Mr. Halburn "...sees little need for changes in his behavior."

26. Ms. Halburn also testified credibly that the father has used his Wednesday overnight only sparingly since it was awarded him and that he frequently returns the child in the evening during his scheduled weekend overnights. In fact, he returned XXXXXX on both the Friday and Saturday evenings immediately prior to the last trial date.

C. The Testimony of Dr. Hudson

27.  In his testimony at trial, Dr. Hudson, Mr. Halburn's expert witness, affirmed his written finding that Mr. Halburn's personality disorder and the interpersonal conflict that it generates show a pattern that clearly establishes the probability that he'll continue to have more confrontations, especially given his lack of awareness as to his own contribution to the conflict. Dr. Hudson testified that Mr. Halburn allows his emotions to dictate his behavior regardless of the circumstances or the consequences.

28. When asked if, given his assessment and the very young age of the child, it would be prudent to lift the temporary restriction on Mr. Halburn traveling alone with the child out of state, Dr. Hudson, Mr. Halburn's own witness, testified that:

I find that to be a relatively difficult question ... I do believe that additional conflicts are likely to occur. I do believe that certainly if one is having those types of conflicts one is at somewhat elevated risk ... one could run in to someone who responds to that type of risk violently even if Mr. Halburn is not initiating violence ... I have to say there is some level of additional risk for a child in that situation. I would not assess that to be necessarily very high, but the child is likely to be exposed to some argument here and there. I don't think it's likely that the child will be put in harm's way as a result of that but I can’t rule out that possibility.

(Yes or no. This guy must have blisters on his ass from riding the fence.)

D. Mr. Halburn’s Personality Disorder and This Litigation

29. During the course of this case, Mr. Halburn's personality disorder, as diagnosed by two mental health experts, not only surfaced, but it became even more bizarre, irrational and divorced from reality as the case progressed, leading the Court to conclude that the risk that Mr. Halburn will become violent is closer to the opinion of Dr, Thistlethwaite than to that of Dr. Hudson.

(... became even more bizarre, irrational and divorced from reality)

30. Mr. Halburn's mental unraveling in this case began with the entry of an uncontested temporary order on January 27,2012, that included the sentence "Respondent shall not remove said child from the State of West Virginia without the express written permission of Petitioner or this Court."
(Mental unraveling. Heh. Why uncontested? Maybe it was because Halburn was still squatting at his second ex-wife's house, hadn't been evicted yet, and had no plans to leave the state.)

31. The restriction was made part of the order as a result of Dr. Thistlethwaite's finding that Mr. Halburn has serious mental health issues that include a personality disorder (not otherwise specified) with narcissistic and paranoid traits and chronic impairment due to personality disorder. There was also a proffer; later proved to be true, that Mr. Halburn had been involved in a confrontation at an airport that nearly resulted in the family being taken into custody and that the risk of such further conduct while he was traveling alone with the child was high. The Court did not make any findings at the temporary hearing regarding Mr. Halburn's mental fitness; deferring that issue for resolution at trial, then scheduled for May 2,2012. When the temporary order was presented for entry, Mr. Halburn did not object to the "out of state" restriction.

32. On April 11, Mr. Halburn, who moved to South Carolina after the temporary order was entered, emailed his wife:

Every day I see wonderful things here that XXXXXX would enjoy. Today, I was interviewing near the water park that he loves. It opened last month. Putnam County DOES NOT HAVE A WATER PARK and the idiots that run the place won't open the pools until Memorial Day and XXXXXX deserves better than what

West Virginia has to offer.

33. That same day, Mr. Halburn filed a motion to modify the temporary order to allow him to transport his son out of state for the period of April 12-17, 2012 (NB: the motion was filed one day before the anticipated trip). The motion was promptly scheduled for a teleconference on April 13, 2012, two days after filing. Again, Ms. Halburn raised serious questions as to her husband's mental fitness. The Court deferred a ruling on that issue until the final hearing, then only nineteen days away. The Court specifically found that it would be unfair to both sides to try such an important issue by teleconference. This was the beginning of Mr. Halburn becoming unhinged.

(No, that happened a long time ago.)

34. On April 16, Mr. Halburn's then attorney filed a motion to be relieved as his counsel.
(He's at least the second attorney to fire Halburn as a client. Looks like Joe Reeder could see the handwriting on the wall.)

35. The next day, Mr. Halburn, acting pro se, filed a "Motion for Recusal, Reversal of Temporary Order, Impeachment and Sanctions." In his motion, Mr. Halburn made the following accusations:

(1)

(a) The refusal to vacate the restriction for nineteen days "violated (the child's] right

to have the presence of his father in his life on a daily basis";

(b) The ruling caused the child to suffer "probably permanent psychological harm";

(c) The Order was "improper" and "insane";

(d) The Court "is an arrogant power thug and is out of control";

(e) The Court ''must be stopped”;

(f) The Court "must be ordered immediately pay for a beach trip" (sic) for the child;

(g) The Order-  "should be immediately reversed upon receipt of this email";

(h) The Court "must be recused from this case and impeached from the bench"; and

(i) Ms. Halburn's attorney should "be sanctioned and disbarred from practicing law in West Virginia".

36. On April 18, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Appeals warned Mr. Halburn for the first time that " . . . it is improper for you to further contact me via e-mail during this matter. In addition, it is improper for you to contact the Chief Justice or any other member of the Supreme Court at any time about this matter."
(Warning 1)

37. On April 19, the motion to recuse was denied by the Chief Justice.

(Denied!)

38. Also on April 19, with trial only thirteen days away, counsel's motion to withdraw was heard by teleconference. During the hearing, Mr. Halburn lost all control:

(Lost all control? Really? So out of character for him.)

(a) "The Judge in this case is an idiot";

(b) "The Judge should be imprisoned and impeached";

(c) "The Judge should walk away and find another line of work and I can email him an application for McDonald's ... but I wouldn't wish that on McDonald's":

(d) Ms. Halburn's lawyer is a "documented liar"; and

(e) Ms. Halburn's lawyer is "a lying sack of crap".

39. Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted.

40. On April 25, Mr. Halburn requested a ninety day continuance, His motion was granted and the proceedings were continued until August 8, 2012, a date selected with his approval. The restriction on out of state travel with XXXXXX was, therefore, extended due to his own request to continue the case for' ninety days.

41. Also on April 25, Mr. Halburn filed a "Motion to vacate temporary order, impeach Judge Michael J. Kelly, and order sanctions against Henry Glass." In this filing, Mr. Halburn: '

(a) Refers to the Court as "Kangaroo Court Judge Michael Jackass Kelly";

(Probably not an appropriate way to address the guy with your fate in his hands.)

(b) Claims the travel restrictions "arbitrarily and capriciously [deprive] XXXXXX of a full-time father";

(c) Calls Mr. Glass, Ms. Halburn's attorney, "bizarre, anti-social and malicious. Glass should be disbarred and sanctioned for his false allegations";

(d) Demands the temporary order "must be IMMEDIATELY be vacated upon receipt of this motion" (sic);

(e) Suggests " ... the court could order the State of West Virginia to build a zoo, near Charleston by 5:00 pm EDT, April 22, 2012 and to move the Atlantic Ocean to the State of West Virginia";
(Thought we were exaggerating when we wrote this months ago?)

(f) Urges the Court to sanction Ms. Halburn's counsel "the sum of $10 million to be paid immediately";

($10 million!)

(g) Commands that Ms. Halburn's counsel and the Court "personally fund a week long beach trip for [the child] upon receipt of this motion" and "must also fund the travel of [the child's] classmates and teachers to the beach . . . ";

(h) Enjoins the Court to "order [Ms. Halburn] to provide Mark Halburn with a cashier's check for $50,000 by noon, April 25, 2012";

($50,000!)

(i) Labels the temporary order "wacky" "insane" and "onerous";

(j) Directs that the Supreme Court "MUST order [the judge] OFF this case, OFF THE BENCH PERMANENTLY and order [the judge] to pay for a spring break trip for [the child's] ENTIRE preschool , ...to preserve the safety of these students, [the judge] must be BANNED from having ANY contact with them on their trip";

(k) States that ( In fact, there no such person as a 'Ms. Halburn' (sic)"; 
(Really?)

(l) , Wishes that "(the judge] should be permanently committed to Mildred Mitchell-

Bateman Hospital until he does society and favor and passes (sic)"; and

(m) Refers to the Court as a "wacky judge", who is incompetent for failing to require his wife to pay him a "$50,000 settlement" when he left the home.

42. In numerous other filings Mr. Halburn has stated that the Court:

(a) "Writes checks that his brain cannot cash";

(b) "Is a menace to society that should be imprisoned "; and

(c) "[is] the poster child for a lifetime admittance to Mildred Mitchell-Bateman".

43. Additionally, in numerous telephone calls to the Court, Mr. Halburn:

(a) Demanded a hearing by 8:45 a.m, that morning;

(b) Became abusive and hostile with the Court staff;

(c) Accused the Court's staff of being "rude";

(d) Demanded that the Court "resign and save the state some money";

( e) Demanded that the staff get the Court on the phone immediately;

(f) Demanded that the Court "take care of my shit now"; and
(Seriously? Who curses in legal filings? This has to be a first. We bet no one has ever used this phrase in a motion before.)

(g) Called the Court staff an "idiot".

44. After the Court instructed the staff to no longer take Mr. Halburn's phone calls, he sent an email to the staff stating that "your failure to return calls is unprofessional."

45. On April 27, Mr. Halburn submitted the following fraudulent letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court in which he impersonates a judicial official. The letter is reprinted in its entirety: .

April 27, 2012

Mr. Rory Perry

WV Supreme Court Clerk

Charleston. WV

I Michael J. Kelly have violated the rights of XXXXXX Halburn and Mark  Halburn. I allowed Henry Glass to repeatedly lied in court. I refused to allow Mark Halburn to correct Glass's lies and improperly threatened to throw Mark Halburn out of a conference call hearing. I have repeatedly refused to correct my improper temporary order. I violated XXXXXX Halburn's right to a Spring Break vacation in Myrtle Beach. I am an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Therefore, I immediately vacate my temporary order. I award Mark Halburn the marital home and full custody of XXXXXX Halburn immediately.

I then resign my position as Kanawha County Family Court judge due to my incompetency and arrogance. I agree to move to another state and never practice law or hold public office again.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Kelly

Not only is the above entirely fabricated, but it is in direct defiance of the clerk's previous directive to not communicate with him about a case that is not properly before that Court.
(2)

(Why was Halburn not jailed immediately after this incident? Is impersonating a judicial official not a crime in WV?)

46. On May 11, the Court entered an Order prohibiting Mr. Halburn "from having any contact with the Court or its staff by telephone, email, letter, or otherwise. All filings and other communications from him shall be in writing and filed with the Clerk and not directly to this Court." That Order also placed him on notice that future conduct of a contumacious, vexatious, or oppressive nature may result in contempt proceeding against him.

(Order 1)

47. On May 14, Mr. Halburn made numerous accusations against his wife and demanded that the Court "permanently remove all parenting rights to XXXXXX Halburn from DH." He also wanted the Court to order that:

(a) Ms. Halburn pay him "lifetime spousal support of $3,000 per month";

(Lifetime spousal support of $3,000 per month)

(b) Ms. Halburn pay him the standard child support until XXXXXX earns his Master's

Degree;

(c) Ms. Halburn purchase a home for him in Salisbury, North Carolina;

(d) Ms. Halburn pay his "health insurance for the remainder of [his] life" and for XXXXXX "through his collegiate career, and provide for XXXXXX's daycare, private school tuition through high school, and all college and/or university tuition, books, dorm fees, et al.”

(e) Ms, Halburn forfeit to him "50 percent of any pension or social security benefits paid to D both during her lifetime and after her death";

(f) Ms. Halburn relinquish any and all rights to his assets;
(Assets? What assets?)

(g) Mr. Glass be enjoined from harassing Mr. Halburn;

(h) Mr. Glass be immediately disbarred and sanctioned; and

(i) Mr. Glass "pay Mark Halburn $10 million for defamation of character and $100 million for intentional infliction of emotional distress".

($10 million)

48, Also on May 14 the Clerk of the Supreme Court warned Mr. Halburn for the second time to refrain from contacting that Court.

(Warning 2)

49. On May 23 Mr. Halburn filed a "Rite of Prohibition" (sic) charging that the Court:

(a) “ ...  is letting (h]is hot-air balloon sized ego overrule his pin-sized brain";

(b) "… ignores reality";

(c) "… is anti-children, anti-fathers and anti-reality";

(d) "... has refused to recuse his sorry self from this case and has refused to step down from the bench as he is incompetent and an embarrassment to the legal profession"; and

(e) Must be "permanently removed from the case and heavily financially sanctioned,"

50, On May 31, his petition for a writ of prohibition was denied.
(Denied!)

51. On June 4. Mr. Halburn filed an "appeal" of the denial of the writ of prohibition, stating that the order:

(a) " .. . ignores reality …";

(b) " ... is a travesty ... ";

(0) " ... is a transparent case of a retired judge abusing his authority by blatantly covering for an incompetent judge"; and

(d) "Cummings, Glass and Kelly are not worthy of practicing law", ", .. must be imprisoned for gross incompetency with damages paid to Mark Halburn of $10 million EACH immediately upon receipt of this appeal", and "All three must be banned from practicing law for life in all 50 United States, Puerto Rico, Guam and Washington, D.C.". (Emphasis in original).
($30 million)

52. On May 29 Mr. Halburn filed an emergency motion stating that his mother had been placed in intensive care in a hospital in California. He requested that Ms. Halburn be ordered to transport the child to California to see the grandmother. He further demanded that the Court order D to pay for this trip and to submit to a full psychiatric exam upon her return,"

53. However, the day prior to filing his emergency motion, Mr. Halburn emailed his wife that "My mom is too far gone for XXXXXX to visit her now. She is incoherent and might scare XXXXXX. Unless something changes we have missed the wonderful opportunity for XXXXXX to see his grandmother and for her to enjoy him."

(Wait a minute. You told everyone that it was the JUDGE that wouldn't let you take the boy to see her.)

54. Despite Mr. Halburn's own email contradicting his motion, on or about June 4 the Court conducted a teleconference regarding the emergency motion and Mr. Halburn was directed to do two things: (a) submit evidence, such as a statement from a health care provider, that his mother still had the ability to appreciate a visit from her four year old grandson; and (b) submit abudget for the trip detailing the costs and means of paying for the same.

55. On July 5, when Mr. Halburn still had not submitted either of the required documents, his motion was denied. While Mr. Halburn now claims that he did submit a budget to the Circuit Clerk of Putnam County he has not produced a "filed" copy and the Court has not seen one.
(Denied!)

56. Though Mr. Halburn did not produce the documents requested regarding the proposed visit to the grandmother, he did manage to pen a five page "Emergency Motion - Father's Day" which he sent directly to the Chief Justice on June 13 in complete defiance of the two warnings previously issued by the Clerk of the Supreme Court Court. In this motion he asks that the Chief Justice:

(3) (He didn't file the paperwork to get his kid out to Cali, but had time for a five page manifesto.)

(a) " ... sanction Glass for his many false allegations, remove him from this case, disbar Glass, imprison him for life and sanction him $10 million per false allegation …";

($10 million)

(b) Require Glass "to take out, and pay for, full page advertisements in the Charleston Gazette, Charleston Daily Mail, West Virginia Record and on Putnumlive.com to apologize for his numerous outrageously false allegations";

(c) "Glass should be ordered to fund a Father's Rights group ... ";

(d) "Glass should be ordered to undergo a full psychiatric examination”;

( e) " ... Kelly must be imprisoned and Mark and XXXXXX Halburn be allowed to spend Father's Day together”,

(f) "Your petitioner now requests that a hearing be set for June 15, 2012, at 8:00 p.m. that vacates Judge Kelly's temporary orders, removes him from the case and permanently removes him from the bench. Kelly must also be heavily financially sanctioned [and] be imprisoned for the remainder of his natural life in the Moundsville prison starting at 5:00 p.m. EDT, June 15, 2012 [NB: the imprisonment is to occur three hours before the hearing];
(Hard time in an imaginary prison. Moundsville closed in 1995. 5 years before Halburn fouled WV with his presence. You'd think a carpetbagger from California who bills himself as Putnam County's news leader would know that.)

(g) " ... appoint him [Mr. Halburn] legal council (sic) at the taxpayer’s expense to represent him "in the divorce case and any other issues stemming from such case”,

(h) Modify the "Judicial Commission" so that it consists of a "majority of nonlawyers... headed by Mark Halburn" and which shall vacate the decisions in this case and instead order "Kelly's removal from said case, and his removal from the bench and permanent disbarment for gross misconduct. Kelly shall also be imprisoned and ordered to undergo a complete mental evaluation, Any salaries paid to Kelly during his tenure as a family court judge and magistrate shall be returned to the State of West Virginia to be used to create a Father's Right's commission";

(i) Unilaterally change the election laws so that "All court judges and justices shall serve terms of only two years and be subject to a recall vote, This term limit shall be expanded to include all elected officials in West Virginia, The ability to recall shall be extended to all bureaucrats as well as all elected officials in West Virginia"; and

G) "Judge Cummings' order dismissing Mark Halburn's Writ of Prohibition against Judge Kelly shall be reversed upon receipt of this motion with Cummings' permanently disbarred for blatantly covering the ass of incompetent Judge Michael Kelly. AU fees paid to Cummings for his travesty order shall be returned to the State of West Virginia and issued to above-referenced Father's Rights Commission."

57. On June 15, Mr. Halburn sent the Supreme Court clerk and the Chief Justice the

following email:

(4)

Chief Justice Ketchum:

Per our discussion earlier tonight, attached is the pleading to remove Judge Kelly from the bench and to allow me to spend Father's Day Weekend with my son. I look forward to Kelly's immediately [sic] imprisonment so that I can publish his mugshot and let father's know that their families are now safe.

58. On June 15 and 16, Mr. Halburn sent the Chief Justice the following text messages:

(5 & 6)

(a) "Kelly has not responded to my emergency motion to allow me visitation for Fathers Day. I am calling on you to imprison judge Kelly" and

(b) "What's being done about my motion?"

59. On June 18, after Mr. Halburn's repeated violations of the prohibition against frivolous and ex parte communications, the Chief Justice entered the following Order:

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

RE: VEXATIOUS AND FRIVOLOUS CONTCTS WITH COURT

OFFICIALS BY MARK V. HALBURN

Mark V. Halburn is party to an ongoing action pending in the Family Court of Putnam County (Putnam County Civil Action No. 11-D-516); and Mark V. Halburn has recently contacted the Chief Justice via personal telephone calls, e-mails, and text messages seeking, among other things that the

Chief Justice "imprison" the presiding judge(s) in his pending family court action

***

Mark V. Halburn’s communications are vexatious and frivolous;

All litigants in the courts of this State - including Mr. Halburn – must comply with the appropriate Court rules, none of which permit litigants to contact court officials via personal telephone calls. e-mails, or text messages; and

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that any future telephone calls, e-mails, email attachments or text messages from Mark Halburn to court officials in this State may be disregarded; and

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Mark V. Halburn ~ like all other litigants in this State - is required to comply with the appropriate Court rules with regard to pleading, practice and procedure, which require that all filings be submitted in writing to the appropriate court clerk's office in which Mr. Halburn has a pending

case; and

IT IS HEREBY Ordered, that any further communications from Mark V.Halburn to court officials or employees of the Court system that are vexatious, frivolous, or do not comply with the terms of this order will be referred to the appropriate authorities for possible criminal prosecution.

60. In a "Motion for Recusal Reversal of Temporary Order and Sanctions" filed on September 21, Mr. Halburn continued his irrational diatribes:

(a) The Court violated the child's "right to have the presence of his father in his life on a daily basis, thereby causing probably permanent psychological harm";

(b) The Court has exceeded "the bounds of common decency and common sense";

(c) The Court "has permanently scatted the reputation of fairness and impartiality of the West Virginia judiciary";

(d) In perhaps his most outrageous invective, Mr. Halburn writes that "Judge Kelly sat back and allowed Mrs. Halburn to die without seeing her grandson in 2012. He should be ordered to revive her and pay for XXXXXX's trip to California to see her at Kelly's personal expense." (Emphasis added); and

(See. We didn't make this up either.)

(e) Mr. Halburn demands to be allowed "to return to the marital home immediately" or "be provided the settlement funds of $60,000 upon receipt of this motion".

(Now it's $60,000)

61. Mr. Halburn's demand that the Court be ordered to revive his deceased mother establishes beyond cavil that Mr. Halburn's personality disorder cannot be controlled and that it presents a real, elevated and increasing risk to XXXXXX's safety and well-being as his grip on reality deteriorate.

62. On September 29, in direct defiance of the Supreme Court's Administrative Order, Mr. Halburn sent the following email to the Administrative Director of the Supreme Court in which he admits to hearing "voices":

(7)

Subject: Potential threat

While taking photos of today' s Poca Heritage Days event, a male voice came up behind me and said something to the effect of, "If you need someone to take care of Watkins or Kelly for you, just let us know ... " I don't know if that means cooking them homemade cheesecake or a threat of violence. When I turned around, all I saw was numerous people of both genders milling around. I asked, "Did someone just talk to me?" and only received blank stares ... I never saw the person, and do not recognize the voice. I am deaf in my right ear with a constant ringing noise (because of past infection) and have a tough time distinguishing which side of me sounds are corning from because of "the bounce" effect. While I have a hearing aid device I do not weal' it around crowds because it makes all of the noise rather irritating.

Rest assured I WILL NOT be publishing this as I do not want to encourage any nuts out there to do anything illegal or harmful-even to judges that I do not like. I am not filing a police report because it can be acquired through FOIA. You are the ONLY person I am revealing this to for obvious reasons.

Similarly, I do not publish the phone numbers and addresses of elected officials, candidates, and law enforcement officers-even when such information is part of election filing documents and public records. I will not make it easy for ANYONE to harm anyone!

If you want to call me to discuss this further, feel free. I will ALWAYS try to do the right thing. However, there really isn't anything more to say. I just wanted you to be aware of the situation. It happened right after the parade when I was walking north on Route 62 towards the school parking lots.

Obviously I will NEVER ask anyone to "take care" of anybody in any sort of harmful and illegal way.

(VOICES! Hearing voices is the most common hallucination among people with schizophrenia. Apparently he thought Steven Canterbury was the only one he could talk to about it. The voice didn't SAY it ... It merely ASKED the question. The helpful psychopath just thought he would let them know.)

63. Also in September 2012, while attending the mandatory parent education class required of all divorcing parents, Mr. Halburn became irate at the content of the video that is part of the curriculum. He demanded the right to address the class and told the class instructor that she was "out of line" for not permitting him to speak. The instructor left the class to find a deputy and Mr. Halburn was soon escorted from the premises.

64. Subsequent to trial, counsel submitted their recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. In addition to his Counsel's submission, Mr. Halburn filed his own pro se. In it, he states:
(Why pay a lawyer if you're going to go off the ranch and file your own?)

(a) "Because petitioner, D, admitted in Court, that she conceived XXXXXX years after she knew the marriage was over, she must pay respondent [Mr. Halburn] $3,000 per month, alimony, until he passes away";

(A perfect example of someone who only wants custody in order to punish his second ex-wife.)

(b) "Respondent, Mark Vance Halburn, is free to relocate. with XXXXXX, to any of the 50 United States without permission or consultation of D";

(c) i He should be awarded "full and complete custody. Petitioner D is limited to one weekend per month of supervised visitation as she did not complete the court-ordered psychological exam. She must pay for supervision fees"; and

(d) Henry Glass is not allowed to be within 1,000 miles of XXXXXX due to Glass's lies in court and psychotic behavior."

65. On October 3, two weeks after the trial was concluded, Mr. Halburn filed a "Motion for contempt" requesting that Ms. Halburn "be declared in CONTEMPT OF COURT, imprisoned, and her parenting rights to XXXXXX be terminated."

66. On November 7, he filed a second contempt action accusing Ms. Halburn of "control-freak mental disabilities" and "outrageous and threatening behavior". He again demanded that she be imprisoned and her parental rights terminated.

67. On November 16 he filed a third contempt action demanding that Ms. Halburn's parental rights be "permanently terminated". (Emphasis in original).

68. On November 21 he filed a fourth contempt action.

69. Finally, on November 26 Mr. Halburn filed a pro se motion for attorney fees and expenses. In this motion he argues:

(a) "The failure of this marriage is primarily the fault of Petitioner, caused by her repeated and consistent abusive, demeaning, demanding, controlling and obnoxious behavior-which continues today";

(Well, hello there Hector Projector.)

(b)  “Respondent's fees are considerably greater than is typical, due to the vexatious litigation tactics of Petitioner and her lawyer throughout these proceedings. It is obvious that attorney Henry R. Glass, III, proceeded with these tactics primarily to increase his fees and personal profit. These tactics include his many false allegations and gross misconduct. The court should require Henry Glass to pay the legal fees of both parties, be disbarred, and pay Respondent $10 Billion in punitive damages. Glass repeatedly deceived the court, using false allegations, in order to' improperly restrict the respondent from parenting time. The Court should also require Glass to reinstate every lost moment of time between Respondent and his son, XXXXXX. Glass should further be admitted, for the remainder of his life, to the mental ward of a West Virginia State Prison of the choosing of the court. Glass must pay the state for the cost of his mental treatment and incarceration. Glass must also take out full page advertisements in every West Virginia news publication-daily through December 31, 2012, apologizing to respondent for the

gross misconduct of Glass in this case"; and

(10 BILLION DOLLARS!) (Halburn sees the word vexatious in the Court's orders and decides he has to use it too. He's like a trained monkey. Except he flings the poop on himself.)

(c) "Respondent's reasonable fees and expense to date exceed $6,000. The largest reason for this is the custody battle over the couple's only child, XXXXXX. Petitioner admitted on the witness stand that she knew the marriage was over years ago-long before XXXXXX was conceived. Yet she chose to bring a child into the world and, taking audacious to a new high, using false allegations, wrongly convinced the court to grant her primary custody, child support, and, most recently, is demanding Respondent pay her outrageous legal fees. Such a stunt should not be awarded."
(Way to make your child feel loved and wanted. You're Father of the Year material.)

70. Based on all of the above, the Court finds as fact and, pursuant to W.Va. Code §489-206(a), concludes as a matter of law that it would be manifestly harmful to XXXXXX for his father to have any parenting time beyond that set forth in Paragraph 17 supra. Mr. Halburn's personality disorder has in the past, and much more likely than not will in the future, put XXXXXX at an increased risk of harm caused by third parties reacting to Mr. Halburn’s belligerent, obnoxious and provoking behavior. He simply is incapable of controlling himself. Mr. Halburn may return to Court when the child reaches the age of ten and is better able to protect himself from his father's tirades (e.g. by using a phone to call his mother) and/or Mr. Halburn has completed a regimen of psychotherapy, as recommended by Dr. Hudson, designed to augment his ability to control himself and avoid the conflicts which he currently creates and revels in.

(Five years or psychotherapy. Which do you think will come first?)

71. : In addition to his regular parenting time as delimited in this Order, Mr. Halburn may have the child in his care from noon to six p.m. on the following days: the child's birthday; the father's birthday; Easter; Father's Day, Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day. He may also telephone the child every Thursday at 6 p.m. for ten minutes on a phone which he is to provide and pay for:

(Which takes his grand total of visitation time down to 7%)

72. All exchanges of the child shall occur at the Hurricane Police Department or in another public area mutually agreed upon by the parties and which has surveillance cameras.

IV. ALLOCATION OF DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY

73. Mr. Halburn's documented personality disorder also necessitates that Ms. Halburn have sole and exclusive decision making authority over XXXXXX except in medical emergencies when the child is in his care.

74. As an example of how Mr. Halburn’s personality disorder interferes with the provision of services to XXXXXX, the Court heard credible evidence that Mr. Halburn has made enraged, rude, disrespectful and excessively demanding phone calls to XXXXXX's day care provider, a facility that was chosen by Ms. Halburn.
(How about his visit to the doctor in 2011, which was videoed by another patient?)

75. Mr. Halburn's behavior was threatening to the extent that a personal protective order was issued in favor of the provider's owner and against Mr. Halburn.

(Halburn has reportedly already violated this order and is awaiting a hearing on the matter) 

76. In response to the order entered against him, Mr. Halburn has accused the day care owner of "slanderous accusations and psychotic behavior" and demanded that the owner “must not be allowed within 1,000 miles of XXXXXX." He called the owner “a danger to XXXXXX" who engages in 'erratic; mentally unstable behavior."

77. Based on his behavior as set forth above, it is obvious that Mr. Halburn will seek to disrupt the services of any provider who does not tolerate his conduct and. for that reason, joint allocation of decision making responsibility is not in the child's best interests, nor is it in XXXXXX's best interest that his father have equal access to the child's medical and educational records. Unless his access is restricted, there is no doubt that Mr. Halburn will bully, degrade and infuriate every provider with whom he disagrees or who has refused to accommodate his odious and malicious conduct.

78. Consistent with the above, Ms. Halburn may limit or eliminate Mr. Halburn's opportunities to accompany, visit or call XXXXXX at any day care center, pre-school, school, church, doctor's office or other service provider.

79. Mr. Halburn retains the right to make emergency medical decisions for XXXXXX while XXXXXX is in his care and Ms. Halburn is not present.

V. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION

80. Petitioner and her mother acquired a home in Hurricane, Putnam County, West Virginia, in 1992. Mr. Halburn's name is not on the deed. The parties resided in the home from April 2000 until March 2012. Neither party had the property appraised for this litigation.

(His name is not on the deed. A point he made at least 5 times in his deposition. Another brilliant move.)

81. It is undisputed that during the course of the marriage marital funds were used to pay down the principal amount of the mortgage on the home by $16,000.

82, Mr. Halburn seeks one-half of the difference between the amount left on the mortgage at the time of separation and the "asking price" of the home, which is now on the market for sale. There is no support in law for this method of assigning value and he cites none.

83. Mr. Halburn also seeks reimbursement for $12,750 in "improvements". The list submitted, however, includes such items as "photos of XXXXXX $500", "Back room entertainment center' $500", and "XXXXXX's swing set $500”, which clearly are not improvements to the realty and did not increase its value. In any case, no credible opinion, expert or otherwise, was given as to the increase in value to the home as the result of any legitimate "improvement" and the Court declines to speculate.

("Back room entertainment center" sounds like some of that pornography that was on Mark's computer.)

84. Mr. Halburn likewise demands that he be reimbursed for half of the taxes paid on the home during the course of the marriage. This argument fails to consider that he lived in the home for twelve years and enjoyed all the benefits connected therewith,

85. Based on the above, and as an incident to the allocation of custodial responsibility set forth above, Ms. Halburn is awarded sole and exclusive possession of the marital home and any interest Mr. Halburn may claim in the home is terminated. For purposes of equitable distribution, the home is assigned a value of $16,000, which is the reduction in the principal amount of the mortgage over the course of the marriage.

86. Mr. Halburn started and built PutnumLive.com during the course of the marriage. This internet based business was the parties' prime source of income and is clearly a marital asset. The only value put upon the business at trial was $25,000, which was an offer of purchase that Mr. Halburn refused a few years ago. The business is awarded to Mr. Halburn as his sole property and for purposes of equitable distribution it is assigned a value of $20,000 to account for any diminishment in value since the offer of purchase was made. It should be noted that at one point Mr. Halburn responded to an inquiry of purchase with an "asking" price of $250,000.

(This was to our very own Tyler Hollywood.)

87. Petitioner shall have exclusive use, possession and ownership of the 2010 Nissan Sentra and Respondent shall similarly enjoy the 2010 Hyundai Elantra. Each party shall be responsible for the debt on the vehicle in her/his possession. For purposes of equitable distribution, the Nissan is assigned a net value of $2,000 and the Hyundai is assigned a net value of $4,000.

88. Each party shall retain all personal property currently in her/his possession. For purposes of equitable distribution the property retained by Ms. Halburn is assigned an excess value of $l,500 above the value of Mr. Halburn's property.

89. The parties did not accumulate any debt in both of their names. Subsequently, Ms. Halburn shall be responsible for all marital debt in her name, totaling approximately $8,800, and Mr. Halburn shall be responsible for all marital debt in his name, which is approximately the same amount. Each party is responsible for her/his own student loan debt.

90. The parties are directed to prepare, sign and file amended state and federal 2011 tax returns. Mr. Halburn shall be responsible for the estimated $900 owed as a result of the amended returns. Ms. Halburn shall be responsible for the tax debt owed to the State of California in the amount of $363.46.

91. Distribution of assets and debts as set forth above results in a net marital estate of $42,236.54, of which $23,100 is awarded to Mr. Halburn and $19,136.54 is awarded to Ms. Halburn. The cash payment owed by Mr. Halburn to Ms. Halburn to equalize their one-half interest in the marital estate is $1,981.73. That amount shall be paid on or before April 1, 2013.

($1,981.73! Pay up sucker!)

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

92. Neither party has made a rational demand for alimony or spousal support from the other party, and, therefore, each party shall be forever precluded from making a claim for the same against the other.
(Halburn sure has made plenty of irrational demands though.)

93. Petitioner is restored to her maiden name of DJM.

(The real shame is that the boy will have to continue to be saddled with the name Halburn. It's like having to go through life with the last name of Hitler.)

94, Respondent is enjoined and restrained from communicating in any manner with Petitioner except as reasonably necessary concerning parenting of the child or in case of an emergency involving the child. At all times Respondent shall refrain from all communication designed to harass or annoy Petitioner.
(Good luck with this one. We urge Ms. M to buy a handgun and learn how to use it. This could very well end up as a Lifetime movie)

VII. ATTORNEY FEES

95. Ms. Halburn has filed a petition seeking an award of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $10,435.85.

96. W.Va. Code §48-1-305(a) states that "Costs may be awarded to either party as justice requires ... ".

97. W.Va. Code §48-1-305(c) governs the award of fees and costs expended because of another party's vexatious litigiousness:

When it appears to the Court that a party has incurred attorney fees and costs unnecessarily because the opposing party has asserted unfounded claims or defenses for vexatious, wanton or oppressive purposes, thereby delaying or diverting attention from valid claims or defenses asserted in good faith, the court may order the offending party, or his or her attorney, or both, to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs to the other party.

98. Here an award of costs and fees is authorized by W.Va. Code §48-1-305(a) and (c) due to much of the fees incurred by Ms. Halburn being a result of Mr. Halburn's vexatious, wanton and oppressive conduct during the course of this litigation.

99. Once a statutory foundation for the award of fees in a particular matter has been identified, an award of fees and costs rests within sound discretion of the court. Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va, 535,474 S.E. 2d 465 (1996).

100. In Banker, the Court articulated the "wide array of factors" that must be considered in determining whether to award fees and costs: (1) the petitioning party's ability to pay his or her own fee; (2) the beneficial results obtained by the attorney; (3) the parties' respective financial conditions; (4) the effect of the attorney's fee on each party's standard of living; (5) the degree of fault of either party making the action necessary; and (6) the reasonableness of the attorney and fee request. Banker, 196 W.Va. 550-51.

If the "reasonableness" of a fees request is at issue, the Banker Court directed that reference be made to the traditional 12 factor test for determining reasonableness first enunciated in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pitrolo, 176 W.Va. 190,32 S.E. 2d 156 (1986):

"The reasonableness of attorney's fees is generally based on broad factors such as: (1) the time and labor involved; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and. ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases."

Each of these factors will be addressed below.

101 . The party's ability to pay her own fee: Ms. Halburn has the ability to pay a portion of her fees.

102. The beneficial results obtained by the attorney: Petitioner prevailed on each major issue.

103. The parties' respective financial conditions: The parties are roughly equal in their respective financial condition.

104. The effect of the attorney's fees on each party's standard of living: Petitioner's standard of living will be decreased tremendously if she must be responsible for payment of all of her attorney fees and costs which were incurred due to the vexatious conduct of Mr. Halburn.

105. The time and labor required: Numerous proceedings were held in this matter, many as a result of Mr. Halburn's filings.

106. The novelty and difficulty of the questions, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly: Due to the extent and nature of Mr. Halburn's conduct, any case in which he is a party requires skilled and tenacious counsel.

107. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case:

This case required more than average availability and litigation skills since Mr. Halburn can always be counted on to turn the simple into the complex and launch a full scale verbal assault on any and all persons who disagree with him.

(Always)

108. The customary fee: In this case, the hourly rate requested of $175 per hour is extremely reasonable.

109. Time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances: Other than the standard deadlines involved in a divorce case, there were no other relevant time limitations in this case.

110. The amount involved and the results obtained: Petitioner's attorney achieved success on each issue.

111. The experience, reputation. and ability of the attorney: Both Petitioner and Respondent were represented by competent, experienced counsel, who regularly appear in Family Court for complex cases.

112. The undesirability of the case: This case must considered highly undesirable given Mr. Halburn's conduct.
(Undesirability and Mark Halburn go hand in hand.)

113. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client: This factor is not applicable in this case.

114. Awards in similar cases: While it is rare for this Court to award fees, when the standards set forth in W.Va. Code §48-1 -305 have been met an award of fees should be and usually is entered.

115. A reduction in the amount of fees requested is warranted since Ms. Halburn would have incurred fees and costs of at least $2,500 even absent Mr. Halburn's conduct.

116. Ms. Halburn is hereby AWARDED fees and costs in the amount of $7,935.85 and Mr. Halburn shall pay the same by April 1, 2013.

($7,935.85! Pay up again, ya fat bastard!)

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is, therefore, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the marriage heretofore celebrated and existing between the parties be, and the same is hereby dissolved, and that the parties be and they are hereby and forever divorced from each other and the bonds of matrimony under the terms, conditions, rights and obligations set forth above.

The Clerk of this Court shall send a certified copy of this Order to each party upon its

entry as follows and to the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement:
(Celebrated? That's a little strong.

The gravy train is over for you, Halburn. Now go away and leave everyone alone.)

Henry R. Glass, Esq.

(Counsel for Petitioner)

5215 MacCorkle Avenue, SW

South Charleston, WV 25309

Michael S. Bailey, Esq.

(Counsel for Respondent)

P. O. Box 347

Barboursville, WV 25504

And it appearing to the Court that there is nothing further to be done in this cause at this time, it is ORDERED that the same be omitted from the docket of this Court.

Pursuant to W.Va. Family Court Rule 22(c), you are hereby notified that this is a Final Order. Any party may file a motion for reconsideration of this Final Order as provided in W.Va. Code §51-2A-10. Any party aggrieved by this Final Order may take an appeal either to the Circuit Court or directly to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. A petition for appeal to the Circuit Court may be filed by either' party within thirty (30) days after entry of this Final Order. In order to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Appeals, both parties must file, within fourteen (14) days after entry of this Final Order, a joint notice of intent to appeal and waiver of right to appeal to circuit court.

ENTER this 22nd day of January, 2013.

Mike Kelly, Family Court Judge