Perjury in Case Already

I believe I already have an example of perjury in this case.

I was cross-examining Michelle Erickson, whose resume and statement under oath was that she had always had the position of Social Worker III since she's worked for the state for 5 years.

However, what I had found in public records, unless they were wrong, was that she was a Social Worker II until sometime around the time my Ex left, and then was promoted to Social Worker III. I only remember approximate time because I noticed the change and thought it was after this event. But it could have been earlier, I just recall it was a promotion while she working on my case and my case alone, and she's done a lot of lying on behalf of the department.

I was asking her about raises, incentives, or any promotions she's received since having my case.

I also newly found out several things, including who the regional director was that supervised this whole thing. I was told it was a "Barbara" but at the hearing was told the supervisor to Russ Haugen (Wenatchee) was Marty Butkovich. I don't know who that is.

The state also introduced new material into the record and I objected, on the grounds that I had not received notice and should have continuance to examine the material and new discovery and the Judge overruled me and allowed it and refused to grant continuance.

I also found out, just today, that the state was obstructing my ability to get a psychiatric test rescheduled and told THEM not to make any appointments with me, even though I had the right to make this appointment on my own with them. Now, after the hearing has commenced, they were telling me I could make an appointment with them. They were told by CPS to NOT allow me to be evaluated PRIOR to this trial but after the trial, they don't care. This is new information for which I would or should be allowed to subpoena these witnesses to testify to obstruction, and how I WAS attempting to get things done.

I requested Continuance in the beginning, because I don't have public representation and was only given a letter in May refusing me one. I asked for more time to find private representation and he said no. Then the state introduced new evidence and it was all allowed and they will not continue this hearing, even though this brings new things to the table which I have a right to examine and then make subpoenas from.