Murphy_RPF Corruption Motion w Exhibit 1 and All Atts

8/9/2019 Murphy_RPF Corruption Motion w Exhibit 1 and All Atts

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphyrpf-corruption-motion-w-exhibit-1-and-all-atts 1/319





Attachment 145, Page 1 of 1



EXHIBIT 1



Motion for Investigation of Judge Baldwin’s CorruptionWith Plea to Jurisdiction

Page 1 of 147

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COWETA COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

John Harold Murphy, Plaintiffvs. Civil Action No. 12V-413

Nancy Michelle Murphy, Defendant

The Fondling and Sexual Misconduct Accusation against MichelleMurphy was Fabricated and used Fraudulently in the Courts

Part 1 of Motion for an Investigation, Public Disclosure and

Termination of the Corruption of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

and those participating in and initiating his corruption, by financing, andotherwise providing incentive to those persons and entities engaging in

fraud, perjury, false statements, false swearing and other conduct inviolation of the LAW*




Page 2 of 147

!"#$%&'( *'+$ $, &"-.$/ 01#2 3%&4.56 1-' 78/ 0,.9 :1&,;( 3%&4.56 $.' +1$.'&/ <'9'' *= :1%-'&%(6

$.' >$'4?,$.'& 19( $.' ;'1( 9'-,$"1$,&/ 3"#.';;' 3%&4.56 $.' ?,$.'&/ 19( @.,?1> 3%&4.56 1-'

7A B,&6 “family”C !.,$, $12'9 "9 D$1. ,9 019= 76 EF7G= They met to work this out fairly!

This Motion includes a request for the immediate disqualification / suspension of

Judge Baldwin, until he is provided his protections under the LAW* that

accompany the more appropriate, permanent removal of his judicial authority.

This case is about John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud attempting to take

Jack Murphy, age 16 and Thomas Murphy age 14 from the mother who raised these

children since they were toddlers without the physical presence of John Harold

Murphy. There was and is no legal basis for the taking of the children from their

mother, so the Glover & Davis lawyers, with the assistance of others, fabricated the

most despicable of all reasons, i.e., one of the children had been fondled.

1. Had Judge Baldwin followed the LAW* the children would have never been

subjected to the consequences of the May 27, 2014 illegal arrest and other

despicable conduct, as the “Transporters” and the children would never been

subjected to incarceration that was approved by Judge Baldwin, after the failed

parenting of John Harold Murphy, Renee L. Haugerud, the guardian ad litem,

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell and their experts.

1.1 This case was driven into its current posture by the corruption of Judge

Baldwin that was motivated by financial and political influence rather than the

LAW*. No family should be subjected to the type of mistreatment to which Judge

Baldwin’s judicial corruption subjected Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and

Thomas Murphy.




Page 3 of 147

1.1.1 After Michelle Murphy informed John Harold Murphy that she would not

yield to his request for her and the children to move to Tennessee to live near

Renee Haugerud’s home on Lookout Mountain, they began to force Michelle

Murphy to surrender custody of the children, as they had threatened.

1.1.1.1 The efforts of John Harold Murphy and Renee Haugerud to obtain

custody of Jack and Thomas were in two very different arenas. They and their

cadre of lawyers have a unified tactic, i.e., to financially deplete the resources

of Michelle Murphy to cause her submission and to benefit from the corruption

of Judge Baldwin. There were contempts adjudicated by Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr., accompanied by his not allowing Michelle Murphy to present

evidence.

1.1.1.2 One vital aspect of Judge Baldwin’s corruption included his Order

that allowed the removal of Jack and Thomas from the jurisdiction of the court

to any place in the world. The draconian nature of that Order was combined

with an Order that Michelle Murphy could not have any contact with the

children.

1.1.1.3 John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud began their financial

assault upon Michelle Murphy’s family of Jack and Thomas with the cadre of

lawyers financed with funds derived from Renee L. Haugerud, that were paid

to Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis, and a cadre of lawyers with financial and

political associations with Judge Baldwin. These payments to persons to

assist John Harold Murphy in breaching the 2006 Divorce Decree Settlement

Contract expanded to Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, another law firm,

to numerous “expert witnesses,” to investigators and a public relations expert,

Patrick Crosby, who attempted to deceptively distort information to the media.




Page 4 of 147

1.1.1.4 Michelle Murphy, a hair stylist, could not financially afford to

defend herself against this conglomerate of foes, none the least of which was

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., as John Harold Murphy, with Judge Baldwin’s

tacit approval, ceased making child support payments that were necessary for

Michelle Murphy to use to protect Jack and Thomas.

1.1.1.5 On May 27, 2014, Judge Baldwin transferred temporary custody to

John Harold Murphy with a June 5, 2014 Order. John Harold Murphy took

advantage of that Order in an attempt to alienate the children from their mother

by removing the children thousands of miles from their home in Newnan, GA

to St. Thomas, USVI where he abandoned the parenting discipline of Michelle

Murphy and attempted to gain favor with Jack and Thomas by providing them

a lifestyle that included serving them alcoholic beverages and making

alcoholic beverages available to them on a regular basis.

It took Michelle Murphy until the January 1, 2015 family meeting in Utah to

establish an admission that the fondling and sexual misconduct accusations

against her were fabricated and fraudulently used in the Courts. The meeting

resulted in disclosure of another fraudulent fabrication. That admission, known to

Michelle Murphy, was that Taylor Drake’s initial reason for an immediate hearing

was knowingly fabricated in order to select Judge Baldwin. The reason stated for the

immediate hearing was fraudulently fabricated by Taylor Drake, i.e., Michelle

Murphy was not threatening to take Jack and Thomas out of school and move to

South Carolina. That was a Taylor Drake statement to obtain an immediate hearing

in order to select Judge Baldwin. John Harold Murphy states that he did not allege

that fear.




Page 5 of 147

Included here is a Plea to Judge Baldwin’s Personal Jurisdiction while Seeking his

Disqualification and Other Relief that is Necessary for Michelle Murphy to have

equal access to Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy immediately.

Before this Motion was served, Judge Baldwin and counselfor John Harold Murphy were Provided the following

Documents in hope of immediately providing Michelle

Murphy her contractual rights that were established in the

2006 Divorce Decree. This would provide Murphy immediate access to her

children and allow John and Michelle to equally decide the best interest of the

children without the money grabbers for Renee’s pocketbook. Judge Baldwin and

Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell should relinquish their control to John and Michelle. This

motion is supported by the recently provided documents.

1. The Information from the Executive Director of Elevations that

Michelle Murphy should have access to Jack and Thomas.

2. The Accusation of Fondling was Fabricated

3. Motion requesting Access to Jack & Thomas for Response to Motion

for Summary Judgment.

4. The following Affidavit from Joyanna Silberg, Ph D.

I, Joyanna L. Silberg, being duly sworn attest to the

following opinions.

If

called upon as a witness, I am competent to testify to the

information and opinion contained herein.




Page 6 of 147

I am a clinical psychologist licensed by the State of Maryland,

and have received temporary licenses to practice in North Carolina,

Ohio, New Jersey, California, and South Dakota. I have 30 years of

experience in trauma, therapy with maltreated children, domestic

violence, sexual abuse, children of divorce, high conflict divorce

scenarios, psychological testing, forensic evaluation, and severe

psychiatric disturbance in children. I have trained Maryland, New York,

Virginia, and California court personnel on how to deal with situations

when allegations of abuse arise in family court, and I have presented

workshops around the world in these issues. I have trained Guardians

ad litem in Maryland through the Maryland Volunteer Lawyer's

Association on child abuse and domestic violence. I have served as an

expert witness in multiple Maryland Counties, and around the country

on issues related to the mental health of children, and have been court-

ordered to treat and evaluate children who are caught in custody

disputes in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Baltimore City,

Harford County, and Charles County. I have served on National Think

Tanks regarding these issues. I am also an international expert on child

therapy and dissociative disorders in children and sexual abuse and have

edited two books, The Dissociative Child, and Misinformation on Child

Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors. My book The Child Survivor came

out in 2013. I am internationally recognized as an expert on these issues

and have been invited to speak in Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany,

New Zealand, Great Britain, and The Netherlands. A summary of my




Page 7 of 147

professional qualifications is accurately set forth in my curriculum vitae

attached and incorporated herein.

I have reviewed the following documents: Affidavit of Michelle

Murphy, Affidavit of Jack Murphy, affidavit of Thomas Murphy,

Affidavit of Jan Franks, Affidavit of Clarence Massie, Materials

provided by H. Elizabeth King related to Custody Evaluations, transcript

of May 27' 2014 Hearing, Copy of letter to John and Renee from Jack

Murphy, July 31 Emergency Motion for Relief, and The Motion for

Summary Judgment and Response to Motion for Summary Judgment.

On January 12, 2015 I assessed Michelle Murphy in my office for four hours. During this time, I evaluated her capacity for parenting by

interviewing her about key dimensions of parenting including discipline,

nutrition, academic support, individualized attention to the child's needs,

basic values, and knowledge of the individual strength and weaknesses

of each of her children. It was clear from my assessment that her parenting

style and parenting knowledge is excellent and that she uses a direct

educational approach to teaching children proper behavior, and she is

deeply committed to their progress and strengths. She discussed the

allegation of sexual abuse that had been made against her, and she stated

that both boys have denied it and that in her last meeting with her ex-

husband and his wife both of them acknowledged that they knew this was

not true. While the source of this accusation is unclear, it is clear that this

is not a relevant concern at this point in time.

During this interview, she also discussed with me the current status

of the children's placement at a program entitled Elevations. Based on




Page 8 of 147

the children's report to her, she supports the children's placement in this

program and believes that they will succeed even better if she can

participate in this treatment. She affirmed for me that the director, Judith

Jacques, stated to her that she agreed that mother's involvement in the

treatment would be of great assistance to the children. Although I

attempted to confirm that for myself, I did not receive any calls back or

return messages from Judith Jacques. Nonetheless, as a professional who

works in both an inpatient and residential program I am very aware how

important both parents roles are in participating in the therapy so that

gains made in treatment can be sustained.

I assume the reason I did not hear back from Ms. Jacques is that Michelle

Murphy was not able to supply the legal consent for her to speak with

me and so she was not allowed from a legal perspective to verify this

viewpoint that Ms. Murphy should be involved in treatment. Should the

court question whether this approach is recommended by the center I

suggest the court inquire directly from Ms. Jacques as to her

recommendations in this regard.

It is my professional opinion to a high degree of psychological

certainty that their mother's involvement in their treatment will

facilitate these boys ' r ecovery and make discharge planning much

easier . Without the center even observing how she interacts with her

children, they will be unable to provide confident recommendations

regarding the mother’s involvement post discharge. Clearly the

intensive therapy and assessment that the boys have now received at




Page 9 of 147

Elevations obviates any need for the previous assessments that the

court had ordered.

It is clearly in the best interest of the children to move in the

direction of a more normalized family life with access to all of the parents

that love them.

Joyanna Silberg, Ph. D.

Disclosure of Reports of Psychologist Related to John and Renee

before the May 27, 2014 Proceeding.

The psychologist’s report about the parenting skills of John Harold Murphy and

Renee L. Haugerud provided to Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. should be included

in the record in order that two matters may be reviewed. First, the report will support

or repudiate the appropriateness of the transfer of custody temporarily by Judge

Baldwin and second, the reliability of the opinions of the psychologist, who was

selected by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell.

Unconscionable Restriction upon Michelle Murphy’s Access to her Children

1.2 It is unconscionable that the stepmother, Renee L. Haugerud, has access to the

children that Michelle Murphy does not have when it is the stepmother’s financial

resources that have and are funding substantial portions of the corruption that

resulted in Jack and Thomas, at the behest of John Harold Murphy and the Glover

& Davis lawyers, being snatched away from Michelle Murphy in a Gestapo type of

proceeding on May 27, 2014.

1.2.1 The conduct of Judge Baldwin at the May 27, 2014 hearing that was

retaliatory conduct resulting from counsel’s exposure of the violations of the




Page 10 of 147

protections provided to Michelle Murphy and her counsel by the Code of Judicial

Conduct, the Uniform Superior Court Rules, Constitutional provisions of the

United States and State of Georgia equivalent, First Amendment, Equal

Protection, Due Process protections, statutes, decisional law, Georgia Code of

Professional Conduct (or, collectively or separately, “LAW*”).

The Absence of an Enforceable Case Management Rule Promotes Corruption

1.2.2 The absence of the protections afforded Michelle Murphy and other

similarly situated persons of an unenforced case management plan, Uniform

Superior Court Rule 3.1 and the Recusal mandates of Rule 25 are the systematic

violation of the LAW* that have historically provided the politically associatedlawyers the option to judge-shop. Judicial oversight of the rights of children has

an extremely low priority in the State of Georgia that sinks below the line of

human decency when administered by Judge Baldwin.

1.2.3 The violations of the protections of LAW* inflicted upon Michelle

Murphy were pursued by Taylor Drake, the Glover & Davis lawyer, in order to

select Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., to whom the Glover & Davis P.A. law firm

members have financially contributed directly, and of more importance, bundled

money and political benefits for years.

1.2.4 The selection of Judge Baldwin in this case was to provide the Glover &

Davis lawyers a return on their financial and political investment in the judicial

authority of Judge Baldwin that these lawyers have cultivated over the years.

1.2.5 Enforcement of a case management plan is as vital to the LAW* as having

a representative cross-section of the community on the jury. In this modification

of custody case, Judge Baldwin serves as both the jury and the judge. The opinion




Page 11 of 147

of a judge in this type of case on appeal is only reversible under the “abuse of

discretion” standard.

Michelle Murphy Could Not Afford a Lawyer who Participates in Judge

Baldwin’s Judicial Corruption.

1.2.6 For these reasons Judge Baldwin could not remove himself, or provide a

hearing on his disqualification that would have exposed his disqualification.

1.2.7 Michelle Murphy could not afford a politically embedded lawyer to

compete with the approximate million dollars that has been spent on behalf of

John Harold Murphy from sources originating from Renee L. Haugerud.

1.2.8 Michelle Murphy was required to accept representation from lawyerswho were such political outsiders that they were illegally convicted by Judge

Baldwin of indirect criminal contempt and Michelle Murphy was adjudicated to

be in contempt for seeking protections provided by LAW*.

1.2.8.1 Michelle Murphy is currently ordered by Judge Baldwin to be held

in the Coweta County Jail until she signs the custody evaluator, Nancy

McGarrah’s contract granting this custody evaluator full immunity from

liability from any civil action filed by Michelle Murphy against her.

1.2.8.2 Nancy McGarrah is the custody evaluator who stated falsely,

according to John Harold Murphy, that John Harold Murphy told her that one

of the children stated that one of the children had been fondled.

1.2.8.3 The contempt Order against Michelle Murphy has been affirmed

with an opinion of Court of Appeals Judge Christopher McFadden serving

with the panel of Judge Boggs and Presiding Judge Doyle. A petition for writ




Page 12 of 147

of certiorari has been filed with the Supreme Court of Georgia. A motion to

disqualify this Court of Appeals panel was denied.

1.2.9 The ability of Judge Baldwin to obtain hefty financial and political

support would diminish substantially if he refused to allow himself to be judge-

shopped. Currently he is near the top of his financial and political funders’

shopping list. The word on the street is that Judge Baldwin delivers even when

he is appointed as a surrogate for another type of political necessity, as appointing

the judge to preside in the Brian Nichols case.

1.2.10 Judge Baldwin is the Chief Judge of the Coweta Judicial Circuit; he

should not attempt at the same time to be the Political Chief and surrogate to

others attempting to carry out their political agenda.

1.2.11. It is the systematic attacks upon such aspects of the political structure

of the judicial misconduct that does not provide protection to litigants without

money that should be provided to them by LAW* that offended Judge Baldwin

to the extent that he engaged in overt, corrupt tactics affecting Michelle Murphy.

1.2.11.1 In the view of Judge Baldwin, as demonstrated by his conduct,

counsel for Michelle Murphy were supposed to succumb to his

administration of a system that did not provide Michelle Murphy the

protection of LAW*




Page 13 of 147

1.2.11.2 On the street, they call it, “No Money; No Justice.” Often, on

appeal, it is called, “judicial discretion;” here, we identify the financial and

political decision making of Judge Baldwin and its numerous facets simply

as, “judicial corruption.”

Michelle Murphy Must Have State Empowered Investigative Assistance

1.3 At this stage, Michelle Murphy requires an investigator empowered and

compensated by the State of Georgia to expose immediately the corruption that

resulted from such despicable judicial conduct that even some of the participants

with Judge Baldwin are ashamed.

1.3.1 Judge Baldwin has substantial assistance in sustaining his corruption.

1.3.1.1 It has been impossible for Michelle Murphy’s counsel to preserve a

record in this case that exposes the corruption, as the basic modus operandi of

Judge Baldwin’s protective shield is very simple; he does not allow Michelle

Murphy to produce evidence and Judge Baldwin requires his approval before

any motion can be filed by Michelle Murphy’s counsel. Judge Baldwin also

obtains assistance from others in secreting his misconduct and the misconductof those who participate in his corruption.

Protectors of Judge Baldwin’s Corruption

1.3.1.2 Examples of protectors of Judge Baldwin’s judicial corruption was

exposed around the events of the “Blame Yourself! Blame Yourself! Blame

Yourself!” May 27, 2014 proceeding.

1.3.1.3 It was necessary for Judge Baldwin to prevent Michelle Murphy

from presenting even her direct examination before he orchestrated the

May 27, 2014 judicially directed, snatch and grab of Jack Murphy and Thomas




Page 14 of 147

Murphy that he perfected with Deputy Sheriffs, whom he prearranged to be

present in the courtroom.

1.3.1.4 Judge Baldwin performed his take-down stunt before the full array

of Glower & Davis lawyers, the Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lawyers

and the cadre of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP gawkers who came

from Atlanta to Newnan just to observe the take-down. The expression on the

face of Judge Baldwin as he sought an approving view from these lawyers and

their supporting gawkers was that of a professional, Saturday night, small town

wrestler as the wrestler exchanged looks with the ring-side revelers seeking

approval and looks from the wrestler, starting with the suffering of his

opponent lying unconscious on the mat, bleeding and maybe praying that there

would not be another knee-drop to his back in response to the approval from

the ring-side revelers.

1.3.1.5 After the May 27, 2014 temper tantrum, counsel for Michelle

Murphy requested that the court reporter allow counsel to purchase the audio

recording of the proceeding. Nan Freeman, the court reporter, refused by

stating that the audio recording was her work product.

1.3.1.6 After Michelle Murphy filed a plea for a change of heart by Judge

Baldwin, it was then necessary for counsel to file a freedom of information

request to obtain the four “Blame Yourself!” omitted pages from the transcript

that Nan Freeman had sworn was complete when she filed the transcript, even

though the critical pages were not included.

1.3.1.7 It is understandable that Nan Freeman wished to protect Judge

Baldwin; it is not understandable that she would provide an oath that she had




Page 15 of 147

provided a complete transcript when she omitted the highly relevant four pages

that punctuated the conduct of Judge Baldwin that was against the LAW*

1.3.1.8 After a threat by counsel for Michelle Murphy to bring an action to

obtain the audio recording of the proceeding, Judge Baldwin e-mailed counsel

for Michelle Murphy and asked that Nan Freeman not be sued, as she did not

have the money to afford the litigation. There was a motion to disqualify Judge

Baldwin based, in part, upon that request to protect Nan Freeman.

1.3.1.9 This request by Judge Baldwin for immunity for Nan Freeman was

both conduct that is against the LAW* and conduct that is personally insulting

to counsel for the mother of Jack and Thomas.

1.3.1.10 Judge Baldwin just did not get that it was corruption that counsel

for Michelle Murphy was resisting and not an opportunity to participate in the

corruption.

1.2.1.11 Counsel did file the necessary action against Nan Freeman and

the Board of Court Reporting that resulted in obtaining all of Nan Freeman’s

audio recordings.

1.3.1.12 The deposition of Nan Freeman was taken on November 22, 2014

and preserved with a video and transcript of the deposition. Nan Freeman,

during the deposition, confessed to illegally charging for her transcripts. The

transcript, with exhibits, is Attachment 154.

1.3.1.13 The District Attorney of the Coweta Judicial Circuit failed to

return phone calls relating to bringing an action against Nan Freeman to

recover the illegally taken funds that Judge Baldwin had approved, without

reading the illegal vouchers for Nan Freeman to receive payment from the

counties in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.




Page 16 of 147

1.3.1.14 If counsel for Michelle Murphy had yielded to the request of

Judge Baldwin, the illegal conduct of Nan Freeman would not have been

disclosed.

1.3.1.15 Counsel for Michelle Murphy, at that stage of correcting the Nan

Freeman illegal conduct, then attempted to talk with an employee of the Board

of Court Reporters, who had, in the past, provided helpful information to

counsel. That employee of the State of Georgia did not return counsel’s calls.

After several unsuccessful attempts, Cynthia Clanton, an employee of the State

of Georgia’s Administrative Office of the Courts, returned counsel for

Michelle Murphy’s call that had been left for a person who is employed by the

State of Georgia to administer matters relating to court reporters.

1.3.1.16 Counsel for Michelle Murphy had experience dealing with

Cynthia Clanton of the Administrative Office of the Courts during the time

that counsel was marshalling information in another case involving then Chief

Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit.

During the Williams case, Cynthia Clanton prohibited Millard Farmer from

talking with the State of Georgia employed, Director of the Georgia

Commission on Dispute Resolution about some of the money that the Clerk of

Court in Glynn County collected and did not return to litigants who, under an

Order of Judge Williams, were illegally required to pay an additional filing

fee.

1.3.1.17 On the recent occasion involving Nan Freeman and Judge Baldwin,

Cynthia Clanton refused to allow Millard Farmer to talk with the employee of

the Board of Court Reporting without first submitting questions to her. This

conduct was perceived by Millard Farmer as Cynthia Clanton’s effort to assist




Page 17 of 147

further exposure of the illegal conduct of Nan Freeman and thereby Judge

Baldwin.

1.3.1.18 This information is included in this motion seeking assistance for

investigation of the corruption of Judge Baldwin, as Millard Farmer strongly

suspects that Cynthia Clanton has provided assistance to persons assisting

Judge Baldwin in his corruption, including Nan Freeman and others. It is not

the function of Cynthia Clanton to assist persons compensated by the State of

Georgia in avoiding detection from their illegal conduct.

1.3.1.19 There is a large amount of competent investigative work that is

required by the State of Georgia empowered investigators to determine the

persons who have assisted Judge Baldwin’s law clerk, Melissa Sams, and

others actively participating in Judge Baldwin’s corruption and who

participated by concealing aspects of his ex parte corruption conduct, as Julia

Harris, Judicial Assistant, is believed to have knowledge. Julia Harris was

subpoenaed to testify at the March 17, 2014 proceeding. Michelle Murphy was

not allowed to present her evidence at that March 17, 2014 proceeding. False

statements to the State of Georgia funded investigators will be a criminal act

that will loosen the tongues of these participants, as Nan Freeman’s tongue

was somewhat loosened between the time that she answered, under oath, the

Complaint filed against her and the time of her deposition.

1.3.2 The May 27 “Blame Yourself!” proceeding is only the tip of the Iceberg.

1.3.2.1 The only direct evidence about the hinted fondling and sexual

misconduct were the affidavits of unequivocal denial by Michelle Murphy,

Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy.




Page 18 of 147

1.3.2.2 On May 27, 2014, these persons were in the courtroom, awaiting an

opportunity to testify. Judge Baldwin denied Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy

and Thomas Murphy the right to testify or to present their evidence directly or

from their witnesses.

1.3.2.3 At the May 27, 2014 proceeding and numerous earlier hearings,

Judge Baldwin intentionally denied Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and

Thomas Murphy the protections provided to them by LAW*.

1.3.2 .4 Corruption, and not LAW*, dominated the conduct of Judge A.

Quillian Baldwin, Jr. in this case.

1.3.2.5 A substantial part of the funding that motivated the corruption that

dominated the judicial decision making and motivated benefits derived from

corruption in this case, came directly and indirectly from present and future

anticipated funding from the assets of Renee L. Haugerud, her controlled

Galtere, Ltd, and other entities in which Renee L. Haugerud participated

directly and indirectly.

The Lust for the Money Derived from the Financial Interests of Renee L.

Haugerud Prevented Dispute Resolution

1.3.2.6 There are evasion of state and federal tax consequences that are

suspected, involving assets that have supported this litigation and the lifestyle

of John Harold Murphy, Renee L. Haugerud and others that require

sophisticated investigation, as, correct or not, it has been reported that St.

Thomas provides special income tax credits to individuals with children, as

children assist in establishing residency associated with tax exemptions that

otherwise could not be claimed.




Page 19 of 147

1.3.2.7 The lust of the Glover & Davis lawyers for attorney fees prevented

any fair attempts to resolve the dispute that created this case either before or

at any time during the litigation.

1.3.2.8 Renee L. Haugerud, before the litigation began, told Michelle

Murphy that she should just surrender Jack and Thomas to John Harold

Murphy, as she and John were going to get the children from her.

1.3.2.9 The financial strength of Renee L. Haugerud and the willingness of

John Harold Murphy to make false statements and gain assistance from

Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby presented what the litigation has

resulted in accomplishing – the financial devastation of Michelle Murphy. This

was only possible with the corruption and the absence of the protections of the

LAW* provided to Michelle Murphy.

Judge Baldwin Engaged in Judicially Corrupt Conduct.

1.3.2.10 Judge Baldwin engaged in much of his LAW* violations in order

to protect the interest of those participating in the universe of Judge Baldwin’s

corruption.

1.4 Make no mistake in understanding that Judge Baldwin and the Guardian ad

Litem, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell maliciously attempted to alienate Jack and

Thomas from Michelle Murphy. Judge Baldwin maliciously violated the LAW*.

Judge Baldwin’s absence of knowledge of the LAW* admittedly contributed to his

reliance upon those participating in and motivating his corruption. Judge Baldwin

attempted to gain status with those whom he used to assist him in furtherance of his

corruption.




Page 20 of 147

1.4.1 This is to plainly state that the conduct of Judge Baldwin in administering

the LAW* was corrupt. This motion is to provide the background of information

supplied to Judge Baldwin that he failed to fairly adjudicate that supports that an

investigation should be funded by the government to rid the Coweta Judicial

Circuit of the corruption that resulted in the conduct of Judge Baldwin.

1.4.2 Judge Baldwin substituted the protections provided by LAW*to Michelle

Murphy and her counsel to prevent evidence at critical stages of the litigation

with one of his temper tantrums, threats, or broken commitments to allow

evidence at a later time, or other violations of the LAW*.

1.4.3 The allegations of fondling and sexual abuse of the children against

Michelle Murphy were maliciously fabricated, fraudulently included in the

record and presented to Judge Baldwin and the appellate judges in order to

overshadow and thereby justify the corruption of Judge Baldwin and his

participants by upholding the contempt convictions against Michelle

Murphy and her counsel and for other illegal purpose.

1.4.4 Michelle Murphy and her counsel do not know for certain who originated

the fabrication, as there was no direct testimony that it even occurred. Those who

spread the fabricated accusation, having access to its untruthfulness, are known.

1.4.5 The symbol of our system of justice certainly weeps profusely to

represent sorrow for the suffering that Jack Murphy, now age 16, and Thomas

Murphy, now age 14, have endured as the result of the corruption of Judge

Baldwin and his participants.




Page 21 of 147

1.4.6 We should deeply regret the failure of our justice system to eradicate the

corruption of Judge Baldwin and his participants for failing to provide Michelle

Murphy the protections that the LAW* should have accorded Michelle Murphy,

her counsel, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy after the filing of the initial

motion to disqualify Judge Baldwin and Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the

guardian ad litem, who illegally took money provided to her in trust, that, as a

part of Judge Baldwin’s corruption, was approved without a requested hearing.

1.4.7 This modification of custody case is not the first time that the Coweta

Judicial Circuit deprived Michelle Murphy of justice.

1.4.8 If Michelle Murphy had not been required to share five different judges

in obtaining her 2006 Divorce Decree, as the consequence of the absence of a

Rule 3.1 case management plan, John Harold Murphy, with false swearing,

would not have been able to secret $180,000 from Michelle Murphy until the day

after the divorce settlement contract was signed. John Harold Murphy would also

have never been able to cheat Michelle Murphy on the child support calculations

that were different than the recorded agreement made to Judge No. 2 of 5. More

about the deprivation that occurred during the 2006 Divorce proceedings later.

The Treatment of Michelle Murphy at the May 27, 2014 Hearing

1.4.9 The conduct of Judge Baldwin in choosing to treat Michelle Murphy as

he did at the May 27, 2014 “Blame Yourself!” proceeding is conduct that was so

evil that it is beyond conduct is only punishable as a violation of the LAW*.

On June 1, 2014, Michelle Murphy explained the May 27, 2014 “Blame

Yourself!” conduct of Judge Baldwin and its foreseeable consequences and those

who were participating in his conduct as follows.




Page 22 of 147

Personally appeared before the undersigned, an officer duly

authorized by law to administer oaths, Nancy Michelle Murphy, who

after being duly sworn, states as follows.

1. I am the mother of Jack Malachi Murphy (or, “Jack Murphy”),

age 15 and Thomas Emerson Murphy (or, “Thomas Murphy”), age 13.

2. John Harold Murphy brought this action to modify custody

against me after I refused to move to the Chattanooga Tennessee area

with the children. Neither I nor the children wished to move to that

area that the children knew better than I did, as they frequently visited

John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud there at her home and

they hate the area.

3. The Glover & Davis Complaint for Modification of John Harold

Murphy stated that I was threatening to move to South Carolina.

4. On Sunday after the Tuesday, May 27, 2027 event, John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud took my sons, Jack and Thomas,

against their will, with them to St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. Jack and

Thomas were physically pulled from my arms in the courthouse on

Tuesday, May 27, 2014, while I attempted to explain the decision of

Judge Baldwin to both of Jack and Thomas, which Judge Baldwin did

not even announce to me in a rational tone.

5. After Judge Baldwin, with his arm fully extended, pointing his

finger in my face, screamed at me that he was giving temporary

custody of Jack and Thomas to their father and stormed out of the

courtroom, I went to the small room outside the courtroom door where

Jack and Thomas had been waiting to testify at the hearing. Thomas




Page 23 of 147

was crying, and shaking, saying, “No! No way! We’re not going with

him! Jack was saying, “No way!”

6. Thomas was white knuckling the chair. I leaned down to be with

him. He flung his arms around my neck and said, “I am not going! I

hate him!” Jack came over to us; his face had a look I had never seen,

and he was shaking and very upset. We were all crying. John Murphy

was leaned against the wall, watching, while I was trying to comfort

the boys the best I could.

7. Jack and Thomas chose to come to court to talk to the judge of

their own volition. They were devastated that Judge Baldwin would not

allow their voices to be heard. They wanted to tell Judge Baldwin

personally what was happening to their lives because of the false

statements that their father had made under oath about them and their

mother.

8. The bailiff, with my sons being emotionally distraught, said to

Thomas, “Do you want to go to juvi (juvenile detention) young man,

‘cause I’ll take you there if you don’t let go of your mother.” [that

deputy took on the demeanor of Judge Baldwin] Thomas responded

that he did not care, he’d rather go there than with his father. The

bailiff said, “I will take your mom to jail.”

9. I was disgusted and broken hearted for my sons that John Murphy

would stand there, watching, and allow this terrifying experience

inflicted upon his 13 and 15 year old sons. I told the bailiff that he was

not going to take them to juvi. I asked him where was his compassion,

and to leave them alone. I was ordered to leave the building or they




Page 24 of 147

would put me in jail. There were three attorneys for John Murphy and

Renee Haugerud standing in the entrance of the room, looking down

on us; two of them were laughing. This upset my sons so much. Thomas

told them to shut up and quit laughing at us. It was the most horrific

and unimaginable experience of my life and I still cannot believe that

Jack and Thomas had to experience it.

10. While all of this was happening, John Murphy just leaned against

the wall, with his hands behind his back and watched, expressionless.

That alone was incomprehensible to me.

11. I was escorted out to my car by another deputy sheriff, who was

very kind. Her eyes were filled with tears as she led me to my car.

12. My sons, Jack and Thomas are so emotionally distraught about

Judge Baldwin taking them from me. They have lived alone with me as

their primary custodial parent, in our home for fifteen years. They are

electronically texting and calling me as much as possible. They have

told me that their father, John Harold Murphy, has threatened to take

away their phones if they continue to text me.

13. Thomas, age 13, is currently physically sick with a sinus infection

and was forced to fly from Chattanooga to Atlanta and then transfer to

another plane to St. Thomas. Thomas needs to be with me so I can

address his illness with his pediatrician in Newnan, who has treated

him for years and knows him very well. Jack and Thomas are both

extremely distraught by being held against their will by their father

and Renee L. Haugerud.




Page 25 of 147

14. The attached electronic messages are some of the true and

accurate messages that I have received. Each of their texts break my

heart, because I feel the distress of Jack and Thomas. The portion of

these electronic messages that are attached to my Emergency Motion

to the Georgia Supreme Court that is to be filed on Monday, June 2,

2014 are also true and accurate copies of text messages that I have

received. Also attached is a true and accurate copy of an email which

I sent to John Murphy, asking that he take Thomas immediately to a

doctor, as he was very sick. This 1st day of June, 2014.

A sampling of the e-mail exchanges attached to the affidavit of

Michelle Murphy that were presented to Judge Baldwin follow. The

affidavit and other information provide in the motion is relevant to this

motion to support that the corruption of Judge Baldwin resulted while

he had full knowledge of the conduct of the participants in his

corruption that support the malicious nature of the corruption.




Page 26 of 147

Judge Baldwin is not deserving of a downward departure from the maximum

discipline

1.5 The absence of remorse by Judge Baldwin in not providing a hearing to

determine the consequences of his illegal behavior, by not allowing a hearing to

correct his conduct, is as indicative of the intent of Judge Baldwin’s corruption as

was the May 27, 2014 hearing, the August 13, 2013 hearing and his consistent denial

of the protections of the LAW* to Michelle Murphy and to her counsel.

1.5.1 Michelle Murphy should never have been subjected to the “Blame

Yourself!” pronouncement by Judge Baldwin, even if the pronouncement had

been delivered in a judicial manner instead of in a street fight delivery tone with

the accompanying physical gyrations of Judge Baldwin. Michelle Murphy, nor

any mother, can be blamed for attempting to protect the lives of Jack and Thomas

from Judge Baldwin and his corrupt participants.1.5.1.1 Nan Freeman should be appropriately reminded of her participation

in the corrupt conduct of Judge Baldwin. It was not until the conduct of this



Motion for Investigation of Judge Baldwin’s Corruption With Plea to Jurisdiction

Page 27 of 147

official court reporter was addressed that she produced the omitted four pages

of a transcript that she had certified to be complete, in which she omitted the

“Blame Yourself! Blame Yourself! Blame Yourself !” pronouncement of Judge

Baldwin at the May 27, 2014 hearing.

1.5.1.2 It was the open records request of Larry King that obtained those

four pages of the transcript.

1.5.1.3 It was only counsel for Michelle Murphy’s resistance to the request

of Judge Baldwin not to bring the action against Nan Freeman that also

produced the evidence now preserved with the complete audio recordings of

the transcripts of Nan Freeman. These audio recordings are available upon

request from Millard Farmer and will be a part of the record in the Superior

Court of Troup County in Michelle Murphy vs. Nan Freeman, et al.

1.5.1.4 The video recording of the deposition of Nan Freeman will also be

available in the Superior Court of Troup County, and, upon request, to the Law

Office of Millard Farmer. The video recordings are an important teaching aid.

The transcript of the deposition is included as Attachment 154.

1.5.1.5 The personal lives of A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. and those who

participated in alluring Judge Baldwin into such a gestapo type of proceeding

came to a fork in the road of life on that infamous May 27, 2014 day.

The Fork in the Road

1.5.1.6 The fork in the road that Judge Baldwin ultimately took led to two

teams of “Transporters” coming into the bedrooms of Jack and Thomas in the

dark of the morning at 6:00 a.m. on September 28, 2014 and taking them into

custody.




Page 28 of 147

1.5.1.7 Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy had no more

opportunity to speak about these children being captured by the “Transporters”

in the dark of the night and taken to Utah and placed in separate confinement

units than Judge Baldwin provided them on May 27, 2014.

1.5.1.8 The “Transporters” Arrived, Unannounced, in the Bedrooms of Jack

Murphy and Thomas Murphy at 6:00 a.m. on September 28, 2014.

1.5.1.8.1 At 6:00 a.m., Jack and Thomas were asleep, in what they believed

and were always told to be their secure bedrooms, at the mansion of Renee L.

Haugerud on Lookout Mountain, TN.

1.5.1.8.2 Very unexpectedly to Jack Murphy, then age 15, two men, unknown

to Jack Murphy, appeared at his bedside to awaken him. The two men announced,

“Brush your teeth, go to the bathroom and put on your clothes.”

1.5.1.8.3 Jack inquired. “Who are you? What are you doing here?”

1.5.1.8.4 Jack received no truthful responses about his pending fate. Jack was

shown no documents.

1.5.1.8.5 Jack’s guardian ad litem, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, explained

nothing to Jack, as he was alarmed and dazed by the intrusion of these two men,

who are called “Transporters.”

1.5.1.8.5.1 Certainly, rational people, at this point, wish to know how

this then fifteen (15) year old popular high school student who advanced with

his class in school and tested to be quite normal by a psychologist whom

Michelle Murphy employed to provide information to the Court on

May 27, 2014 that Judge Baldwin would not allow, could have deteriorated

to a mental condition requiring him to be awakened in the dark hours of the




Page 29 of 147

morning, with no explanation, and removed from what he was told to be a

secure place, by two unknown “Transporters.”

1.5.1.8.4.2 Contemporaneously, with the arousing of Jack Murphy, a man and a

woman approached Thomas Murphy in his bedroom and took him into custody in

much the same unexpected manner in which Jack was approached and taken into

custody.

1.5.1.8.4.2.1 Jack and Thomas were placed into two separate cars with the

separate teams of “Transporters” and taken to the Atlanta Airport.

1.5.1.8.4.2.2 Jack was escorted through the Atlanta Airport separately from

Thomas.

1.5.1.8.4.2.3 One of Jack’s transporters held tightly onto Jack’s clothing as

they passed through the Atlanta Airport. Jack and Thomas were in custody of two

teams that were each composed of two “Transporters” they had never seen

before. They only know that Renee L. Haugerud was in her bedroom when they

were captured and their father was crying when they left.

1.5.1.8.4.2.4 Jack and Thomas, who had never been separated over a few days

at a time since their birth, never saw each other again until approximately five

weeks later.

1.5.1.8.4.2.5 Thomas was placed at Elevations RTC in Syracuse, Utah; Jack

was initially placed in Viewpoint Center, an assessment center in Syracuse, Utah,

before being placed in Elevations RTC.

1.5.1.8.4.2.6 Elevations RTC identifies itself as follows.

What is Elevations RTC? See, http://www.elevationsrtc.com/

When parents are in crisis with a troubled teen, Elevations Residential Treatment Center (RTC) can offer

guidance, support and relief. We help boys and girls from ages of 13-17 overcome challenges stemming




Page 30 of 147

from mental health problems, emotional disorders, learning disorders, substance abuse, and other underlying

issues. From depression to addiction to bullying, Elevations RTC is a leading treatment center in America,

helping troubled teens regain their self-worth through proven therapeutic methods. Call today at

855.290.9681.

1.5.1.8.4.2.7 Jack and Thomas will later learn that this trauma that they endured

was a part of Judge Baldwin’s retaliation against his mother’s attorney, Millard

Farmer and his mother, for raising issues about this Judge’s violations of the

Code of Judicial Conduct, the Uniform Superior Court Rules and the laws of

Georgia, as counsel for Michelle Murphy sought Due Process from a jurist who

was not handpicked, in violation of the law, without running the risk of being

judged by such fabricated assertions as the falsely asserted fondling accusation

that Michelle Murphy and the children were prepared to defend and expose on

May 27, 2014.

1.5.1.9 This country does not accept the fork in the road that Judge Baldwin

took or takes.

1.5.1.10 High priced lawyers and fancy legal arguments cannot smother or

remove from memory the lessons of history that people learned with far more

sacrifice than the contempt of court convictions.

The High Price for Paid for a State Mandated Case Management Plan

1.5.1.11 Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer paid an extremely

high price to change the failure of the Coweta Judicial Circuit to adhere to the

Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management requirement; however,

that made a change that is a large step toward ending the judge-shopping

system that initially corrupted Judge Baldwin.

1.5.1.12 The next large step that involves issues in this case is to have the

judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit and throughout the State learn from the

http://www.elevationsrtc.com/choose-residential-treatment-center-therapeutic-options/

http://www.elevationsrtc.com/choose-residential-treatment-center-therapeutic-options/




Page 31 of 147

misconduct of Judge Baldwin and adhere to the LAW* that mandates

disqualification. The corruption of Judge Baldwin has yet to yield to that

change that will happen at some point in time, as even Judge Baldwin has not

presented himself for examination under oath for the violations that required

his disqualification from the beginning of the case until this very moment.

1.5.1.13 It took more than ten years to change the underrepresentation of

African American persons on juries in the Coweta Judicial Circuit, and that

did not occur without the assistance of the federal courts. Counsel for Michelle

Murphy endured each of those ten years, as Judge Baldwin, then a lawyer in

private practice, never raised the issue to the knowledge of counsel. It also took

a number of years to remove United States District Court Judge Jack Camp,

another judge with roots to the Glover & Davis P.A. Some of the false

swearing involved in this case may have opened the very difficult federal court

door to address Chief Judge Baldwin’s corruption that is accomplished with

his participants.

1.5.1.14 The corruption of Judge Baldwin will be even easier to explain to

the public than the conduct of the Judge Amanda Williams, if the same

investigative assistance is provided to Michelle Murphy.

1.5.1.15 Taylor Drake and the Glover & Davis lawyers had no more

than dislocated Jack and Thomas to St. Thomas, USVI when Taylor

Drake wrote a letter to Millard Farmer and asked that he provide him the

reason that John Harold Murphy should not terminate the child support

that John Harold Murphy contractually agreed to provide to Michelle

Murphy that was only conditioned upon the children reaching a designated

age. Millard Farmer replied to that letter as included below.




Page 32 of 147

1.5.1.16 On Friday afternoon, July 25, 2014, Taylor Drake sent to counsel

for Michelle Murphy, John Harold Murphy’s threat to breach the Settlement

Agreement that was memorialized before Judge A. Quillian Baldwin to

provide Michelle Murphy child support for Jack and Thomas.

1.5.1.17 John Murphy mandated that Michelle Murphy will not receive

August child support, because Judge Baldwin took the children from her at a

hearing which was so devoid of due process that even the prisoners at

Guantánamo Bay during the last six years have been provided fairer hearings

with less irate judges.

1.5.1.18 Counsel for Michelle Murphy responded to Taylor Drake

with the thought process of Michelle Murphy and those of any rational

person as follows.

The Settlement Agreement incorporated and made the Order of the Court in the 2006

Divorce Decree provides as follows.




Page 33 of 147

The threat, without any legal authority to breach the agreement, or the letter’s

attempts to shift the obligation to defend John Harold Murphy’s conduct upon

counsel for Michelle Murphy is the typical, we got our hand-selected judge and

millions of dollars to litigate you in ground, Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis John

Harold Murphy/Renee L. Haugerud strategy.

The upcoming of that “we have the judge and the money” strategy was first

identified to counsel for Michelle Murphy when Taylor would not discuss a




Page 34 of 147

disposition to the dispute of the parties without rushing to the courthouse to select

Judge Baldwin,

It was at that first meeting, over strong protest of counsel for Michelle Murphy,

that Judge Baldwin signed, without reading an order appointing a guardian ad litem

with the power to change temporary custody of the children without approval of the

Court.

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, at the insistence of Taylor Drake attempted to

perform this illegal temporary change of custody act. It was necessary for Michelle

Murphy to defy the illegal “order” of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell and enroll the

children in the public schools of Coweta County in order to resist the illegal conduct

of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell supported by Taylor Drake on behalf of John Harold

Murphy. The event creating this illegal conduct by the guardian ad litem occurred

because of one of John Harold Murphy/Renee L. Haugerud power plays that

terminated the transportation that they had been providing for the children to attend

a private school in Atlanta after Michelle Murphy refused to move to Chattanooga,

Tennessee that resulted in the Modification of Custody Complaint being filed by

Taylor Drake.

The signing of the appointment of the guardian ad litem order without reading it and

the false statement of Judge Baldwin in defending the motion to disqualify him was

so bad that Stephen E. Hudson on page 14 in his January 22, 2014 Appellees’ brief

for John Harold Murphy in the Court of Appeals made a false assertion about the

conduct of Judge Baldwin not reading the Order before signing it. That false

assertion by Stephen E. Hudson was to support a false statement made by Judge

Baldwin in his Order denying the motion for his disqualification. (V2, p.307) That

denial by Judge Baldwin was yet another Birt, Issacs disqualification of Judge




Page 35 of 147

Baldwin ground. Conspicuously, the Glover & Davis lawyer who was present when

the Order was signed and who struck through the statement did not sign the brief of

Stephen E. Hudson, (p. 14) yet, he permitted the brief to be filed and go uncorrected.

Tell me Mr. Farmer just what does the following monetary commitment in the

Settlement Agreement memorialized before Judge Baldwin mean?

The questions in rapid sequences became: What do you think, Mr. Farmer? Rent is

due on the children’s and my home. You know; the alimony stops in September, Mr.

Farmer?

Don’t you know, Mr. Farmer; nobody listens to you and that study by that Emory

Law Professor, Joanna Shepherd, about the evil of money influencing judges?

Don’t you know Mr. Farmer that the studies about the authorities disciplining judges

about their demeanor does not apply to Georgia?

Don’t you know Mr. Farmer that you cannot expect equality from a judge who would

not allow evidence on a motion to disqualify a guardian ad litem after being

informed that the guardian ad litem was engaging in OCGA § 16-6-19 Adultery,

taking money held in trust in violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 (8) (g)

and trying her personal cases before Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge Louis Jack

Kirby who suggested to John Harold Murphy that he employ Taylor Drake.

Don’t you get it Mr. Farmer, it is not Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas Murphy,

age 13 whose best interest that is being adjudicated, It is the benefits that the bank

account can derive to the contributors of those who sell their political influence to

wealthy client, not persons with the status of a hair stylist who was moved from

California to the Coweta Judicial Circuit in order that John Harold Murphy could

do such things a getting away with secreting $180,000 in stock options until the day

after the settlement agreement was memorialized before Judge A. Quillian Baldwin,




Page 36 of 147

Jr. in open court.

Don’t you understand Mr. Farmer how much that I gave up to get the right to free

my children for John Harold Murphy who was engaging in habitual acts of adultery

throughout New York City, Georgia and California? Mr. Farmer. I have devoted my

time to the getting the children through the stressful false statement of John Harold

Murphy that Renee L. Haugerud finances. I have not taken the time to build my hair

styling business.

Mr. Farmer, you do remember that you told me that I had to save the $5,000

contempt fine money to stay out of jail, if the appeal does not work. You remember

that we had to pay that filing fee in Fulton County to sue Nan Freeman to get the

audio to send to those people. We had to pay $300 for that expert witness for that

May 27, 2014 hearing when Judge Baldwin had the temper tantrum and we not allow

you to put up any witnesses, or for you to question me. He only allow Taylor Drake

to ask me questions that did not present me an opportunity to present my defense,

followed by Judge Baldwin treating me like I was some animal.

Mr. Farmer, you remember that you told me that we had to pay for those records

that Judge Baldwin ordered us to pay, or have that contempt appeal dismissed.

Mr. Farmer, please tell me why I will not be treated like I was treated when Judge

Baldwin made me pay for those records that could not even be considered on that

appeal because the records were for things that occurred after the appeal was filed.

Mr. Farmer, Do you know when we will get a judge who will allow us to present

evidence and not spend the time telling us how fair that he is, when he will never

allow us to present evidence of his bias to another judge?

Please answer me Mr. Farmer! Please answer me Mr. Farmer!

Is this just another chapter in that book that you are calling, No money, No equal




Page 37 of 147

justice, Mr. Farmer?

Mr. Farmer. I have devoted my time to the getting the children through the stressful

false statement of John Harold Murphy that Renee L. Haugerud finances. I have not

taken the time to build my hair styling business.

Don’t you understand, Mr. Farmer John Harold Murphy is morally corrupt and he

now has the money that Renee L. Haugerud supplies to corrupt others?

Don’t you understand, Mr. Farmer the reason that Judge Baldwin would not even

allow you to ask John Harold Murphy where he lived at that hearing?

Don’t you understand Mr. Farmer that Judge Baldwin has not requested that even

H. Elizabeth King to interview the children in private even once since he had the

temper tantrum and had the Deputy Sheriff take the children, without any

explanation to the children to the SUV Limousine.

Tell me Mr. Farmer, have you ever seen any judge at any time engage in the conduct

that Judge Baldwin permitted and engaged in at the May 27, 2014 hearing?

Tell me Mr. Farmer have you ever observed any judge at any time order a lawyer

arrested as Larry King was arrested on the day that he attempted to file and explain

the reason for his plea to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin?

.




Page 38 of 147

1.6 There were attempts to obtain a hearing to present evidence of the

detriment to the lives of Jack and Thomas while they were in St. Thomas,

USVI, but first, we should document the initial appointment by Judge

Baldwin of Melissa Griffis as the initial guardian ad litem, who resigned, and

who, as an act of retaliation against Michelle Murphy for seeking to disqualify

her, provided Judge Baldwin an Order to appoint Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell as the

guardian ad litem.

After omitting the introductory comments referring to Tinker to Evers to Chance,

the disqualification motion follows.

1.8 The conduct of Kirby to Drake to Baldwin in this case was not

ethical or legal and this is where the Baseball's Sad Lexicon transforms

into Justice’s Sad Lexicon.

1.9 Judge Jack Kirby recommended that his friend and former client,

John Murphy, employ the law firm of Glover & Davis’s Taylor Drake in

this litigation.

1.9.1 Judge Jack Kirby knew both John Murphy and Glover & Davis’s

Taylor Drake extremely well.

1.9.2 Judge Jack Kirby knew that Glover & Davis’s Taylor Drake would know

how to judge shop for a judge with whom they had a good, ongoing earwigging

relationship.

1.9.3 Judge Jack Kirby knew that Glover & Davis had survived a Court of

Appeals test to its judge selection shenanigans, as this law firm had not been

caught in its Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 2012 Ga.

LEXIS 488 (Ga. May 29, 2012) judge selection shenanigans at that time.

1.9.4 Judge Jack Kirby knew that he was providing sound legal advice to his

friend, John Murphy when he gave him the legal advice to hire Glover & Davis’s

Taylor Drake instead of the other lawyer who had represented John Murphy in




Page 39 of 147

Nancy Michelle Murphy v. Delia Tedder Crouch, Civil Action No. 08V2137 in

the Superior Court of Coweta County, Georgia.

1.9.5 The law of Georgia prohibits a Superior Court Judge from practicing

law. John Murphy came to Judge Jack Kirby for legal advice that belonged to

the people of the State of Georgia, not to Judge Jack Kirby to exchange for such

social pleasures provided to him by John Murphy with his expensive toys, as his

50 foot Hedge-Fun boat.

1.10 Melissa Griffis, the Guardian ad Litem whom Judge Baldwin

appointed, appears before Judge Jack Kirby on a regular basis

representing her private practice clients who seek discretionary decisions

from Judge Jack Kirby. Melissa Griffis knows that Judge Jack Kirbyrecommended that John Murphy employ Glover & Davis’s Taylor Drake

for this litigation. Kirby to Drake to Baldwin works fine for Melissa

Griffis. This connection is what some people call one of the benefits of

being, nearer, my judge, to thee.

1.11 Melissa Griffis and Glover & Davis’s Taylor Drake were

co-fundraiser organizers for a current candidate for Superior Court

Judge, Emory Palmer.

1.11.1 Judge Baldwin attended the Emory Palmer fundraiser in LaGrange onlya few nights before he appointed Melissa Griffis as Guardian ad Litem.

1.11.2 Members of the law firms of Taylor Drake and Melissa Griffis also have

recently contributed substantially to Judge Baldwin’s reelection committee,

although Judge Baldwin has no opposition.

1.11.3 In the Order of Judge Baldwin denying the disqualification motions of

Michelle Murphy, Judge Baldwin goes to an extreme to make a point about the

contributions to him by Melissa Griffis’ law firm. On pages 3 and 4 of the Order

of Judge Baldwin he states as follows.




Page 40 of 147

. . . The amount received from Ms. Griffis’ firm was received almost a month

after her appointment.

1.11.4 This raises the question of, just what was Judge Baldwin’s point?

1.11.4.1 The appointment of Ms. Griffis occurred on April 26, 2012; the time

for the qualification to the reelection of Judge Baldwin closed, with him having

no opposition on May 25, 2012.

1.11.4.2 What was Judge Baldwin’s point about Ms. Griffis’ firm making a

contribution almost a month after her appointment? Was Judge Baldwin’s point

that Ms. Griffis’ firm was getting its due to him late?

1.11.4.3 Was Judge Baldwin’s point that Ms. Griffis’ firm was waiting until it

was certain that he would have not opposition before placing its bet?

1.11.4.4 Whatever the point that Judge Baldwin was attempting to make, we all

now know, as the holiday season song goes, Santa Clause is “checking his list to

find out who is naughty or nice.” Please, understand that in-kind fundraising

parties for friends are not adequate; you must get these financial gifts in on time

in order that they will not look so strange and require so much explaining in

Court Orders.

1.11.4.5 In Melissa Griffis’ defense, she might retort to Judge Baldwin, we

wanted to wait to see if you would be disqualified from serving in my bread and

butter guardian ad litem appointment.

1.12 In open court, on the morning when Taylor Drake arranged to have Judge

Baldwin appoint a guardian ad litem, Judge Baldwin, during the case

assignment, first called the calendar and then sent one of the cases that he

selected down the hall to another judge. This type of case assignment does not




Page 41 of 147

comply with Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1. This is the ad hoc, unpublished

“case assignment” of the Coweta Judicial Circuit system.

1.13 Judge Baldwin makes a deceptively fraudulent, legally incorrect

statement about USCR 3.1 compliance in his Order refusing to disqualify himself.

This statement is as follows.

1.14 In an oral open records request to the Clerk of Court of the Superior

Court of Coweta County, as authorized by OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq., as amended

by the 2012 House Bill 397, counsel for Michelle Murphy was advised that there

was no case assignment plan by the Judges of the Coweta Judicial Circuit in the

records o f the Clerk of Court the Superior Court of Coweta County, i.e., there

was no document relating to USCR 3.1 compliance for counsel for Michelle

Murphy to view in order that the rule was followed.1.14.1 Based upon the oral information received from the Clerk of Court,

counsel for Michelle Murphy made the following assertion in the motion to

disqualify Judge Baldwin. If Judge Baldwin wished to dispute this factual

representation in the disqualification motions, an assignment of the matter to

another judge for a hearing was his remedy.

8.4 The Superior Court of Coweta County has no documented “Method

of Assignment” plan. emphasis supplied




Page 42 of 147

8.1 The train of judicial responsibility ran off the tracks when the judges

in the Coweta/Troup segment of the Coweta Judicial Circuit made the

decision to disregard the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 in order that

the judges may select the cases that they wish to address and shuffle to

another judge the cases that they do not want to address.8.2 This Unif. Super. Ct. R. 3.1 violation system is sanctioned by the

domestic relations bar in the Coweta/Troup segment of the Coweta

Judicial Circuit for two primary reasons.

8.2.1 This Unif. Super. Ct. R. 3.1 violation system is sanctioned by the domestic

relations lawyers as they understand that a large majority of the domestic

relations decisions are made based upon the discretion of the judges, and

challenges to judges have a detrimental effect upon the rights of their clients.8.2.2 This Unif. Super. Ct. R. 3.1 violation system is also sanctioned, as these

judges have developed employment opportunities for the core of firms with a

substantial domestic relations practice by appointing some members of these

firms as guardians ad litem and requiring litigants to pay the appointed

guardians ad litem fees based upon their highest level of fees.

* * *

8.4.1 Judge Quillian Baldwin shares the responsibility for failing to adopt a

“Method of Assignment’ plan in the Superior Court of Coweta County.

8.4.2 This illegal conduct by Judge Quillian Baldwin is a legal basis upon

which to disqualify him from picking and choosing the cases that he wishes to

address.

8.4.3 The failure of the Superior Court of Coweta County to adopt a “Method

of Assignment” plan provides no continuity of judicial oversight for domestic

relations cases.




Page 43 of 147

8.4.4 Due to the failure of the Superior Court of Coweta County to adopt a

“Method of Assignment” plan provides these judges great incentive to appoint a

guardian ad litem to fulfill the role that the judge is elected and sworn to fulfill.

Such conduct adds thousands of dollars into the pockets of lawyers who litigants

are required to pay on the threat of contempt of court.

8.5 In this case, Judge Quillian Baldwin has engaged in each of the evils

that the “Method of Assignment” rule is designed to prevent.

1.14.2 If Judge Baldwin has a documented plan for case assignments approved

by a majority of the judges that is filed in the records of the Clerk of Court of

Coweta, he has the obligation to produce it.

1.14.3 If such a plan is not filed with the Clerk of Court in the records of the

Court, it is not a USCR 3.1 compliant plan and Judge Baldwin should be

sanctioned by the Judicial Qualifications Commission for knowingly making such

a statement to protect his conduct in the motion to disqualify him. Certainly,

Judge Baldwin must have heard about Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v.

Batson-Cook Co., 2012 Ga. LEXIS 488 (Ga. May 29, 2012).

2. Memorandum of Law

2.1 The removal of Melissa Griffis as Guardian ad Litem does not resolve the

conduct of Kirby to Drake to Baldwin.

2.2 The appointment of Melissa Griffis as Guardian ad Litem is only the symptom

of the judicial corruption that surrounds the Case Assignment issues in the Coweta

Judicial Circuit and the unethical conduct of Judge Baldwin, in this case.

2.2.1 Admittedly, the unethical misconduct of Judge Baldwin has adequate

company in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.




Page 44 of 147

2.2.2 It was just unfortunate for Judge Baldwin that Judge Jack Kirby selected

the Glover & Davis judge shoppers to call upon Judge Baldwin to pay the Piper

in this matter.

2.2.3 John Murphy’s financial statement indicates that John Murphy makes

and average of $625 month in political contributions. This is a interesting

invitation for those who bundle such funds. This invitation follows.

2.3 John Murphy has no viable cause of action in his Complaint for

Modification of Custody or in the Alternative, Parenting Time.

2.3.1 John Murphy’s only claim is that his spouse is a multi-millionaire and

that he can better financially provide for Thomas and Jack than Michelle Murphy

who must provide for these two children with the money that she receives as child

support, alimony, as a hair stylist and with the gratuitous funds that John Murphy

and his spouse provide.

2.3.2 The problem of the children being provided more financial support does

not require a change of custody, only a change of child support.

2.3.3 There was absolutely no emergency identified or proven in order for

Taylor Drake to obtain the appointment of a guardian ad litem.

2.4 The elimination of Melissa Griffis as Guardian ad Litem does not

address the core problem created by the Kirby to Drake to Baldwin issue.

It is necessary to eliminate Melissa Griffis as the Guardian ad Litem asa step toward addressing the unethical conduct created by the Glover &

Davis judge selection process and thereby Guardian ad Litem selection

process.




Page 45 of 147

2.5 To the eyes of counsel for Michelle Murphy, Judge Kirby to

Glover & Davis’s Taylor Drake to Judge Baldwin was “fleeter than

birds” and beginning the process of “ruthlessly pricking” in route to

Thomas, Jack and Michelle Murphy’s Chance at justice.

2.6 Whether Tinker to Evers to Chance, or Kirby to Drake to

Baldwin; neither the base runner nor Michelle Murphy, ever had a

Chance and the feigned potential scorekeeper, Melissa Griffis, does not

possess the fortitude to do anything but what is necessary to please Judge

Kirby and Judge Baldwin, who are each attempting to please John

Murphy.

2.7 If Melissa Griffis possessed an ounce of fortitude she would have

taken action for her numerous private clients to correct the USCR 3.1

violations in the Coweta Judicial Circuit and the events would have neveroccurred that led to Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co.,

2012 Ga. LEXIS 488 (Ga. May 29, 2012).

2.8 It must be stated clearly, Melissa Griffis has no obligation to

exhibit an ounce of fortitude so long as she chooses not to attempt to serve

in an appointed fiduciary capacity, such as a guardian ad litem, when the

case involves a close friend of a judge, from whom on a regular basis she

seeks discretionary rulings in her private cases. When she is appointed

in these incidences, it is a deficiency in the fortitude of a lawyer torepresent a client involved in such a situation who fails to act, regardless

of the personal friendships of that lawyer.

2.9 Judge Kirby was so anxious to accommodate and please John

Murphy and his, many times over millionaire, spouse that he illegally, in

violation of OCGA §19-3-58, performed a marriage ceremony for the two

without a valid marriage license. See, Deposition of Judge Jack Kirby p.

42 – 48.

2.10 The performance of the illegal marriage ceremony for John

Murphy together with providing John Murphy legal advice about the

selection of counsel relates to the Justice’s Sad Lexicon’s aspect of Kirby

to Drake to Baldwin. There is not a clean hand in the crowd. Each is




Page 46 of 147

beholding in various degrees and ways to the other, and to the purse

strings of John Murphy’s spouse.

2.11 The reality is that Melissa Griffis was appointed Guardian ad

Litem for the illegal Coweta Judicial Circuit case assignment system.

2.11 Each of the Pleadings in this Litigation are Incorporated and Made a Part of this Motion for the Disqualification of Melissa Griffis.

2.12 It is imperative that this motion be litigated with the full array of

information that led to Justice’s Sad Lexicon’s Kirby to Drake to Baldwin

refrain. The following documents, together with the attachments to the

documents that have been filed with the Clerk of Court in this case are

incorporated and made part of the information in support of this motion.

John Murphy’s Summons

John Murphy’s Complaint for Modification, et al. Answer of Michelle Murphy with Counterclaim and Third Party

Complaint

John Murphy’s Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem

Michelle Murphy’s Response to John’s Motion for Guardian ad Litem

John Murphy’s Motion for Immediate Relief

Michelle Murphy’s Response to Motion for Immediate Relief

Preliminary Domestic Relations Financial Affidavit of John Murphy

John Murphy’s Rule Nisi for April 26, 2012

Notice of Appearance of Millard Farmer and Larry King

Order Appointing Melissa Griffis as Guardian Ad Litem

Motion for Mercy Disqualification of Judge Baldwin

Request of Child Under Age 14 as to Custodial Parent – Jack Murphy

Request of Child Under Age 14 as to Custodial Parent – Thomas Murphy

First Amended Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin

Domestic Relations Financial Affidavit of Michelle Murphy

Addendum to First Amended Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin

Order Denying Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin

3. Melissa Griffis Should be Disqualified as Guardian ad Litem for the minor

children, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy.




Page 47 of 147

3.1 The improper conduct of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. in designating Melissa

Griffis as the Guardian ad Litem for the minor children, Jack Murphy and Thomas

Murphy in this case justifiably subjected Melissa Griffis to careful scrutiny by

counsel for Michelle Murphy. Kirby to Drake to Baldwin attempt to add “to

Griffis” to Justice’s Sad Lexicon and counsel for Michelle Murphy detected that

Melissa Griffis was a slow base runner in life’s fortitude test when she evaded

providing information to the court reporter and otherwise evaded full disclosure.

This is not to say that Melissa Griffis is a bad person; she is just not a person with

the fortitude to evade becoming Kirby to Drake to Griffis to Baldwin. 3.2.1 Judge Baldwin’s conduct was extremely unfair to Melissa Griffis, as well

as to the parties in this litigation, as Judge Baldwin created an enormous amount

of otherwise avoidable litigation expenses. If Judge Baldwin had just adhered to

the law established by USCR 3.1, the plague identified in Mayor & Aldermen of

Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 2012 Ga. LEXIS 488 (Ga. May 29, 2012) would

not be frequently occurring in the Coweta Judicial Circuit. USCR 3.1 is not a

draconian rule that deprives judges of power; it is a filter for lawyers’ judge

shopping and judges’ litigant shopping.

3.2.2 While it was Judge Baldwin who first placed Melissa Griffis in an unfair

ethical dilemma, it was Melissa Griffis who sealed her fate of being eligible to be

designated as a lawyer acting unethically, who should not be allowed to serve as

the Guardian ad Litem in this case and should be a suspect in future cases.

3.2.2.1 Melissa Griffis, at a minimum, had the ethical obligation to disclose

to counsel for Michelle Murphy that only a few nights before being appointed

Guardian ad Litem, she and Taylor Drake hosted a fundraiser for a candidate




Page 48 of 147

for a Superior Court Judge that Judge Baldwin and retiring Judge Allen B.

Keeble attended.

3.2.2.2 Counsel for Michelle Murphy knew that Melissa Griffis practiced

before Judge Baldwin on a regular basis and had never challenged the manner

in which Judge Baldwin and other judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit judge

shop for litigants and/or that the lawyers judge shop for judges. Lawyers

outside the circuit have a difficult time in detecting this type of conduct, which

can be utilized to subject their clients to prejudice. See Mayor & Aldermen of

Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 2012 Ga. LEXIS 488 (Ga. May 29, 2012)

3.2.2.3 Melissa Griffis had the ethical obligation to allow counsel for

Michelle Murphy to record the questioning of her after the conduct of

Judge Baldwin in appointing her as Guardian ad Litem and providing that she

would immediately receive $5,000 and $250 per hour for her services.

3.2.2.4 It is relevant that the standing order relating to fees for mediators,

including attorneys who serve in this capacity, in the Coweta Judicial Circuit

provides $150 per hour for the first two hours and $75 per hour for each

additional hour. Nan Newman, an attorney in the same law firm as Melissa

Griffis, with far more years’ experience than Michelle Griffis, is a qualified

mediator. See, Attachment 5, page 5 that, in part, states as follows.




Page 49 of 147

3.2.2.5 It is also relevant to note that in the Final Divorce Decree that the

Court only awarded Michelle Murphy, a person who at that time had nooutside income, less than a third of the attorney fees that she had to pay her

attorney.

3.2.2.6 A full disclosure of the history of the fees awarded to Melissa Griffis

by the Court in comparison to the fees that she charges her clients is also

relevant, as the Court does not consistently award Melissa Griffis $250 per

hour in her private cases. This is not a plea for a cheaper fee from Melissa

Griffis but this is for its weighing in determining if Judge Baldwin was

attempting to award Melissa Griffis a gift of funds over and above her value

to compensate for the fruits of her sponsoring campaign events attended by

Judges Baldwin and Keeble.

3.2.2.7 The questioning of Melissa Griffis was justified, as Judge Baldwin

had not allowed any evidence about the selection of a guardian as litem and

the $5000 retainer and $250 per hour ordered for the services of Melissa

Griffis is above the justifiable hourly rate for the professional services of

Melissa Griffis.




Page 50 of 147

3.2.2.8 The recorded questioning of Melissa Griffis at the initial meeting

with Melissa Griffis and Taylor Drake, after the appointment by Judge

Baldwin, was prohibited jointly by Melissa Griffis and Taylor Drake, as they

refused to allow the court reporter to take down the conference.

3.3 On Tuesday, May 1, 2012, counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children

Parties met with the Guardian ad Litem, appointed by Judge Quillian Baldwin,

Melissa Griffis, and with counsel for the Haugerud/Murphy Parties, Taylor Drake.

3.4 When Taylor Drake entered the conference room at the law office of Melissa

Griffis, where the court reporter was set up to record the meeting, Taylor Drake, in

a loud voice for the size of the room, the prevailing calm and his usual demeanor,

proclaimed, “We are not going to allow this to be recorded.” Melissa Griffis and

Taylor Drake had met before they entered the conference room at the law office of

Melissa Griffis.

3.5 This Freudian slip of “WE” by Taylor Drake in speaking of the Guardian ad

Litem as “WE” brought to mind one of the oldest stories floating around in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit about judicial/lawyer misconduct.

3.6 The story setting begins at a trial in Carrollton, Georgia many years ago when

Judge Samuel J. Boykin was presiding at a trial in which his brother, Shirley C.

Boykin, was representing the plaintiff.

3.6.1 As one might imagine, the trial was going quite well for Shirley C. Boykin

and his client.

3.6.2 The lawyer for the well-heeled defendant was not a slow learner, and

asked for a chambers conference with Judge Samuel J. Boykin and his brother,

Shirley C. Boykin.




Page 51 of 147

3.6.3 The lawyer for the defendant stated that he wished to make an offer of

settlement. The two Boykin brothers agreed that an offer of settlement would be

appropriate.

3.6.4 The defense lawyer made a substantial offer of settlement that put a large

smile on Shirley C. Boykin’s face.

3.6.5 No sooner had the lawyer completed his offer, Judge Samuel J. Boykin

arose from his chair and blurted, “WE can’t accept that offer. WE must have

more. Offer US more!”

3.7 The “WE ” and the “US ” at the May 1, 2012 conference at the guardian at

litem’s office was very quickly identified as Taylor Drake, counsel for the

Haugerud/Murphy Parties and Melissa Griffis, the appointed Guardian ad Litem.

3.8 The “WE ” and the “US ” refused to allow the court reporter to take down

the conference.

3.9 The Refusal of the “WE” and the “US” to Allow a Recording of the May 1,

2012 Conference with the Guardian ad Litem was the Same Signal that

Judge Quillian Baldwin Inadvertently Sent at the April 26, 2012 In-Chambers

Conference.

3.10 Counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties, after the conference

with Taylor Drake and Melissa Griffis, went a-trekking for information once again.

Not only did counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties find the smoking

gun, counsel found the owners of the gun.

3.11 Counsel for Michelle Murphy found that Taylor Drake is the Chairman of the

Election Campaign Committee of Emory Palmer, who is a lawyer seeking to be

elected judge in the Coweta Judicial Circuit. This was no secret. Melissa Griffis is

a member of Emory Palmer’s Election Campaign Committee. Melissa Griffis




Page 52 of 147

admitted this to counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties at the May

1, 2012 conference when questioned by counsel for the Michelle Murphy and

Children Parties.

3.12 At the May 1, 2012 conference, counsel for the Michelle Murphy and

Children Parties emphatically informed Melissa Griffis that she had a serious

conflict of interest in attempting to be the guardian ad litem in this case when she

regularly appeared before Judge Quillian Baldwin and Judge Jack Kirby

representing clients in her private domestic relations practice.

3.13 Melissa Griffis was told, in no uncertain terms, that she would not be allowed

to serve as the Guardian ad Litem without an appellate order approving her

appointment. Melissa Griffis steadfastly stated that she would proceed in the case.

3.14 In order to marshal information, the Rubber Soles and the Souls of Counsel

for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties Once Again Hit the Street.

3.15 The facts learned on this second trek even shocked counsel for the Michelle

Murphy and Children Parties.

3.16 A reasonable person can surmise that Judge Quillian Baldwin, by

appointing Melissa Griffis with a hefty advance and hourly rate, is transferring

funds belonging to litigants to supporters of his chosen candidate, Emory Palmer.

3.17 Shame, Shame, Shame on both Judge Quillian Baldwin and Melissa Griffis

for not initially disclosing this fact to counsel for Michelle Murphy.

3.18 Shame, Shame, Shame on the conduits of the support of

Judge Quillian Baldwin for Emory Palmer or any candidate for political office.

3.19 A few days before the April 26, 2012 conference at Melissa Griffis’ office,

Taylor Drake, Melissa Griffis and others sponsored a fundraising event for Emory

Palmer.




Page 53 of 147

3.20 Judge Quillian Baldwin, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct,

attended the fundraiser for Emory Palmer at the Del’Avant in LaGrange, Georgia

and within days thereafter, executed an Order submitted by the sponsor of the

fundraiser without reading the Order, or hearing any evidence. Cannon 2 of the

Georgia Judicial Code of Conduct provides that “A. Judges shall respect and

comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public

confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

3.21 Judge Allen B. Keeble also showed strong support for Emory Palmer by

attending the fundraiser.

3.22 Melissa Griffis has contributed to and offered strong support for

Emory Palmer, whom Judge Quillian Baldwin is obviously publically supporting by

his attendance at the fundraiser for Emory Palmer sponsored by the Campaign

Committee to Elect Emory Palmer.

3.23 A prudent person would think that Judge Quillian Baldwin could have waited

a little longer than two days to have doled out a large financial plum to Melissa

Griffis and Taylor Drake, or at least could have heard evidence on the matter that,

at least, would have given the appearance of fairness.

3.24 Melissa Griffis had an ethical obligation not to participate in the unethical

conduct of Judge Baldwin, who issued the Order that provided her money.




Page 54 of 147

!" $%& '()*+,- (. Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. /0 1 2&-3/4&)- -( -%& 5/,%&66&

5+37%8 1)* '%/6*3&) 913-/&0: ;%/,% 5&6/001 <3/../0 =%(+6* %1>& 2&-&,-&*

1)*?(3 1- 1 5/)/4+4 =%(+6* @1>& A)B+/3&*"

4.1 The detriment to the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties by

Judge Quillian Baldwin was his signing of an Order that he had never read, that

counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties were not even provided an

opportunity to read after Taylor Drake filled in blanks and struck through portions

on a previously sent draft and stuck it into the hands of Judge Quillian Baldwin to

hastily sign.

4.2 This conduct by Judge Quillian Baldwin was both an appearance of an illegal

act and actual illegal conduct. This conduct resulted in an Order that leaves

confused at best even the fact that Judge Quillian Baldwin stated that Michelle

Murphy would not be required to pay for the guardian ad litem.

4.3 When counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties stated that the

Order appointing the guardian ad litem would require Michelle Murphy to pay fees

that she could not financially afford, as she could not compete with the

Haugerud/Murphy Parties’ well-heeled financial condition and cannot afford the

added expenses of a guardian ad litem, Taylor Drake, counsel for John Murphy,

contrary to a correct statement of the facts, stated to Judge Baldwin and counsel for

Michelle Murphy that there was no provision in the proposed Order requiring

Michelle Murphy to share in the cost of the guardian ad litem.

4.4 This statement about the potential liability to Michelle Murphy under the

proposed Order was strongly disputed by counsel for the Michelle Murphy and

Children Parties. Judge Quillian Baldwin then agreed that John Murphy would be




Page 55 of 147

required to pay the guardian ad litem fees; however the Order has not be corrected

to reflect this oral statement.

4.5 Taylor Drake did not fully include this protection from liability for the fees of

guardian ad litem to Michelle Murphy in the draft Order that he had prepared and

that was finalized by Taylor Drake partly striking through a portion of the draft

order with a pen. Counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties were not

provided an opportunity to view the content struck through or the handwritten

inserts into the previously prepared Order by Taylor Drake and Judge Quillian

Baldwin never read the Order to determine if his change had been included.

4.6 The following portions of the Order, executed, but not read by Judge

Quillian Baldwin leaves Michelle Murphy potentially liable to pay the costs for the

GAL in the following provisions.

The Court shall provide for the parties’s responsibility for payment of

fees to the appointed experts.

Order Appointing guardian ad litem Attachment 1 p. 3

In the event the GAL determines that extensive travel outside of the circuit

in which the GAL is appointed or other extraordinary expenditures are

necessary, the GAL may petition the Court in advance for payment of

such expenses by the parties.

Order Appointing guardian ad litem Attachment 1 p. 4

4.7 The following changes struck through with a pen by Taylor Drake, without

counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties having an opportunity to

review the modifications did not clearly eliminate the potential of Michelle Murphy

being required to pay compensation to the appointed guardian ad litem. It is not

known if the $8,000 to be paid by the Plaintiff was changed to $5,000 before or after




Page 56 of 147

Judge Quillian Baldwin signed the Order that he did not read or initial the change.

Michelle Murphy should not be subjected to having a judge who engages in this type

of conduct create matters that add additional unnecessary attorney fees and

litigation expenses for her.

4.8 There are other aspects of the Order that violate the statutory and

constitutional rights of Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy. The

following paragraph is not authorized by Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 and

violates the rights of Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy in that it

delegates the authority of the Court to a guardian ad litem.

The GAL may make temporary recommendations/ adjustments duringthe pendency of this action regarding custody and parenting time and the

parties shall follow said recommendations of the GAL.

emphasis supplied

Order Appointing guardian ad litem Attachment 1, p. 4

4.9 The above clause included in the Order appointing the guardian ad litem denies

Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy the protections afforded to

each by the United States Constitution due process , U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

and State of Georgia Constitution Bill of Rights due process protection




Page 57 of 147

(Ga. Const. Art. I, § 1, ¶ 1), and the laws of Georgia.

4.10 The above clause included in the Order appointing the guardian ad litem denies

Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy the protections afforded to

each by the United States Constitution equal protection , U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §

1 and State of Georgia Constitution Bill or Rights equal protection (Ga. Const.

Art. I, § 1, ¶ 2). and the laws of Georgia.

4.11 A guardian ad litem is not statutorily or constitutionally authorized to make

temporary . . . adjustments during the pendency of this action regarding custody .

. .

4.12 Judge Quillian Baldwin illegally abrogated his judicial responsibility to

counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties.

4.13 Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy were victimized by

judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit failing to give proper attention to their judicial

obligations, e.g., Delia T. Crouch not adequately reviewing an order prepared by

Jack Kirby while he was in private practice representing John Murphy in the

original divorce. This type of shoddy, irresponsible legal work by Delia T. Crouch

resulted in creating hours of attorney fee costs to Michelle Murphy in the original

divorce action. This causes undersigned counsel to be protective, as it is obvious

from reading those transcripts that this Court fails to protect litigants.

5. Judge Quillian Baldwin Provided the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties

the Equivalent of a McDonald’s Drive-Through Service; there is one Difference

-- McDonald’s Provides a Legal Service.

5.1 Judge Quillian Baldwin provided the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties a

McDonald’s drive-through window type of justice in a case in which Judge Quillian

Baldwin had never read a pleading, never seen an affidavit and never heard a stitch




Page 58 of 147

of evidence, long before the time set for a response by counsel for the Michelle

Murphy and Children Parties, under conditions that did not constitute an

emergency. There is a standing Order of the Court that protects the rights of the

parties. See, Attachment 5.

5.2 Counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties initially expressed and

still express strong opposition to the appointment of any guardian ad litem. The

Court was not supplied any evidence to support such appointment that will create

an additional large amount of attorney fees for Michelle Murphy.

5.3 Counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties attempted to explain

the detriment caused to the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties of the

appointment of a guardian ad litem at this stage in the proceedings, when counsel

was cut off by Judge Quillian Baldwin from exercising even an effective right of

allocution on behalf of the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties.

5.4 Even a quick reading of Taylor Drake’s request in his one page form motion

for a guardian ad litem will reveal that he did not ask for Judge Quillian Baldwin to

squelch, as he did, the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties’ statutory and

constitutional rights. The motion request of Taylor Drake for John Murphy was as

follows.

In the event Defendant Nancy Michelle Muphy (“Defendant”) does not

consent to this Court granting this Motion [the Motion for a guardial ad

litem] and if Plaintiff and Defendant are unable to agree on the individual

who will serve as the guardian ad literm in this case, Plaintiff requests

this Court allow him to present evidence on April 26, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

to support this motion being granted. Attachment 2 , Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad litem, p.1

5.5 Once Taylor Drake detected that Judge Quillian Baldwin had bitten his verbal




Page 59 of 147

bait, he apparently abandoned his written commitment to present evidence on his

motion for the guardian ad litem, if the motion was opposed, as it was strongly

opposed.

5.6 Judge Quillian Baldwin provided McDonald’s drive-through window type of

justice by informing counsel for the parties that he would grant Taylor Drake’s

motion to appoint a guardian ad litem without being presented any type of legal

necessity for the guardian ad litem. The Motion for Appointment for Guardian ad

Litem was a bare bones motion and contained no facts and did not comply with Unif.

Sup. Ct. R. 6.1. Judge Quillian Baldwin never even took a look at the motion or the

Complaint and was provided no evidence to support the motion; nor, was Michelle

Murphy provided thirty days to respond to the motion. USCR 6.1 in part, is as

follows.

6.1. Filing

In civil actions every motion made prior to trial, except those consentedto by all parties, when filed shall include or be accompanied by citations

of supporting authorities and, where allegations of unstipulated fact are

relied upon, supporting affidavits, or citations to evidentiary materials of

record.

5.6.1 The only apparent judgment in deciding the issue made by Judge Quillian

Baldwin was his preconceived judgment of the status of the counsel for the

parties, as made through the glasses of his prejudicial, illegal bias and haste to

quit fulfilling his judicial obligation to the people in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

5.6.2 Judge Quillian Baldwin signed the Order prepared by Taylor Drake

without reading the Order and figuratively told counsel for the Michelle Murphy

and Children Parties to pull down to the next McDonald’s type of drive-through

window to pick up Taylor Drake’s Order.




Page 60 of 147

6. Judge E. Byron Smith, Judge Allen B. Keeble, Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

and Judge Dennis Blackmon Each Violated Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 in

the Original Divorce Case that John Murphy brought against Michelle Murphy.

6.1 If there is doubt about the wisdom of USCR 3.1, one only needs to view the

documents in the initial divorce proceedings in this case, which Judge Baldwin

inaccurately maintains, as follows, in his Order denying his Disqualification.

6.2 Judge Dennis Blackmon was the judge who entered the divorce decree, as the

following excerpts from the Final Decree in John Harold Murphy v. Nancy Michelle

Murphy; Civil Action File No. 2004-CV-494, in the Superior Court of Troup County,

Georgia. Attachment 13 contains the Final Decree in John Harold Murphy v. Nancy

Michelle Murphy; Civil Action File No. 2004-CV-494, in the Superior Court of

Troup County, Georgia that, in part, identifies Dennis Blackmon as the Judge.

* * *




Page 61 of 147

* * *

6.3 The entry of the child support in the final decree rendered by Judge Dennis

Blackmon was $1,500 per month for each of the two children, rather than the $3,000

per month for the two children with two years difference in their ages that was




Page 62 of 147

announced at a hearing over which Judge Baldwin presided.

6.4 The relevance of the difference in the agreed amount in open court of $3,000

per month in child support for Michelle Murphy and the $1,500 per child per month

amount in the written agreement prepared by Jack Kirby is that there is a two year

difference in the ages of the children. First, the following is the open court statement

of the agreement before Judge Baldwin, which was followed by the written

agreement and the final decree before Judge Dennis Blackmon.

* * *

6.4 Judge Kirby’s statement about this issue at his deposition follows.

Page 10, Line 15:

15: A. I don't remember the terms, but I'm sure

16: they're on the record.

17: Q. Right. And there's one point in there

18: where the children -- in the transcript there the

19: children were involved, the minor children were given

20: child support of $3,000. It reflects it in -- I'm

21: just asking you to assume that.

22: A. Okay.

23: Q. And then in the written agreement it ended

24: up being memorialized in the written agreement as




Page 63 of 147

25: $1500 per child. Do you have any independent memory

00011:

01: of how that took place or anything?

02: A. Not really, no.

6.5 The far more substantial detriment to Michelle Murphy during the divorce

proceedings, in violation of USCR 3.1, in which the case was switched among four

or five judges, relates to the failure of John Murphy to disclose stock options that he

held that were worth more than $180,000. This $180,000 in stock options was

omitted from the settlement that Jack Kirby was able to have enforced. The

Disclosure by John Murphy on his sworn financial affidavit was as follows, which

shows a complete absence of disclosure of this asset.

* *

*

4.5.1 The deposition testimony by Judge Kirby about John Murphy’s failure to

disclose the stock option asset, in part, was as follows.

Page 11, Line 9:

09: Q. Okay. And then there was some dispute

10: about the discovery in that case. Do you have any --

11: about stock options not being revealed. Do you have

12: any memory of anything about that?

13: A. Not really, no. I mean, the thing I

14: remember most is I believe Ms. Crouch took about a

15: ten-hour deposition of my client, twelve maybe. We

16: started about 10:00 in the morning and finished about




Page 64 of 147

17: 9:30, 10:00 at night in her office. I remember that.

18: Q. Are you familiar with that she consumed

19: about $38,000 of Michelle Murphy's money representing

20: her?

* * *Page 23, Line 1:

01: Q. Well, it depends on who writes them. When

02: I write them they're facts. You felt that way when

03: you wrote them, didn't you, your pleadings?

04: A. I intended for my pleadings to be factual,

05: and I was pretty scrupulous about making sure they

06: were.

07: Q. And you can appreciate that I'm the same?08: A. Well, no, I really can't.

09: Q. Okay. Tell me why you can't.

10: A. Well, in one thing I read in your

11: pleadings in this case was that I intentionally

12: helped John Murphy secret assets accusing me of

13: illegal and unethical conduct. That's a lie.

14: Q. You didn't know about the stock options?

15: A. Whatever I knew about I revealed. I

16: didn't help anybody hide anything. Life is too

17: short, Mr. Farmer. That ain't the way I work, and I

18: thought you knew me better than that.

19: Q. Well, you did know that it came up that it

20: wasn't revealed in discovery about the stock?

21: A. I don't honestly remember that. I mean, I

22: don't. I'm not saying it didn't, I just don't

23: remember it.

24: Q. If you read the transcripts and you did

25: see that there was a -- it was revealed that he

00024:




Page 65 of 147

01: didn't disclose the stock options --

02: A. The transcript of what?

03: Q. The transcripts of the proceedings.

04: A. Of which proceedings?

05: Q. Of the proceedings in the divorce.06: A. In court or in a deposition or --

07: Q. In the court.

08: A. Okay. And so it came up in what way?

09: Q. It came up that Ms. Crouch says there were

10: stock options, and it came up as to whether the stock

11: options were an asset or not, and you would agree

12: that stock options are an asset?

13: A. Potentially. It depends on the stock14: option. You know, some are exercisable, some are

15: not, some if you exercise them it would cost you

16: money. It just depends on the circumstances at the

17: time.

18: Q. But it would be -- you're supposed to

19: disclose them as an asset, right?

20: A. Possibly, yeah.

21: Q. I mean, if the stock options had the

22: potential of being as much as over $100,000 in value

23: they certainly should be?

24: A. Absolutely.

25: Q. And if those weren't disclosed then it

00025:

01: would be either -- it would be the client secreting

02: the assets if the client knew about them, or if the

03: client knew about them it would be lawyer's

04: obligation to disclose them?

05: A. If the client tells the lawyer about

06: assets the lawyer has got an obligation to disclose




Page 66 of 147

07: them. There's no question about that. What you're

08: suggesting is that he revealed them to me and I had

09: an obligation to disclose them and I didn't, and

10: that's a lie.

11: Q. Okay. And there's the transcript. I'm12: not going to get you -- I'm not going through the

13: transcripts. But after it was -- if, in fact, the

14: issue is brought up to the Court that it wasn't known

15: at the time that there was stock options at the time

16: y'all made the agreement it wasn't known to Ms.

17: Crouch and it wasn't disclosed in the discovery, and

18: if the issue comes up at the affirmation of the

19: settlement agreement that there was stock options20: that weren't disclosed would it be your obligation

21: then to continue to advocate that the agreement not

22: be modified to include the stock options, would that

23: be -- as an advocate would it be the position that

24: the lawyer should take?

25: A. Well, I think as an advocate you represent

00026:

01: your client's interest, and if there's an agreement

02: been made then you pursue the agreement. If there's

03: some fraud in inducing the agreement then that's the

04: other client's lawyer's obligation to pursue.

[emphasis supplied]

[ See, e.g., Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct R. 3.3 (a)(4) and 3.3 (b)]

05: Q. Right. We understand that. But if, in

06: fact, that you -- at that time it's disclosed that it

07: wasn't disclosed, that it wasn't disclosed in the

08: discovery, and at that time if there had been a

09: settlement agreement without that disclosure and

10: there was stock options then would that be the




Page 67 of 147

11: obligation of an advocate to advocate that the

12: agreement not been amended to?

13: A. Mr. Farmer, once the disclosure is made I

14: don't think it's the lawyer's job for the disclosing

15: party to lay down his sword and shield and just to16: agree to whatever. You know, it is certainly ripe

17: for discussion before the Court, it's right for, you

18: know, perhaps her filing a motion to modify the

19: agreement or to withdraw consent to the agreement,

20: but I don't think I would have had an obligation to

21: advise my client that since you didn't reveal these

22: stock options you have to do this, that, or the

23: other. [emphasis supplied]I mean, at some point the judge has got to

24: make a decision about something like that.

25: Q. I understand your position. And if the

00027:

01: amount was $180,000 the value of the stock options in

02: the realm of the amount of money that was available

03: in that divorce for division that would be a

04: substantial amount of money?

05: A. In my book $180,000 is a substantial

06: amount of money under any circumstances.

6.6 After the time of the divorce of John Murphy and Michelle Murphy, Jack Kirby

became a Superior Court Judge in the Coweta Judicial Circuit in January of 2007.

After becoming a Superior Court Judge, he maintained a close friendship with John

Murphy that Judge Kirby described as follows. This friendship included visits into

the home of John Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud in Tennessee and a little Hedge

FUN boat ride on the Tennessee River with John Murphy.




Page 68 of 147

Page 12, Line 12:

12: Q. After the term, after you obtained the

13: divorce, they finally obtained a divorce, did you

14: have any relationship with him after that time?

15: A. Yeah. We continued a personal16: relationship. We're friends.

17: Q. And what type of relationship was that

18: during that time?

19: A. We're friends.

20: Q. Okay. But I know there are friends and

21: friends. There are friends that say hello, and there

22: are friends --

23: A. We're good friends.24: Q. Visited in his home?

25: A. I have.

00013:

01: Q. And when did that start?

02: A. At the time I started representing him

03: during the divorce. He was already a friend of Kyle

04: Lovejoy who was my associate at the time. I think

05: that's how he came to hire me.

* * *

Page 38, Line 4:

04: Q. When you go do you visit in their home?

05: A. We have.

06: Q. And is that the one on North Bragg, the

07: house on North Bragg?

08: A. I don't know. It's right at the top of

09: incline railway.10: Q. Looked at the railroad down?

11: A. Yeah.

12: Q. A fairly sizable house?




Page 69 of 147

13: A. A big, old house.

* * *

Page 36, Line 14:

14: Have you ever

15: flown on his or Renee's or the company's airplane?16: A. No. But I've been for a ride on the boat.

17: Q. Okay. On the -- what do they call that,

18: the Hedgefun?

19: A. I don't think I've heard the name of it to

20: tell you the truth.

21: Q. Hedgefun, f-u-n?

22: A. It may be, yeah. That may be right.

23: Q. The 20 -- what is it, 35 foot or 25 foot24: long boat?

25: A. It's a big, old boat.

00037:

01: Q. And where would that ride take place?

02: A. We were in -- is the Tennessee River in

03: Chattanooga?

04: Q. Yeah. I think it is.

05: A. We just rode down the river and back a few

06: hours.

07: Q. And was that on a social occasion --

08: A. Yeah.

09: Q. -- that you were visiting Tennessee?

10: A. Yeah.

11: Q. You and your spouse and Renee and John.

12: Were other people there?

13: A. Yeah.

* * *

Page 48, Line 8:

08: Q. And are you familiar with the use of the




Page 70 of 147

09: plane, of John's plane --

10: A. (Witness shakes head negatively.)

11: Q. You've never flown in it?

12: A. No.

13: Q. Never knew anybody that did fly in it?14: A. John.

15: Q. Excuse me?

16: A. John.

17: Q. John?

18: A. Yeah. I understand that he uses it to get

19: his children for visitation. That's what I've been

20: told.

* * *Page 49, Line 1:

01: Q. (By Mr. Farmer) Have you ever observed

02: the children in any way, John's children?

03: A. At the wedding.

04: Q. Right. But just children are children

05: running around at the wedding?

06: A. Right.

07: Q. Nothing about their behavior or conduct?

08: A. No. I know who they are, that's it. I

09: don't think I have even talked to them during the

10: divorce.

6.7 On November 30, 2005, Judge Allen B. Keeble rendered the Order that, in part,

is as follows.




Page 71 of 147

6.7 On February 15, 2006, Judge E. Byron Smith presided at a hearing. See

Attachment 11, which, in part of the February 15, 2006 discovery hearing in the

divorce heard before Judge E. Byron Smith, which contains the following opening

and concluding comments by Judge E. Bryon Smith.

* *

*




Page 72 of 147

6.8 On August 7, 2006 the following hearing took place before Judge Baldwin. This

Transcript is Attachment 12.

* * *

6.9 On December 20, Judge Dennis Blackmon granted the final decree in the

divorce, as indicated below.




Page 73 of 147

6.10 After the final decree of divorce, Michelle Murphy filed a legal malpractice

action against her lawyer, who participated with John Murphy in resolving. This

case is Nancy Michelle Murphy v. Delia Tedder Crouch, Civil Action No. 08V2137in the Superior Court of Coweta County, Georgia.

6.11 Judge William F. Lee, Jr. presided in that litigation after the Final Decree

was filed by entering a QDRO and other orders, as indicated below. See Attachment

14




Page 74 of 147

6.12 For Judge Baldwin to assert in the Order denying his disqualification in

which he, at a minimum, denied Michelle Murphy an opportunity to present

evidence, the following is an absolute, knowingly made misleading assertion of

compliance with the application of USCR 3.2. Judge Baldwin stated, in part, as

follows in Attachment 15.

6.13 Yes, Judge Allen B. Keeble, Judge E. Byron Smith, Judge Quillian Baldwin, Judge Dennis Blackmon and Judge William F. Lee, Jr. each dealt with the “subject

matter” of this litigation, involving the same parties.

6.14 The case assignment system is a total disaster, in addition to being used for

unethical purposes, as the five judges who served John Murphy and Michelle

Murphy demonstrate.

7. Epilogue

7.1 The domestic relations obligations and responsibilities of the Superior

Court of Coweta County to litigants are in disarray. This disarray is created and




Page 75 of 147

caused by the inattention to the requirements and disobedience of the law by Judge

Quillian Baldwin, Judge Jack Kirby, Judge Allen B. Keeble and, to some extent

each of the judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

7.1.1 These judges, while acting in concert, and, in failing to act as provided

by law, have created a situation whereby domestic relations cases in the Superior

Court of Coweta County are treated much the same as bus loadings at the

Greyhound bus station in a large metropolitan area. The difference is that the

Uniform Superior Court Rules, the laws of Georgia and constitutional

protections govern the manner in which domestic relations proceedings should

be handled.

7.1.2 This situation in the Superior Court of Coweta County exists because

these judges do not follow the law and protect the rights of litigants. Counsel for

Michelle Murphy only has standing at this time to address the disarray in the

domestic relations proceedings in the Superior Court of Coweta County

attributed to Judge Quillian Baldwin by bringing this motion to disqualify Judge

Quillian Baldwin. If this motion does not initiate the necessary changes to

terminate the unconstitutional and illegal disarray, other actions will follow.

7.1.3 This disarray also exists in the Superior Court of Troup County. An

example of the disarray occurred in the Superior Court of Troup County when

John Murphy filed for his divorce against Michelle Murphy in John Harold

Murphy v. Nancy Michelle Murphy File No. 2004-CV-494. In that case, Jack

Kirby represented John Murphy and the following five different Coweta Circuit

Judges issued Orders at various times, Judge Allen B. Keeble, Judge Quillian

Baldwin, Judge Dennis Blackmon, Judge E. Byron Smith and Judge William F.

Lee, Jr.




Page 76 of 147

7.1.4 The results of this conglomerate of judges together with the malpractice

of Michelle Murphy’s attorney cost Michelle Murphy thousands of dollars, as

John Murphy failed to disclose assets during discovery and the Court refused to

require a reopening of a settlement agreement announced to the Court.

Subsequent litigation did not recover this amount, but addressed aspects of

malpractice by Delia Tedder Crouch. See, Nancy Michelle Murphy v Delia

Tedder Crouch, in the Superior Court of Coweta County, Civil Action No.

08V2137.

7.1.5 This Motion seeks to disqualify Melissa Griffis in all related matters

among, or between the following (“Haugerud/Murphy Parties”), John Harold

Murphy (or, “John Murphy”), his spouse and controller of his income, Renee

Lynn Haugerud (or, Renee L. Haugerud”) and her hedge fund business, Galtere,

Ltd. Galtera Aircraft, LLC and associated entities (or “Galtere”), together with

additional other third party defendants in any litigation, individually and

collectively, as parties with interests affecting the rights of the “Michelle Murphy

and Children Parties” Nancy Michelle Murphy, (or, “Michelle Murphy”), her

minor children, Jack Malachi Murphy (or, “Jack Murphy”), age 13, and

Thomas Emerson Murphy (or, “Thomas Murphy”), age 11, individually

and collectively.

7.1.6 The saddest part about the dispute among the Haugerud/Murphy Parties

and the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties is that counsel for the Michelle

Murphy and Children Parties warned Taylor Drake, counsel for the

Haugerud/Murphy Parties that the one thing that would expand this litigation

and separate these parties further than they had ever been apart was for him to

seek a guardian ad litem.




Page 77 of 147

7.1.6.1 This guardian ad litem issue was John Murphy’s battle flag to

signify to the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties his political association

with Judge Jack Kirby that would affect the decisions by this Court. Counsel

for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties pleaded with Taylor Drake to

forego seeking a guardian ad litem until the parties could engage in mending

fences. John Murphy is a huff, puff and bluff negotiator who has no feeling

about how many people, including his children, that he damages, as he

attempts to prevail with his huff, puff and bluff negotiation tactics. Taylor

Drake who only met John Murphy on the morning of the calendar call, did not

understand that by satisfying John Murphy’s psychological need to engage in

huff, puff and bluff negotiation that Taylor Drake was creating a very serious

situation for John Murphy’s source of income, Renee L. Haugerud.

7.1.6.2 John Murphy, to disrupt the dispute resolution progress that Renee

L. Haugerud and Michelle Murphy were making, wanted to have a guardian

ad litem appointed to frustrate the attempt by Michelle Murphy to reach out to

Renee L. Haugerud in order to resolve small disputes in an equitable manner.

The plan was that if small disputes could be resolved and trust established that

this would evolve into all disputes being resolved without litigation. One of the

main obstacles in resolving all disputes is John Murphy’s psychological need

to recover from his “father’s remorse” in secreting assets from Michelle

Murphy during the divorce and in abandoning his minor children when they

were high maintenance toddlers. This conduct by John Murphy left

Michelle Murphy to raise the children alone while John Murphy was moving

from bed to bed with other women until he finally married Renee L. Haugerud,

who could financially afford his lifestyle and ego by feigning that John Murphy




Page 78 of 147

was some kind of executive consultant with Galtere. The reality is that John

Murphy is best at disposing of Renee L. Haugerud’s money and causing her

trouble. Unfortunately, John Murphy, with Renee L. Haugerud’s consent, has

used assets not belonging to him for his personal use without paying either gift

or income tax on the assets. This is a problem that huff, puff and bluff

negotiating will not solve.

7.1.6.3 John Murphy facades his judicial/political strength to be derived

from Renee L. Haugerud’s multimillion dollar wealth. Her business entities

funnel non-tax paid assets to his personal uses. John Murphy’s legal and

social clout derive from his personal association with Coweta Judicial Circuit

Superior Court Judge Jack Kirby, who has been continually involved with

John Murphy since the time before he became a judge and represented John

Murphy in his divorce against Michelle Murphy. The accuracy of “Judge

Jack” providing John Murphy legal support has a short shelf life.

7.1.6.4 Only discovery will reveal John Murphy’s feigned judicial power

associated with whom the children refer to as “Judge Jack” and his illegal,

tax-free schemes in concert with Renee L. Haugerud’s businesses and her

other fiduciary responsibilities.

7.2 Let’s reflect upon Baseball's Sad Lexicon, Tinker to Evers to Chance

While the saddest of possible words for the New York Giants fans

Tinker to Evers to Chance played by the rules against their foe,

In contrast, Kirby to Drake to Baldwin made their own rules as they would go

It was USCR 3.1 that they always chose to ignore.Yes, Kirby to Drake to Baldwin is the icon for rule violations, as we all know.

Justice's Sad Lexicon




Page 79 of 147

Kirby to Drake to Baldwin, a trio of well-educated foe

Kirby to Drake to Baldwin

Their education allows each to be a licensed pro


These words to Thomas, Jack and Michelle mean trouble galore.

The Kirby to Drake to Baldwin game is played with rules they ignore


The saddest of possible words for Thomas, Jack and Michelle,

Dealing with their conduct is nothing but pure trouble.


It is their money and power game that justice must restrain

Tinker, Evers and Chance, we desperately need your refrain

Thomas and Jack cannot sustain

the Kirby to Drake to Baldwin power game.

8. Request for Relief

8.1 Counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties request that Melissa

Griffis be disqualified from serving as a guardian ad litem or in any capacity in this

case.

8.2 Counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties request that a

qualified jurist provide an evidentiary hearing in this matter related to the

disqualification of Melissa Griffis, and, if Melissa Griffis resigns, that an evidentiary

hearing be provided to determine the conduct of the other parties that is related to

the appointment and conduct of Melissa Griffis.

8.3 Counsel for the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties request such other

and further relief as justice requires. END




Page 80 of 147

1.3.1 Melissa Griffis resigned and instead of allowing a hearing to resolve the

appointment of another guardian she provided Judge Baldwin an Order that he

signed appointing Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell as the guardian ad litem. (XXXX)

Somewhat consistent with the conduct of persons assisting Judge Baldwin,

counsel for Michelle Murphy was not provided a copy of the appointment of

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell when Judge Baldwin executed the Order and only

learned of the Judge Baldwin’s Order sometime later when an employee of

Elizabeth Lisa Harwell informed counsel for Michelle Murphy of the Order.

1.3.2 A motion to disqualify Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell, similar to the motion to

disqualify Melisa Griffis was filed.

1.3.3 The first encounter with Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell in this case

occurred as documented in a pleading to the Court and was as follows.

A Sucker punch was again delivered to the system of justice.

A motion to disqualify Judge Quillian Baldwin and Melissa Griffis, due to the

conduct of Judge Quillian Baldwin, calmed the litigation waters for a few days.

Then, Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis contrived another litigation strategy in order

that he could deliver yet another sucker punch to the justice system.

This round of sucker punches by the Glover & Davis lawyer was a motion to have

Michelle Murphy held in contempt of Court for not reimbursing John Murphy for

one-half of the deductible portion of medical care for the children that John Murphy

had agreed to pay. The motion was based upon yet another false statement

sponsored by the Glover & Davis Lawyer.

In a bench conference, on the day that the motion for contempt was scheduled, Judge




Page 81 of 147

Quillian Baldwin explained to Taylor Drake that the matter of his disqualification

was on appeal and that he therefore would make no ruling upon the motion for

contempt. Once again, the litigation waters had calmed.

The Glover & Davis lawyers were not satisfied that they had been restrained from

delivering sucker punches to the justice system with the motion for contempt. The

Glover & Davis lawyers developed a new strategy to deliver their sucker punches to

the justice system.

The new strategy was to have John Murphy deprive the children of transportation

from Newnan to Atlanta to the schools that the children had planned to attend.

For two previous years, John Murphy had provided this transportation, except for

the last month of the previous school year when the driver of the children began

making extremely sexual, scary and dangerous comments to Michelle Murphy while

the driver was having a mental breakdown. The driver, after mental health care,

apologized to Michelle Murphy, but has been directed not to have contact with her.

The children were all prepared to being their schooling in Atlanta this school year,

but John Murphy had not informed the children or Michelle of the transportation

arrangements, although the children, John Murphy and Michelle Murphy had

attended an orientation meeting at one of the schools together.

Counsel for Michelle Murphy, on August 8, 2012, e-mailed Taylor Drake of Glover

& Davis to inquire about the transportation arrangements for the children

attendance at the Atlanta schools. This e-mail is Attachment 28.

In the e-mail, counsel for Michelle Murphy even offered, with his wife and others, to

drive the children to school while the dispute was resolved.

Taylor Drake, in an August 8, 2012 letter, responded by not only stating that John

Murphy would not provide transportation for the children, but that he would not




Page 82 of 147

allow counsel for Michelle Murphy and his wife to drive the children to school until

the issue could be resolved. Taylor Drake further classified Michelle Murphy’s

defense to the sexually inappropriate conduct of the driver as being “insulting

behavior” to the driver. This letter is Attachment 29.

There were additional exchanges of e-mails, where counsel for Michelle Murphy

attempted to resolve the transportation issue. Attachment 30.

Counsel for Michelle Murphy offered various alternatives and sought to meet with

Taylor Drake in order to resolve the dispute. Taylor Drake failed even to talk with

counsel for Michelle Murphy about resolving the transportation issue or about

enrolling the children in the public schools.

There were a series of e-mail communications that are included here as Attachment

31.

Counsel for Michelle Murphy eventually was able to obtain an agreement for Taylor

Drake to meet with counsel for Michelle Murphy to resolve some disputes.

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 counsel for Michelle Murphy traveled from Atlanta

to Newnan to meet with Taylor Drake and Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell at the time

and location arranged by them. The meeting was to be a dispute resolution meeting.

Counsel for Michelle Murphy, at the beginning of the meeting, informed Elizabeth

“Lisa” F. Harwell that he believed that he could make better progress in resolving

some of the disputes if she was not present. She agreed to leave the meeting, but

strangely said she would wait downstairs rather than return to her office, which was

only a block away.

Counsel for Michelle Murphy began by disclosing to Taylor Drake the problem that

The Howard School had created by refusing to provide Jack Murphy’s transcript

from last school year. Attachment 32




Page 83 of 147

Counsel for Michelle Murphy then began to explain to Taylor Drake the efforts that

counsel had made to assist in adjusting the children to the public school system.

Counsel explained the communications counsel had with the Principal of Arnall

Middle School and the high regard that counsel had for the Principal.

A person then knocked on the door of the conference room where counsel for

Michelle Murphy and Taylor Drake were discussing issues and called Taylor Drake

from the room. Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell entered the conference room and just

stood strangely at the door, saying, “well, I guess ya’ll want me back.” Counsel for

Michelle Murphy replied, “No, we don’t,” to which Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell

stated, “Taylor does” and remained in the room.

Taylor Drake and others came hastening into the room with a telephone, stating that

they had arranged for some kind of call from Judge Quillian Baldwin.

Counsel for Michelle Murphy then realized that Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell had

caused counsel for Michelle Murphy to drive from Atlanta to Newnan under the

extremely false pretense that Taylor Drake would finally sit down and discuss a

resolution to some of the issues with counsel for Michelle Murphy.

In all the time that counsel for Michelle Murphy has practiced law, he has never

been treated in such manner by two lawyers who counsel for Michelle Murphy has

known for many years. The conduct by these lawyers was unethical to the extent that

it was immoral.

When Judge Quillian Baldwin came on the speaker phone, counsel for Michelle

Murphy began literally yelling, before Taylor Drake started discussing matters that

counsel was unprepared to discuss, in an attempt to explain how counsel had been

tricked into coming to Newnan from Atlanta to participate in the ambush arranged

by Taylor Drake and Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell.




Page 84 of 147

The ironic aspect of the conduct of Taylor Drake and Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell

is that counsel for Michelle Murphy could have explained to Judge Quillian Baldwin

in a rational manner the issue that only resulted in a loud, nearly irrational

exchange, due to the frustration of counsel being tricked into coming from Atlanta

to Newnan for what counsel expected to be a session to exchange information face

to face rather than through written communications that polarize the parties and

their counsel.

1.7 It was at a hearing after Taylor Drake’s stunt of snookering counsel for

Michelle Murphy to drive from Newnan to Atlanta to engage in a conference

that Millard Farmer initiated to discuss resolving issues, that the illegal taking

of money from the trust fund by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell was revealed to

the Court in the following the cross-examination by Millard Farmer.

!"# %&'()**+ , -./0 1233045 6781.139 :8;0<-070

.78=>4 . ?-8=:.>4 4833.7:5 <-2@- 2: >8? <-.? , :-8=34

10 4=0 AA

!'# B&'!)'+ CD.9#

!"# %&'()**+ AA 8=? 8E .33 ?-0 ;8?28>: AA

!'# B&'!)'+ )F@=:0 ;0#

!"# %&'()**+ AA that I’ve had to read.

G%) HCI'G+ (.2? J=:? . ;2>=?0#

!'# B&'!)'+ G-0 .>:<07 ?8 ?-0 K=0:?28> 2: 90: 87

>8#

!"# %&'()**+ L0:# , -./0 123304M , -./0

/072E2@.?28> AA

!'# B&'!)'+ %./0 98= 6=? ?-.? ;8>09 2>?8 98=7

607:8>.3 .@@8=>?N

!"# %&'()**+ , -./0 6=? ?-0 ;8>09 ?-.? 2? @8:?

;0 ?8 472/0 =6 ?8 H-.??.>88O. .>4 ?8 O0? . -8?03 788;

:8 ?-.? , @8=34 ;00? <2?- ?-0 @-23470> .>4 ;00? ?-0;

for the first time, which is the only contact I’ve had




Page 85 of 147

4270@?39 <2?- ?-0 @-23470>#

!'# B&'!)'+ &>4 -8< ;=@- 424 98= 6=? 2>?8 98=7

.@@8=>?N

!"# %&'()**+ , @.>>8? O2/0 98= .> 0F.@? E2O=70#

G%) HCI'G+ &33 72O-?# P8<5 388D5 388D# (.2?

J=:? . ;2>=?0M <.2? J=:? . ;2>=?0#

"-0 2: ?-0 O=.742.> .4 32?0; >8<# !7# !=76-9 2:

70:68>:2130 E87 6.92>O .33 8E -07 E00: AA

(.2? J=:? . ;2>=?0 >8<#

!'# B&'!)'+ ,>@8770@?# ,>@8770@? :?.?0;0>? 8E

?-0 3.<#

G%) HCI'G+ , ?-8=O-? :-0 <.:M , ?-8=O-? AA

!'# B&'!)'+ P8#

G%) HCI'G+ , ?-8=O-? 9Q.33 .O7004 ?8 AA

!'# B&'!)'+ P8#

G%) HCI'G+ , ?-8=O-? -0 .O7004 ?8 6.9 ?-.?#

!'# B&'!)'+ R=? 98= :2O>04 . 42EE070>? 87407#

When he handed you that order, you didn’t read it; it

;.40 ;9 @320>? 32.130#

G%) HCI'G+ , ?-8=O-? <0 @-.>O04 2? AA

!'# B&'!)'+ P8#

G%) HCI'G+ AA .>4 @8770@?04 ?-.?#

!'# B&'!)'+ P85 :27#

G%) HCI'G+ (0335 2: ?-.? ?-0 40.3N (-.? 2: ?-0

40.3 .18=? 6.92>O AA!'# S'&T)+ , ?-8=O-? ;9 @320>? <.: O82>O ?8 6.9

it up front and we’d allocate it at the very end.

That’s what’s been happening.

!'# B&'!)'+ &338@.?04 .? ?-0 /079 0>4 2: >8? AA

!'# S'&T)+ ,? @8=34 10 U0785 !233.74# L8=7

client may have to pay zero. It doesn’t mean that

she’s obligated to pay AA

!'# B&'!)'+ , D>8<#

!'# S'&T)+ ,? ;0.>: ?-0 H8=7? -.: @8>:2407.?28>

to consider who’s responsible for AAG%) HCI'G+ &33 72O-?# *88D5 388D# (.2? .

:0@8>4# ,’m going to get this straight right now.

B78; >8< 8>5 2E 98= ?.D0 . 47.< 8EE 8E ?-.?




Page 86 of 147

;8>095 630.:0 2>E87; !7# B.7;07 8E ?-0:0 ?-2>O:# ,?

<8=34 J=:? 10 . ;.??07 8E @8692>O -2; <2?- <-.?0/07

you’re doing. And make sure the other side is

2>E87;04#

, .; >8? .<.70 ?-.? , -./0 ?8 .6678/0 ?-0:0

0F60>42?=70:5 1=? 2E AA ;870 ?-.> 32D0395 =>30:: 2?

<.: 8=? ?-0 <.U88 :8;0<-0705 , <8=34 6781.139 .6678/0

.>9?-2>O AA .>9 8E ?-0 O=.742.>: .4 32?0; ?-.? , V V V

(,GP)"" ;9 -.>4 .>4 :0.3 .? *.W7.>O05 G78=6

H8=>?95 W087O2.5 ?-2: ?-0 XY?- 4.9 8E P8/0;1075 XZ[X#

P.> S# B700;.>5 HH'5 RA[Y\Y

!9 @8;;2::28> 0F6270: &6723 [X5 XZ[\

1.7.1 The only invoice that Elizabeth “Lisa” ever provided to counsel for

Michelle Murphy is Attachment 155. If she has obtained money from John

Harold Murphy, Renee L. Haugerud, or on behalf of them, she is obligated by

“Law*” to provide counsel for Michelle Murphy a copy, as directed by Judge

Baldwin on November 15, 2012.




Page 87 of 147

1.8 July 31, 2014 Emergency Motion for Relief from John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud Contributing to the Delinquency of Minors

Photos are included since Judge Baldwin, as a rule, does not read pleadings.

Pictured is Michelle Murphy’s child, on Oct 20, 2013, at the Hospital after Alcohol

Poisoning at the Home Shared by John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud.The $5,335.25 bill for the emergency hospital stay was guaranteed by Renee L.

Haugerud, who was shown as the natural mother in the hospital records. Thehospital bill, in part, is attached. See, Attachment 121.

1. Michelle Murphy’s child recovered from the October 20, 2013 alcohol

poisoning by coming home to his mother and living in an environment where he was

not treated like an adult living in a small body. Make no mistake in understanding

the danger of alcohol and tobacco. The Georgia Department of Human Resources




Page 88 of 147

considers that a parent allowing minor children, ages 13 and 15, to use alcohol

and tobacco, as contributing to the delinquency of a minor. This Court should,

also! There is now adequate proof.

Michelle Murphy’s children once again need to be returned to the home of Michelle

Murphy to be freed from the addiction of alcohol that once plagued their father,

John Harold Murphy and one of his parents. These children are far too young to

become subjected to alcohol dependency that is being initiated by John Harold

Murphy now sharing shots of alcohol with them and otherwise leaving a large open

bar available to the children without any responsible adult supervision. John Harold

Murphy is also providing the children cigars to smoke with him.

1.1 Michelle Murphy pleas to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin, while, as

an emergency, informs the Court of the immediate need for a judge to address the

urgent needs of the best interest of the children.

1.1.1 Counsel for Michelle Murphy only on Wednesday, July 30, 2014 obtained

confirmation of the alcohol aspect of the abusive treatment of these minor

children. Counsel seeks immediate assistance from the Court before publically

distributing the supporting evidence in order to obtain public support to protect

the best interest of the children. If Judge Baldwin had not permitted the

children to leave the State of Georgia, the Georgia Department of Human

Resources could address the abusive treatment of these children. That remedy,

for all of its deficiencies, is unavailable for the protection of these children.

Without the Court’s immediate intervention of providing a fair jurist to hear

this issue, the only remedy is assistance from the people of Georgia by all means

possible. This is a problem that Judge Baldwin created.




Page 89 of 147

1.1.1.1 There is a danger that the October 20, 2013 alcohol poisoning of

some of the children staying in the home of John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud could reoccur, as the alcohol bars are never secured by being

locked or with an adult being present after the children’s initial mixed

alcoholic beverages and shot drinking sessions with John Harold Murphy.

1.1.1.2 There are three children who are being subjected to abusive

treatment by John Harold Murphy serving and jointly sharing with the three

minor children mixed “pain killer” alcoholic drinks and shots of alcohol.

1.1.1.3 Renee L. Haugerud is both knowledgeable about John Harold

Murphy providing alcoholic drinks to the three minor children in their home

and is familiar with the children being provided alcoholic drinks when they go

out to eat in public restaurants, including Foxy’s Bar in the British Virgin

Islands, where they go every weekend.

When the children are in the custody of Michelle Murphy, she takes them to

Church on Sunday. When the children are in the custody of John Harold

Murphy, he and Renee L. Haugerud get drunk on the boat every Sunday, and

take the children along in their island/bar hopping, drunken stupor. Allowing

the children to drink hard liquor and smoke Cuban cigars is John Harold

Murphy’s substitute for attending church and providing a loving home

environment.

1.1.1.4 Renee L. Haugerud stood idly by and watched John Harold Murphy

jump onto Thomas Murphy to take his cell phone from him in order that he

could not report his abusive treatment to his mother.

1.1.1.5 Renee L. Haugerud is very aware that the alcoholic bars at her

houses remain unsecure once her and John Harold Murphy’s participation in




Page 90 of 147

the minor children’s drinking ends. It was her unsecured, open alcohol bar

that resulted in the October 20, 2013 alcohol poisoning of one of the children.

1.1.1.6 This conduct of John Harold Murphy in preparing and sharing

alcoholic drinks with the three minor children and otherwise making alcoholic

drinks available to them has long been within the knowledge of Renee L.

Haugerud. This type of evidence was secreted from the Court by its failure to

allow counsel for Michelle Murphy to present testimony at the May 27, 2014

hearing and most likely this evidence was secreted from the “custody

evaluator.”

1.1.1.7 The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers have threatened

Michelle Murphy with criminal contempt of court for attempting to learn about

the conduct of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud that is

contributing to the delinquency of minor children.

1.1.1.8 Two of the three minor children to whom John Harold Murphy

serves mixed alcoholic drinks and shots of alcohol, were forcibly placed in the

temporary custody of John Harold Murphy by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.,

at the May 27, 2014 hearing with a June 5, 2014 Order that prohibited

Michelle Murphy from contacting the children.

The Critical Emergency Needs of the Children are stated in the above paragraphs!

Counsel for Michelle Murphy seeks to present newly obtained evidence to a fair

jurist. Judge Baldwin has failed the people of the State of Georgia. These children

need to be returned to the Public Schools of Coweta immediately.

1.1.1.9 The newly obtained evidence supports that the children of Michelle

Murphy have not been provided a single hour of academic counseling during

the entire summer and spend very little time with John Harold Murphy and

Renee L. Haugerud, who are “horrible” parents.




Page 91 of 147

1.1.1.10 The June 5, 2014 Order was obtained after a hearing where

Michelle Murphy and the children were not allowed to present any evidence

about the danger of the children being with John Harold Murphy for any

length of time away from their home in Georgia. Neither Michelle Murphy,

nor the children were allowed to present any evidence to the absolute false

accusations that the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers sponsored that

Michelle Murphy had fondled one of the children.

1.1.1.11 The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers deceived Judge Baldwin

at two hearings where Michelle Murphy was not allowed to present any

evidence. These lawyers also sponsored false statements to the appellate

courts.

1.1.1.12 It was political and financial favoritism of Judge Baldwin, that,

when legally addressed, heightened the bias of Judge Baldwin to the level of

him being unable to fulfill his role of a jurist who could listen to evidence that

could have prevented the past months of deprivation of the children of Michelle

Murphy and one of their friends.

1.2 Upon information from a reliable informant, Millard Farmer, counsel for

Michelle Murphy, has evidence that Jack Murphy, age 15, Thomas Murphy, age 13

and a friend, who is also a minor, have been staying in homes shared by John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud in St. Thomas, USVI, Minnesota and Tennessee.

1.2.1 The friend of the children who is staying with John Harold Murphy and

Renee L. Haugerud is from Coweta County and is one of the three children being

served mixed alcoholic drinks and shots of alcohol.

1.2.1.1 The children need an immediate, sequestered opportunity to visit

with an impartial jurist. A meeting with the persons from the Coweta County




Page 92 of 147

Sheriff’s Department is not a viable substitute, as the Glover & Davis law firm

represents the Sheriff of Coweta County. Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell is also

as person who should not participate, as she is an extremely poor decision

maker, who is detrimental to the best interest of the children, as she attempts

to defend her illegal conduct with additional illegal conduct.

1.2.1.2 The Sheriff’s Deputies have twice taken the children and delivered

them to John Harold Murphy. The children fear that the deputies, as John

Harold Murphy has informed the children, will place them in a detention

center, if they tell anyone about his conduct.

1.2.2 Without an immediate removal of the children from John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud, the lives of these children are headed toward the alcohol

addiction, and roaming for sex life, involving the abusive treatment to women,

for which John Harold Murphy left his two children and Michelle Murphy to

engage.

1.2.2.1 The Priest of the children’s church is willing to assist the Pastor of

Taylor Drake’s church, or any jurist willing to assist the children in being

protected, as they can provide information about the conduct of John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud to the Court. This Priest and Pastor spend

their lives attempting to protect the best interest of children.

1.2.2.2 The children of Michelle Murphy do not wish for any type of

punishment to be inflicted upon John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud,

as they have observed that type of conduct against their mother. The children

do strongly wish to be freed from John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud

in order that they may return to their home with their mother, Michelle

Murphy.




Page 93 of 147

1.2.2.3 This statement of the feelings of the children about punishment for

John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud does not reflect the sentiment of

counsel for Michelle Murphy. These two people are placing scars upon the

lives of these children that will remain throughout their lives.

1.2.2.4 The social worker at the hospital, after the October 20, 2013

incident, informed John Harold Murphy that he should not have unsecured

access to alcoholic beverages in the house with the children. 1.2.2.5 Be

assured, that the social worker never believed that John Harold Murphy would

not only continue to provide the children access to an unsecured, fully stocked

bar, but would share shots of alcohol with the children at a bar while the

mother of the children was prohibited by Judge Baldwin with contacting the

children.

1.2.2.6 The warning provided to John Harold Murphy at the hospital was

inadequate, as was the scare of the near death of the child inadequate to deter

the behavior of both John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud.

1.2.2.7 These persons are endangering the lives of these children and

certainly creating lifetime health problems for them relating to alcohol and

tobacco. These children need academic preparation for the coming school

year; Judge Baldwin placed the children in an environment that prevented

their academic preparation for the upcoming school year and endangered

their health for the remainder of their lives.

1.2.3 The Murphy/Haugerud houses have fully stocked, unsecured alcoholic

bars, just as the house in which the children and their friends were staying when

one of the children was taken to the hospital for emergency treatment in October




Page 94 of 147

of 2013 after the child suffered alcohol poisoning that required emergency

hospital care and his stomach pumped.

1.2.3.1 After the October 2013 incident, the danger of an unlocked, fully

stocked, alcoholic bar provided Michelle Murphy reason for additional care

to determine the possibility that the children may be accessing alcohol from

an unlocked, fully stocked bar without the knowledge of John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud during their visits.

1.2.3.2 In October of 2013, John Harold Murphy offered a defense to the

social worker at the hospital for the alcohol poisoning of the pictured child on

the first page. The defense of John Harold Murphy was that he “fell asleep”

while looking at television and that Renee L. Haugerud was upstairs working

on the computer while the children and their guest were having a drinking

contest.

1.2.3.3 Even if true, the defense of John Harold Murphy to the October 20,

2013 alcohol poisoning of the child was available evidence that Judge Baldwin

should have heard and about which John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud should have been questioned.

1.2.3.4 Judge Baldwin should inquire of Nancy McGarrah and H. Elizabeth

King, the so called “custody evaluators,” if their testing of John Harold and

interviewing of Renee L. Haugerud provided any warning of the conduct of

John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud relating to supplying the

children with hard liquor.

1.2.3.4.1 The Court should be reminded that both of the “custody

evaluators” had completed their testing of John Harold Murphy and their

interview of Renee L. Haugerud.




Page 95 of 147

1.2.3.4.2 The Court should bring the “custody evaluators” into Court to

inquire if the Murphy/Haugerud couple revealed during their evaluations

that they left an unlocked, fully stocked bar available to children visiting in

their home and if they provided the children with alcoholic beverages.

1.2.3.4.3 Both of the “custody evaluators,” without any request from the

Court, should have informed the Court that these people were a risk to

engage in serving shots of alcohol to these minor children visiting with them,

if their testing revealed such possibility.

1.2.3.5 As much as John Harold Murphy wishes to obtain the children for

himself and Renee L. Haugerud, he cannot restrain himself from becoming

unglued. This may be the reason that the children do not wish him punished;

as the children may understand something that the “custody evaluators”

didn’t. John Harold Murphy cannot control his behavior as it relates to the

use of alcohol and his treatment of women. This conduct is becoming more

noticeable in aging athletes who have played football, as John Harold Murphy

did.

1.2.3.6 We know that the contempt motion of John Harold Murphy to

require Michelle Murphy to academically dope the children and the custody

evaluator attempts were, as the Court was informed, bogus attempts to

detrimentally affect Michelle Murphy and the children by leading Judge

Baldwin astray.

1.2.3.7 The children, who professed love for John Harold Murphy, should

not be discouraged. Yet, the children must be protected from his behavior and

conduct to their mother in always attempting to financially require her to

suffer as she attempts to provide for the children.




Page 96 of 147

1.2.3.7 Such conduct by John Harold Murphy is an integral part of his

incurable illness involving his behavior toward women.

1.2.3.8 There is available evidence that since the children have been with

John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud that John Harold Murphy has

continually made unjustified, detrimental comments to the children about

Michelle Murphy that are designed to make the children dislike their mother.

Adverse comments about John Harold Murphy are just one of the things for

which John Harold Murphy has threatened to have Michelle Murphy held in

contempt of court.

1.2.4 The parents of the visiting minor have not provided John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud consent to provide their minor child alcoholic beverages.

Most likely, they do not have knowledge of the conduct, or their desire to correct

this conduct is overcome by the financial offers for the child.

1.2.5 In addition to serving each of the children, including the visiting minor,

with the “pain killer” alcoholic drinks on a frequent basis, John Harold Murphy

provides each of the children, including the visiting minor, with shots of alcoholic

drinks from the open bar located in the homes that John Harold Murphy shares

with Renee L. Haugerud, who is aware that the visiting minor child, and the

children of Michelle Murphy are drinking shots of alcohol with John Harold

Murphy. This statement is not to eliminate in any manner that the children do not

otherwise consume alcoholic drinks from the unlocked bar in the absence of John

Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud.

1.2.6 The simplistic answer to this alcohol problem is not to lock the bar, as

the alcohol problem is only the symptom of the apparently incurable problem




Page 97 of 147

that John Harold Murphy has with his relationship with women that becomes his

problem in depriving Michelle Murphy of her children.

1.2.7 The children of Michelle Murphy fear both short term and long term

retaliation, as John Harold Murphy has made a direct threat about the

consequences of disclosure of this drinking issue once he becomes aware that the

confidential informant provided enough information about the children to

require further inquiry on behalf of the children’s safety. One thing is fortunate:

it doesn’t require as much money to obtain a confidential informant in St. Thomas

as it does in Chattanooga.

1.2.8 John Harold Murphy was an alcoholic who maintains that he has

recovered. There is great fear that the children will become addicted to alcohol,

as John Harold Murphy once was, or that there will be a less successful recovery

from alcohol poisoning.

1.2.9 The children have consistently begged to be returned to Coweta County

to be with Michelle Murphy.

1.2.10 The operation of a motorized all-terrain vehicle by the children creates

an even greater fear about these young bodies being laden with the residual effect

of alcohol.

1.2.11 One of the children has already had several wrecks this summer on the

motorized, all-terrain vehicle.

1.2.12 The minor child from Newnan, who is visiting the children, according

to an unconfirmed report that is not documented in the recorded information

which is available to the Court, has been offered fully paid tuition to a private

school if he will go to school outside the State of Georgia with Jack Murphy and

Thomas Murphy.




Page 98 of 147

1.2.13 The confidential informant does not wish to endanger this offer, if the

offer is true, and the promise of further financial benefits provided to the minor

child. The financial status of the parents of the child is such that they are in awe

of the financial benefits that John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud have

provided and are continuing to provide to their minor child.

1.2.14 The confidential informant has asked that the alcohol drinking

problem not be disclosed until the minor child returns home to Coweta County.

1.3 School is about to begin in Coweta County and Jack Murphy, age 15, and

his brother, Thomas Murphy, age 13, need to be returned to their teachers in

Coweta County, who have great confidence in these children and in Michelle Murphy’s dedication to educating them. The children’s alcohol dependency needs

to subside.

Alcohol and tobacco are not the only problem that creates the contribution to the

delinquency of these minor children by John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud.




Page 99 of 147

1.3.1 The abusive exposure to alcohol is just one of the detrimental ways in

which the children are being psychologically tortured, as John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud attempt to gain favor with the children by exposing them

to a lifetime of alcohol and tobacco dependency




Page 100 of 147

!"# %&%& ' (")"" *+ *, )-.

/&01 2-," /# 34)" 567.

5869 : ;*<< )"="> 7?"&1 .-

#-4 &@&*)A : ;*<< <"&=" '

#-4 ;*<< )"="> +*)B ,"A :don’t ever want to ever live

;*.2 #-4 <*1" : 2&=" 7&*B

688 .*,"7A

C)B 2-; 0-4<B #-4 7&# .2&.

,# ,-, ,-<"7."B ," .2&.

*7 .2" /*@@"7. <*" : 2&=" "=">

2"&>A ' : D47. .- <". #-4

1)-; &<< -+ .2-7" ;""1")B7

that I didn’t come was/"0&47" #-4 .--1 ," '

E2-,&7 +>-, & 7&+" '

<-="*)@ ")=*>-),").A

F-4 2&=" )- >"7?"0. +-> ,"

-> &)# -+ ,# B"0*7*-)7A '

?<47 : &, .*>"B -+ (")""

saying she doesn’t have

&)#.2*)@ .- B- ;*.2 .2*7A

E2&. *7 &<< : 2&=" .- 7&# Jack Murphy, age 15

1.3.2 The issue is that John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud are

contributing to the delinquency of minor children and endangering them in

jurisdictions where the influence of Renee L. Haugerud’s money with the

governmental authorities and the unavailable financial cost to Michelle Murphy

prohibit Michelle Murphy from stopping the illegal conduct of John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud. Judge Baldwin created this situation.




Page 101 of 147

1.3.3 The conduct of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud require an

immediate hearing before a judge who replaces Judge Baldwin. There is not

enough time for Judge Baldwin to recover from being constantly duped by the

Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers. The children tried and failed to protect

themselves with their earlier messages. This matter requires immediate, strong

regulatory action that must result in the children of Michelle Murphy being

brought back to Coweta County to be supervised by their mother, Michelle

Murphy.

1.4 These three children were served mixed “pain killer” alcoholic drinks by

John Harold Murphy with the approval of Renee L. Haugerud as the result of

four deficiencies of our judicial system.

1.4.1. The Superior Court of Coweta County’s absence of a Uniform Superior

Court Rule 3.1 Case Management Plan that allowed Taylor Drake to select the

judge of his choice. – This resulted in an immediate, justifiable absence of

confidence by counsel for Michelle Murphy in the Court as favoritism that was

illegal, was initially granted to the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyer.

1.4.2 The failure of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. to allow Michelle Murphy

to present evidence at all crucial times, combined with attacks by Judge Baldwin

upon her counsel.

1.4.3 The failure to disqualify Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell as guardian ad litem

after it came to the attention of Judge Baldwin that she converted trust funds to

her personal use in violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 (8)(g) and the

knowledge of her violation of OCGA §16-6-19.

1.4.4 Judge Baldwin being duped into appointing the “custody evaluator”

expert witness for the money bags of John Harold Murphy and Renee L.




Page 102 of 147

Haugerud rather than using his numerous years of experience that have most

likely taught him that the academic doping of children is no substitute for the

judgment of school teachers and a mother who see the children daily. This hands-

on judgment was that the tutors employed by Michelle Murphy were a better

solution for the children adjusting to their new school than multiple medications

from a once addicted psychiatrist who testified after lunch under the influence of

so such medication that her cross-examination was stopped by Judge Baldwin

with a break and never allowed to continue.

1.5 Judge Baldwin came within one witness of learning the truth about Elizabeth

King, the so called “custody evaluator’s” spoliation of evidence, illegal testimony

conduct and the absence of any ability of Elizabeth King to perform any test that

provides any information concerning the false allegation of fondling.

1.5.1 It was H. Elizabeth King who refused to come to the home of Michelle

Murphy and examine her and the children as Elizabeth King and any associate

wished. There is also information that can be provided about the conduct of

Renee L. Haugerud taking one of the children to a nude beach when he was 9

years old and about Renee L. Haugerud’s payment of $60 per hour for the

children to rub her feet.

1.5.2 Judge Baldwin, on May 27, 2014, had all of the witnesses in the

courthouse who could have presented the highest and best evidence of the legal

issues that could have alerted Judge Baldwin to the detriment to the children of

the results that the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers wanted; instead, he

lost his temper and engaged in irrational conduct.




Page 103 of 147

1.5.3 Rather than using the best system of justice in the world to resolve the

issues, Judge Baldwin decided to succumb to the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis

lawyers’ financial trap that Michelle Murphy could not afford.

1.5.4 Judge Baldwin does not understand until this day the cost to Michelle

Murphy to obtain expert witnesses to expose the “custody evaluators” and to

take their depositions, as no jurist would ever send the children to a previous

offender’s house with an unsecure, open bar thousands of miles from the Court,

where the children could be served shots of alcohol.

1.5.4.1 Judge Baldwin would not commit to providing Michelle Murphy any

litigation fees; quite the opposite, Judge Baldwin consistently warned counsel

for Michelle Murphy that he did not plan to award attorney fees.

1.5.4.2 The custody evaluators were selected by Elizabeth “Lisa” F.

Harwell. The attached bill from Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell indicates some

of the fees received and being sought by Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell. See,

Attachment 122.

1.5.4.3 If Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell has allowed the alcohol shot sharing

and other abusive treatment of the children to occur without a notice to

counsel for Michelle Murphy and the Court, she should be removed

immediately. If Judge Baldwin was noticed, he did not share this contribution

to the delinquency to minors with counsel for Michelle Murphy.

1.5.4.4 The guardian ad litem, who failed the children when they needed to

be protected from the alcohol abuse, cannot be trusted, as the children also

need protection from this so called “guardian ad litem” whose shift should

have ended when she was caught converting trust money for her use without a

prior approval. USCR 24.9 (8) (g).




Page 104 of 147

1.5.4.5 If Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell had been a fast food worker who had

worked a complete week and took money from the cash register to cover for

her wages before her paycheck arrived and was caught, she would have been

fired and charged with theft, as this guardian ad litem should have been

treated. Money in a trust account of a lawyer and a guardian ad litem is

governed by the Uniform Superior Court Rule 24, et seq.

1.5.5 In his June 5, 2014 Order, Judge Baldwin made a temporary custody

change a specific form of punishment for Michelle Murphy that more specifically

is punishment of the children. The punishment phase of the May 27, 2014 hearing

should now end.

1.5.6 During one of the children’s visit with John Harold Murphy and Renee

L. Haugerud that preceded the May 27, 2014 hearing, John Harold Murphy

informed the child that if Renee L. Haugerud was subpoenaed in this case, he

would have Nancy Michelle Murphy put in jail. Renee L. Haugerud was in

Georgia going to the Atlanta Airport in route to St. Thomas, USVI with one of

the children at that time and feared service of a subpoena upon her, as her

location in Georgia was detected.

1.5.7 It is the New York based companies of Renee L. Haugerud that supply the

medical insurance for the children, that, once the litigation began, increased the

amount of the medical costs that Michelle Murphy is required to pay.

1.5.8 It is Renee L. Haugerud who goes with John Harold Murphy to consult

with cardiac medical care providers throughout the world related to his medical

condition.




Page 105 of 147

1.5.9 It was Renee L. Haugerud who swore falsely to obtain her marriage

license in order for Judge Louis Jack Kirby to perform an illegal marriage

ceremony for her and John Harold Murphy.

1.5.10 It was Renee L. Haugerud who made a false statement to the process

server by using a fictitious name in order to evade service of process.

1.5.11 It was Renee L. Haugerud who provided a false affidavit to Peter A.

Durham relating to an ownership interest in real property in the State of Georgia.

1.5.12 It was Renee L. Haugerud who used corporate assets in order to

transport the children to visit with her and John Harold Murphy.

1.5.13 It was the funds derived from Renee L. Haugerud which paid for the

attendance of the children at the private school in Atlanta and the transportation

of the children from Newnan to Atlanta each school day.

1.5.14 At the time that John Harold Murphy filed for modification of custody,

all of these funds were terminated.

1.5.15. Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, is the Chief Investment

Officer of Galtere, Ltd, a registered investment advisor that is headquartered

in New York City. Galtera N.A., Inc. is the sub-advisor to Galtere, Ltd.

(Affidavit of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith) (R-495)

Renee Haugerud, contrary to her affidavit, ( R-495 ) apparently provided to evade

jurisdiction of the Court, jointly holds title to real estate in Georgia with John H.

Murphy by virtue of a Security Deed that vests title in them until the debt of Ebonie

S. Wilson is paid and the Security Deed is satisfied in the real estate record of

the Clerk of the Superior Court of Troup County.




Page 106 of 147

1.5.16 The Court is reminded of the false statements that Renee Haugerud, a/k/a

Lauree Smith and John Harold Murphy made in obtaining their marriage license.

First, on the left, below, is the Application, followed on the right by the Marriage

License signed by Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge Jack Kirby. , to the Addendum

to the First Amended Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin. (R-223, 224)

1.5.17 The Court should also be reminded of another false statement that Renee

Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith made to another state actor.

The process server provides, in part, the following sworn information.




Page 107 of 147

1.5.18 Judge Baldwin was a poor decision maker in appointing a guardian

ad litem who attempted to use the illegal authority provided to Melissa Griffis in

order to attempt to change custody temporarily for the children to go to a school

in Atlanta at the request of Taylor Drake and John Harold Murphy.

1.6 Judge Baldwin was a poor decision maker; in fact, he is an unethical decision

maker, in appointing a guardian ad litem who appeared on a regular basis before

Judge Louis Jack Kirby, the person who represented John Harold Murphy during

the divorce.




Page 108 of 147

1.6.1 The decision making by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell to attempt to change

custody temporarily was poor on both a legal basis and on a practical basis, as

it was John Harold Murphy who withdrew the transportation that he had been

providing for the children to go to the Atlanta school.

1.7 Since the filing of the Complaint for Modification, John Harold Murphy has

attempted to obtain custody of the children by depriving Michelle Murphy and the

children of financial resources. This continued with the July 25, 2014 letter threat

(Attachment 123) of Taylor Drake

Response to the July 25, 2014 Letter Threat of Taylor Drake

1.7.1 On Friday afternoon, July 25, 2014, Taylor Drake sent John Harold

Murphy’s threat to breach the Settlement Agreement that he memorialized before

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin to provide Michelle Murphy child support.

1.7.1.1 John Murphy threatens that Michelle Murphy will not receive

August child support, because Judge Baldwin took the children from her

during the month of August at a hearing that was so devoid of due process that

even the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay during the last six years have been

provided fairer hearings with less irate judges. The Settlement Agreement

provides as follows.




Page 109 of 147

The threat, without any legal authority to breach the agreement, and the letter’s

attempts to shift the obligation to defend John Harold Murphy’s conduct upon

counsel for Michelle Murphy is the typical, we-got-our-hand-selected-judge-and-

millions-of-dollars-to-litigate-you-in-the-ground, Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis

John Harold Murphy/Renee L. Haugerud strategy.

1.7.1.2 The August child support due from John Harold Murphy was paid.




Page 110 of 147

1.7.1.3 The preview of that “we have the judge and the money” strategy was

first identified to counsel for Michelle Murphy when Taylor Drake would not

discuss a disposition to the dispute of the parties without rushing to the

courthouse to select Judge Baldwin.

1.7.1.4 It was at that first meeting, over strong protest of counsel for

Michelle Murphy, that Judge Baldwin signed, without reading, an order

appointing a guardian ad litem with the power to change temporary custody

of the children without approval of the Court.

1.7.1.5 Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, at the insistence of Taylor Drake,

attempted to adjudicate this illegal temporary change of custody. It was

necessary for Michelle Murphy to defy the illegal “Order” of Elizabeth “Lisa”

F. Harwell and enroll the children in the public schools of Coweta County in

order to resist the illegal conduct of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, supported

by Taylor Drake on behalf of John Harold Murphy.

1.7.1.6 The event creating this illegal conduct by the guardian ad litem

occurred because of one of John Harold Murphy/Renee L. Haugerud power

plays that terminated the transportation that they had been providing for the

children to attend a private school in Atlanta after Michelle Murphy refused

to move to Chattanooga, Tennessee that resulted in the Modification of

Custody Complaint being filed by Taylor Drake.

1.7.1.7 The signing of the appointment of the guardian ad litem order

without reading it and the false statement of Judge Baldwin in defending the

motion to disqualify him was so bad that Stephen E. Hudson, on page 14 in his

January 22, 2014 Appellees’ brief for John Harold Murphy in the Court of




Page 111 of 147

Appeals, made a different false statement in an attempt to defend the conduct

of Judge Baldwin, in signing without reading the illegal Order..

1.8 Incorporated Provision1.8.1 This July 31, 2014 Emergency Motion for Relief from John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud Contributing to the Delinquency of Minors supplements,

without replacing and incorporates all previous motions, including supporting

affidavits attached to previous motions to disqualify Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

None of the disqualification motions are waived in order to obtain this required

emergency relief that is in the best interest of the children.

The Affidavit of Millard Farmer is attached.

1.9 Request for Relief

1.9.1 Michelle Murphy requests that a judge other than a judge in the Coweta

Judicial Circuit, and other than a senior judge who has served by designation in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit, be designated to adjudicate this matter, and her counsel

request that Judge Baldwin immediately disqualify himself and allow another Judge

to proceed with the rescue of the children.

1.9.2 Michelle Murphy requests that the children be returned to Coweta County

immediately for investigative purposes.

1.9.3 Michelle Murphy requests that her counsel be immediately allowed to

interview the children.

1.9.4 Michelle Murphy requests that the children be returned to Coweta County

immediately in order that they may be begin this school year. Michelle Murphy requests that the Court rescind its June 5, 2014 Order.

1.9.5 Michelle Murphy requests that she be allowed to present evidence in support




Page 112 of 147

of this emergency motion.

1.9.6 Michelle Murphy requests that she be granted such other and further relief

as justice requires.

2. Entities of the State of Georgia should and are requested here to provide

investigative assistance immediately, as Judge Baldwin and many others

participating with him are state actors who have and are violating the LAW*.

2.1 The corruption of Judge Baldwin is not limited to one act of corruption, or just

one type of conduct, nor is Judge Baldwin’s corruption limited to a restricted time

period, or to one case. The corruption of Judge Baldwin is wide-ranging in its time,type, participants, victims, amount, consequences and triggering events.

2.2 The corruption of Judge Baldwin has been contagiously detrimental to those

who would not otherwise engage in such conduct.

2.2.1 Judge Baldwin is engaging in ex parte communication even as this

motion is being written if information provided to Millard Farmer is correct.

2.2.2 John Harold Murphy and Renee are attempting to game the system of justice

even as this motion is being written if information provided to Millard Farmer iscorrect.

2.3. The corruption of Judge Baldwin is funded, in its major part, in the Coweta

County area by the financial and political benefits provided to Judge Baldwin by the

Glover & Davis lawyers, by the benefits solicited by Glover & Davis while acting

as money and political bundlers for the interest of Judge Baldwin, and by the County

Attorney of Coweta County, who is a Glover & Davis associate.

2.4 The Corruption of Judge Baldwin and the Participants in Judge Baldwin’s

corruption, with Acts of Omission and Acts of Commission, are, in part, preventing




Page 113 of 147

the parties in this case from “fairly resolving the issues” in this case, as John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud are most predictably awaiting more benefits from

the corrupt conduct of Judge Baldwin that they hope will delay and enhance their

bargaining position for a disposition of the case which is financially beneficial to

them and prevent regulatory action against them.

2.5 There are over twenty (20) documents seeking to disqualify Judge Baldwin in

this case. On each of those occasions, Judge Baldwin was provided an opportunity

to adhere to the LAW* and thereby refer the disqualification attempts for a hearing

before an independent judge who would have provided Judge Baldwin an

opportunity to answer to the disqualifying charges under oath at a hearing. Counsel

for Michelle Murphy was entitled under the LAW* to question Judge Baldwin about

his ex parte communications, about his signing orders without reading the orders,

having knowledge of the content of the orders, or without the orders being based

upon evidence recited in the orders.

2.5.1 Judge Baldwin has never, no not once, allowed counsel for Michelle

Murphy to present the charges relating to the disqualification of Judge Baldwin

to an independent judge who would have allowed Judge Baldwin to answer under

oath to the disqualification charges.

2.5.1.1 It was necessary for counsel for Michelle Murphy to prepare a fully

completed Petition of Mandamus in an attempt to obtain a response from Judge

Baldwin to the numerous pending motions to disqualify him. This Petition for

Mandamus was provided to the Attorney General’s Office in order to obtain a

waiver of service. It is included here, without its attachments, as




Page 114 of 147

Attachment 156. The petition was never filed, as the Attorney General was

successful in obtaining perfunctory responses from Judge Baldwin.

2.5.2 These twenty (20) or more opportunities provided to Judge Baldwin to

address his disqualifying conduct, place the corrupt conduct of Judge Baldwin in

a status of requiring Judge Baldwin’s permanent removal as a judge without any

further State of Georgia compensation to him for any reason, as he has inflicted

enough financial damage to the State of Georgia and persons involved in the

justice system to require swift and imperative action against his deliberate

conduct in violating the LAW*.

2.6 Chief Judge Baldwin has corrupted the integrity of the judicial process in

this case and in the State of Georgia to the extent that the consequences of his

conduct must be addressed to the fullest extent allowed by LAW*.

2.6.1 The Glover & Davis lawyers have directly contributed money and also

bundled money from others to provide Judge Baldwin the necessary financial and

political support to engage in his corruption.

2.6.1.1 The consequences of the corruption of Judge Baldwin extends far

beyond the boundaries of this case.

2.6.1.2 Examples of the extent of the corruption of Judge Baldwin and

those who are participating in and benefiting from his corruption are identified

in this motion in order to identify the consequences of the conduct.

2.6.1.3 Judge Baldwin has assisted and approved of corruption by his

inaction and conduct that has lowered the integrity of the judicial system, and

provided benefits, in violation of the LAW* to the clients of those who

participated in Judge Baldwin’s corruption.




Page 115 of 147

2.6.1.3.1 It is relevant that Nathan Lee of Glover & Davis is the attorney for

Coweta County, which supplements Judge Baldwin’s salary. Nathan Lee, as

the county attorney, is in the position to advocate for the supplement to the

salary of Judge Baldwin.

2.6.1.3.2 During the litigation of this case informants have attempted to

assist Michelle Murphy by providing information about the consequences of

the corruption of Judge Baldwin his participants, the Glover & Davis

lawyers, in addition to the exposed Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v.

Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012) case. The bundlers of financial

contributions to Judge Baldwin and other members of the judiciary

according to information provided information a client of the Glover &

Davis lawyers, Otis Jones was that he was given a mandatory sentence to

jail in Coweta for an driving in the influence of alcohol.

2.6.1.3.3 It is reported that another client of Nathan Lee, the Sheriff of

Coweta County, allowed Otis Jones, a money and political bundler, to come

by the jail on each morning of his sentence and sign in and then leave. This

was a violation of the law not accorded to poor people who are not politically

associated with the Sheriff or Nathan Lee.

2.6.1.3.4 Among the other things reported was that while Judge was

assigned as case, Judge Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby as a favor,

with knowledge of the District Attorney, intervened in the case without a

case management plan and changed the bond of a person who was charged

with the murder of an infant to allow the charged person to visit with another

child of the mother of the child that was killed.

That conduct is explained as follows.




Page 116 of 147

2.7 Information about Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge Kirby came to Millard

Farmer’s attention while investigating the conduct of Judge Kirby, as his conduct

related to the judge shopping of Judge Baldwin by Taylor Drake, the Glover & Davis

lawyer, in the John Murphy v. Nancy Michelle Murphy litigation.

2.7.1 Casey Allen Spradlin, who, with a substantial amount of supporting

evidence, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Meriwether County for brutally

murdering an infant.

2.7.2 Casey Allen Spradlin was acquitted in a trial in the Superior Court of

Meriwether County in which Judge Baldwin presided and the Sheriff of Coweta

County, a family friend of the Spradlin family, and an employee of the Sheriff of

Coweta County, testified as a character witness for Casey Allen Spradlin.

2.7.3 After being indicted for malice murder and related child abuse charges,

Casey Allen Spradlin was provided a $100,000 bond by the Superior Court of

Meriwether County. The bond was conditioned, in part, upon him not having

contact with another young child with whom he had been associated during the

time that he was associated with the deceased infant. That conditional bond was

legally filed and is in the records of the Superior Court of Meriwether County.

2.7.4 This information is not about the conditional $100,000 bond that Casey

Allen Spradlin was provided.

2.7.5 Millard Farmer was informed of this information, in bits and pieces, by a

reliable source and has since confirmed the information that he received with the

District Attorney, who provided him other information.

2.7.6 The information, that Millard Farmer believes to be accurate, is that Judge

Louis Jack Kirby, after the indictment of Casey Allen Spradlin, without

additional evidence or a judicial hearing, was approached and asked to remove




Page 117 of 147

the conditions of the $100,000 bond that prevented contact by Casey Allen

Spradlin with the other surviving child.

2.7.7 Judge Kirby, either orally or with an unfiled Order, acquiesced in

allowing the removal of the bond condition preventing contact with the surviving

child.

2.7.8 After Casey Allen Spradlin was informed that Judge Kirby acquiesced in

allowing the removal of the condition of no contact with the surviving child,

Casey Allen Spradlin visited with the surviving child before the trial. The

surviving child was not injured during the visits.

2.7.9 A reasonable person can assume that Judge Kirby, without notice to any

of the adverse parties, even his wife, who is an assistant district attorney, removed

the conditions of the bond that allowed Casey Allen Spradlin contact with the

surviving child.

2.7.10 A reasonable person can assume that the removal of the bond condition

was a political favor that was intended to be secreted from the public, as the

removal of the bond’s condition was not recorded in the public records of

Meriwether County.

2.7.11 The District Attorney, upon specific request in an e-mail from Millard

Farmer, although he has confirmed other information related to the case to

Millard Farmer, will not confirm or deny if he was notified of the no contact

conditions being removed from the bond before Judge Kirby removed the no

contact conditions of the bond. It is seriously doubtful that the District Attorney

would have participated in any such conduct and most likely, the District




Page 118 of 147

Attorney’s failure to respond to Millard Farmer’s request is in protection of his

friend, Judge Kirby.

2.7.12 There is also no indication in the records of the Superior Court of

Meriwether County that any notice was provided in any manner to the public or

to the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services about the change of

the bond’s no contact conditions.

2.7.13 It is suspected that the conditions of the bond were secretly removed,

or evaded, in an agreement with the Sheriff of Coweta County, a friend of the

extended Spradlin family.

2.7.14 The illegal and thereby unethical conduct of Judge Kirby occurred by

the modification of the bond not being filed in the records of the Superior Court

of Meriwether County, as the original Order relating to the conditional bond was

filed.

2.7.15 The modification of the bond may have affected the validity of the

bond. If the restricted conditions of the bond were secreted without an Order, this

raises other ethical and legal issues.

2.7.16 It is suspected that the bond was modified by Judge Kirby as a

politically motivated judicial favor, not supported by evidence that the District

Attorney was allowed to contest.

2.7.17 Had this change of conditions of the bond been determined to be in the

best interest of society, an Order modifying the bond conditions would have

alerted persons having an interest in the other minor child, such as the

Department of Family and Children Services and other relatives of the surviving

minor child.




Page 119 of 147

2.7.18 The minor child was protected by the condition of the bond that was

apparently justified when the judicial determination was made that the bond

should be conditional. That once protected child had an unprotected interest in

Judge Louis Jack Kirby breaching the judicial process apparently for the benefit

of political favor to him.

2.7.19 The uninvestigated aspect of this complaint against Judge Kirby

involves whether or not Judge Baldwin, the trial judge in the Spradlin murder

case, had knowledge of the process of the modification of the bond either before

or after it occurred, and, if he did have knowledge, did he exercise his obligation

either before or after it happened, to report the incident.

2.7.20 Judge Baldwin was assigned to try the murder case; the question is;

was it the consistent violations of the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case

management rule that resulted in a judge-shopping arrangement that opened the

window of opportunity for this illegal and unethical conduct by Judge Kirby to

modify the conditions of the bond while Judge Baldwin was assigned the case?

2.7.21 For whatever reason that it was determined that the first child died a

brutal death, the surviving child did not deserve to be placed at risk after the

murder indictment until it was adjudicated, whether or not Casey Allen Spradlin

had a defense to the brutal murder with malice of the infant that the jury indicted

him for committing.

2.7.22 Judge Kirby has a History of Not Acting Judicially Prudent

2.7.23 The Supreme Court recently identified the instance of Coweta Judicial

Circuit Judge Dennis Blackmon disqualifying Judge Kirby for not acting

judicially prudent in Horn v. Shepherd, 294 Ga. 468, 469-470 (2014). The Horn




Page 120 of 147

case refers to a deposition that Millard Farmer took of Judge Kirby in the Murphy

case.

2.7.24 Melissa Griffis, mentioned in the Horn case, was the first guardian ad

litem appointed by Judge Baldwin in the Murphy case in the Order presented to

him by Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis that Judge Baldwin signed without

reading.

2.7.25 After refusing a court reporter recorded conference, and being

challenged, Melissa Griffis resigned without a hearing on her disqualification;

however, in order to leave her footprints in the case, with her resignation, she

recommended the appointment of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, a lawyer who

regularly appears before Judge Kirby in her private domestic relations cases, to

replace her as guardian ad litem.

2.7.26 The conduct of Judge Louis Jack Kirby is relevant to the conduct of

Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., as Judge Kirby, under the current Uniform

Superior Court Rule 3.1 case assignment in the Coweta Judicial Circuit, is

assigned to the Superior Court of Coweta County in a disproportionate number

of cases, as he is married to Monique Lynn Fouque, an assistant district attorney,

who is primarily assigned to the Superior Court of Troup County.

2.7.27 Judge Kirby has a conflict of interest with his spouse, Monique Lynn

Fouque being a lawyer in the Office of the District Attorney in Troup County that

eliminates Judge Kirby from appearing in criminal cases in Troup County.

2.7.28 Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby, before becoming a judge,

represented John Harold Murphy in the 2006 divorce case against Michelle

Murphy.




Page 121 of 147

2.7.29 After Louis Jack Kirby became a judge, Millard Farmer deposed Judge

Kirby relating to his association with John Harold Murphy. In that case, he

verified that while he was a Superior Court Judge, he had recommended Melissa

Griffis and Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis as counsel for John Murphy to

employ for a modification of custody case against Michelle Murphy.

2.7.30 This recommendation by Judge Kirby to John Harold Murphy relating

to the employment of counsel came at the time that there was an absence of a

Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan that allowed

judge-shopping in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

2.7.31 Judge Kirby had knowledge that the Superior Court of Coweta County

did not have a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan and that

the attorneys suggested to John Harold Murphy knew how to judge-shop and

obtain the judge of their choice.

2.7.32 This illegal judge-shopping process in the Coweta Judicial Circuit was

accomplished frequently, but was challenged and upheld in the Court of Appeals

by Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 310 Ga. App. 878

(2011), until reversed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in May of 2012 in Mayor

and Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co. 291 Ga. 114 (2012).

2.7.33 The judge-shopping issue in the Coweta Judicial Circuit is another

case, not directly involving Judge Baldwin or Judge Kirby. The charges in that

case were not made public.

2.7.34 These examples are to emphasize that the people who bundle money

and political influence at the request of the Glover& Davis lawyers obtain

benefits that are corruption and similar to the corruption that has deprived

Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy of justice.




Page 122 of 147

2.7.35 It was the corruption of Judge Baldwin that provided the Order that

that had the Deputy Sheriffs to come to the home of Michelle Murphy to pick up

Jack and Thomas for visitation with John Harold Murphy before Michelle

Murphy ever received the Order of Judge Baldwin changing the days of

visitation.

2.7.36 That corruption was corruption in which the Sheriff, who is

represented by Nathan Lee, a Glover & Davis lawyer, and the client of Taylor

Drake, the Glover & Davis lawyer, participated with Judge Baldwin in disrupting

the lives of Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy.

2.7.37 There is a pattern of these illegal acts that are little different than the

false affidavit that Michael William Warner, a Glover & Davis lawyer, provided

in order to garnishee the funds in the bank account of the wife of Millard Farmer

during the holiday season on behalf of John Harold Murphy and thereby

potentially affect credit scores and professional reputations.

2.7.38 Adequate funding for governmental investigative assistance is

required, as Judge Baldwin failed to allow the testimony of Peter A. Durham, a

Glover & Davis lawyer, about the financial benefits provided to Judge Baldwin

over the years under the guise of campaign contributions, even when Judge

Baldwin had no opposition. See, Attachment 157, Notice to Produce.

2.7.39 Judge Baldwin prohibits discovery and other evidence about his

corruption that makes it easy for Judge Baldwin to make such false statements as

he made about money originating from the law firm of Melissa Griffis in

responding to the first motion to disqualify him.




Page 123 of 147

2.8 During the holiday season, the Glover & Davis lawyers attempted to

intimidate Millard Farmer and his family. Besides being unprofessional, such

conduct is just a stupid manner of dealing with opposing counsel.

2.8.1 Counsel for Michelle Murphy, although aggrieved about the perjurious

statement made during the holiday season by Michael Williams Warner and

sponsored by the other Glover & Davis PA lawyers in order to garnishee and

thereby place a hold on funds in the accounts, attribute the ability of these lawyers

and John Harold Murphy to engage in such conduct to Judge Baldwin, as he

signed the Order that they chose to use to garnishee the bank accounts instead of

serving Millard Farmer with a copy of the Order that Judge Baldwin did not have

served upon Millard Farmer.

2.8.2 The garnishment upon the bank account of Millard Farmer’s wife, Elvira

Dimitrij, that, in addition to the financial frustration that it created, cost nearly a

thousand dollars more than the amount of $1,250 that was provided to John

Harold Murphy by the unserved Order of Judge Baldwin, and, once again, has

created additional litigation ancillary to this modification of custody case.

2.8.3 Millard Farmer, as counsel for Michelle Murphy, is entitled to service ofthe Orders of Judge Baldwin that are provided to the Glover & Davis lawyers

that Julia Harris, the judicial assistant, and Melissa Sams, the law clerk and the

Glover & Davis lawyers did not serve upon Millard Farmer. This is not the first

time that Michael Williams Warner, a Glover & Davis lawyer, and the assistants

to Judge Baldwin have failed to provide counsel for Michelle Murphy with

service of Judge Baldwin’s Orders. On the last occasion, the Glover & Davis

lawyers had the Deputy Sheriffs of Coweta come to the home of Michelle




Page 124 of 147

Murphy to pick up the children based upon an Order about which she and the

children knew nothing.

2.8.4 There have been very few lawyers in the Coweta Judicial Circuit who

have engaged in the conduct of not serving documents upon opposing counsel,

or in delivering documents in a deceptive manner so as to delay service in time

for opposing counsel to act before it was too late.

2.8.5 This motion is the forerunner of an attempt to terminate the birthplace

and home base of this type of judge-shopping, protected corruption. The Coweta

Judicial Circuit, until the recent flurry of Glover & Davis judge-shopping, has

never been plagued by the corruption involving Judge Baldwin that overshadows

any judge instigated misconduct that has darkened the history of justice in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit since counsel for Michelle Murphy has been practicing

law, except for the approximate ten (10) years that Millard Farmer litigated the

underrepresentation of African American persons on grand and traverse juries in

the Coweta Judicial Circuit that was not resolved until a decision by the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

2.8.6 Larry King provided two affidavits that relate to the conduct of Judge

Baldwin and the false statements of counsel participating in the corrupt conduct

of Judge Baldwin. See, Attachment 96, attached hereto. Judge Baldwin told

Larry King that he had never before sentenced a lawyer for contempt of court

before sentencing Larry King and Millard Farmer for criminal contempt.

2.8.7 It was when Judge Baldwin sentenced Larry King and Millard Farmer for

contempt that it became obvious that Judge Baldwin did not criminally sentence

Larry King for his conduct, but he sentenced Larry King, Michelle Murphy and

Millard Farmer on that day for the fair administration of the Law that they sought




Page 125 of 147

to obtain on behalf of the children of Michelle Murphy and all of the people in

the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

3. Two Different Sets of Books, Documenting One Transaction, is another

timeworn, but nevertheless true, identity of an Attempt to Hide Corruption thatis and of itself, Corruption.

3.1 Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. has mandated that there be two sets of books of

the pleadings which counsel attempts to file on behalf of Michelle Murphy in this

case. One set is kept by the Clerk of Superior Court of Coweta and is available to

the public. The other documents, which are tendered to the Clerk of Court, by Order

of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., cannot be made part of the record in this case

unless Judge Baldwin specifically grants a Request by counsel for Michelle Murphy

that the tendered document be allowed to be filed. Judge Baldwin will not permit

Nancy Michelle Murphy to file any new action, motions, or petitions without his

approval of the document that counsel for Michelle Murphy seeks to file. See the

October 20, 2014 Order of Judge Baldwin, Attachment 145 to this motion.

3.2 This Order by Judge Baldwin has resulted in him denying the right of counsel

for Michelle Murphy to file three motions to disqualify him. (Motions tendered onOctober 27, 2014, November 28, 2014 and December 20, 2014) Before counsel for

Michelle Murphy can have the proposed filing retained by the Clerk of Court,

counsel for Michelle Murphy must present the proposed filing to Judge Baldwin for

his approval after first serving the proposed filing upon opposing counsel. There is

no such illegal requirement placed upon opposing counsel and this illegal restraint

was placed upon Michelle Murphy’s counsel without an opportunity for a hearing

and was itself the subject of a motion to disqualify Judge Baldwin. If the proposed

document is rejected for filing by Judge Baldwin, the Clerk of Court does not retain




Page 126 of 147

an official record of the document for appellate review and the document is not

available for the public to review. This conduct prevents the media from having

access to the documents that identify each aspect of the corruption of Judge Baldwin

and the participants in his corruption.

3.3 The children are currently still incarcerated in Elevations RTC in Utah, as the

result of the absence of a hearing. Jack and Thomas, two quite normal children,

were arrested in the Coweta Superior Courthouse as they awaited to testify on

May 27, 2014 until they were ultimately taken to St. Thomas, USVI. As the result

of Judge Baldwin turning over their parenting to John Harold Murphy, Renee L.

Haugerud, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell and their experts, the children are

incarcerated in Utah at a cost of $24,000 per month.

3.4 The conduct of Judge Baldwin was the result of his corruption.

3.4.1 The June 7, 2012 denial of disqualification Order was appealed to the

Court of Appeals and was not adjudicated on the substance of the conduct of

Judge Baldwin, but upon procedural grounds.

3.4.2 It is relevant to here state that violations of the Code of Judicial

Conduct can occur even if the violations of the Code are not reversible legal

error. There are two different standards for each of these violations

3.4.3 The June 7, 2012 Order disputed other facts in the affidavit supporting

the disqualification motion and further violated the Uniform Superior Court Rule

25, et seq. as Judge Baldwin did not refer the motion to another judge and did not

cease acting on the merits of the case, as required by USCR 25.3

3.4.4 The lynchpin in all appellate matters in this case is Judge Baldwin’s

violations of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct (or, “Canons”) and the

Glover & Davis lawyer’s selection of Judge Baldwin. The Glover & Davis judge




Page 127 of 147

shopping selection of Judge Baldwin was doable with a combined feigned

“emergency” motion (V1 p.13) and the absence of a Uniform Superior Court

Rule 3.1 case management plan. (V2 p.310; V3 pp. 436, 447, 506) Glover &

Davis lawyers engage in a pattern of judge selection conduct. Superior Court

Judge Louis Jack Kirby knew of this when he suggested Taylor Drake as counsel

for John Harold Murphy. See, Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook

Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012).

Judge Baldwin, at that August 30, 2012 hearing, issued the following threat

to Michelle Murphy, whom he knew could not afford the litigation.

!"# %&# '& (")# #*%+ *,*-. #/ #0& 1*2#-&)3 S8 9Q.33

<.>? ?8 D006 6=??2>O .33 ?-2: ;8>09 8=? -0705

E=::2>O .18=? ?-2: ?-2>ON

, ;0.>5 .O.2>5 2E 98= 48>Q? -./0 .>9?-2>O ?8 E0.75

2E 0/079?-2>O 2: .33 72O-?5 .>4 0/079?-2>OQ: 100>

48>0 ?-0 <.9 2?Q: :=668:04 ?8 10 48>05 98= 48>Q?

-./0 .>9?-2>O ?8 E0.7 .18=? 38:2>O @=:?849 8E ?-0

@-23470>#

&>4 , J=:? <.>?04 ?8 D>8< 2E 9Q.33 70.339 <.>? ?8

J=:? D006 47.OO2>O ?-2: 8=? 32D0 ?-2:# L8= D>8<5

9Q.33 @.> :60>4 ;8>09 ?8 D2>O48; @8;05 ?-.? D2>4

8E ?-2>O# 4.5 #0&2&6) ./ +-.5 /7 ,"*2*.#&& #0*#




Page 128 of 147

86' ,/-., #/ *9*25 *.: *##/2.&:6) 7&&); :/" +./9;

#/ </=&2 *.: /7 #0-) )#"773 >0&2&6) ./#0-., #0*#

2&?"-2&) '& #/ 5/ #0*#3 4.5 )/ 8 (")# 9*.# :6*%%

#/ #0-.+ *@/"# #0*#3 (Tr. Aug. 30, 2012, p. 29, lines 2-15)

It was at the next hearing that Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, an attorney who

appears before Judge Kirby on a regular basis with her private clients,

(Tr. Aug. 30, 2012, p. 68, line 9) was caught by counsel for Michelle Murphy

converting funds to her personal use in violation of USCR 24.9(8)(g). As a part

of the corruptive conduct of Judge Baldwin, he approved of the violation of the

LAW by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell (Tr. Nov 15, 2012,

p.30, l. 9-p.33, l. 22).She then began attempting to get Judge Baldwin to Order

the employment of another expert psychologist, called a “custody evaluator.”

There are no special circumstances to justify this unnecessary expense. This was

yet another expensive, unnecessary “expert witness” litigation tactic in which

Michelle Murphy could not afford to equally participate and litigate.

Those costs were paid from the funds originating from and/or controlled by

Renee L. Haugerud. Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell selected the “custody

evaluator,” not experts for the best interest of the children, as their lives were

being tormented by the snatch and grab litigation tactics of the John Harold




Page 129 of 147

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud cadre of lawyers, investigators and experts who

cannot even legally turn up an untidy lawn.

Judge Baldwin, who was very ruffled by the disqualification motions’

disclosure of his conduct and the appeal of his Order denying them, began to

participate with the Glover & Davis lawyers, who were using the tremendous

disparity in income and wealth of the parties as a detriment to Michelle Murphy.

In his June 7, 2012 Order, Judge Baldwin disputed the relevant facts contained

in the supporting affidavit. (V2 p.306) See, Isaacs v. State, 257 Ga. 126 (1987);

Birt v. State 256 Ga. 483 (1986). Judge Baldwin opposed each disqualification

motions that he denied with a travesty of justice Order that was filed on

December 4, 2013, without referring the matter to another judge. (V17, p.3827)

3.4.5 The motion to disqualify Judge Christopher McFadden also identifies the

ability of counsel for Michelle Murphy to obtain appellate relief. This motion is

included here, without attachments, as Attachment 158.

Court of Appeals panel with Judge McFadden written punished Millard

Farmer and Larry King by Order them to pay $2,500 to John Harold Murphy for

delaying the litigation. Can anyone imagine the fate of Michelle Murphy if she

had not obtained the information about the fabricated foundling on January 1,

2014. The Court of Appeal Rule used to fine Larry King and Millard Farmer




Page 130 of 147

provided them no due process rights. There was no delay that was not either

created by the corruption of Judge Baldwin or the Court of Appeals in attempting

to apply retroactively a statute.

It was necessary for Michelle Murphy to present a ready to file Petition for a

mandamus to the Attorney General to waive service before Judge Baldwin

following the advice of the Attorney General denied the motion with the

December 4, 2013. See, the attached petition for mandamus, without

attachments, that was presented to the Attorney General. Attachment 156

The disqualification motions affected the contempt adjudications; more

accurately stated, the disqualification motions were Judge Baldwin’s

corruptive motivation for the contempt adjudications.

After Judge Baldwin’s June 7, 2012 denial of his disqualification, Judge

Baldwin clothed himself with a Teflon armor attitude and declared as follows.

And I’m not going to recuse myself. I’ll tell you

2-,0# ./9, I’m not going to recuse myself. And I’m

O82>O ?8 6=? 2> ?-070 AA because y’all have already

had your chance on recusal. It’s been appealed. They

"10&%5 '& )#*:-., -. #0-) <*)& *.5 ./# 2&<")-.,

':)&%73 And we’re just going to keep it like

?-.?#]emphasis supplied^ _Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p. 17) See, Murphy v.




Page 131 of 147

Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (2013)

Counsel for Michelle Murphy has never understood if the above statement of

Judge Baldwin. This statement could be a part of Judge Baldwin’s absence of

knowledge about the law, or it could be a sophisticate cover for the statement

that Judge Baldwin made on August 13, 2013 when he informed counsel that

he was a classmate of the soon to be Chief Justice Hugh Thompson. Judge

Baldwin after identifying the relationship stated that after this case that he

was going to contact Justice Thompson and ask that he eliminate appeals of

disqualification motions until the end of domestic relations cases. If Judge

Baldwin did make the request and discussed the case, this should be revealed

to counsel for Michelle Murphy. Certainly, Justice Thompson had no role in

the conduct of Judge Baldwin, but it is difficult to determine the reason that

Judge Baldwin continually made the same statement that a lawyer is only

granted one opportunity to seek a recusal. It is expected that Judge Baldwin

used the same line about being a personal friend of Chief Judge Thompson

with other persons who have been assisting Judge Baldwin in what is nothing

more than aspects of his corruption.

Sticking by that manifesto that a lawyer can only file one motion, regardless

of later events, but failing to perform his non-discretionary, sworn duty, Judge




Page 132 of 147

Baldwin refused to obey the non-discretionary dictates of Uniform Superior

Court Rule 25, et seq. (Recusal) and never entered an order adjudicating any

other disqualification motions that were filed on June 13, 2012 (V3, p.436); July

2, 2012 (V3, p.502); Aug. 19, 2013 (V10, p.1904); Aug. 28, 2013 (V11, p.2195);

Sept. 13, 2013 (V12, p.2321); Oct. 7, 2013 (V14, p.2890); and Nov. 26, 2013

(V17, p.3639) until December 4, 2013 when he entered yet another Order in

which he, as he did in his June 7, 2012 denial of his disqualification motion,

once again opposed by disputing his disqualification motion’s affidavits with

both deceptive and false statements. (V17 p.3827)

Adding grounds to his disqualification and thereby his corruption in the

unadjudicated, pending disqualification motions, Judge Baldwin, with the

motions pending, and without adhering to USCR 25.3 to “temporarily cease to

act upon the merits of the matter and shall immediately determine the timeliness

of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, and make a

determination, assuming any of the facts alleged in the affidavit to be true,

whether recusal would be warranted” proceeded with the Glover & Davis

request to hear the merits at an August 13, 2013 hearing. That hearing resulted

in the August 23, 2013 Order.

Baldwin never read before signing and filing the ex parte obtained August 23,




Page 133 of 147

2013 Order. (V11 p.2214) Judge Baldwin defends the ex parte letter delivered

by Michael Williams Warner (V14, p.2752) that accompanied the proposed

August 23, 2013 Order.

THE COURT I’m just tired of things AA *2D0 ,

noticed in this thing y’all talk about some kind

of ex parte conversations. I don’t think I have

-.4 .>9 0F 6.7?0 @8>/07:.?28>: <2?- !7# S7.D0

.18=? ?-2: .>9?2;0 3.?039 2E , 0/07 -.4 .>9# ,

don’t think, since th0 10O2>>2>O 8E ?-2: @.:0 ,

have, partly because of all the stuff that’s been

O82>O 8> 2> ?-0 "?.?0 .18=? 0F 6.7?0

conversations. * * * And I don’t believe I

have had any ex parte conversations, and I don’t

see how y’all could know about any unless yo=

:=668:0439 -./0 ;9 6-8>0: 1=OO04 87 -2: 6-8>0

1=OO04# (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p.15, lines 4-17).

Before Michelle Murphy received or learned of the ex parte supported

August 23, 2013 Order, a deputy sheriff, whose office is represented by Glover

& Davis PA, came to the home of Michelle Murphy to get the children to comply




Page 134 of 147

with the modified visitation, nunc pro tunc to August 13, 2013. (V14, p. 2702)

The August 23, 2013 Order was obtained with an ex parte communication to

Judge Baldwin, containing facts not in evidence and false statements, not

provided to counsel for Michelle Murphy, until after the Order was obtained and

filed. (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p. 19, lines 12-23)

On August 29, 2013, the Glover & Davis lawyers filed a Motion for Indirect

Criminal Contempt accompanied only with a “notice of hearing” without a Rule

Nisi or subpoena requiring that Michelle Murphy attend a hearing. (V12,

p.2243), Michelle Murphy responded on September 23, 2013 to that contempt

motion with detailed, supporting affidavits refuting the motion. (V14, p.2721)

That motion and the Amended Contempt were abuses of the criminal process.

A proceeding on the motion occurred on October 3, 2013 without a Rule Nisi

or subpoena for any person to attend. The response, with support of affidavits

from the children, with a recorded cell phone conversation by one of the children

with John Harold Murphy, clearly indicated that John Harold Murphy could not

sustain an indirect criminal contempt, even if he had provided the due process

required service, as he consented to the children not visiting, as he was in St.

Thomas on his visitation time. (V14, pp. 2743, 2758, 2763)

After John Murphy and the Glover & Davis lawyers orchestrated the Deputy




Page 135 of 147

Sheriff’s illegal display of force to the children gimmick that did not result in

an incident, and the Glover & Davis lawyer realized after obtaining the response,

supported by the affidavits of the children and their mother, that John Harold

Murphy had made a false statement under oath, they changed their attack.

The Glover & Davis lawyers then attempted to use the August 23, 2013 Order,

while it was on appeal to the Supreme Court of Georgia (V14 p.2774) as the

basis for the hasty, illegal filing on Friday, September 27, 2013 of an Amended

Contempt Motion (V14 p.2779) The Amended Contempt Motion was one

shoddy piece of legal work apparently designed only to take additional

advantage of Judge Baldwin while also initiating a threat of incarceration action

against Michelle Murphy and her lawyers to appease Murphy/Haugerud.

The Amended Contempt Motion was not supported with a notice of hearing

that would have been an infirm due process notice to a person charged with the

October 3, 2013 indirect contempts. (V14 p.2807)

The Amended Contempt Motion did not include a Rule Nisi

The Amended Contempt Motion did not subpoena any person.

The Amended Contempt Motion was not even copied to Larry King.

The Amended Contempt Motion stated that it was for contempt of

“Defendant’s lawyer” [singular] when Michelle Murphy had two lawyers and






Page 137 of 147

lawyer included the findings in the Order that Judge Baldwin may or may not

have read before singing, as on previous occasions Judge Baldwin did not read

the orders that he signed.

The November 19, 2013 Order falsely states, without evidence that

“Defendant and her lawyers had reasonable and sufficient notice of the hearing.”

Again, the Order states that “The Court further finds that Defendant had

reasonable notice of the hearing but failed to appear and present evidence.”

The ironic aspect of this finding that Defendant “failed to present evidence”

is the August 23, 2013 Order that “Defendant” is accused of violating resulted

from a hearing on August 13 where Michelle Murphy and each of her counsel

did appear, but Judge Baldwin aborted the hearing for a personal commitment

and never allowed Michelle Murphy to present any evidence, including the

principal and teacher from the children’s school, who awaited all of the hearing

to testify. Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183 (1984) and its progeny.

There was absolutely no evidence to support that Michelle Murphy, Larry

King or Millard Farmer were provided a Rule Nisi, a subpoena to appear or any

other notice that fulfills the requirements of due process.

Judge Baldwin doesn’t read the orders that he signs, and, worse, has such little




Page 138 of 147

understanding of the law relating to contempt that on October 3, 2013, he

initially held Larry King in contempt for just attempting to explain the

impropriety of Judge Baldwin beginning the hearing with the shoddy papers that

the Glover & Davis lawyers filed without the vaguest understanding of the due

process protections associated with criminal prosecutions, albeit the prosecution

for contempt.

The inability of Judge Baldwin even to allow Larry King to explain the due

process protections involved in contempt actions speaks the reason that Uniform

Superior Court Rule 3.1 was never implemented in the Coweta Judicial Circuit

and the reason that due process protections in the court is at such a low level

that orders drafted by political friends are signed without reading.

Cannon 2A, 2B, Canon 3E of the Code of Judicial Conduct are substantive

grounds for recusal or disqualification of a judge. These grounds should be

assessed in light of two well-recognized principles of LAW*. First, no one

has a right to select the judge of their choice, and a judge, of course, has no

right to select the cases over which the judge presides. See Uniform Superior

Court Rule 3.1. Yet, that is what happened in this case and happened in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit on a regular basis. (V3 pp.447-448)

Persons accused of conduct that subjects them to incarceration are entitled to




Page 139 of 147

a trier of fact who is not biased. Judge Baldwin and the contempt convictions do

not open the first gate to uphold the contempt convictions under the Cole v.

Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196 (1948) standard of adequate notice of the charges and

under the In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, requirement that to support a criminal

conviction the record must reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt.

Judge Baldwin not only deprived the Michelle Murphy, Millard Farmer and

Larry King of a fair hearing, he deprived the them of an opportunity to file a

motion for new trial before a fair jurist, when, after the November 19, 2013

contempt Order, he denied all of the disqualification motions that were pending

before the November 19, 2013 Order., thereby not allowing another judge to

take over this case. With Judge Baldwin remaining in the case there is no

possibility for the applicants to obtain a fair ruling on a motion for new trial that

reviews the criminal contempt convictions under a different standard. See,

Walker v. State, 292 Ga. 262, 264-265 (Ga. 2013) This was Judge McFadden’s

Fayette County basis for granting a new trial.

In particular, Section (B) (7) of Canon 3 of the Georgia Code of Judicial

Conduct forbids a judge from considering an ex parte communication:

Judges shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a




Page 140 of 147

proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.

Judges shall not initiate or consider ex parte communications, or consider

other communications made to them outside the presence of the parties

concerning a pending or impending proceeding.

Ex parte communications “are presumed to have been in error.”

"[W]hen the court considers facts not properly in evidence, the other party has

rights that cannot be protected fully if he is thus denied the privilege of cross-

examination. Arnau v. Arnau , 207 Ga. App. 696, 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)

The law relating to indirect contempt is clear. Michelle Murphy, Millard

Farmer and Larry King were accorded no due process protections that Crocker

v. Crocker , 132 Ga. App. 587, 589 (1974) identifies must be provided:

In cases of constructive contempt of court, where the alleged

contumacious conduct is disobedience to a mandate of the court, not an

act in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the

administration of justice, the law requires that a rule nisi issue and be

served upon the accused, giving him notice of the charges against him,

and that he be given an opportunity to be heard. [citations omitted]

Judge Baldwin’s adjudication of the contempts incarcerates Michelle Murphy

for defending her family, and her lawyers for defending her. (V17, p.3624)




Page 141 of 147

Memorandum of LAW to Request for Investigator of Corruption

“Corruption” Defined

It is relevant to offer a few definitions of “corruption,” as corruption is the conduct

that this Motions seeks investigating.

It is ironic that the root cause of the corruption that this motion seeks to obtain

assistance in having investigated and thereafter being the basis for his prompt

permanent removal from office is the corruption of Judge Baldwin who must

approve of this motion before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County

will not file without the approval of Judge Baldwin.

Corruption is dishonest actions that destroys people's trust in the person or group, asthe news of “corruption” in how your bank is run, that makes you close your accountand invest your money somewhere else.

The noun “corruption” comes from Latin — com, or "with, together," and

rumpere, meaning "to break." Corruption breaks your trustworthiness, your good

reputation with others, like the news of corruption in former Mayor of Atlanta, Bill

Campbell’s office that shocked all, but those who had ever dealt with Bill Campbell

either in court, or in his capacity as mayor.

When you corrupt something that society requires to be pure or honest, you take

away those qualities from all courts. To prevent judicial corruption we have the Code

of Judicial Conduct, Rules of Court, the Constitution of Georgia and United States,

the statutes of Georgia and United States (or, collectively the “law”)

Corruption is wrongdoing on the part of an authority or powerful party throughmeans that are illegitimate, immoral, or incompatible with ethical standards.

Corruption often results from patronage and is associated with bribery of different

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/authority.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/party.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mean.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ethical-standards.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/result.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/patronage.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/associated.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bribery.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bribery.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/associated.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/patronage.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/result.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ethical-standards.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mean.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/party.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/authority.html




Page 142 of 147

types such as exchange of positions of power, or other things of value.

Former Georgia Supreme Court Justice Charles Weltner admonishes state actors

in a concurrence in the case before him “That that here is a timeworn, but never the

less true, expression that illustrates the case at hand. You cannot be a little pregnant.”

City of Atl anta v. J. A. Jones Constr. Co., 260 Ga. 658, 662 (Ga. 1990).

We were likewise warned in Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v.

Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012), another Glover & Davis PA case of the law

firm in this case that was also involved judicial corruption. That case also resulted

from judge shopping that occurred during the absence of a Uniform Superior Court

Rule 3.1 case management plan.

Acts of Omission and Commission Defined.

The level of Corruption by those participating with Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

in his corruption was involved different levels of culpability. For that reason to

emphasis those differences, acts of “omission” and “commission” are identified.

2.2.1 The are more synonyms for the word “omission” than for ‘commission’, but

the range of interpretations of the word “commission” is wider than for “omission”.

Dictionaries advise use that an omission can be an oversight, lapse, slip, error,

blunder, faux pas, something deliberately or accidentally left out or not done,

something neglected, involving apathy toward or neglect of duty. In Catholic

teaching that is the religion of Nancy Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy, age 16 and

Thomas Murphy, age 14, her children, an ‘omission’ is a “failure to do something

one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely, it is considered a

sin.”




Page 143 of 147

In criminal law, an omission is a ‘failure to act’, which can amount to an “actus

reus”, Latin for guilty act. However, an omission can give rise to liability when the

law ‘imposes a duty to act’ and the defendant is in breach of that duty. Jurists have

often taken the view that “a failure to act might be morally indefensible”, and

therefore a liability may be imposed when such failure is “sufficiently

blameworthy”.

The word “commission” has several meanings, but in this context the synonyms

used are, “order, command, directive, charge, contract, assignment”. The “act of

committing” is seen as a positive act undertaken consciously. It is an “authoritative

order, charge, or direction; authority granted for a particular action or function.” Inassigning blame for governmental decisions that have contributed to a loss of

revenues for the government and, in direct consequence, to pecuniary gains to

private individuals or firms, one will have to make a distinction between acts of

“omission” and “commission”.

Be it a judicial inquiry, an administrative inquiry or a legislative inquiry, any

inquiry into a loss of revenue to government and a consequential pecuniary gainhas to understand and bring out these distinctions, since every such case need not

be a criminal act. Further, in inquiring into decisions that involve a loss of

revenue to government or that involve a misuse of the taxpayer's money, one

must also make a distinction between the costs imposed by inefficiency and those

imposed by malfeasance or corruption. Inefficiency is not necessarily a criminal

act, as corruption is, even if its fiscal implications are the same.

In this case those participating in the corruption of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

engaged in acts of omission and commission that may have had a similar impact on

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Omission

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Inefficiency

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Corruption

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Commission

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Commission

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Corruption

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Inefficiency

http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Omission




Page 144 of 147

the public. Moreover, there are deliberate acts of corruption as well as unintended

acts of inefficiency that have also imposed a burden on Michelle Murphy.

Investigation of this conduct and its disclosure should consider nuances. Everyone

involved in the decision making chain involved in the corruption by Judge Baldwin

should not be tarnished, or left untarnished with the same brush. The culpability and

liability of those who were merely negligent is less than that of those who

consciously intended their failure to act for fear of the political consequences of

taking some action in returning government funds.

The guilt by association of those whose acts of omission contributed to the

enrichment of those really guilty of acts of commission must be viewed in the correct perspective, i.e., the conduct of Julia Harris and Melissa Sams should not be judged

in the same manner as the conduct of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell; just as the conduct

of the Assistant District Attorney should not be judged in the same manner as that

of the District Attorney in not acting to recover the funds that Nan Freeman and

Freeman Court Reporting, Inc. illegally took from the counties and litigants in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit. While the culpability of these state actors should be judged

differently, the investigation of each of the participants should be with the same

urgency and vigor, as time is critical in rectifying the wrongs inflicted upon Michelle

Murphy and her children.

The Affidavit of Millard Farmer is attached.


7.1 PLEASE UNDERSTAND: This family can resolve this dispute if John Harold

Murphy and Judge Baldwin allow Michelle Murphy contact with the children as




Page 145 of 147

provided in the 2006 Divorce Decree and immediate access to visitation with Jack

and Thomas.

7.2 Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that Judge Baldwin allow this family

to continue resolving their dispute by immediately removing the no contact

provision of the August 23, 2014 Order and specifically allowing Michelle Murphy

the rights of visitation that John Harold Murphy has with the children at Elevations

RTC in Utah and by informing John Harold Murphy that he must immediately

provide Michelle Murphy her back and presently due child support payments.

7.3 Counsel for Michelle Murphy requests an opportunity to visit with Jack and

Thomas in order to obtain information necessary to defend the motion for summary

judgment.

7.4 Michelle Murphy and her counsel request, upon the completion of the other

part of the response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, that Judge Baldwin deny

the motion for summary judgment.

7.5 Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that a State of Georgia compensated

investigator immediately be provided to investigate the corruption of Judge Baldwin.

7.6 Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that Chief Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. be required to submit to questions under oath relating to cases over

which he has presided that were not assigned to him under a written, filed with the

Clerk of Court, Unif. Super. Ct. R. 3.1 Method of Assignment, plan.

7.7 Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that counsel be permitted to present

evidence in support of this motion and matters relating to the facts contained in this

motion before an independent jurist.

7.8 Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that all Orders entered in this case

before the filing of this motion be vacated.





Attachment 96

Affidavit of Larry King

Affidavit of Larry King

Attachment 96






Superior Court of Coweta County and styled Nancy Michelle Murphy, Plaintiff

vs. Delia Tedder Crouch, Civil Action No. 08-V-2137. The Amended Affidavit

that I provided in that litigation is Attachment 3.

4. The legal malpractice litigation involved the 2006 Final Decree of Divorce

that included a Settlement Agreement that was made a part of the Final Decree

in the Superior Court of Troup County styled Murphy v. Murphy, Civil Action

04-CV-494. This final decree is the decree that John Harold Murphy seeks to

have modified in this current litigation.

5. In connection with the legal malpractice litigation the following materials

are included in the materials that I reviewed.

5.1 I reviewed the Complaint and the attachments to the Complaint, which

include some of the following documents that I identify that I have read.

5.2 I reviewed the December 20, 2006 Final Decree of Divorce of the

Superior Court of Troup in Murphy v. Murphy, Civil Action 04-CV-494 and

Exhibit A to the Final Decree of Divorce, a Settlement Agreement, made a

part of that Order.

5.3 I reviewed the April 24, 2007 Qualified Domestic Relation Order

Regarding AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company Pension, which is

referred to at times in the Complaint as the AXA QDRO.

5.4 I reviewed the December 2, 2008 letter to Michelle Murphy from Sheila

Labita, CEBS with AXA Equitable.

5.5 I reviewed the Domestic Relations Financial Affidavit provided by

John Murphy to the Court on November 22, 2005.

5.6 I reviewed the transcript of the August 7, 2006 hearing, where the

settlement agreement was read in open court.

5.7 I reviewed the transcript of the October 18, 2006 hearing relating to the

enforcement of the settlement agreement.




5.8 I reviewed the transcript of the November 15, 2006 hearing relating to

the enforcement of the settlement agreement.

5.9 I reviewed by scanning the certified copy of the entire record of the

Superior Court of Troup County in Murphy v. Murphy, Civil

Action 04-CV-494 and selected documents in that record to read in their

entirety and thumbed through other documents to view the nature of the

document.

5.10 I reviewed the Billing Statement of Delia Tedder Crouch to Michelle

Murphy for legal services provided in connection with a domestic relation

matter that involved litigation in the Superior Court of Troup in Murphy v.

Murphy, Civil Action 04-CV-494 and in the implementing of the Final

Decree if Divorce in that litigation.

5.10.1 During the divorce litigation five (5) different Superior Court

Judges were involved in segments of the litigation.

5.10.2 Neither party sought to remove any of the five judges from the

case.

5.10.3 Each of the five (5) judges served, as the judges appeared on

hearing days, or as they were available for particular segments of the

divorce litigation.

5.11 That litigation was settled with a confidential settlement agreement

that I did not negotiate, or participate in negotiating.

5.12 My experience with the post-divorce malpractice litigation provided

me the knowledge and understanding of the issues between the parties such

that I accepted the request for my participation as counsel in the modification

for custody action that John Harold Murphy filed against Nancy Michelle

Murphy.




5.12.1 In my attempt to promptly resolve the dispute in this litigation,

after Renee Haugerud was made a party to the litigation, but before her

answer was due or she had retained counsel, I reached out to her with a

letter that resulted in her calling me. I offered to meet with me at her

convenience at her home in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I extended this

invitation, as she had been implemental in resolving the dispute in the

malpractice case. After a cordial conversation, she refused to meet with

me in an attempt to reach a resolution in this case.

6. I began representing Nancy Michelle Murphy when John Harold Murphy

brought this current action against Nancy Michelle Murphy and have

represented her continually since that time with Millard Farmer.

7. Based upon my extensive knowledge of domestic relations law and

lengthy experience with litigation, the initial incident of

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. signing an order that was reported to me that he

did not read designating a guardian ad litem with authority not authorized by

the Uniform Superior Court Rules, and the process by which

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. was obtained to be the judge in the case, I was

an active decision maker with Millard Farmer and Nancy Michelle Murphy in

making the determination that a motion to disqualify Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. was necessary as an initial step in obtaining a fair proceeding for

Nancy Michelle Murphy and her two children.

8. Throughout this litigation, I have been an active decision maker with

Millard Farmer and Nancy Michelle Murphy in continuing to pursue the

disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

8.1 The reasons for the disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

have escalated at each phase of this litigation. Nancy Michelle Murphy, nor




her counsel have ever been treated equally with John Harold Murphy, Renee

Haugerud and their counsel.

8.2 The inequality of treatment received by Nancy Michelle Murphy and

her counsel has never been legally justified.

9. Never have I been so certain that Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. should

have been and now should be disqualified as on Thursday, October 3, 2013.

9.1 On that Thursday, October 3, 2013, I realized that the conduct of

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. was more vindictive against

Nancy Michelle Murphy and everyone assisting her than just his vendetta

against Millard Farmer for his ill-perceived role of being the most active

participant in attempts to disqualify Judge A. Quillian, Jr. There is no legal

basis for the vindictiveness and bias that Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. has

exercised against Nancy Michelle Murphy and her counsel.

9.2 Millard Farmer has been the scribe, expressing the law and the facts

marshalled by the team of people who have attempted to assist Nancy

Michelle Murphy and her two children. Beginning with the initial

disqualification motion there was and is uniformity of belief by the legal

team supporting Nancy Michelle Murphy that Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

is disqualified to serve in any capacity in this litigation.

10. On Thursday, October 3, 2013 I appeared in Courtroom B of the

Superior Court of Coweta County. I appeared to answer the call of the calendar

call in Murphy v. Murphy.

10.1 The Thursday, October 3, 2013 calendar posted and sent to counsel

from the Clerk of Court of Coweta County does not indicate that a motion for

contempt is on the Thursday, October 3, 2013 calendar, as the

“Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover& Davis did not obtain and serve

a Rule Nisi upon either Nancy Michelle Murphy, or her counsel.




10.2 The case was requested to be placed on the calendar by

“Prosecutor/Plaintiff Attorney Drake, Taylor.” The calendar also designated as

a movant, “Prosecutor/Plaintiff Harwell, Elizabeth F., GAL.” A true and

accurate clip from the Murphy v. Murphy segment of the Superior Court of

Coweta County calendar for Thursday, November 3, 2013 is as follows.

10.3 Upon call of the calendar above the Court proceeded to hear a Motion

for Contempt against only Nancy Michelle Murphy that was filed on

August 29, 2013. This Motion for Contempt was for an Indirect Contempt

based upon allegations that occurred outside the presence of the Court. The

motion sought criminal and other sanctions against Nancy Michelle Murphy.

10.4 Upon the call of the calendar above the Court also proceeded to hear an

Amended Motion for Contempt that was filed against Nancy Michelle Murphy

on September 27, 2013. The Glover & Davis lawyers did not even serve me

with a copy of this motion as their “Certificate of Service” clearly shows as

follows.




10.5 The September 27, 2013 Amended Motion for Contempt only apprised

me as follows about the disposition that was sought against “Defendant’s

lawyer.” Note “lawyer” is in the singular and not “lawyers” in the plural. There

are two lawyers for Nancy Michelle Murphy. A charging document must

identify the person who is being charged. When the defendant has two lawyers

the charging document cannot require either lawyer to guess who is charged

with the alleged contemptuous conduct. The term “sanction” further does not

define the scope of punishment sought that places the charged party on notice

if the charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The snip below is

from the September 27, 2013 Amended Complaint.




The Amended Motion for Contempt, Containing Distinct and Very

Different Grounds for Contempt was Filed on Friday, September 27, 2013,

Just Six (6) Days, that included a Saturday and a Sunday, Before the

Thursday, October 3, 2013 Hearing, which was Twenty five (25) Days

before a Response was Due on Monday, October 28, 2013

10.6 It was and is my strong legal opinion that Nancy Michelle Murphy

should not be assessed blame for the attempted due process violation of the

“Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis.

10.6.1 The time between the filing of the Amendment to the Motion for

Contempt by the “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover& Davis

and the hearing was so short that even the “Prosecutor/Plaintiff”

Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis did not have his witnesses present for the

hearing, only served one lawyer, did not obtain or serve a Rule Nisi and

did not serve a Notice of Hearing upon any lawyer for Nancy Michelle

Murphy.

10.6.2 The challenges that I attempted to address on behalf of

Nancy Michelle Murphy are legal issues that any lawyer is entitled to raise

without having his professional reputation attacked by being cited for

contempt of Court, as I was cited by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

10.6.3 In my more than thirty-seven years of practicing domestic

relations and other areas of law, I have appeared at thousands of calendar

calls, but unexpectedly and unbeknownst to me at the time of this

Thursday October 3, 2013 calendar call, I was about to experience a type

of judicial treatment that I had never before observed. I have never

experienced or even observed such judicial conduct as was about to be

directed toward me to the detriment of Nancy Michelle Murphy.




The Motion for Indirect Contempt, brought with Due Process Service

Deficiency Seeking Criminal Sanctions which are Reflections upon

Professional Reputations

10.7 The Motion for Contempt on the Thursday, October 3, 2013 calendar

was filed on August 29, 2013, by the “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of

Glover& Davis on behalf of John Harold Murphy.

10.7.1 The “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis on

September 12, 2013 served a Notice of a Thursday, October 3, 2013

Hearing for only the original August 29, 2013 Motion for Contempt.

10.7.2 The “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis

never served a Rule Nisi for the Thursday, October 3, 2013 hearing upon Nancy Michelle Murphy nor her counsel for their appearance on

Thursday, October 3, 2013 for a hearing on the August 29, 2013 Motion

for Contempt.

10.7.3 The “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake apparently never even

obtained a Rule Nisi for the Thursday, October 3, 2013 hearing on the

August 29, 2013 Motion for Contempt.

10.7.4 The “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis in

most, if not all, of his previous hearings has included a Rule Nisi and has

never to my memory filed just a “Notice of Hearing.” The bench book

distributed by the Judicial Council provides guidance that in contempt

actions, due process requires a Rule Nisi as opposed to the quite different,

Notice of Hearing. Motions seeking Indirect Contempt against a person

provide very distinct statutory and constitutional protections.




The Amended Motion for Contempt, Due Process Service of Charges,

Adequate Time to Respond, Identity of Charged Party and an

Independent Jurist not Embroiled in the Issues Deficiency.

10.8 The “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis, on

September 27, 2013 filed an Amended Motion for Contempt. This was only

six days, including a Saturday and a Sunday before the

Thursday, October, 3, 2013 calendar date, and thirty (30) days before a

response was due.

10.8.1 The “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis

never served a Notice of Hearing nor a Rule Nisi for the Thursday,

October 3, 2013 hearing upon Nancy Michelle Murphy nor her lawyersfor their appearance at a hearing on the Amended Motion for Contempt

that contained a completely different array of charges for contempt. The

charging documents even failed to identify the name of “defendant’s

lawyer. [Note: “lawyer” is singular and there are two lawyers] The

Certificate of Service on the Amended Complaint accurately reflects that

the charging Amended Contempt document was not served upon me as it

was only served upon Millard Farmer, one of the two lawyers for Nancy

Michelle Murphy.

10.8.2 The Amended Motion for Contempt was based upon an ex parte

communication that the Glover & Davis lawyers had with

Judge A. Quillian, Jr. that resulted in a modification of the custody of the

children by changing the scheduled visitation days of John Harold Murphy

from the schedule set out in the 2006 Final Divorce Decree and as further

modified by the pronouncement in open Court that John Harold Murphy

can take the children anywhere he wishes, even to “Russia” during his

visitation period.




The Constitutional and Statutory Detriment of the Due Process Service

Deficiency

11. Nancy Michelle Murphy has a limited amount of financial resources that

she can appropriate to this litigation without affecting the welfare of the

children.

11.1 Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy subpoenaed the school

principal of the children, a teacher of the children and another witness who

had extensive knowledge of this family for the last “hearing” when

Judge Baldwin abruptly terminated the hearing with the witnesses of

Nancy Michelle Murphy left waiting to testify, but not allowed. The

testimony of these witnesses was relevant to the issue of whether a “custody

evaluator” was necessary. The affidavit of Dr. Jan Franks, the principal of

Arnall Middle School, is Attachment 1. The affidavit of Polly Craft is

Attachment 2.

11.2 A Rule Nisi permits an opportunity to subpoena a key witness, Renee

Haugerud, whose counsel has refused to allow her deposition and to take the

deposition of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell after she produces her financial

and other records for which she filed a motion to quash.

11.3 The Response to the August 29, 2013 Motion for Contempt and the

Amendment to the August 29, 2013 Motion for Contempt present defenses

that could have been presented if Nancy Michelle Murphy and “defendant’s

lawyer,” if identified, had been provided due process notice.

11.4 The defective due process notification and statutory protections were

clearly identified in Michelle Murphy’s “Notice of Supersedeas and Plea as

to the Absence of Jurisdiction and Unconstitutional Due Process Nature of

the Alleged “Contempt” Actions Filed by the Glover & Davis Lawyers.”




11.5 The “Amendment” to the Motion for Contempt that was filed on

September 27, 2013 contained neither a Notice of Hearing nor a required

Rule Nisi, as the Amendment was also an Indirect Contempt seeking

criminal sanctions.

11.6 Neither Nancy Michelle Murphy nor Millard Farmer were

subpoenaed to appear at the calendar call or hearing. Neither appeared.

Thursday, October 3, 2013 in the Superior Court of Coweta County

12. That morning before court began, I filed the First Amendment to the

Response of Michelle Murphy to John Murphy’s Motion for Contempt. In open

court, after the calendar call of the Murphy case, I filed the Notice of

Supersedeas and Plea as to the Absence of Jurisdiction and Unconstitutional

Due Process Nature of the Alleged “Contempt” Actions Filed by the Glover &

Davis Lawyers.

12.1 Upon entering the courtroom, I sat on the wood bench on the far right

side.

12.2 I observed Nan Freeman, the court reporter, set up. As soon as she

had applied her last piece of duct tape to her wires, she returned to her desk.

12.3 I was aware that Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. had threatened to put

Millard Farmer in jail for attempting to have the court reporter take down the

calendar call. This previous event occurred as follows according to the sworn

testimony supporting the “Friday, September 13, 2013 Addendum to

Wednesday, August 28, 2013 Amendment to the Monday, August 19, 2013

Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr.” that was pending awaiting a decision by Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. That Amendment to the August 19, 2013 disqualification

motion states as follows.




4.1.2 The transcript of that August 6, 2013 hearing documents

the following portion of the transcript before the lawyers, their

clients and other persons awaiting a full call of the calendar.







4.1.3 There was a very quiet, conversational speaking tone by

counsel for John Murphy to Judge Baldwin. It was Judge Baldwin

who yelled; at one point, “…I’m going to put you in jail. Do you

understand me? Do you understand me?...” very loudly to Millard

Farmer, who was standing still and motionless in amazement of

the apparent no reason other than bias resulting from the

disqualification motions for such conduct by Judge Baldwin.

12.4 In order to avoid any confrontation with Judge A. Quillian Baldwin

about obtaining a recording of the calendar call, long before Court began, I

informed the court reporter that I understood Judge Baldwin's position about

taking down the call of the calendar and was not raising that issue again. I

then pointed to the Murphy case on the calendar and stated that I wanted my

announcement on this case taken down and everything said during the casetaken down.

12.5 In the “Notice of Supersedeas and Plea as to the Absence of

Jurisdiction and Unconstitutional Due Process Nature of the Alleged

“Contempt” Actions Filed by the Glover & Davis Lawyers” document that I




filed in open Court, the following explanation of counsel’s fear that

Judge A. Baldwin, Jr. would not allow issues of law to be presented to the

Court was made.

2.2 Nancy Michelle Murphy, Millard Farmer and Larry King, whilereserving all rights, enter this notification of a plea as to the lack of

jurisdiction of the court and a plea as to the statutory and

constitutional authority of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. to proceed

with the following items that the Glover & Davis lawyers have

requested that the Clerk of the Superior Court Coweta County place

on the list of matters to be called for hearing today. This is an

informational notice that documents placed on the calendar of the

Court for Thursday, October 3, 2013 do not provide Nancy MichelleMurphy, Millard Farmer and Larry King their constitutionally

protected rights. After appropriate notice and charging documents,

and a continuance of time, they will respond fully.

12.6 I then gave the court reporter my business card, exchanged

pleasantries and she agreed to my request for the takedown of all matters.

13. The calendar call began without the presence of the court reporter.

13.1 When Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. called the Murphy case, Iimmediately stood and stated that I had made arrangements for the court

reporter to take down my announcement and requested that the Murphy

announcement be made when the court reporter returned. Judge Baldwin

complied with my request and called the remainder of the calendar. Judge

Baldwin then apparently asked for someone to retrieve the court reporter, as

she appeared and the Murphy case was called at the end of the calendar.

14. In response to the calendar call I was prepared to make my announcement

in the following order.




14.1 I wanted to provide Judge Baldwin of the dates of the pending

disqualification motions that were awaiting a ruling by him and that Uniform

Superior Court Rule 25 required Judge Baldwin to cease acting on the matter

until he ruled upon the disqualification motions. The following documents

relating to the disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. are pending

and awaiting a ruling by Judge Baldwin or an independent judge assigned to

hear the motions. These disqualification motions are summarily identified as

follows.

July 2, 2012 Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A.

Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

Monday, August 19, 2013 Consolidated Motions for Disqualification

of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Constitutional Challenges to

Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 et seq. and for Other Uses as

Allowed by Law

August 28, 2013: Amendment to Monday, August 19, 2013

Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr., Initiated with this Judge’s “I’ll Put You in Jail” Threatsthat Motivated John Murphy to Sic the Deputy Sheriff of Coweta

County on the Mother of the Children whom She Raised Since John

Murphy Abandoned the Family

Friday, September 13, 2013 Addendum to Wednesday, August 28,

2013 Amendment to the Monday, August 19, 2013 Consolidated

Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

14.2 After informing Judge Baldwin of the pending disqualification

motions, I wanted to advise the Court that the required personal service and

a Rule Nisi, had been given and that the matter was not before the Court.




14.3 I wanted to advise the Court that it had no jurisdiction, as the

Amended Motion for Contempt attempted to add what could be one of two

parties, identified as the “lawyer” for Nancy Michelle Murphy. The adding

of one of possible two new parties to the motion for contempt was a violation

of the rights of the newly added party but was additionally prejudicial to

Nancy Michelle Murphy, as such conduct is detrimental to Michelle Murphy

to have Judge Baldwin allowing the Glover & Davis lawyers attacking her

lawyer.

14.4 I wanted to advise the Court that the August 23, 2013 Order was on

appeal and that any contempt of that Order was superseded by the appeal.

14.5 Additionally, I wanted to advise the Court that the

September 27, 2013 motion was not noticed nor ripe for hearing on October

3, 2013.

15. At some point during my monotone announcement of the above

statements of what I felt to be an initial consideration, Judge Baldwin stated

something like, “I hold you in contempt. I am tired of all this stuff you all are

doing. I order you incarcerated until you pay $1000.00 attorney fees as a

purge.”

15.1 The transcript being prepared by Nan Freeman, the court reporter, of

the exact language use by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. is being sought to

obtain the exact language.

15.2 After this pronouncement by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., I

walked towards the Sheriff and Clerk with my right hand in my right pocket

to retrieve the money.

15.3 The deputy, a white male raised in Clayton County who graduated

from Jonesboro High School 1995, grabbed my right biceps as I attempted

to obtain the purge money. I felt as if I was in his custody while I obtained




the money from my pocket and as I paid the purge to the Deputy Clerk in

open court.

15.4 After paying the $1,000, I stated, “let the record reflect that I have

paid the purge to the Clerk of Court.”

15.5 Judge Baldwin seemed frustrated that I could immediately purge the

contempt by paying the $1,000.

15.6 Other matters on the calendar were handled after I paid the $1,000.

15.7 Judge Baldwin took a break around 10:00 a.m. and stated that the

Murphy case would be dealt with when he returned from break. I sat at

counsel table during the break.

After the Contempt for Reciting the Basis for the Court not Proceeding

16. I rely on the transcript for a more comprehensive statement of the events

that followed; however, the following accounting of the events is accurate to

the best of my knowledge and belief.

16.1 I made as my opening, a statement of some of the issues. It became

obvious that any further identification of these due process and statutory

protections or the disqualification motions that were not yet ruled upon

would result in me being held in contempt of court once again.

16.2 The contempt action affected my presentation of issues to the Court,

as it was unpredictable to me when, or what would ignite the fury of

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. once again. Judge Baldwin had held me in

contempt for merely reciting some of the constitutional and statutory

protections accorded persons charged as Nancy Michelle Murphy and one of

the two lawyers for Nancy Michelle Murphy.

16.3 The “Prosecutor/Plaintiff” Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis called

John Harold Murphy as his first witness. Taylor Drake attempted to present

the issues raised in the August 29, 2013 Motion for Contempt relating to




visitation and the issues raised in the September 27, 2013 Amended Motion

for Contempt relating to the alleged noncooperation with the custody

evaluator with only the testimony of John Harold Murphy.

16.4 It is relevant to note that John Harold Murphy only provided a

verification that the facts were “true and accurate to the best of his

knowledge and belief” to support the motion for Contempt and the Amended

Motion for Contempt.

During the Direct Examination of John Harold Murphy, Judge Baldwin

Informed Counsel that he Wished to Speak with Counsel in Chambers

17. During John Harold Murphy’s testimony, Judge A. Harold Murphy stated

that he wished to talk to counsel in chambers. The court reporter did not proceed

to chambers, or take down the communications that occurred in chambers.

17.1 As counsel walked down the hallway with Judge Baldwin to his

chambers, he stated, "I did not want to embarrass anyone out there, but I

can’t do anything about the failure to cooperate with the evaluator unless I

hear from her." (Meaning the Custody Evaluator). The Custody Evaluator

was selected by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, who took money from the

guardian ad litem trust account as explained under oath in the “Response of

Michelle Murphy to Counsel for Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, Teresa E.

Lazzaroni of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young’s Motion on behalf of

Guardian ad Litem Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell’s Request for Protective

Order and Motion to Quash Michelle Murphy’s Subpoena for Deposition

and Production of Evidence and Notice of Deposition”

1.2 The subpoenaed documents from Elizabeth “Lisa” F.

Harwell, in part, relate to the illegal conversion of trust funds to

the personal use of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell. This conduct is

a violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 (8) (g), and




thereby OCGA §16-8-2 and Georgia Rules of Professional

Conduct Rule 1.15(I)

1.2.1 Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 (8) (g) provides as

follows.

g. Payment of GAL Fees and Expenses. It shall bewithin the Court's discretion to determine the amount

of fees awarded to the GAL, and how payment of the

fees shall be apportioned between the parties. The

GAL's requests for fees shall be considered, upon

application properly served upon the parties and

after an opportunity to be heard, unless waived. In

the event the GAL determines that extensive travel

outside of the circuit in which the GAL is appointedor other extraordinary expenditures are necessary, the

GAL may petition the Court in advance for payment of

such expenses by the parties. emphasis supplied

1.2.2 Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell took the money that was

provided in trust to Melissa Griffis, the first guardian ad litem

appointed by Judge Baldwin, which she apparently transferred to

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell in trust. The funds were subject to the

protections of Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 (8) (g), andthereby OCGA §16-8-2 and Georgia Rules of Professional

Conduct Rule 1.15(I) The street language for this conduct is

“stealing.”

1.2.2.1 The street analogy of the conduct of Elizabeth “Lisa”

F. Harwell would be a company employee taking money from

the cash register for the employee’s personal use, with a written

company policy against such conduct, after the employee had

worked a few days before the employee’s paycheck was due later

in the week.

1.2.2.2 The message from Judge Baldwin to the people in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit is that the Chief Judge believes that it is









Attachment 154

Transcript of Nan Freeman

Transcript of Nan Freeman

Attachment 154



1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

2

NANCY MICHELLE MURPHY, )3 )

Plaintiff, )

4 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE

5 ) NO. 2014CV241705

NAN FREEMAN and FREEMAN )

6 REPORTING, INC., )

)

7 Defendants. ) _____________________________)

8

9 * * *

10 Videotape Deposition of

NAN DUBOSE FREEMAN,

11 (individually and as

30(b)(6) representative of

12 Freeman Reporting, Inc.)

13 November 22, 2014

14 9:44 a.m.

15

5180 Lone Oak Road

16 Hogansville, Georgia

17

By Marcia Arberman, RPR, CCR B-1059

18

19 ***************************************************20

21

22

23 VERITEXT LEGAL SOLUTIONS

24 1075 Peachtree Street, NE - Suite 3625

25 Atlanta, Ga 30309

Page 1

Veritext National Court Reporting Company

Toll Free: 855.282.1018 404.817.9606




Page 21 E X A M I N A T I O N

Page

2

Cross-Examination by Mr. Farmer 5

3

E X H I B I T S

4

Plaintiff's

5 Exhibit Description Page

6 1 Notice of Deposition 57 2 Payments from the State of Georgia to 13

Freeman Reporting, Inc. from 2010 to

8 2013

9 3 9-22-12 Freeman Reporting, Inc. 23

invoice to Farmer

10

4 6-19-14 e-mail to Farmer from Harris 38

11 (Judge Baldwin's secretary)

12 5 Certificate page of 5-27-14 49

transcript

13

6 6-10-14 Freedom of Information 50

14 request letter

15 7 6-12-14 letter to King from Freeman 50

16 8 Transcript addendum 51


invoice to Farmer


19 invoice to Farmer

20 11 8-12-14 letter to Farmer from 85

Skandalakis

21

22

23

24

25

Page 3

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

2 On behalf of the Plaintiff:

3 MILLARD C. FARMER, JR., ESQ.

151 Nassau Street

4 Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 688-8116

5 [email protected]

6 On behalf of the Defendants:

7 KENNETH LAMAR GORDON, ESQ.

5180 Lone Oak Road

8 Hogansville, GA 30230

Phone: (706) 637-4558

9 [email protected]

10 Also Present:

11 Nancy Michelle Murphy

Kimellen Tunkle

12 Spencer Bush, Videographer

13

14

15

16 * * *17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 4

1 MR. FARMER: I think maybe we'll let the

2 parties identify themselves.

3 I'm Millard Farmer, and I represent

4 Nancy Michelle Murphy. And with me is Paralegal

5 Kimellen Tunkle, and with me is Nancy Michelle

6 Murphy, who is the Plaintiff.

7 MR. GORDON: Ken Gordon, attorney to8 Nan Freeman, and my client Nan Freeman.

9 MR. FARMER: And Freeman Reporting,

10 Inc., right?

11 MR. GORDON: Right.

12 MR. FARMER: And this is a deposition.

13 It's taken by agreement. And we got a Notice of

14 Deposition that we have some documents that

15 we'll probably be able to substitute for during

16 the deposition unless there's some dispute about

17 the documents. And I will ask that this be made

18 a part of the deposition, if you will.

19 You want to identify these as -- how20 would we like to identify the -- how would we

21 like to identify the --

22 MR. GORDON: The notice?

23 MR. FARMER: No, just Plaintiff's 1?

24 MR. GORDON: Yeah, that would be fine.

25 MR. FARMER: We'll just mark this for

Page 5

1 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.

2 THE REPORTER: Should I mark it now?

3 MR. FARMER: You may mark it now, if you

4 will.

5 (Whereupon, marked for identification,

6 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1.)

7 MR. FARMER: If you will, please swear

8 the witness.

9 NAN DUBOSE FREEMAN,

10 having been first duly sworn, was deposed and

11 testified as follows:

12 CROSS-EXAMINATION

13 BY MR. FARMER:

14 Q Would you state your name, please?

15 A Nan DuBose Freeman.

16 Q And are you here in the capacity of also

17 representing Freeman Reporting, Inc.?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q And would you please tell us what is

20 Freeman Reporting, Inc.?

21 A I'm a court reporter. And that's the

22 name I'm incorporated under.

23 Q And are you the owner -- or what is the

24 owner status of Freeman Reporting, Inc.?

25 A I'm the owner, I guess.

2 (Pages 2 - 5)

Veritext National Court Reporting CompanyToll Free: 855.282.1018 404.817.9606Attachment 154, Page 2 of 53





Page 10

1 to work for Judge Baldwin.

2 Q And was it Judge Baldwin and

3 Judge Keeble that selected you? Is that the basis for

4 that employment? How does that work?

5 A I don't really know. I think

6 Judge Keeble's former court reporter was moving away

7 and she suggested me. I don't really know the process8 because I was only involved in being employed. I

9 don't know what went on behind the scenes.

10 Q All right. Do you have any special

11 arrangement with them or just that you're going to

12 do the -- you're going to do their work, or how does

13 that work?

14 A I'm not sure. I think -- I think that

15 they maybe -- I'm not sure about this. Maybe they

16 submit something to the State. I don't really know.

17 Q And you -- as I understand, you receive

18 a stipend from the State of Georgia; is that right?

19 A Define "stipend." For you -- I mean, I20 know that -- I mean, I know what it means to me. What

21 do you mean?

22 Q It means -- what I'm trying to say, it

23 means that you get money from the State of Georgia.

24 A Yes, sir.

25 Q And what money is that, and how does

Page 11

1 that money -- how do you get the money from the State

2 of Georgia?

3 A To my knowledge, the only thing I get

4 from the State of Georgia is because of -- we go to

5 five different counties. I get a small check because

6 I go to five counties. That's all I know.

7 Q And does that amount to around three to

8 four thousand dollars a year in the last years?

9 A That requires math. I'm not sure.

10 Q Okay. But it's -- the State -- the

11 State -- I will show you this -- this State of Georgia

12 record just so you can look at it. It shows that

13 Freeman Reporting received $3,840 in 2013.

14 A Okay.

15 Q And it's DOAS-Court. I don't know what

16 that means. Do you -- how did you apply for or how

17 did you receive that money?

18 A I don't know what that is.

19 MR. GORDON: Department of

20 Administrative Services.

21 A Okay. I would say it's possibly the

22 amount that I get from the State for the five counties

23 I cover.

24 BY MR. FARMER:

25 Q And do you make an application -- when

Page 12

1 you say you, you mean Freeman Reporting? Is that what

2 you mean?

3 A Well, that's -- that's who gets the

4 check.

5 Q That's what I'm asking.

6 A Yes, sir.

7 Q Because it is a different entity from8 you individually. You understand that?

9 A I do, right.

10 Q And then you understand in -- that you

11 got $4,160 in 2010.

12 A That's what that says. I don't -- I

13 don't know.

14 Q Okay. But is that -- is that consistent

15 with your memory?

16 A I never totaled it that I remember.

17 Q And when do you receive that?

18 Monthly?

19 A Yes, sir.20 Q And is it a flat rate or is it part of

21 a -- or is it part of a -- is it part of -- according

22 to how much work you do or is it --

23 A Honestly, I don't know. It comes with

24 the job. And it's just a monthly amount.

25 Q So it is a flat rate, not -- not --

Page 13

1 A Yes.

2 Q -- according to how many jobs?

3 A No, sir.

4 Q I'm going to identify these two things

5 as Plaintiff's Exhibit --

6 MS. TUNKLE: It's just one. It's only

7 one page.

8 (Previously marked for identification,


10 BY MR. FARMER:

11 Q One page. It's two copies. It's

12 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. If you will, just take a look

13 at Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and see if that's consistent

14 with what -- the information you've been discussing

15 with us. And it's on the -- projected on the screen.

16 A What's -- what's on the screen, that's

17 certain. I have no idea if that's the total I got a

18 year or not, but that's what that says.

19 Q And is that separate from other money

20 that you receive?

21 A Yes, sir.

22 Q And do you receive -- do you receive

23 other money from the County that's on a flat-fee

24 basis?

25 A I receive money from the Counties,

4 (Pages 10 - 13)






Page 18

1 Q And --

2 A -- or for the takedown -- excuse me --

3 or for the takedown in a civil case.

4 Q So as I -- just so we're clear about it,

5 in a civil case, the County does pay for you coming?

6 A Providing for the court reporter. The

7 County pays for me to be there.8 Q And the County is not reimbursed if the

9 parties in the civil case pays you for the takedown or

10 anything like --

11 A No, sir.

12 Q The County is not reimbursed? That's

13 just a --

14 A No, sir.

15 Q And if -- if the parties agree to pay

16 for the takedown -- one of the parties agree to the

17 takedown and then they order the transcript --

18 A Uh-huh (affirmative).

19 Q -- do you charge for the takedown plus20 the transcript, or do you just charge for the

21 transcript?

22 A For the takedown and the transcript.

23 Q Two separate things?

24 A Yes, sir.

25 Q And how do you account for the time that

Page 19

1 you spend for the takedown?

2 A I usually keep a record of it.

3 Q Do you -- do you include that record in

4 your billing?

5 A Do you mean do I put down how many

6 minutes it was or --

7 Q Right.

8 A No, I don't.

9 Q And how does a person know how much time

10 is --

11 A I usually keep a record of it, and I

12 bill it. If they question me, I can go back and look.

13 Q Okay. So you would have that record

14 that you could --

15 A I would assume so. I can't swear that I

16 would have it on every one, but I would -- I would

17 imagine I could or I could at least do the math to

18 figure it out.

19 Q So do you have it in the -- in the

20 transcripts that we're dealing with, John Harold

21 Murphy versus Michelle Murphy?

22 A I can't answer. I don't know.

23 Q Would you have originally kept it?

24 A I believe so.

25 Q And are you the record keeper?

Page 20

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q You do all of the record and all of the

3 billing yourself?

4 A Yes, sir.

5 Q And do you -- so in the Murphy case, as

6 I understand, you -- you did all of the --

7 A To the best of my recollection, yes.8 Q To the best of your recollection?

9 A Yes, sir.

10 Q You did both the record keeping and you

11 did the actual typing of the transcripts?

12 A I do believe I did. I'm not -- I can't

13 say 100 percent, but I'm pretty sure I did.

14 Q And in the takedown part of it, it's for

15 the time that you actually were involved in taking

16 down the --

17 A To the best of my knowledge.

18 Q And if two parties are a party to the

19 case, is that divided --20 A Yes, sir.

21 Q -- between the two parties?

22 A I'm sorry. Yes, sir, it is.

23 Q And explain that for the transcript and

24 for the takedown. Explain to me how that works.

25 A Okay.

Page 21

1 Q Let's say two parties in the case --

2 A All right.

3 Q -- and both -- and they split the --

4 split the amount.

5 A Okay. In this case, as I recall, I

6 divided the takedown in half and charged each party

7 for one-half the takedown. And in this case because

8 you both -- both sides ordered the transcript pretty

9 much on the same day, I remember the first day

10 discussing it, and I don't remember if I discussed it

11 any more than that. But I do remember I divided -- I

12 took everything and divided it by 2.

13 In some cases the party that orders it

14 first you would charge the copy -- I mean the original

15 and two copies. Later the other party orders it, and

16 I would charge them a copy rate.

17 In this case, as I recall, you pretty

18 much both ordered it at the same time, and I divided

19 it in half so that each party paid the same amount.

20 Q And if -- if in a -- if in a case

21 involving someone else, say, not the Murphy case --


23 Q -- one party orders it and a week later

24 or two weeks later the other party orders it, do

25 you -- do you give the party the credit -- that

6 (Pages 18 - 21)




Page 22

1 ordered it first credit for the -- when the other

2 party pays for it?

3 A I don't understand what you're asking.

4 Q All right. It's not a very clear

5 question.

6 As I understand, if the person orders it

7 afterwards, you're only charging for the copy?8 A As a rule, yes, I would say pretty much

9 that's the case.

10 Q Okay. And is there any provision for

11 that in the Rules, or how do you --

12 A Not that I know of. But I don't think

13 that's an uncommon practice.

14 Q By uncommon practice, how do you --

15 A Among court reporters. I do believe

16 other court reporters bill that way, where they divide

17 it totally in half.

18 Q All right. I understand, the "totally

19 in half" part.20 A Yes, okay.

21 Q I'm talking about where one party orders

22 it earlier.

23 A Oh, yes, sir. And sometimes it's months

24 later when the other party orders the copy.

25 Q And so then if you order it later --

Page 23

1 A Yes.

2 Q -- you only pay -- you only pay for one

3 copy?

4 A That's my understanding. I mean, that's

5 how I charge. That's my understanding of the way it's

6 supposed to be.

7 Q And where do you obtain that

8 understanding?

9 A Well, I just know that the copy rate --

10 the original and two copies is one charge and the copy

11 rate is another. And if the other party has already

12 ordered it and I've submitted it to them, the other

13 party is entitled to a copy if they participated in

14 takedown.

15 Q So the person that orders it first is

16 charged at a higher rate?

17 A As a rule. But in this case I divided

18 it in half because --

19 Q This case meaning Murphy v. Murphy?

20 A -- yes, sir -- because pretty much it

21 was ordered at the same time.

22 (Previously marked for identification,


24 BY MR. FARMER:

25 Q I'm going to show you what I marked as

Page 24

1 Plaintiff's Exhibit --

2 MR. FARMER: 4 are we up to?

3 MS. TUNKLE: 3, I think.

4 BY MR. FARMER:

5 Q 3, 3. I'm going to -- I'm not going to

6 mark this as an exhibit, but I'm going to show you the

7 transcript of the proceedings.8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q And I'm going to show you that. If you

10 prefer, here's a -- (hands document to the witness.)

11 A This is fine.

12 MR. GORDON: Yeah, we're okay.

13 MR. FARMER: I'm trying to hand it to

14 her.

15 MR. GORDON: Oh, you're trying to hand

16 it to her?

17 MR. FARMER: Yes.

18 BY MR. FARMER:

19 Q And I'm going to ask, if you will, if 20 you will explain --

21 A Okay. Evidently in this one you ordered

22 first. In the other -- it appears in this one -- I

23 must have been mistaken. It appears in this one you

24 must have ordered it first and I mailed you an

25 original and one. I made a mistake, I guess, in that.

Page 25

1 That was from my memory.

2 Q So that billing is incorrect? Is that

3 what you're telling me?

4 A No, sir. I'm saying I was incorrect

5 when I said that I thought that I had to have every --

6 Q All right. Do you have records to

7 support the ordering of that transcript?

8 A I'm not sure. I would have to look

9 back. I don't know. I usually take an oral order.

10 And I may or may not have made a note. I don't know.

11 You could have mailed me -- sent me an e-mail. I

12 don't remember.

13 Q Was there a division of the takedown in

14 that -- on that occasion?

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q And you're telling me that they did

17 not -- that they did not order?

18 A I'm saying from looking at this, it

19 appears that they would have ordered it later. I

20 don't know.

21 Q Do you have records to support that?

22 A I'd have to look and see.

23 Q Can you provide those records for us?

24 A I'll see if I can. I don't know that I

25 do. I'll see.

7 (Pages 22 - 25)




Page 26

1 I would say based on that, that that is

2 what I did and that is what occurred.

3 Q And do you have any -- do you have any

4 rule to rely upon that allows you to do that?

5 A Not that I'm -- not that I can think of

6 right now.

7 Q Are you familiar with the -- are you8 familiar with the basis for charging fees that the

9 State has?

10 A I don't know that I know what you

11 mean.

12 Q Okay. The State controls the Board of

13 Court Reporting --

14 A Yes.

15 Q -- through the Council -- the Superior

16 Court judges? They control the fees; is that right?

17 A As far as I know.

18 Q And are you familiar with those rules?

19 A I guess I am. I've told you what I20 understand.

21 Q Okay. Have you examined the fees that

22 you charged in the Murphy case to Michelle Murphy to

23 see if you were in compliance with the Board of Court

24 Reporters' rules?

25 A When I made my bill, it was my

Page 27

1 understanding that I was --

2 Q Okay. But since that time --

3 A -- in compliance.

4 Q -- we've said that you did not -- that

5 you had not charged correctly. And I'm asking you,

6 have you examined to see if you did charge

7 correctly?

8 A Based on the pages, I charged

9 correctly.

10 Q Based on the fee that you collected, did

11 you charge correctly?

12 A Based on the fee that I charged by the

13 page, I believe that I charged correctly.

14 Q Well, did you charge incorrectly by any

15 other basis?

16 A Could you be more specific?

17 Q Yes. The law, it's not just a page

18 requirement. You understand that?

19 A Yes, sir.

20 Q It's other requirements --

21 A Yes, sir.

22 Q -- for the charges.


24 Q Have you looked at -- since you know

25 that we said you didn't charge --

Page 28

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q -- that you overcharged --


4 Q -- have you looked to see if you

5 overcharged?

6 A Yes, I did.

7 Q Yes, you did look or, yes, you did8 overcharge?

9 A Yes, I did look.

10 Q Okay.

11 A And it's my understanding that I made a

12 mistake and that instead of having space for

13 63 characters, I had space for 61. So it was two

14 characters per line.

15 Q And did that make a difference in the

16 billing?

17 A I think it probably would. It probably

18 would. But it would just depend on the transcript as

19 to what difference it would make because of 20 different -- different --

21 Q Did you calculate to see what difference

22 that it would make?

23 A It could be figured. Yes, sir.

24 Q Did you figure it?

25 A I have looked at it. Yes, sir.

Page 29

1 Q Okay. And what did you determine?

2 A I can't tell you per transcript. But I

3 recalculated, and it appeared to me it was less than

4 $45.

5 Q But you did --

6 A -- for all of them.

7 Q But you say you -- that's what you

8 calculated? You overcharged by $45?

9 A If I reconfigured the page, it appeared

10 that that's what it would be.

11 Q And when did you reconfigure -- when did

12 you make those calculations?

13 A Within the last two or three months. I

14 don't know. I don't know the date.

15 Q Was that after the complaint was

16 filed?

17 A Yes, sir.

18 Q And did you calculate the reason for

19 that overcharge?

20 A As I said, instead of having space for

21 63 characters on a line, I had space for 61.

22 Q And how did you -- how do you make those

23 determinations of what you had?

24 A I counted per space on a line.

25 Q And when you -- before you billed it,

8 (Pages 26 - 29)




Page 30

1 how did you make the calculation?

2 A I just used the template that I had set

3 up. And evidently at some point it was set up

4 incorrectly.

5 Q Okay. What kind of template do you

6 have?

7 A It's just something I've had set up a8 long time. I had -- when I bought my first computer,

9 I had help. I had to learn Word. I used Microsoft

10 Word.

11 Q Okay. Which version? 210?

12 A I've used different ones but --

13 Q Okay. When you first set it up.

14 A This would be a much earlier version. I

15 don't know what version it was.

16 Q Okay.

17 A And I've continued to use that. I

18 just -- I found out from the person I bought my

19 computer from -- somebody in their office. The person20 I bought it from didn't know anything about Word, but

21 there was somebody in the office that showed me the

22 legal template. And I just used it and kind of had to

23 figure it out myself.

24 I was new in LaGrange. I didn't know

25 anybody. I was new in LaGrange. I didn't know

Page 31

1 anybody to ask. I didn't really know anybody. I just

2 set it up by myself. I remember counting spaces. I

3 remember working to get the thing set up.

4 And at some point I guess inadvertently

5 it changed from 63 to 61. I don't know. I don't

6 really know when -- when -- I don't know when it

7 became 61 characters. I don't know if it was from the

8 beginning or when. I don't know.

9 Q And who did you buy the computer from?

10 A I don't remember. It's the company

11 that's been out of business. I can tell you where

12 they were located many years ago, but --

13 Q All right.

14 A -- they've been out of business for a

15 long time.

16 Q Where were they located?

17 A LaGrange.

18 Q And where in LaGrange?

19 A Off of Whitesville Road on Lukken

20 Industrial Boulevard.

21 Q And when you set it up, did you continue

22 using the same program all the way through when you

23 did the Murphy case?

24 A Well, I -- oh, with the Murphy case,

25 yes, sir, as far as I remember.

Page 32

1 Q Okay. From the time you had the

2 computer?

3 A I just used -- as far as I remember, I

4 haven't changed the template -- I used the -- I used

5 the same version as far as I remember.

6 Q For approximately how many years?

7 A The whole time I've been a court8 reporter probably.

9 Q And since we don't know that, tell us.

10 A Well, I said 1996.

11 Q Okay. Since 1996?

12 A As far as I know, yes.

13 Q And you've used the same version of

14 Word?

15 A No, sir. I've just used the same

16 template.

17 Q The same template?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q And what font do you use?20 A 12. 12 Courier. Whatever that --

21 whatever the Courier is and 12, size 12, whatever that

22 is.

23 Q Okay. And what version of Word did you

24 use in preparing the Murphy transcripts?

25 A I'm not sure. Maybe 2010. I'm not

Page 33

1 sure.

2 Q And what version do you use now?

3 A Same.

4 Q And do you use the same template now?

5 A Yes, sir. Well, I've changed it now,

6 but I --

7 Q How did you change the template?

8 A I changed the left margin by two spaces,

9 or to allow for two more spaces.

10 Q And is that -- did you use the same

11 template in preparing the criminal transcripts for the

12 State?

13 A Pretty much, yes, sir.

14 Q During all that time?

15 A Yes, sir.

16 Q So you would have overcharged them the

17 same as you did --

18 A I don't know. I don't know -- I don't

19 know. I haven't gone back to count spaces on every

20 transcript. I don't know.

21 Q You see the requests that we have made.

22 Do you have those transcripts?

23 A I should.

24 Q All of the transcripts for the State?

25 A As far as I know, yes. Well, not for

9 (Pages 30 - 33)




Page 34

1 the State but for the Counties, yes.

2 Q For the Counties?

3 A Yes, sir.

4 Q And so all of those would be

5 available?

6 A As far as I know, yes.

7 Q And who approves of the payment to the8 County?

9 A I submit my bill to the judge. And he

10 signs it, but he does --

11 Q The judge meaning? By name who?

12 A Well at first, it was Allen Keeble.

13 Q All right.

14 A Now it is Quillian Baldwin. And

15 sometimes it might be a senior judge if I reported for

16 him.

17 Q But you submit it to Judge Baldwin?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q And does -- how do you submit the --20 the -- how do you submit the billings to

21 Judge Baldwin?

22 A I just give it to him, and he signs it.

23 And then I submit it to the County.

24 Q Are you with him when he signs them?

25 A I can't say I've been with him every

Page 35

1 time.

2 Q No. I mean --

3 A I might have left them with the

4 secretary. But usually he signs it in my presence.

5 Q Okay. And what does he do as far as

6 checking it?

7 A Well, he doesn't go through the

8 transcripts and count the pages.

9 Q Has he ever looked at -- has he ever

10 looked at the transcripts?

11 A Not to my knowledge except what he sees

12 in court.

13 Q Okay. But what I'm saying is, he's

14 never seen that you comply with the law?

15 A Not to my knowledge.

16 Q And has anybody ever brought it to your

17 attention that you don't comply with the law other

18 than in the case we brought against you?

19 A Never.

20 Q Have you ever been audited by the

21 County?

22 A No, sir.

23 Q They have never made any audit to the

24 County?


Page 36

1 Q When we first brought this to

2 Judge Baldwin's attention or he first -- I don't know

3 whether we brought it to his attention or he heard it

4 from somebody that you would probably be subject to

5 litigation about this --

6 A Yes, sir.

7 Q Do you remember that?8 A Of course.

9 Q And did you bring it to his attention?

10 A Yes, sir.

11 Q And what did he say at that time?

12 A Goodness, I don't remember.

13 Q Well, about what -- what was the --

14 what was the gist of the conversation?

15 A I can't tell you. I don't remember.

16 Q How did you bring it to his attention?

17 A I went to his office as far as I know.

18 No. I believe we talked on the phone.

19 Q You called him on the phone?20 A I did not. But he called me.

21 Q Okay. What did he --

22 A That's the best of my memory.

23 Q Okay.

24 A I don't really remember exactly.

25 Q Okay. Anyway, y'all communicated?

Page 37

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q And what was that communication?

3 A I really don't remember, Mr. Farmer.

4 Q Okay. Well, it had to be something.

5 A I just told him -- I honestly do not

6 remember what he said.

7 Q Okay. But how did the conversation

8 begin?

9 A I honestly do not remember. I remember

10 I told him.

11 Q And did you tell him you couldn't afford

12 the litigation?

13 A I don't think I needed to tell him, but

14 I don't remember.

15 Q Did -- did he tell you he would do

16 anything about it?

17 A I don't remember that he told me he

18 would do anything about it.

19 Q Was there any kind of understanding that

20 he was going to do something about it?

21 A I really don't think so.

22 Q Did you request that he did anything --

23 do anything about it, or did he do it on his own?

24 A I can't -- I don't believe I would have

25 asked him to do anything about it.

10 (Pages 34 - 37)




Page 38

1 MR. FARMER: I'm going to ask you to

2 mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4.



5 BY MR. FARMER:

6 Q I ask you to take a look at Plaintiff's

7 Exhibit 4 and see if you can -- if you can read that8 and tell me if you've seen that document before.

9 A I have seen this before.

10 Q All right. And when was the first time

11 that you had seen it or learned anything about it?

12 A I guess when I was copied on it.

13 Q Okay. And did Judge Baldwin copy you on

14 it?

15 A His secretary did.

16 Q And we're talking about Plaintiff's

17 Exhibit 4? He sent you a copy of that?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q It's on the screen. And are the20 statements in there correct? (Reading) Nan Freeman

21 discussed with me your latest e-mail -- our latest

22 e-mails back and forth; is that correct?

23 A Yes, that's correct.

24 Q And --

25 A And I was deeply concerned.

Page 39

1 Q Say it again.

2 A And I was deeply concerned.

3 Q Okay. In the second paragraph -- is

4 that -- is that statement in the second paragraph

5 correct?

6 A It is. But I -- before this I think I

7 suggested to you that I -- that's how I would like to

8 do it, to put a sealed copy in the Clerk's file.

9 Q But not give it to me for my use as I

10 chose?

11 A That's correct because I didn't think it

12 should be disseminated in any manner, taken out of --

13 anything taken out of context.

14 Q The third paragraph.

15 A I believe that's what he decided to

16 do.

17 Q Is that true and correct?

18 A As far as I know.

19 Q And the last paragraph or

20 next-to-the-last paragraph.

21 A Well, that's what he said.

22 Q And did you have a conversation with him

23 after this?

24 A I've talked to him a lot after this.

25 Q About this incident.

Page 40

1 A I remember -- do you mean after the

2 e-mail or after he filed those?

3 Q We're going to go through all of it, so

4 you can begin after the e-mail and then after

5 everything else.

6 A Well, I'm sure we did. I don't remember

7 a specific conversation. I don't remember a specific8 conversation.

9 Q But I'm not asking about specific

10 conversations. Did you discuss it with him?

11 A Well, I just expect we did, but I

12 can't -- I do not have a firm recollection of a

13 particular -- any particular conversation.

14 Q And the part in here about "Ms. Freeman,

15 she will not voluntarily give you directly or file

16 with the Clerk's office copies of the audio

17 recording" --

18 A That's what he said.

19 Q Well, is that true?20 A At that time it was true.

21 Q Was it true after the hearing on that

22 day? Did I approach you and ask you to let me

23 purchase those audio recordings on the -- after the

24 27th hearing?

25 A The 27th of?

Page 41

1 Q May.

2 A Yes, you did.

3 Q And did you respond to me when I --

4 A I said no. And you asked why. And I

5 said, because I don't believe I'm required to.

6 Q And did I ask you politely to let me

7 purchase them?

8 A You asked me. I won't say it was

9 impolite.

10 Q Did I say "please, Nan"?

11 A I don't remember.

12 Q Would you like -- would you like to hear

13 the audio on that?

14 A I've heard it before. But I don't

15 remember if you said the word "please."

16 Q Okay. You wouldn't dispute it if you

17 heard the audio of that request?

18 A If I heard the audio, no, sir, I would

19 not.

20 MS. TUNKLE: Do you want to play it?

21 You said "Nan, please."

22 THE WITNESS: I don't dispute that he

23 said "please."

24 BY MR. FARMER:

25 Q All right.

11 (Pages 38 - 41)




Page 42

1 A I just don't remember that you -- I do

2 not remember that you said "please."

3 Q Okay, good enough. But you're not

4 disputing it?

5 A I'm not disputing it. I don't know

6 whether you did or not.

7 Q Okay, okay. And you would not let me8 have it?

9 A I would not. I did not release it that

10 day. No, sir.

11 Q And -- and you weren't going to release

12 it until something was done to make you release it; is

13 that right?

14 A That is probably not true.

15 Q What were you -- what were you -- when

16 were you going to release it to me without me doing

17 anything to require you to do it?

18 A When you said you were going to sue me,

19 I decided it was not worth it. And so I decided at20 that point that I would like to give it to you to

21 avoid a lawsuit.

22 Q Okay. So until I said that I was going

23 to sue you, you were not going to do it.

24 A Well, it's my understanding that I

25 wasn't required to.

Page 43

1 Q Okay. But you weren't going to do it

2 unless I sued you or unless I threatened --

3 A I won't --

4 Q -- to sue you?

5 A -- say that. But I did not want to be

6 sued, and so I didn't think it was worth it.

7 Q Okay.

8 A So I was willing to release it. Because

9 it was my work product and it was mine, if I wanted

10 to, I could.

11 Q Okay. Did you discuss with anybody that

12 gave you the opinion that you're not required to

13 release it?

14 A Did I discuss with anybody --

15 Q Yes.

16 A -- that I was not required -- well, I

17 did talk to Judge Baldwin about it but --

18 Q What did Judge Baldwin say?

19 A He said different things at different

20 times.

21 Q Okay. What did he say about that?

22 A First he said he didn't care if I did or

23 not. Another time he said he wasn't going to let me.

24 And another time he said that he would do it.

25 Q Was he discussing it with someone else

Page 44

1 that was giving him advice about it?

2 A I can't answer that. I don't know.

3 Q Well, did he indicate to you that he

4 would?

5 A Discuss it with someone?

6 Q Yeah.

7 A Not that I recall.8 Q Was the information that I wanted to

9 get, was it something that was different from what was

10 in the transcript?

11 A I don't know what you wanted to get.

12 Q Okay. Did the audio depict something

13 differently than what I could have obtained by reading

14 the transcript?

15 A It's my opinion that it did not.

16 Q So it's your opinion that when you first

17 released the transcript, you gave everything to us?

18 A I don't know what you mean by that.

19 Q All right.20 A I did not give you the recording.

21 Q Okay. Did you give us all of the

22 information that took place up until -- before -- that

23 there was a request for a Freedom of Information

24 request obtained in the transcript from --

25 A I don't understand the question at

Page 45

1 all.

2 Q Okay. Did you leave out part of the

3 testimony? Did you leave out "blame yourself, blame

4 yourself, blame yourself"? Did you leave that out?


6 Q Okay.

7 A I don't know what -- I don't know.

8 Q Okay. If you will, I'm going to show

9 you this transcript of the hearing, and I'm going to

10 ask -- see if you certified that to be correct.

11 A Yes, I did.

12 Q Is the "blame yourself, blame yourself"

13 in there?

14 A I'll have to read it.

15 Q Read it. Look toward the end.

16 A Pardon me?

17 Q Look toward the end and --

18 A Well, how will I know --

19 Q Okay. Wherever you would like. I was

20 just --

21 A Would it be what the judge said?

22 Q Yes.

23 MR. GORDON: I'm going to step out one

24 minute --

25 MR. FARMER: Yes.

12 (Pages 42 - 45)




Page 46

1 MR. GORDON: -- while she reviews that.

2 MR. FARMER: Do you want to take a

3 break?

4 MR. GORDON: No. I'm good.

5 MR. FARMER: Okay.

6 MR. GORDON: I want to speak to my

7 secretary a minute.8 MR. FARMER: Okay, good. We won't do

9 anything too damning till you get back.

10 MR. GORDON: Can you make some

11 representations to her as to the fact that what

12 you're looking for is not in this transcript to

13 kind of speed this up a little bit?

14 MR. FARMER: It absolutely is not.

15 MR. GORDON: Okay.

16 MR. FARMER: She absolutely left out

17 stuff. Let's put it that way --

18 MR. GORDON. Okay. She's looking for

19 that conversation that you mentioned a moment20 ago --

21 MR. FARMER: Right.

22 MR. GORDON: -- between you and the

23 judge?

24 MR. FARMER: Between the judge and the

25 lawyers and Michelle Murphy.

Page 47

1 MR. GORDON: Okay. And did you go back

2 and -- after you got the recordings have those

3 parts that -- the missing transcript

4 transcribed?

5 MR. FARMER: We'll -- let me get -- I'll

6 get to it.

7 MR. GORDON: Okay. I was just trying to

8 help move forward.

9 MR. FARMER: Yeah, I know. I know it.

10 But I just want to make sure she's clear about

11 this admission.

12 A I don't see "blame yourself, blame

13 yourself, blame yourself."

14 BY MR. FARMER:

15 Q Was that a rather dramatic point in the

16 transcript?

17 A I don't see it in here.

18 Q Can I -- let me let you listen to it --

19 A Okay.

20 Q -- and see if you can -- just a second.

21 And you did take down this part of

22 the -- you used -- what type of recording method were

23 you using?

24 A I'm a voice writer.

25 Q Say it again.

Page 48

1 A I'm a voice writer.

2 Q Okay. Meaning that you speak into a

3 microphone and have an audio recording of it?

4 A Yes, sir.

5 Q And you did type this yourself?

6 A As far as I remember.

7 Q So you were there when it took place?8 (Audio recording played.)

9 BY MR. FARMER:

10 Q You did hear "please"?

11 A Of course. And I didn't deny you said

12 that. I just didn't --

13 Q Okay. I just wanted to make sure you --

14 A -- remember the -- I did not remember

15 verbatim.

16 Q Okay. You do -- do you now remember

17 that taking place, "blame yourself," in the courtroom?

18 A I think I do. But I must have already

19 been -- the judge must have already said we were off 20 the record or that the case was over.

21 Q Did you hear that?

22 A I did hear that.

23 Q Do you see any place that says he's off

24 the record?

25 A Not in this trans -- oh, not -- well, I

Page 49

1 have this where he says, I'm sorry, that's the end of

2 this hearing today.

3 Q Did you record this?

4 A It's on -- it's on my digital recording.

5 My digital recording, I mean, it also -- it also

6 records what you said to me afterwards, and that

7 wasn't part of the proceedings.

8 Q But you did -- you did see that? You

9 did have this in your digital recording?

10 A Yes, sir.

11 Q And you didn't transcribe it?

12 A Not to my knowledge. Is this the one

13 where I did an amended transcript?

14 Q You certified it was a complete record.

15 A I did. And I admitted the mistake, and

16 I corrected it by an amended transcript.



19 BY MR. FARMER:

20 Q I'm going to show you Plaintiff's

21 Exhibit 5, and I'm going to ask you if that is your

22 certification it's complete?

23 A Yes. It's the certificate that's on the

24 back of this, but I also --

25 Q "Back of this" meaning?

13 (Pages 46 - 49)




Page 50

1 A "Back of this" meaning this transcript

2 of May 27th, 2014. But I also submitted an amended

3 transcript. And I admitted that I made an error, and

4 I submitted an amended transcript or an addendum.

5 Q Now --

6 A I believe I called it an addendum.

7 Q Did you do that -- I'm going to show you8 this. Did you do that before there was a Freedom of

9 Information request by Larry King for this document?

10 A No, sir. I don't believe I did. I

11 believe that I -- I believe I was not aware until I

12 received that from Mr. King.



15 BY MR. FARMER:

16 Q I'm going to show you what's been marked

17 for purposes of identification 6 and ask you if that

18 is the Freedom of Information request that was

19 necessary to be made to get this part of the20 transcript.

21 A As far as I recollect, yes.

22 Q And I'm going to show you Plaintiff's

23 Exhibit 7 --



Page 51

1 BY MR. FARMER:

2 Q -- and ask if you can identify that

3 document to us. It is the letter that you wrote to

4 Larry King.

5 A That appears to be the letter I sent to

6 him.

7 Q Do you have any question about that

8 being --

9 A It looks to be the same.

10 Q And I'm going to show you a document

11 that we would identify as Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 and

12 see if you can identify this as a document that you

13 sent.



16 A It appears to be.

17 BY MR. FARMER:

18 Q Did you certify that document?

19 A I believe I did.

20 Q Would you show me the certification?

21 A It appears to me that this is the one

22 that I sent by e-mail. And I wouldn't necessarily put

23 a certificate on an e-mail, a transcript I send out by

24 e-mail.

25 Q Okay. Well, where is the certificate?

Page 52

1 A It would be on the hard copy that I

2 mailed to you and it would be on the hard copy that I

3 mailed to Mr. Drake and it would be on the hard copy

4 that was submitted to the Clerk.

5 Q All right. Can you -- can you show me

6 where -- will that -- will you produce that hard copy

7 to me? Do you have a copy of it?8 A I should have. Not with me. I don't

9 have it with me.

10 Q Okay. Is it filed with the Court?

11 A It's my understanding it is. I mailed

12 it to be.

13 Q And was there a certificate on it?

14 A I would expect so.

15 Q And can you provide that certificate?

16 A Not today.

17 Q Okay. But you will provide it?

18 A I would think so, yes. As far as I

19 know, I can provide it.20 Q Now, this is the case in which there

21 were a number of motions to disqualify the judge.

22 You're familiar with that?

23 A I don't -- I don't know too much about

24 what goes on outside the courtroom.

25 Q Well, in the courtroom you know there

Page 53

1 were -- there were -- there was a lot of efforts to

2 disqualify Judge Baldwin? You know that, don't you?

3 A I know that you did try to disqualify

4 him. I do not know how many motions you filed. I

5 don't -- I don't -- I haven't looked through that

6 trial.

7 Q I understand. But you know there was a

8 big issue about disqualifying him, right?

9 A Well, I've heard you say that, yes.

10 Q Okay. And you believe it, don't you?

11 A I have no reason to disbelieve it, but I

12 don't know.

13 Q Okay. But you know that was a big --

14 that was an issue in the case?

15 A I know that was an issue in the case.

16 Q And you know that this was a crucial

17 point in the case, in which custody of the children

18 was transferred that you omitted from the record,

19 right?

20 A I don't understand.

21 Q Okay. The "blame yourself," you know

22 that's when the children were being taken away by the

23 deputy sheriffs.

24 A Okay.

25 Q You remember that?

14 (Pages 50 - 53)




Page 54

1 A I remember that, yes.

2 Q You remember the deputy sheriffs were

3 there in the courtroom taking the children away,

4 snatching them away from Ms. Murphy?

5 A I didn't witness that. That was not in

6 the courtroom.

7 Q You were not in the courtroom when this8 took place?

9 A I was in the courtroom, but I never saw

10 the children that I remember.

11 Q Okay. Did you see --

12 A I think that was all outside the

13 courtroom as far as I know.

14 Q Okay. But did you see the deputies

15 being ordered to take them?

16 A Yes.

17 Q You heard that, Judge Baldwin ordering

18 the deputies to take the children?

19 A I believe I did. I don't believe it's20 in the transcript.

21 Q So you know that that segment of what

22 took place in the courtroom, you know that that

23 segment is relevant to his demeanor and to his ability

24 to treat both sides fairly?

25 A I can see where you -- where that would

Page 55

1 be your understanding. If the judge had told me that

2 the case was over, I would have probably stopped.

3 Q But you knew after that that the

4 hollering was -- it wasn't over when he was still

5 hollering at the people, didn't you?

6 A I don't remember. I really don't

7 remember.

8 Q Well, you knew it would be relevant to

9 us to have him hollering like that at us and hollering

10 like that at our client Ms. Murphy?

11 A I can see where you would say that,

12 yes.

13 Q That's all I'm saying.

14 A I can see where you would --

15 Q You could see --

16 A I can see where you would say that.

17 Q And in representing her, you could see

18 where it would be fair for me to say that in

19 representing her, can't you?

20 A Where you would -- where you would --

21 Q Where it was the lawyer's duty to do

22 that in representing her, you would say that, wouldn't

23 you?

24 A I'm not an attorney. I can't answer

25 that.

Page 56

1 Q Okay. Had you -- does Judge Baldwin

2 holler like that frequently at people?

3 A I can't say that. I don't -- not --

4 not --

5 Q Well, you're there. You're his

6 reporter. Does he?

7 A I don't think so. I don't know. I8 mean, I've -- I've -- I've heard him raise his voice

9 more than once, but I can't say --

10 Q I know you heard him raise his voice one

11 other time to me when you went to get the -- to get

12 him to prevent from us taking down the call of the

13 calendar, didn't you? You heard it that day, didn't

14 you?

15 A I don't remember his raising his voice

16 about that.

17 Q Okay. Let -- just a second. Let me see

18 if I can play that for you.

19 You remember when we had a hearing and I20 said -- I came to you before the hearing and I said I

21 would like for you to take down the call of the

22 calendar? You remember that day, don't you?

23 A I remember you doing that twice.

24 Q Okay. And --

25 (Audio recording played.)

Page 57

1 BY MR. FARMER:

2 Q So you -- he was hollering at me on that

3 day, right?

4 A He had raised his voice, yes.

5 Q Would you say he was substantially

6 raising his voice?

7 A That's a matter of opinion, I guess.

8 Q Okay. In the matter of your opinion,

9 how would you say?

10 A It was louder than his normal voice.

11 Q Was -- do you remember the courtroom

12 being full of other lawyers and other people waiting

13 to have their case heard?

14 A It was a calendar -- it was a calendar

15 call, so yes. I mean, all the cases that were on the

16 calendar and the people that were present that day

17 were in the courtroom, yes.

18 Q It wasn't necessary for him to holler

19 that loud for me to hear him, was it?

20 A I don't know. I would say you didn't

21 respond the first time or the second time.

22 Q So you say that he was justified in

23 hollering? Is that what you're trying to say?

24 A No. I'm not -- I'm just saying

25 that maybe he wanted -- I don't know what Judge --

15 (Pages 54 - 57)




Page 58

1 what was in Judge Baldwin's mind. I don't know.

2 Q But you know he wasn't acting in a

3 normal manner in hollering like that at me at a bench

4 conference? We were at a bench conference, right?

5 A Yes, sir.

6 Q We were standing a few feet away from

7 him, right?8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q And I wasn't jumping up and down and

10 flapping my arms at him or anything like that, was

11 I?

12 A Not that I remember.

13 Q All right. I wouldn't do that. You

14 don't see me do things like that, do you?

15 A I've never seen you flap your arms,

16 no.

17 Q Okay. Well, so -- and you heard him

18 threaten to put me in jail, didn't you?

19 A I heard that at the bench -- I mean, I20 heard it on that recording, but it was at a bench

21 conference.

22 Q Right. And -- and all of that started

23 with me asking you before the hearing started, would

24 you please take down the calendar call?

25 A I don't know that that's what --

Page 59

1 Q You remember before the hearing started

2 I came to you and said --

3 A Yes. I --

4 Q -- Nan, would you please take down?

5 A Yes.

6 Q And you had done that on a previous

7 occasion for me?

8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q You had taken down the call of the

10 calendar?

11 A Yes, sir.

12 Q And -- and so what happened after I

13 asked you to please take down the call of the calendar

14 and I would pay you?

15 A The first time, I took it down.

16 Q No, the second time.

17 A Second time.

18 Q This "do you understand" hollering time.

19 A You asked me. And the judge said he

20 wasn't going to have the calendar call taken down.

21 Q Okay. Well, where did you go after --

22 where did you go after I asked you to take it down?

23 A I'm sure I went in the back.

24 Q Okay. Who did you go in the back and

25 see?

Page 60

1 A Well, I did tell the judge that you

2 asked --

3 Q All right. That's what --

4 A -- for the calendar call.

5 Q -- I'm getting at.

6 A I told him the first time, and I told

7 him the second time.8 Q Okay. What did he say the second

9 time?

10 A I really do not remember.

11 Q Okay. Well, what did he say the first

12 time?


14 Q Okay. Well, why was it a big -- why was

15 it a big thing about it taken down the second time?

16 A I have no idea.

17 Q Why -- why didn't you want to take it

18 down?

19 A I don't know what you mean by that. If 20 the judge -- I mean, if the judge -- I would not have

21 not taken it down.

22 Q Okay. Well, why didn't you take it down

23 then?

24 A Because the judge told you in the

25 courtroom that we weren't going to take it down.

Page 61

1 Q Okay. But he told me that after you

2 went and had a conference with him, right?

3 A It was after I went and had -- after I

4 told him that, yes.

5 Q Okay, yes. Well, why did -- why did he

6 not want to take it down?

7 A I don't -- I can't answer for him.

8 Q Do you understand there's an issue in

9 this case about judge shopping and about judge

10 selecting of cases? Do you understand that, that

11 there was -- that what happens is that the judge

12 selects who he chooses to give a particular case to

13 and that the lawyers select who they want -- what

14 judge they want to hear the case? Do you understand

15 that to be an issue?

16 A I'm not privy to any of that, but I

17 understand that that's what you say.

18 Q Okay. That's all I'm asking. You

19 understand that that was the issue that I was

20 raising?

21 A I understand that's what you say, yes.

22 Q And you understand that taking down the

23 calendar call is something that would document that

24 supporting information that I was trying to obtain?

25 Do you understand that?

16 (Pages 58 - 61)




Page 62

1 A I understand that's what you're saying.

2 I don't know if --

3 Q Okay.

4 A I don't know if it could be used for

5 that or not.

6 Q I understand. I'm not asking you to do

7 the -- I'm not asking you to do -- let me play you a8 little bit of the first part when he comes out so you

9 will understand a little bit.


11 BY MR. FARMER:

12 Q So what I understand is, this was

13 Judge Baldwin not wanting the record taken down, not

14 you not wanting to take it down.

15 A I don't know a court reporter that would

16 delight in taking down a calendar call. That's a hard

17 thing to do.

18 Q Okay. I'm not --

19 A But if I had been -- if -- if the judge20 had wanted it taken down or he had not said we're not

21 going to take it down, I would have taken it down --

22 Q Okay.

23 A -- at your request.

24 Q Okay. So did you attempt to keep it

25 from being taken down?

Page 63


2 Q Okay. So it was Judge Baldwin's

3 decision that he wasn't going to let you take down the

4 -- not going to have a record of the call of the

5 calendar?

6 A I would not tell the judge what to do.

7 Q I understand. So I just want to make

8 sure. It was his decision and not your decision?

9 A Of course. I would not tell the judge

10 what to do.

11 Q And you had been around a lot of

12 calendar calls for Judge Baldwin, and you've been in

13 the Superior Court of Coweta County and other courts

14 in the Coweta Judicial Circuit a long number of times,

15 right?

16 A Yes, sir, but not as many with

17 Judge Baldwin.

18 Q But a substantial number?

19 A Probably so by that time.

20 Q And you know that when they call the

21 calendar, Judge Baldwin says who the case -- who --

22 which one they're going -- you go let Judge so-and-so

23 hear this case; is that right?

24 A No, sir, not to my knowledge. I don't

25 remember him saying, you go to this judge or that

Page 64

1 judge.

2 Q They all stay in there? They don't --

3 they all stay in the same room and are heard by him;

4 is that right?

5 A Honestly, I don't pay that much

6 attention to the calendar call.

7 Q But you understand that the cases are8 assigned for a hearing at the calendar call? If

9 they're in there for a hearing, they're assigned for

10 who's going to hear them, right? They have more than

11 one judge there when they have a call of the calendar,

12 right?

13 A Not every time, no, sir.

14 Q Okay. But sometimes they do, right?

15 A They have been. But since I believe

16 2013 cases are assigned.

17 Q Yeah, since we brought the issue.

18 A I don't know --

19 Q Okay. I understand.20 A -- about that. I don't know about

21 that.

22 Q I understand. After we -- after we

23 brought the issue and had to appeal it, I understand

24 they changed the calendar -- the --

25 A I don't know anything about that. That

Page 65

1 has happened all outside my presence and outside my

2 knowledge.

3 Q Okay. I'm not asking you about that.

4 But before that time they did assign them to different

5 judges at the calendar call?

6 A I don't know that. I don't know how

7 they --

8 Q You didn't ever see it done?

9 A I don't know if I did or not. I was not

10 paying attention. I didn't think that was relevant to

11 me. I just -- I took down the cases that came before

12 the judge I was working for that day.

13 Q And you've never seen them assign the

14 case to a judge other than the one that's calling the

15 calendar?

16 A I can't say that. As I say --

17 Q Right.

18 A -- I did not pay attention. It could

19 have happened. I don't know.

20 Q Okay. But I understand that in 2013 you

21 say it changed.

22 A I believe that's the year that they --

23 they changed it. I don't know.

24 Q They started a judge -- they started a

25 case management --

17 (Pages 62 - 65)




Page 66

1 A I don't know. That -- that does not --

2 that is not something I'm included in. I just know

3 that they started what they said was case assignment.

4 That doesn't -- it doesn't really affect me except

5 that I take down what the judge that I work for that

6 day hears. That's all I know.

7 Q So if you're there for Judge Baldwin8 calling the calendar and the case goes to another

9 judge, you don't take it down?

10 A I don't take it down if it's before

11 another judge, no, sir, because I'm not in that

12 courtroom.

13 Q And is there another reporter assigned

14 to the other judge?

15 A I would think so.

16 Q But do you know?

17 A I'm not in that courtroom. I can't say.

18 But I would assume that that judge would have a court

19 reporter.20 Q I want to show you an invoice, and I

21 want you to explain this to me, if you will.

22 MR. FARMER: This is going to be

23 Plaintiff's Exhibit 9.



Page 67

1 MR. FARMER: Y'all need to take a break?

2 MR. GORDON: Yeah, before or after this

3 exhibit. It's your choice.

4 MR. FARMER: You can take it now.

5 MR. GORDON: Huh?

6 MR. FARMER: You can take it now.

7 MR. GORDON: Okay.

8 Just hold on.

9 THE WITNESS: Okay.

10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of

11 Video 1. We're going off the record at

12 11:06 a.m.

13 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the

15 record. This is the beginning of Video 2 at

16 11:14 a.m.

17 BY MR. FARMER:

18 Q You do understand that having the call

19 of the calendar taken down, that that would be a

20 relevant bit of information to determine if the -- if

21 the judges were taking the case according to a case

22 management plan or if they were taking it -- randomly

23 assigning them when the calendar was called? You

24 could understand that? That would document it?

25 That's all I'm asking.

Page 68

1 A If it had been assigned to a different

2 judge, I guess it would. But I don't -- I just -- I

3 don't know. Like I say, I don't pay attention to the

4 calendar call. It doesn't -- it doesn't affect me as

5 a rule.

6 Q But -- so you don't -- you didn't even

7 know that there was a case management plan before the8 2013 era after that?

9 A I just knew that I went with a judge to

10 a courtroom for his calendar call and for the cases

11 that he heard that day. I -- it just didn't -- it

12 didn't apply to me. All I knew was to take down the

13 cases that I was asked to take down before that

14 particular judge.

15 Q But you knew it was an issue for me to

16 have it taken down, to have the call of the --

17 A At some point I think -- I'm sorry. I

18 didn't mean to interrupt. At some point I think I

19 realized that from you, but I don't really -- I don't20 know. I just -- it didn't appear to apply to me

21 except if you wanted it taken down. And if the judge

22 had wanted -- had -- the judge said he wasn't going to

23 have it taken down, so I didn't take it down the

24 second time.

25 Q Can you imagine any reason for the judge

Page 69

1 not having it taken down?

2 A I don't think I should be thinking what

3 the judge would be -- me try to tell you what the

4 judge is thinking. I don't know.

5 Q Okay. Had he ever told you before not

6 to take down a calendar call?

7 A I had never been asked to except the one

8 time by you, and he did not tell me not to that

9 time.

10 Q So after he saw it was being used is

11 when he said, don't take it down?

12 A No, sir. He said -- I did not know --

13 as far as I remember, I did not know until we got in

14 the courtroom that I would not be taking it down.

15 Q But you knew you had requested --

16 A I knew that you had requested it, yes.

17 Q And you knew that Nan Freeman had

18 requested to Judge -- had alerted Judge Baldwin that I

19 wanted it taken down?

20 A I did tell Judge Baldwin you wanted it

21 taken down. "Alert," I don't know. That's your

22 word.

23 Q Okay. And did he say anything about

24 what he was going to do?

25 A I don't recall his saying anything about

18 (Pages 66 - 69)




Page 70

1 what he was going to do. I don't recall. To the best

2 of my recollection, I went in the courtroom and I was

3 going to take it down. But I cannot say that for

4 sure.

5 Q So it was totally Judge Baldwin

6 preventing it being taken down?

7 A Well, I just would not tell the judge8 what to do.

9 Q Right. So you assume that you were told

10 not to take it down?

11 A All I remember is him calling y'all to

12 the bench for a bench conference.

13 Q And did you know what happened as a

14 result of that?

15 A I did not take down the calendar call.

16 Q Okay. And was it because he told you

17 not to?

18 A He did not look at me and say, Nan,

19 we're not -- I'm not going to have you take down the20 calendar call that I remember. What I remember was,

21 he said, we're not going to have the calendar call

22 taken down. But I don't know that he said it -- I

23 don't know that he addressed that to me.

24 Q He said it to me.

25 A That's what I remember from that

Page 71

1 recording.

2 Q Okay. And when he was hollering "do you

3 understand," he was hollering at me, right?

4 A I would say the recording speaks for

5 itself. I don't know.

6 Q And what would it speak to itself? Was

7 it to somebody else he was speaking?

8 A If you were the person he was asking if

9 you understood and you didn't answer, I guess that's

10 who he was saying it to.

11 Q What was it for me to understand about

12 him saying he wasn't going to do it?

13 A I don't remember. He said something.

14 And he said, do you understand? I don't remember what

15 exactly came before that.

16 Q Did he say, I'm going to put -- he was

17 asking me did I understand that he was going to put me

18 in jail.

19 A Oh, is that what he said? Okay. I

20 don't remember exactly what he said before that.

21 Q Had you ever seen him put anybody in

22 jail or ordered them held in contempt of court and

23 taken into custody?

24 A Probably. But I don't specifically --

25 Q Attorneys.

Page 72

1 A -- remember.

2 Q Attorneys.

3 A One.

4 Q Which one?

5 A Larry King.

6 MR. GORDON: Say it again.

7 THE WITNESS: Larry King.8 BY MR. FARMER:

9 Q Let's see if this is the case. He was

10 co-counsel also representing Ms. Murphy?

11 A At that time, yes.

12 Q Other than Ms. Murphy's lawyers, have

13 you ever seen him, say, ordering somebody held in

14 contempt, a lawyer held in contempt, and tell him he

15 was going to put him in jail?

16 A I can't say that for sure. I don't

17 remember.

18 Q Okay. But do you ever remember him

19 doing it?20 A I don't think so. But I can't say -- I

21 can't say that he did or he didn't. I don't

22 remember.


24 BY MR. FARMER:

25 Q Were you there taking that down?

Page 73

1 A As far as I remember.

2 Q Was Larry King making any movements that

3 wasn't -- that were unusual at the time, or was --

4 A I don't recall anything unusual about

5 that, but I --

6 Q Does the audio reflect accurately what

7 was taking place?

8 A I'm sure it does.

9 Q And did they take him -- did the sheriff

10 take custody of him?

11 A I don't remember him going back, but I

12 don't know.

13 Q Did he -- did he -- did he take -- did

14 he take control of him?



17 BY MR. FARMER:

18 Q At that point did the sheriff come up to

19 him and he agreed to pay the thousand dollars?

20 A I don't remember that. I remember him

21 agreeing to pay the thousand dollars.

22 Q Do you remember Judge Baldwin after that

23 saying he had gotten mad and done this?

24 A I don't remember that.

25 Q If that's reflected in the transcript --

19 (Pages 70 - 73)






Page 78

1 A It appears to me that that would have

2 been 117 pages if the certificate is on the next page.

3 Q Just assuming raw page numbers, not the

4 legal page numbers that are -- that you are -- the

5 legal page numbers are not the page numbers that

6 you're entitled to charge for, are not the page

7 numbers that are on the bottom of the page, right? In8 other words, you can't charge for a page until you

9 have so many lines on it?

10 A 13.

11 Q And so the number at the bottom of the

12 page doesn't reflect the legal amount that you're able

13 to charge for, does it?

14 A Would you explain your question?

15 Q Yeah, okay. You've got to have

16 63 characters per line --

17 A Correct.

18 Q -- before it's a line, right?

19 A Correct.20 Q And then you have to have 25 lines per

21 page --

22 A Correct.

23 Q -- before it's a page, right?

24 A Correct.

25 Q Now, some of the pages in the 116 may

Page 79

1 not have met those qualifications?

2 A That's correct.

3 Q So the 116 would be the outside high

4 number of pages that were in that transcript that we

5 were to be due to pay for, right?

6 A I would say I base it on 117 pages.

7 Q Okay. We'll give you your -- for this

8 hypothetical to be 117 pages.

9 A I'm just saying what the certificate --

10 Q Okay.

11 A But what you're saying is -- it would --

12 the number of characters on a line.

13 Q Okay, okay. Now, half of the cost of

14 that would be what?

15 A It appears it would be 352.86. There

16 may be some postage added in that.

17 Q Okay. And what provision -- and how did

18 you -- how do you support that?

19 A I don't have my figures in front of me,

20 so I can't tell you.

21 Q Okay. The full price would be -- add a

22 page to it. The full price would be 438.48 plus --

23 minus -- minus your characters. You didn't have the

24 number of characters per line.

25 A I understand what you're saying.

Page 80

1 Q Okay. And that equals 434 dollars

2 and -- $424.56?

3 A I can't say. I don't --

4 Q Okay. I'm just saying --

5 A -- have it in front of me.

6 Q I'm just saying, if you'd go with me

7 with the math.8 A I don't know.

9 Q Okay. Let's let you do the math.

10 A All right. Well, what I -- I expect

11 what I did was, I added the original and two copies

12 for one -- for one party and I added $1.51 for the

13 other and I divided it in half, that way.

14 Q Where do -- how do you show that you

15 divided in half where you say in the billing it's

16 one-half cost of the transcript?

17 A Because I added the rates together and I

18 multiplied it times the number of pages.

19 Q Okay. Can you document that?20 A Not here today.

21 Q Okay. But you'll be able to document

22 it?

23 A I believe so.

24 Q And what would you -- what will you be

25 able to document?

Page 81

1 A I believe that I would -- I would

2 document that I used the 3.78 page rate and $1.51 page

3 rate, added it together, multiplied it times the

4 number of pages and divided by two. And I probably

5 have half the postage in there.

6 Q Okay. And would you say on that because

7 of the format you'd use that you would be using an

8 incorrect number of pages?

9 A I cannot say specifically, but I would

10 think so, yes. I think it would affect the number of

11 pages.

12 Q So you -- so this is an overbilling?

13 A It would be in that case because I made

14 a mistake in my line --

15 Q Okay. Whatever --

16 A -- my characters per line.

17 Q Excuse me. I'm sorry. She's told me

18 not to try to talk over you, and I'm trying to

19 remember.

20 So you -- for whatever reason you have

21 collected -- if -- with your format you're using, you

22 collected an illegal amount of money on that?

23 A An incorrect amount, yes.

24 Q And it's illegal?

25 A It's incorrect.

21 (Pages 78 - 81)




Page 82

1 Q Well, is it legal?

2 A It's incorrect.

3 Q Okay. But "is it legal" is my question.

4 A It's incorrect. I made a mistake.

5 Q Okay. But were you legally allowed to

6 do it?

7 A I made a mistake. And that's all I can8 say. I made a mistake in the number of characters per

9 line by two characters per line.

10 Q Is it in -- was -- was what you charged

11 in conformity with the requirements that you are

12 required to -- that you're required to charge or

13 allowed to charge?

14 A I had 61 characters per line of the Q&A.

15 And that is what -- instead of 63.

16 Q And does that affect the number of

17 pages?

18 A Yes, sir.

19 Q And have you checked to see how much it20 affected the number of pages on that particular

21 transcript?

22 A I have. I don't have it with me.

23 Q And did you check it as far as the

24 colloquy? Is the colloquy different from the A&Q?

25 A Yes.

Page 83

1 Q And did you check to see how much you'd

2 overcharged for the colloquy?

3 A I just did the entire transcript. I

4 didn't do one and then the other.

5 Q Do you know it's a different rate for

6 colloquy -- a different requirement for colloquy than

7 it is for A&Q?

8 A Yes. The colloquy is indented.

9 Q Did you make account for that when you

10 were seeing how much you were overcharging?

11 A Yes, I did.

12 Q And did you make -- then the A&Q you

13 kept separately?

14 A No, I did not.

15 Q Now, as I understand what you're telling

16 me, that would have been the way that you billed

17 everybody that you were billing for transcripts and

18 proceedings before Judge Baldwin during that time

19 period.

20 A I expect so. I have not counted every

21 line on every transcript, no.

22 Q Of course, we notified you that you

23 overcharged us.

24 A Yes, sir.

25 Q Have you notified other people that you

Page 84

1 overcharged them?

2 A I've told the judge that I had --

3 Q "The judge" meaning?

4 A I told Judge Baldwin --

5 Q Okay.

6 A -- that I had 61 characters per line

7 instead of 63.8 Q What did he say?

9 A I don't recall.

10 Q Okay. Well, what did he say?

11 A I don't recall what he said.

12 Q Okay. Did he -- did he say that that's

13 wrong?

14 A I don't recall what he said.

15 Q Okay. Go ahead.

16 A And I've told Mr. Skandalakis.

17 Q When did you tell Mr. Skandalakis?

18 A I had gone in his office to see some --

19 one of the victims' assistants. She had -- she had20 something she was going to give me totally unrelated

21 to court. And she wasn't there. And I just happened

22 to see Ms. Kirby and Mr. Skandalakis.

23 Q Meaning Judge Jack Kirby?

24 A No, sir.

25 Q Ms. --

Page 85

1 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, Judge who?

2 MR. FARMER: I'm trying to ask her.

3 BY MR. FARMER:

4 Q Was it Judge Jack Kirby? Which Kirby

5 did you --

6 A Ms. Kirby and Mr. Skandalakis.

7 Q Okay. Are you referring to the spouse

8 of Judge Jack Kirby?

9 A She's married to Jack Kirby, yes.

10 Q Okay, which I don't think her name is

11 Ms. Kirby, but whatever her name is. I don't know

12 what -- okay.

13 A She's not Mr. Kirby.

14 Q All right, okay. Was that after the

15 publicity about the court reporter?

16 A I don't recall. Probably so. Maybe so.

17 I don't remember when I went in there. I mean, I

18 just -- I don't remember when I went in there. But I

19 remember I told them. It probably was. I don't know.

20 But, I mean, I didn't go in there about that. I

21 didn't even go in to see them.



24 A I've read this.

25 BY THE WITNESS:

22 (Pages 82 - 85)




Page 86

1 Q Okay. Explain what you're looking at in

2 that Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.

3 A It's a letter from Pete Skandalakis to

4 you.

5 Q What is the content of that letter?

6 A It says he's read your letter regarding

7 me and he's listened to the audio recording and8 reviewed the pleadings and the transcripts that you

9 furnished. And he says he notes that you have filed a

10 civil suit against me. And he said he's reserving

11 further action until the civil suit is resolved.

12 Q And was the time that you saw him before

13 or after that letter?

14 A Oh, I can't say. I don't know. I don't

15 know the date.

16 Q Did he say he knew anything about the

17 complaint filed against you?

18 A Not that I remember. I honestly don't

19 remember what day I went in there. I don't know if it20 was before or after this.

21 Q Okay. You know it was after the

22 complaint was filed against you?

23 A Oh, I feel sure it was after that, yes.

24 Q Because that's the first time that you

25 had counted to see if you were in conformity with the

Page 87

1 requirements of the Board of Court Reporters?

2 A I don't know that. When I set up my

3 transcript to begin with, I may have. I don't

4 remember.

5 Q After that did you ever check to see if

6 you were billing people correctly?

7 A I never knew that I wasn't.

8 Q But did you ever check to see if you

9 were billing them in conformity with the law?

10 A I can't say that I looked to see if

11 every time I billed somebody I had space for

12 63 characters on a line.

13 Q Did you have any system by which you

14 could make that determination?

15 A I could do it every time I do a

16 transcript, but I haven't.

17 Q How could you do it then?

18 A Every time I did a transcript I could

19 count the spaces on a line.

20 Q Other than manually counting it, did you

21 ever do -- and randomly ever check to see if you were

22 ever doing any of them?

23 A Not that I remember. I don't know if I

24 did or not.

25 Q Did your typist that was typing some of

Page 88

1 the transcripts for you, did she ever -- or he --

2 whoever it was -- did that person ever check to see if

3 it was in conformity with the law?

4 A I doubt it.

5 Q So as I understand, had you been to

6 seminars or anything for court reporters during this

7 period of time?8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q And at the seminars had you ever been

10 instructed or had you ever been given information as

11 to what the charges would be?

12 A Not that I recall.

13 Q And are there other court reporters in

14 the Coweta Judicial Circuit that are using the format

15 that you used to charge, or are they using a different

16 format, template?

17 A I've never talked to them about what

18 format they use. Well, I take that back. I may have

19 talked to one or two, but we haven't discussed that.20 Q Have you talked to them since this case

21 has been filed?

22 A Yes.

23 Q And who did you talk with?

24 A I talked to -- I know I talked to

25 Judge Simpson's court reporter.

Page 89

1 Q And who would that be?

2 A Her name is Sheryl Lee.

3 Q And where is she located?

4 A She lives in Carrollton.

5 Q And what was that conversation?

6 A Unlike me, she had somebody she

7 replaced, and she got her template from them. And I

8 think hers is in compliance. I think hers is in

9 compliance.

10 Q Who else did you talk with?

11 A None of the other court reporters in the

12 circuit that I recall.

13 Q Were there court reporters that you

14 talked with or professionals you talked to that were

15 outside of the circuit?

16 A Yes.

17 Q And who were they?

18 A Alice Moore.

19 Q And what -- what was that

20 conversation?

21 A To my knowledge, hers is in compliance.

22 But that's all I remember.

23 Q And what system was she using to

24 determine why she was in compliance?

25 A I don't know. She uses Word Perfect,

23 (Pages 86 - 89)




Page 90

1 and I use Word.

2 Q And did you talk to her before the case

3 was filed or anything -- any reporter before this

4 matter was called to your attention by us before we

5 filed the complaint?

6 A I'm not sure.

7 Q Since the time that the complaint was8 filed, since the time that you've known that you've

9 overcharged, have you used any other system to correct

10 that other than just manually counting?

11 A Changing the margins.

12 Q Okay. And have you checked to see if

13 that corrected your overcharging?

14 A You mean did I count the spaces after I

15 did that? Yes.

16 Q Do you randomly check them?

17 A I don't understand.

18 Q Do you randomly check to see if you're

19 overcharging according to the state law for a reporter20 that's working for a court?

21 A After I changed the margins, I used

22 that. But I don't go around counting lines on every

23 transcript.

24 Q Do you do any other compliance checks to

25 see if you are complying with the law?

Page 91

1 A I don't know if I do or not. I don't

2 know what you mean.

3 Q Okay. Well, there are other compliance

4 other than line checks, right?

5 A Like numbers of lines and amount per

6 page. I don't know what else you mean.

7 Q Okay. Well, there are other

8 requirements for what you can bill for, right?

9 A I don't know what you mean.

10 Q Okay. The only requirements that you

11 understand as far as the legal right to charge as the

12 court reporter is designated by the Court?

13 A I don't know if you're referring to

14 anything specific or not.

15 Q I'm referring to any. Are there any

16 other requirements other than the line count and the

17 page count that you're familiar with?

18 A I don't know if you're referring to

19 anything specific or not. And if you are, I don't

20 know what it is.

21 Q Okay. So you don't know of any other --

22 any requirements other than line count and page

23 count?

24 A As I sit here right this minute, that's

25 all I know of, but I don't -- you may have something

Page 92

1 in mind, and I don't know what it is.

2 Q Have you ever checked for any things

3 other than those line counts and page numbers?

4 A I don't know because I don't know what

5 you mean.

6 Q Okay. Have you checked the criminal

7 court for the criminal cases? Have you checked to see8 if you overbilled on each of those in any of those

9 cases?

10 A On each of those, no.

11 Q You haven't checked?

12 A Not on each of those, no.

13 Q Any of them?

14 A Not really.

15 Q Did Mr. Skandalakis, did he say that he

16 had checked on any to see if you were overbilling the

17 County?

18 A He did not tell me that he had or he had

19 not.20 Q And it's the County that has to pay for

21 that in criminal cases; am I right?

22 A That's what I understand. That's who I

23 bill.

24 Q Did you notify the County paymaster or

25 the County Board of Commissioners that you had

Page 93

1 overcharged them during this same period of time?

2 A No, I have not.

3 Q Other than the -- other than the

4 communication with Pete Skandalakis and his assistant,

5 have you notified any other lawyers that you

6 overcharged them?

7 A I don't believe so.

8 Q Did you think it was unusual that

9 Judge Baldwin was writing me about you charging

10 Ms. Murphy too much money for the transcripts that she

11 was having to pay? Did you think there was anything

12 unusual about him being protective of you and not

13 being protective of her for costs that she was having

14 to pay?

15 A I don't know what you're speaking

16 about.

17 Q Okay. Well, you know, it's Ms. Murphy

18 that has to pay for this.

19 A I understand.

20 Q And you understand that she is a mother

21 that's trying to protect the right of her children?

22 You understand that from being at the hearings, don't

23 you?

24 A I understand that she has her side and

25 the other side has his side and --

24 (Pages 90 - 93)




Page 94

1 Q And her side is that she's trying to

2 protect the right of her children, right?

3 A That's what you-all are doing, yes.

4 Q And you understand that the other side

5 has a very substantial amount of money and that she

6 earns her money as a hairstylist? You understand

7 that, don't you?8 A I don't know anything about the parties

9 and their finances. I know Ms. Murphy is a

10 hairstylist from the court proceedings.

11 Q And you know that Judge Baldwin has said

12 that he wasn't going to provide any -- may not be able

13 to provide any money to her for attorney's fees? You

14 know that?


16 Q You don't remember that part of the

17 transcript?

18 A I'm not saying it's not there. I just

19 don't remember.20 Q Do you know that the cost per page that

21 you've overcharged is about 12 cents a page? Have you

22 figured that out?

23 A I haven't figured it out per page.

24 Q Okay. How much -- have you figured out

25 per page how much you've overcharged with that

Page 95

1 format?

2 A I know from refiguring -- from

3 refiguring them -- I don't know per transcript. I

4 don't know -- but I know the total from all of them.

5 Q Do you know how much you have charged

6 Ms. Murphy for your transcripts?

7 A Altogether? No, sir.

8 Q Do you know how many criminal

9 transcripts you've produced during this period of time

10 that you used that format?

11 A No, sir.

12 Q Did -- has Mr. Skandalakis or anybody on

13 his behalf approached you about the amount that you

14 overcharged the County since that initial conversation

15 with you?

16 A Pardon me? Would you say that again?

17 Q Since the initial conversation, has he

18 approached you any other time?

19 A No, sir.

20 Q Did he say he was going to do anything

21 about it?

22 A He didn't tell me.

23 Q Did he mention anything about that it

24 was wrong for you to do that or illegal for you to do

25 that?

Page 96

1 A He just heard what I said. That's all I

2 know. He heard me. That's all I know.

3 Q And what did he respond?

4 A I really don't remember.

5 Q Does Judge Baldwin sentence people for

6 stealing?

7 A I'm sure he does.8 Q Have you ever -- have you heard him

9 sentence people for stealing?

10 A Yes.

11 Q And does he sentence them to prison for

12 stealing?

13 A Some people. Not everybody.

14 Q But some he sentences to prison?

15 A Yes.

16 Q And if they say they made a mistake in

17 stealing, does he say, I'm not going to sentence

18 you?

19 A I honestly don't remember anything like20 that.

21 Q Is mistake to stealing, is that a

22 defense?

23 A I'm not a lawyer. I don't know.

24 Q Okay. Do you consider it to be a

25 defense?

Page 97

1 A I can't say.

2 Q What -- what -- what defense do you

3 consider that you have to taking -- violating the law

4 and overcharging people as you've overcharged and

5 overcharging the County as you've overcharged?

6 A I made a mistake on my line -- my spaces

7 per line.

8 Q And the Board of Court Reporters doesn't

9 say that if you make a mistake that you don't -- that

10 you can overcharge, do they?

11 A I have not read that.

12 Q Okay. You're not aware of them saying

13 that?

14 A I'm not aware of them saying that.

15 Q Back to my question about Judge Baldwin

16 wanting to protect your money. What is your financial

17 situation as far as income per year approximately?

18 A I honestly don't know.

19 Q Approximately.

20 A I have somebody do my taxes. I honestly

21 don't know. I honestly don't know.

22 Q Okay. Well, what is your estimated

23 income?

24 A I can't answer that. I don't know.

25 Q You don't have any round number?

25 (Pages 94 - 97)




Page 98

1 A No, sir.

2 Q Within $10,000 you can't tell me?

3 A I really don't know.

4 Q Well, what was the basis of

5 Judge Baldwin's information that you couldn't afford

6 the litigation?

7 A I don't know. I don't know what he8 knows about --

9 Q Okay. Did you have any basis for -- did

10 you provide him any basis for making that statement?

11 A Not that I recall.

12 Q Did you feel that the letter to the

13 lawyer that he won't provide attorney's fees for

14 defending Ms. Murphy, do you feel like him attempting

15 to protect you from paying her back the money you owe

16 him -- did you feel like that that was inappropriate

17 conduct on his part?

18 A I really don't know what you're

19 referring to there.20 Q Okay. You overcharged her, right?

21 A That's what you claimed. And I say I

22 have 61 characters per line instead of 63.

23 Q Okay. And you've admitted you

24 overcharged?

25 A I admitted I made a mistake.

Page 99

1 Q Okay. But it's overcharged, right?

2 A Yes.

3 Q Okay. Now, do you -- do you feel that

4 Judge Baldwin was justified in saying that I shouldn't

5 attempt to recover that?

6 A I didn't know that he said that.

7 Q Okay. Did you think that he was trying

8 to prevent me from bringing the litigation against

9 you?

10 A All I know is what's in that e-mail.

11 Q Okay. Do you think he was trying to

12 prevent me from having information about his demeanor

13 toward me and, in effect, toward Ms. Murphy with his

14 hollering and all like that by keeping me from having

15 the audio transcripts?

16 A I don't know. I don't know. I can't

17 speak for Judge Baldwin.

18 Q But did you have an opinion as to

19 what -- what was his motivation in doing that?

20 A I don't know. I told him that I didn't

21 think I was required to produce my recordings to you.

22 That's all I know.

23 Q Did he ever tell you he's consulting

24 with other people about what he did in this matter?

25 A Not that I recall. I'm not sure. And I

Page 100

1 don't -- I don't know what you mean. And I don't -- I

2 really don't know what he's done. I don't see him

3 much outside the courtroom or --

4 Q And outside when you go back there to

5 ask him not --

6 A Well, I go in his office. I mean, I go

7 in his office and I do see him. And I did tell him8 that I was -- that you had asked me to take down the

9 calendar call.

10 Q But you never told him you couldn't

11 afford the litigation?

12 A I don't know if I did or not. I don't

13 know.

14 Q Would it have been accurate if you did

15 tell him that?

16 A Probably so.

17 Q What assets do you have?

18 A I have money that I save that's in the

19 bank.20 Q What -- what -- what --

21 A I can't tell you how much it is. I

22 don't know. I have some IRA's that I put aside.

23 That's basically it.

24 Q Okay. What -- what -- what value

25 roughly?

Page 101

1 A I really don't know.

2 Q Are you in a financial position to

3 refund the money that you've overcharged to all of

4 the -- to the County and to people?

5 A I don't know how much it is, so I don't

6 know.

7 Q What Counties have you overcharged

8 beside -- charged money for that you're not allowed by

9 statute to other than Coweta and Troup? What other

10 Counties?

11 A I don't know how many.

12 Q Okay.

13 A And I don't know how many transcripts.

14 I don't know which ones. But there are five counties

15 in our circuit.

16 Q So you possibly could have been involved

17 with all five of those Counties?

18 A Possibly.

19 Q Are you aware of this issue of court

20 reporters overcharging, that a -- court reporters for

21 the County over the state of Georgia? Are you aware

22 of that issue in other Counties?

23 A I remember the -- some in

24 Cherokee County were, but that's all I know.

25 Q Do you know they're being criminally

26 (Pages 98 - 101)






Page 106

1 A Yes.

2 Q I said, Judge Baldwin, I have the

3 children here, and they want to -- they would like to

4 testify. Do you remember that?

5 A More from hearing something about what

6 you said later.

7 Q But you do -- you do -- do -- now you do8 remember that?

9 A I believe so. But I believe it's more

10 from what you said.

11 Q And did you record that and provide that

12 in the transcript?

13 A I don't think I started reporting then

14 because you were setting up a screen like that one

15 over there and the deputies told you that they had

16 one, and there was a lot of commotion over on that

17 side of the courtroom. And the judge asked where your

18 client was. And you said she's outside. And at some

19 point I think maybe the judge said, we'll wait for20 your client. And so I thought we were not starting

21 yet.

22 And then you stood up and began to talk.

23 And I realized that I needed to take that down. But

24 up until that time, I thought we were waiting for your

25 client to come into the courtroom. That's what -- as

Page 107

1 I recall, it was said, we'll wait for your client.

2 Q There's no transcript of Judge Baldwin

3 when he was sitting on the bench and I was telling him

4 that Jack and Thomas were here and wanted to

5 testify?

6 A I don't believe so because I don't

7 believe that I would have been alerted that we had

8 started the hearing yet.

9 Q But when Judge Baldwin came into the

10 court, you heard him say "order in the court, all

11 rise"?

12 A I don't think he says either one of

13 those things.

14 Q No, no, the bailiff.

15 A Probably so but --

16 Q Okay. But you heard that?

17 A I can't say I did.

18 Q Okay. That's --

19 A I would assume it was said.

20 Q That's a symbol that court has begun,

21 right?

22 A Yes. But it's not necessarily the

23 symbol for me to begin taking down.

24 Q So you don't take down stuff until Judge

25 Baldwin tells you to? Or what is the signal to tell

Page 108

1 you?

2 A He said, we'll wait for your client to

3 get in here. I did not begin taking down at that

4 point because you-all were setting up a screen, I

5 didn't take down "Your Honor, we're setting up" --

6 whatever you said, like "Your Honor, we're setting up

7 a screen because we have some exhibits" or whatever8 you were saying. I did not take that down. I did not

9 take down the deputy saying "we have a screen and we

10 can let it down." I did not take any of that down.

11 Q Did you take down that we had Jack and

12 Thomas there, who wanted to testify and wanted to talk

13 to the judge?

14 A I don't believe so because I thought we

15 were waiting for your client to come into the room

16 before we began the proceedings.

17 Q But you do know it happened?

18 A I do vaguely remember that, yes. But I

19 did not take it down because I thought we were waiting20 for your client to come into the courtroom.

21 Q Did you notice anything strange about

22 the courtroom on that day as far as the number of

23 deputies and everything in that courtroom?

24 A No, sir.

25 Q Did you know the case was specially

Page 109

1 set -- just that case was specially set for that

2 day?

3 A I may have. I don't remember.

4 Q Did you -- did you see Judge Baldwin

5 when he was hollering "blame yourself"? Did you see

6 his motions and movement?


8 Q You don't remember whether you saw him

9 or you didn't see him?

10 A I don't remember seeing it.

11 Q You don't remember seeing his

12 gestures?

13 A I do not remember seeing his gestures.

14 Q Do you consider those gestures to have

15 been hostile?

16 A I didn't see them.

17 Q You didn't see any gestures?

18 A I don't remember seeing anything.

19 Q Did you consider that communication by

20 Judge Baldwin to be hostile?

21 A I saw a lot of hostility in the

22 courtroom in every one of these hearings on both

23 sides.

24 Q And by Judge Baldwin?

25 A By every party.

28 (Pages 106 - 109)




Page 110

1 Q And by the judge?

2 A By the judge and by each attorney and

3 sometimes a client.

4 Q From all -- from the beginning to the

5 end?

6 A At first I don't think I was so much

7 aware of hostility. I had just come into the case,8 and I didn't have any expectation. But I began to see

9 it, yes.

10 Q After the -- after the motion to

11 disqualify -- after the motions to disqualify --

12 A I don't know.

13 Q You don't know when?

14 A I don't know when they were filed. I

15 don't know anything about those motions.

16 Q Was that an unusual amount of hostility

17 by Judge Baldwin?

18 A I've seen him -- I don't know if you'd

19 say -- I don't think so. I mean, I don't know. It20 depends on his cases. I mean, I've heard him

21 reprimand people before.

22 Q I'm not saying a reprimand. I'm talking

23 about hostility.

24 A That's your -- that's really your word,

25 I think.

Page 111

1 Q Okay.

2 A And I adopted it a minute ago, but

3 that's really your word.

4 Q I understand it's my word --

5 A Yes.

6 Q -- but since I'm the one that's asking

7 the questions --

8 A Well, I would say that's your perception

9 of it, yes.

10 Q Okay. Would that perception be

11 accurate?

12 A That's -- according to your definition,

13 I would just say -- I would just say that the feelings

14 went both ways with everybody. It was -- it was just

15 a very -- it was uncomfortable for me. I'm not used

16 to that level of animosity or whatever you want to

17 call it from all the parties in a case.

18 Q And the judge?

19 A Well, yes.

20 Q And to the parties?

21 A Yes. It seemed to be a little

22 infectious.

23 Q A little what?

24 A Infectious.

25 Q Okay. Tell me what you mean by

Page 112

1 "infectious."

2 A Well, one would lead to another to

3 another. It seemed to go in a triangle.

4 Q Between the parties and the judge?

5 A Yes, between the parties and between the

6 parties and the judge sometimes.

7 Q And you never saw him hostile to8 Taylor Drake, did you?

9 A I don't know that I saw him hostile to

10 you. But that's -- like I say, that's your words.

11 Q Heard him being hostile? Did you ever

12 hear him being hostile to Taylor Drake?

13 A I just -- I don't -- I don't know how to

14 answer that because I just --

15 Q Am I putting you in a bad position with

16 this question?

17 A I don't know. I just don't -- I don't

18 remember him -- I just don't remember him -- I don't

19 remember many of the exchanges between him and20 Taylor Drake because Mr. Drake usually did what he

21 said.

22 Q Would you consider defending somebody

23 from a judge who was giving illegal orders -- would

24 you consider that to be the obligation of the

25 lawyer?

Page 113

1 A I don't know what an illegal order is,

2 but --

3 Q Okay. One that the law doesn't --

4 A Well, I understand what you're saying,

5 but I wouldn't know which one was illegal and which

6 one was not. But, I mean, I think you should do the

7 best job for your client within the law.

8 Q Were you there the day that he ordered

9 me put in jail when I wasn't even there? I was in

10 Mississippi on another case, trying another case.

11 Were you there that day, the same day he put

12 Larry King --

13 A I know you weren't there. I was there

14 that day.

15 Q Did you hear him order me held in

16 contempt, put in jail?

17 A I don't remember about the jail, but he

18 probably did. I don't know. I do remember -- I do

19 remember something about that exchange, but I don't

20 remember specifically.

21 Q Do you remember that he ordered

22 Ms. Murphy to be put in jail that day?

23 A Well, I think it was upon payment of a

24 fine or something.

25 Q Well, that's put in jail till you do it,

29 (Pages 110 - 113)




Page 114

1 right?

2 A I guess. I don't know.

3 Q I mean, that's put in jail, isn't it?

4 A I don't -- I don't know. I didn't -- I

5 don't know what goes on outside the courtroom.

6 Q Okay. But you took that down, didn't

7 you?8 A I did.

9 Q And he did say put her in jail until a

10 certain thing happened?

11 A Probably so. That's probably right.

12 Q So you did hear him ordering, put her in

13 jail, right?

14 A I assume if that's what he said, I heard

15 it.

16 Q Okay. And you know she wasn't there?

17 A Yes.

18 Q And you know the day that he took the

19 children away from -- had the deputy sheriffs take the20 children away from her, you know that she wasn't

21 allowed to put up evidence on that day, that only

22 Taylor Drake was allowed to cross-examine her and he

23 stopped the cross-examination. You remember that,

24 don't you?

25 A I do.

Page 115

1 Q And you know that she wasn't -- I wasn't

2 allowed to put up her witnesses?

3 A I know that that was -- her testimony

4 was the last testimony.

5 Q And you know that when they sequestered

6 the witnesses and put the witnesses outside the

7 witness room that Betty King, the custody evaluator,

8 was sitting outside the witness room to be put up?

9 A No, I did not know that.

10 Q You didn't know it?

11 A No, sir.

12 Q You didn't take that down?

13 A I don't remember. If it was in the

14 transcript or if you said it, I may have known it at

15 the time. I don't remember it today.

16 Q And when you talk about putting up the

17 screen, you know we were talking about putting up the

18 screen for our witnesses to present up evidence for

19 our witnesses, don't you?

20 A I know you said -- as I recall, you said

21 maybe you were going to have exhibits. I don't -- I

22 don't remember --

23 Q Right. And that would have been for

24 testimony?

25 A I would assume so, yes.

Page 116

1 Q And that never was allowed, was it?

2 A It never happened.

3 Q Right. And she was on the stand

4 presenting information when he ordered -- said he was

5 stopping the hearing?

6 A Who was on the stand? Who is "she"?

7 Q Ms. Murphy.8 A Yes.

9 Q She was trying to explain why she didn't

10 have the money to fulfill the order when that took

11 place as you remember?

12 A As I remember, she was explaining why

13 she didn't comply with the judge's order.

14 Q And she hadn't finished that explanation

15 when he aborted the testimony; is that correct?

16 A I don't know what else she had to say.

17 Q Okay. But she hadn't finished? She was

18 still -- she was still attempting to answer his

19 questions when he stopped?20 A As I recall, Mr. Drake was questioning

21 her, and the judge said he wanted to ask something or

22 something to that effect.

23 Q He took over, right? And that was

24 before I got to question her, right?

25 A He began to ask questions before you

Page 117

1 questioned her.

2 Q And I never got a chance to ask the

3 questions, did I?

4 A No, sir.

5 Q And he stopped her from answering

6 questions, didn't he? He stopped her from giving her

7 answers, didn't he?

8 A He stopped Mr. Drake's examination --

9 Q -- which was her answers to his

10 questions, right?

11 A To Mr. Drake's questions, yes, but then

12 the judge asked questions.

13 Q And he stopped her from answering --

14 explaining all of her answer to him?

15 A To Mr. Drake, yes.

16 Q To the judge? Stopped -- the judge

17 asked her a question, and then he stopped right in the

18 middle of the questions and stopped and ordered the

19 children to go with him?

20 A Well, he asked if she had complied with

21 his order, and he determined that she had not.

22 Q Well, now, you don't know what he

23 determined, do you?

24 A Well, I guess I don't know what he

25 determined. But I believe he said -- my understanding

30 (Pages 114 - 117)




Page 118

1 was -- you have not -- this is me paraphrasing --

2 you've not done what I asked.

3 Q Right. But if he had asked her to do

4 something that was illegal or asked her to do

5 something that was impossible, she was entitled to

6 defend that in your view of the law, right? I mean,

7 do you think a person is entitled to a defense?8 A Yes, sir.

9 Q And do you think a person is entitled to

10 explain their defense?

11 A I would think so.

12 Q And did you see her trying to explain

13 her defense when he stopped and took the children

14 away?

15 A She was answering Mr. Drake's

16 questions.

17 Q Okay. And was she trying to explain her

18 defense in doing so?

19 A Probably so. I don't remember exactly20 what she was saying.

21 Q And did you remember Larry King saying

22 that he had witnesses that they wanted to present and

23 testify?

24 A I don't remember. Was that in the

25 addendum?

Page 119

1 Q Yes, it was.

2 A Okay.

3 Q Do you remember him saying -- that took

4 place, right?

5 A Whatever is in the addendum, I remember

6 that. I mean, I would remember --

7 Q Judge Baldwin did not allow it, did

8 he?

9 A I don't believe he did.

10 MR. FARMER: Can we have just a few

11 minutes?

12 THE WITNESS: Certainly.

13 BY MR. FARMER:

14 Q Before we take that, is there something

15 you would like to explain that I have not asked you

16 that may explain the reason for your conduct that you

17 haven't told me about?

18 A When we come back from the break, can I

19 answer that --

20 Q Yes, yes.

21 A -- and you give me a chance to think

22 about it?

23 Q I'm going to -- I'm going to give you a

24 closing statement.

25 A All right. Thank you.

Page 120

1 Q Okay. Take a break.

2 A Okay.

3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the end of

4 Video 2. We're going off the record at

5 12:20 p.m.

6 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning8 of Video 3. We are on the record at 12:25 p.m.

9 BY MR. FARMER:

10 Q Ms. Freeman, have you ever noticed Judge

11 Baldwin -- had any information about Judge Baldwin

12 suffering from any type of illness or being under any

13 type of medication?

14 A I know he sees doctors from time to

15 time, but no. I mean, I don't know about any

16 medication he takes. I don't know anything about his

17 health situation.

18 Q All right. And what does he -- what

19 type of doctors or what type of thing? Do you know20 what his --

21 A I don't know.

22 Q But you don't know of anything -- you

23 don't know of any medical excuse that he would have

24 for his behavior?

25 A I don't know anything about his medical

Page 121

1 situation.

2 Q All right. But I mean from seeing him

3 in the courtroom, you don't know of any medical reason

4 for any of his behavior?

5 A I really don't know about

6 Judge Baldwin's medical issues. I don't know

7 anything -- I don't know if he has them, what he has.

8 I don't know.

9 Q Do you -- do you report proceedings in

10 which Lisa Hollowell is the guardian ad litem? Have

11 you reported any other proceedings other than this one

12 in which --

13 A I don't remember about her being a

14 guardian ad litem in other cases, but I don't -- I

15 never paid attention. And sometimes I don't know who

16 a guardian is. I don't -- I don't know.

17 Q Have you ever participated in any case

18 in the Coweta Judicial Circuit at any time in which a

19 person was required to go to a custody evaluator?

20 A I believe so. But I don't know for

21 sure.

22 Q Okay. And who? What --

23 A I really don't know. I really don't

24 know. I think I've heard that term.

25 Q Outside of this case?

31 (Pages 118 - 121)




Page 122

1 A I believe I've heard that term before,

2 but I really don't know.

3 Q You don't remember ever taking down

4 testimony from a custody evaluator?

5 A I can't -- I can't remember any, but I

6 can't remember that I haven't either.

7 Q Okay. So you don't --8 A I could have. I just don't remember.

9 Q You don't remember any type of case

10 where --

11 A Well, I've heard psychologists, I know,

12 and I've heard guardians ad litem.

13 Q Okay.

14 A Custody evaluator I may have. I don't

15 know. I just never paid much attention. I just took

16 down what was -- what -- you know, what was on the

17 stand at that time.

18 Q Do you realize how the cost of

19 litigation could affect the right of a mother to20 defend herself and defend her children?

21 A I would think it affects any lawsuit of

22 any type, yes, the defense. Yes, I can.

23 Q And do you realize how the treatment --

24 the disposition of a judge picking up the children

25 there in the courtroom like that, turning them over to

Page 123

1 the deputy sheriff in the courtroom -- have you ever

2 seen Judge Baldwin do that before?

3 A I don't remember it. But I haven't

4 worked for him, you know, but a few years.

5 Q But a few. In all the years that you've

6 seen him, have you ever seen him do that?

7 A I don't remember that.

8 Q You don't remember seeing any other

9 judge do that?

10 A I don't remember any -- I don't remember

11 that, but I do --

12 Q Do you know what happened to the

13 children after they left that day?

14 A No, sir. I would have no way to know.

15 Q Do you know that they are in a lock-down

16 facility in Utah where they cannot -- where they

17 cannot see their mother and they cannot talk to

18 anybody outside of the -- outside of the facility

19 where they are?

20 A I have no knowledge of any of that.

21 Q Do you know that people in that

22 lock-down facility, according to the people in

23 Tennessee where they had been sent, that they have

24 been psychologically and physically injured in that

25 facility?

Page 124

1 A I have no way -- I know nothing about

2 where they are. I know nothing about those

3 children.

4 Q You remember when it was determined

5 that -- the children were in St. Thomas that there was

6 going to be a hearing, that we were requesting a

7 hearing? Do you remember that?8 A No, I don't.

9 Q You remember that when -- that we were

10 requesting to have a hearing and Judge Baldwin said he

11 couldn't obtain a court reporter? Do you remember

12 that?

13 A I wasn't involved with it.

14 Q So you didn't tell him that you

15 wouldn't -- you refused --

16 A Oh. Well, I told him I didn't think it

17 was appropriate for me to report it.

18 Q And it wouldn't have been, would it?

19 A I don't believe so.20 Q And why wouldn't it have been

21 appropriate?

22 A Because you're bringing a lawsuit

23 against me.

24 Q Because you were overcharging, right?

25 A Is that the only reason you brought the

Page 125

1 lawsuit?

2 Q No. Because you wouldn't give the audio

3 recordings.

4 A But you sued me anyway even though you

5 got it.

6 Q I remain -- we remained overcharged.

7 You know that, don't you?

8 A Yes.

9 Q Okay. And in other words, you took --

10 A But if you had brought that to my

11 attention, I would have corrected it at the time.

12 Q Okay. We brought it to your attention.

13 Have you corrected it for all the other people?

14 A No, sir.

15 Q Okay. So as we stand here today, the

16 children are in -- when they went to St. Thomas and

17 they were coming back, we were supposed to have a

18 hearing. And assuming that Judge Baldwin never asked

19 you, did he ask you about getting another court

20 reporter to --

21 A No, sir.

22 Q -- cover the hearing?

23 A I don't believe he did.

24 Q Do you know that he wouldn't allow a

25 hearing for the -- to support the testimony of the

32 (Pages 122 - 125)




Page 126

1 child that came back and gave the video and said that

2 John Murphy was and Renee Murphy were allowing the

3 children to have alcoholic beverages at Fox's Bar

4 in -- near the -- off near St. Thomas?

5 A I don't know anything about that.

6 Q Did you know that -- have they ever told

7 you that Judge Baldwin would not let me file any8 pleading in his court now unless I send it to him

9 first for his approval? Did you know that?

10 A I don't. I mean, I've heard something

11 about that, but I don't know anything about it.

12 Q Okay. What have you heard about that?

13 A I believe -- I really don't know. I

14 just remember -- I don't know that I was specifically

15 told, but I believe I heard it discussed. But I can't

16 remember.

17 Q Who did -- how did you hear it

18 discussed?

19 A I don't remember. Maybe I -- I believe20 I heard maybe that Cindy had asked -- Cindy Brown, the

21 Clerk in Coweta, had asked Judge Baldwin -- I just

22 believe I was present when that was discussed with

23 somebody. She didn't know what to do, maybe that she

24 had been asked to file something and she asked Judge

25 Baldwin about it. I really --

Page 127

1 Q I was downstairs waiting to file

2 something, and she wouldn't file it.

3 A I don't know. It's something to that --

4 Q He was upstairs with a case.

5 Remember?

6 A Well, I just remember hearing something.

7 Q Okay.

8 A But, I mean, I wasn't a party to that

9 conversation, I don't think.

10 Q I know, but you were listening, though.

11 A Well, no. I just think I had -- I heard

12 it in passing. But I was not party to the

13 conversation. I just --

14 Q But he wouldn't -- but he said, no, he

15 wasn't going to allow it to be filed.


17 Q And it was --

18 A I just know that Cindy had asked him --

19 I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I know that

20 Cindy had asked him what to -- as I recall, Cindy

21 asked him what to do, and that's all.

22 Q What did he say?

23 A I don't -- I don't even know if he was

24 the person saying it. I don't know. I just remember

25 something about it. You asked me how I knew, and I

Page 128

1 think that was it.

2 Q Okay. And who was -- who was the

3 conversation from Cindy directed to? Was it --

4 A I may have heard Judge Baldwin talking

5 to somebody. I really -- maybe a bailiff. I don't

6 know. I'm not -- I can't say for sure.

7 Q Do the bailiffs stay in his chambers8 when he goes off the bench during hearings?

9 A I don't know.

10 Q Well, what was the occasion for you

11 being in his chambers?

12 A It might have even been in the hall,

13 Mr. Farmer. I don't -- it might have even been in the

14 hall. Or I might have been in the hall and -- I just

15 don't know.

16 Q So you are familiar that he said that I

17 could not file any more pleadings that he didn't

18 approve of?

19 A I'm aware of something to that effect.20 I don't know that I have --

21 Q Okay.

22 A -- been told specifically or seen

23 anything specific, but I was aware, vaguely aware,

24 yes.

25 Q Did you know those pleadings that he

Page 129

1 wouldn't allow me to file documented his conduct?

2 A No, sir, I did not.

3 Q Did you know those pleadings that he

4 wouldn't allow me to file documented things about

5 where the children are being treated now and how the

6 children are being held away from Ms. Murphy and that

7 she's not even been allowed to know where they are

8 located?

9 A No, sir, I did not.

10 Q Did you know that he has never issued

11 such an order in the time he's been there on the

12 bench? Have you ever heard him issue an order like

13 that, that a lawyer can't file a pleading?

14 A No. But I would have no knowledge of

15 anything like that.

16 Q I understand. I'm asking, did you know

17 that?

18 A No, sir. But I would have no way of

19 knowing.

20 Q Have you seen anything in the time that

21 you've been reporting to justify him saying that a

22 lawyer couldn't file a pleading in a case without

23 showing it to him?

24 A Would you repeat --

25 Q Yes.

33 (Pages 126 - 129)




Page 130

1 A Would you repeat that? I'm sorry.

2 Q Yes. In the time you've been reporting

3 this case --

4 A Yes, sir.

5 Q -- have you seen anything that took

6 place in any of the reporting that would justify him

7 saying that the pleading could not be filed, that the8 lawyer couldn't file a pleading until after he

9 approved of it?

10 A I just don't think I'd be in a position

11 to judge that. I have no idea about -- I have no idea

12 about any of it. I don't know what's -- I don't know

13 that he's ever done it. I don't know that he hasn't.

14 I'm not in a position to judge that.

15 Q But I'm asking -- you're around -- but

16 you're in the courtroom more than 90 percent of the

17 people in the world in Coweta County, and I'm asking,

18 have you -- have you seen anything that would justify

19 that in this case?20 A In this case?

21 Q Yes.

22 A I don't know. I just don't -- that's

23 not -- I just don't think that's anything I'm in a

24 position to judge.

25 Q Do you think -- in your view of -- I'm

Page 131

1 trying to get a position of your value system. Do you

2 think that a lawyer should have to submit a pleading

3 to the judge before they're given permission to file

4 it with the Clerk of Court?

5 A I don't know what the law is. I don't

6 know what's required. I don't know how that works.

7 Q Forget about the law. As a matter of

8 fairness, do you think he would be willing to tell one

9 side that they could file something and the other side

10 that they couldn't?

11 A I would think he would have to tell the

12 same to both sides.

13 Q And if he didn't, do you think that

14 would be some showing of unfairness?

15 A I would think that would be your

16 perception. I just don't think that -- I don't think

17 that I'm in a position to say that because it doesn't

18 have to do with me, and I just think that's between

19 the judge and the parties or the parties' attorneys.

20 Q Your job depends on Judge Baldwin; am I

21 correct?

22 A He's the -- he's the judge I work for.

23 Q And if he said, I don't want you

24 anymore, you're fired, you're gone, right?

25 A That's true.

Page 132

1 Q So your job is depending totally upon

2 him?

3 A I could leave if I wanted to.

4 Q I understand that. But if you wanted to

5 keep your job, it would be dependent on

6 Judge Baldwin?

7 A Of course.8 Q And your income is dependent upon

9 Judge Baldwin?

10 A As long as I work in his courtroom,

11 yes.

12 Q And if you didn't work -- if he wouldn't

13 employ you in the Coweta Judicial Circuit, there's not

14 another available place for you to obtain employment

15 in the Coweta Judicial Circuit?

16 A Not today.

17 Q Have you had -- do you have any nephews?

18 Nieces?

19 A Yes, sir.20 Q What age are those children?

21 A I'm not sure exactly. Probably early

22 thirties to 16 or 17.

23 Q Were you around them as they grew up?

24 A Somewhat. They don't live near me.

25 Q I know. But, I mean, they were part of

Page 133

1 your extended family?

2 A Certainly.

3 Q If they were separated from their

4 parents and not allowed to see their parents, do you

5 think that would -- considering who their parents

6 were, would that affect their well-being?

7 A I would think it would if the parent --

8 I mean, it would depend on the parents. But, yes, I

9 would think so.

10 Q Can you ever justify any reason that --

11 anything that you know about this case that

12 Michelle Murphy could not even talk to her children on

13 the telephone?

14 A I don't -- I don't know any --

15 Q Do you know of any evidence that you've

16 heard that would say that she was not justified in

17 talking to the children on the telephone after that

18 hearing when he did the "blame yourself"?

19 A I don't remember anything in particular

20 one way or the other.

21 Q Okay. But --

22 A I don't --

23 Q -- do you know of anything? I'm not

24 saying, do you remember it? I'm going to say, do you

25 know of anything?

34 (Pages 130 - 133)




Page 134

1 A Outside of the courtroom, I don't know

2 much about this at all.

3 Q I know, but you were in the courtroom.

4 From anything you know in the courtroom or anything

5 you know in life, do you know of anything that would

6 justify that?

7 A I can't say that I do, but I don't --8 Q Okay.

9 A I can't say that I don't either. I

10 don't know -- I don't know Ms. Murphy. I don't

11 know --

12 Q I understand.

13 A I don't even know all the accusations

14 probably. I don't know.

15 Q You've been in -- you've been in the

16 courtroom and you've taken it down and you've heard as

17 much as Judge Baldwin has heard in the courtroom,

18 haven't you?

19 A I was not there for one of the hearings20 that I know of. And I don't know about what -- I

21 don't know about what didn't happen in the

22 courtroom.

23 Q But if it happened in the courtroom --

24 A Yes, sir.

25 Q -- you're familiar with it?

Page 135

1 A Yes, sir.

2 Q Do you know of anything that happened in

3 the courtroom that would justify her not even knowing

4 whether they were dead or alive or not?

5 A No, sir.

6 Q I'm going to let you make a closing

7 statement. And then if you have more, I'll come back.

8 A I don't think I have anything else I

9 want to say.

10 Q He can examine you.

11 MR. GORDON: I have no questions.

12 THE REPORTER: Before we go off the

13 record, I just wanted to ask each attorney if

14 you want to order the transcript.

15 MR. FARMER: Yes.

16 MR. GORDON: Yes.

17 MR. FARMER: Simultaneous.

18 THE REPORTER: I wrote "both said yes."

19 MR. GORDON: She wants to read and sign.

20 THE REPORTER: Okay.

21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes the

22 deposition. We are going off the record at

23 12:42 p.m.

24

25

Page 1361 C E R T I F I C A T E

2

3 I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript

was reported, as stated in the caption; that the

4 witness was duly sworn and elected to reserve

signature in this matter; that the colloquies,

5 questions and answers were reduced to typewriting

under my direction; and that the foregoing pages 1

6 through 135 represent a true, correct, and complete

record of the evidence given.

7 The above certification is expressly withdrawn

and denied upon the disassembly or photocopying of the

8 foregoing transcript, unless said disassembly or

photocopying is done under the auspices of Veritext

9 Legal Solutions, and the signature and original seal

is attached thereto.

10 Pursuant to Article 10B of the Rules and

Regulations of the Board of Court Reporting of the

11 Judicial Council of Georgia, I make the following

disclosure: That I am a Georgia Certified Court

12 Reporter and Registered Professional Reporter, here as

an independent contractor for Veritext Legal

13 Solutions; that I was contacted by the offices of

Veritext Legal Solutions to provide court reporting

14 services for this deposition; that I will not be

taking this deposition under any contract prohibited

15 by Georgia law; and that I am not disqualified as a

reporter for a relationship of interest under the

16 provisions of O.C.G.A. 9-11-28(c).

This the 8th day of December, 2014.

17

18

__________________________________

19 MARCIA ARBERMAN, CCR-B-1059

20

21 * * *

22 (Reporter disclosure made pursuant to

Article 10.B. of the Rules and Regulations of the

23 Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of

Georgia.)

24

25

Page 137

1 Murphy v. Freeman2 Nan Freeman3 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE WITNESS4 Please read your deposition over5 carefully and make any necessary corrections.6 You should state the reason in the7 appropriate space on the errata sheet for any8 corrections that are made.9 After doing so, please sign the errata

10 sheet and date it.11 You are signing same subject to the12 changes you have noted on the errata sheet,13 which will be attached to your deposition.14 It is imperative that you return the15 original errata sheet to the deposing

16 attorney within thirty (30) days of receipt17 of the deposition transcript by you. If you18 fail to do so, the deposition transcript may19 be deemed to be accurate and may be used in20 court.2122232425 1968318

35 (Pages 134 - 137)




Page 138

1 Murphy v. Freeman

2 Nan Freeman

3 E R R A T A

4 - - - - -

5 PAGE LINE CHANGE

6 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7 Reason:_______________________________________8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

9 Reason:_______________________________________

10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

11 Reason:_______________________________________

12 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

13 Reason:_______________________________________

14 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

15 Reason:_______________________________________

16 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

17 Reason:_______________________________________

18 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

19 Reason:_______________________________________20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

21 Reason:_______________________________________

22 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

23 Reason:_______________________________________

24 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

25 1968318

Page 139

1 Murphy v. Freeman

2 Nan Freeman

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEPONENT

4 I, ______________________, do

5 hereby certify that I have read the foregoing

6 pages and that the same is a correct

7 transcription of the answers given by

8 me to the questions therein propounded,

9 except for the corrections or changes in form

10 or substance, if any, noted in the attached

11 Errata Sheet.

12

13 __________ ________________________

14 DATE SIGNATURE

15

16 Subscribed and sworn to before me this

17 ____________ day of ______________, 20__.

18

19 My commission expires: _________________

20 ____________________________

21 Notary Public

22

23

24

25 1968318

36 (Pages 138 - 139)




IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

Nancy Michelle Murphy,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Civil Action No. 2014CV241705

Nan Freeman and

Freeman Reporting, Inc.,

Defendants

Notice of Deposition of Nan Freeman, Individually,

and in her Capacity as

30 b) 6) Representative of Freeman Reporting, Inc.

To:

Kenneth Gordon, Esq.

P.O. Box 1088

LaGrange, GA 30241-1088

Kenbigstar@aot corn

This is notification that at 9:00 a.ni. on Saturday, November 22, 2014, at the

offices of Kenneth Gordon, Esq., located at 5180 Lone Oak Road, Hogansville,

Georgia, counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy, will proceed to take the deposition

upon oral examination of Nan Freeman, individually, pursuant to OCGA §9-11-

30 and the laws of Georgia, and, as in her capacity as the representative of

Freeman Reporting, Inc., pursuant to OCGA §9-11-30 b) 6) and the laws of

Georgia.

The scheduling of this deposition was pursuant to agreement of counsel.

The 30 b) 6) representative should be required to testif, about the preparation of

transcripts, software programs used and billing procedures in all cases in which

PLAINTIFF S

EXH






6.

Any written communications between Nan Freeman and Judge A.

Quillian Baldwin, Jr., andlor his agent relating to the above-styled litigation in which

Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc. are defendants, either before or after the

Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County.

Any attorney representing Nan Freeman or Freeman Reporting, Inc., is invited to

be in attendance and participate in accordance with applicable law.

All such persons, as allowed by law, may attend the deposition and participate as

allowed by law.

This

13th

day of November, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

Millard Farmer

Georgia Bar No. 255300

P.O. Box 1728

Atlanta, GA 30301-1728

404) 688-8116

rnillardfarrner@rnillardfarrner. corn

Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy

Page 3 of 4




I hereby certiFy that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Notice of

Deposition of Nan Freeman, Individually, and as 30 b) 6) Representative of

Freeman Reporting, Inc., upon counsel for the opposing parties by electronic mail

and United States Postal Service with adequate first-class postage attached thereon,

addressed as follows.

Kenneth Gordon, Esq.

P.O. Box 1088

LaGrange, Georgia 30241

Kenbigstar@aot corn

This

13th

day of November, 2014.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

aehh

TaM*-

Millard Farmer

rnillardfarmer@millardfarmer. corn


Page 4 of 4




Fiscal Year 2013 Detail Payments

Back To Search


Back To Search

Export oçtions: CSV IPDF

Fiscal Year 20h Detail Payments

fr'

Back To Search

Export options: 05V I


Back To Search

Records: i

to i

Of I

Organization

çJcEpIL COUTS

Vendor Name

q

Payment Amount

Description

FREEMAN REPORTING INC

Funding Source

54460.00 OOAS-CCURT REPORTER

STATE/OTHER

Export ogtions: CSV POF

I

PLAINTIFF'S

EIT

/1

/ /V*

Expert tiOflS

IPOF

Records: i

to I of I

Organization

Vendor Neme

Pay litent Amount

Description

Funding Source

SUPERIOR CCUtT


y3,840OO DOS-CCURT REPORTER

STATE/OTHER

Records: I

to i

of I

Organization

Vendor Name

y

Payment Amount

Description

Funding Source

SUPERIOR CCUSTS


'3S4'j»)O DOAS-COURT REPORTER

STAT E CT H E S

Records: i IO I

of I

Organization

-

Vendor Neme

Pyifleuit Amount

Description

Funding Source

SUPERIOR COURTS


3.54000 DOAS-COURT REPORTER

sTATE/OTHER




September 22, 2012

Federal ID Number: 01-0566702

INVOICE NO. 12-188

Mr. Millard Farmer

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1728

Atlanta, GA 30303

FREEMAN REPORTING,

INC.

Certified Court Reporters

P.O. Box 3387

LaGrange, GA 30241

706 812 8348

DUE UPON RECEIPT

In the matter of:

Murphy

V

Murphy, et a

Jurisdiction: Superior

Court of Coweta County

Case Number: 2012-V-4

13

Date; August 30, 2012

One-half of takedow

Original and one

copy of transcript

Postage

TRANK YOU

$

54.14

328.86

TOTAL

$

385.00




Millard Farmer

Prom:

Julia Harris [email protected]> on behalf of Quillian

Baldwin

<[email protected]>

Sent

Thursday, June 191 2014 11:26AM

To:

[email protected]

Cc:

Robertson, Beth; [email protected]; Taylor Drake

([email protected]};

[email protected]

Subject

Murphy y. Murphy 12-V-413; Coweta County Superior Court

Dear Millard:

Nan Freeman has discussed with me your latest

emails back and forth and she is deeply

concerned about having to deal with a law suit which she cannot

afford.

I have told her since this has become so

stressful for her, that we should turn over a copy

of

her audio recording of the hearing you are concerned

with. As far as I can tell, you are not

legally entitled to the audio recording. However, Nan is willing to turn a copy over of such

recording by placing a sealed copy in the Murphy case,

File No. 12-V-41 3, in the Clerk of

Court s Office along with an unsealed copy to be a part

of the public record of which you or

anyone else can review the audio

recording at your pleasure.

i will file an order instructing the Clerk that

the sealed recording shall not be opened except

in open court but that you may review the

unsealed recording wherever you would like in

the courthouse. This should satisfy your request. However, you,

Mr. King1 anyone on your

staff or employed by you, may not download or copy

said recording in any way whatsoever.

By having the copies in the file, the unsealed copy

will be available for use in an appeal or

any other proceeding along with

the original. Despite what Nan is willing to do,

if you file a

law suit against Ms. Freeman, she will not

voluntarily give you directly or file with the clerk s

office, copies of said audio recording. Of course, you

already have a copy of the transcript

as legally required by law.

We look forward to your immediate response.

Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1

i




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CERTI FICATE

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF TROUP

I, Nan D. Freeman, being a Certified Court Reporter

and Notary Public in and for the State of Georgia at Large,

certify that the foregoing transcript is a true record of the

proceedings and exhibits in the case of John Harold Murphy y.

Nancy Michelle Murphy, Case Number 2012-V-413 in the Superior

Court of Coweta County; that I am neither a relative nor

employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties, nor

a relative nor employee of such attorney or

counsel, nor

financially interested in the action.

This certification is expressly withdrawn and

denied upon disassembly, photocopying or duplication in any

manner or upon certification of the foregoing transcript or

any part thereof including exhibits, if any, by any person or

entity other than by the undersigned official certified court

reporter.

This certification is further expressly withdrawn

and denied absent the original signature and the original

seal of the undersigned official court reporter, as set out

below.

WITNESS my hand and seal at LaGrange, Troup County,

Georgia, this the

5th

day of June, 2014.

Nan D. Freeman, CCR, B-1939

42




LK/ls

LARRY KING

ATTORNEY AT LAW

210 North McDonough Street

p Ø. Box 1648

Jonesboro, Georgia 30237

770) 471-3835

Fax 770) 471-8200

Email [email protected]

June 10, 2014

Via Federal Express

Nathan Thomas Lee and Jerry Ann Conner

County Attorneys for Coweta County

Glover & Davis, P.A.

10 Brown Street

Newnan, GA 30264

Via Federal Express

C. Jerry Willis

County Attorney for Troup County

Willis McKenzie LLP

300 Smith Street

LaGrange, GA 30240

Certified Mail - 7010 0290 0002 1291 9517

Return Receipt Requested

Nan D. Freeman

Freeman Reporting, Inc.

p. 0. Box 3387

LaGrange, GA 30241

Dear Mr. Lee, Ms. Conner, Mr. Willis and Ms. Freeman:.

Pursuant to the prcÑisibns of the Georgia Open Records

Act (0.C.G.A. 50-18-70 et seq.), please

provide this office with the following items in your possession,

custody and control.

All audio recordings of any and all hearings p'resided over

by Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. in civi

action rile number 2012-V-413, Coweta County

Superior Court, titled John Harold Murphy y. Nancy Michelle

Murphy.

All documents relating to the supplemental salary paid by Coweta

County for Superior Court Judges fo

the past three (3) years.

3,

All documents relating to the supplemental salary paid by Troup

County for Superior Court Judges fo

the past three (3) years.

This firm acknowledges their financial obligation to pay

forthe materials requested and will pay upon

receipt of an invoice all fees required for the retrieval

and copying of the requested records pursuant to the

Georgia Open Records Act.

The Georgia Open Records Act requires a response time

within three (3) business days. .

If access t

the records being requested will take longer than three

(3) days, please contact thìs office with informatio

about when the records can be expected.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite

each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusa

to release the information.

Thank you.

Attachment 5, Page 1 of i




FREEMAN REPORTING, INC.


P.O. Box 3387

LaGrange, GA 30241

706-812-5348

June 12,2014

Mr. Larry King

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1648

Jonesboro, GA 30237

Re:

Open records request, June 10, 2014

John Harold Murphy vs. Nancy Michelle Murphy

Civil Action Number 2012-V-4] 3

Dear Mr. King:

The audio recording ola court reporter is the personal property of the court reporter and the work product

the court reporter for use in producing the transcript

a proceeding. The certified transcript ¡s the

officia] record of the proceeding.

When requested by the panics, transcripts have been produced and a copy provided to each party, with the

original and a copy having been filed in the office of the Clerk of Superior Court in Coweta County.

IPLAINTIFF S

Attachment 6, Page 1 of i

I have fulfilled my responsibility as required.

Yours truly,

,, j,,

Nan D. l: reeman




IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF

COWETA COUNTY

STATE

OF

GEORGIA

JOHN HAROLD MURPHY,

Plaintiff

vs.

CASE NUMBER:

2012-V-413

NANCY MICHELLE MURPHY,

De fendant

Transcript of Proceedings

before

the Honorable A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Judge,

at the Coweta County Courthouse

Newnan, Georgia

on the day 27t

of May, 2014

PJDDENDUM



P.O. Box 3387

LaGrange, Georgia 30241

706) 812-8348






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

would do what you were supposed to do, you wouldn t be

having this problem so --

Wait just a minute.

Blame yourself (indicating); blame yourself

(indicating); blame yourself (indicating)

That s what we re doing.

I told her the last

time --

MS. MURPHY:

I haven t --

THE COURT:

Don t -- be quiet, please, ma am.

MS. MURPHY:

(Unintelligible.)

THE COURT:

Be quiet.

I told her --

If you speak up again, I m going to put you in

jail.

Do you understand me?

I told her the last time to go see this -- see

this doctor, and I told y all then that if she didn t do

it,

I was going to consider taking the children and

putting then with her (sic).

He (sic) hasn t done it.

I told you that the last tine, and I m tired of this

stuff.

If y all had done what you were supposed to

do, if y all had done your job, if you had done your

job, this thing would have been over two years ago.

It

wouldn t have all the expense involved. And y all

haven t been doing your job, and you need to be -- you

3




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

need to be checking on that instead of checking on what

I m doing. Okay?

You re not doing your job.

All right.

That s it.

MR. FARMER:

May I respond?

We have the children here to present evidence.

We wish to present evidence, and you re preventing us

from presenting evidence.

THE COURT:

It s over with.

Stop taking down.

(Proceedings concluded.)

4




June 5,2014

Federal ID Number: 01-0566702

INVOICE NO. 14-108

TO:

Mr. Millard Fariner

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1728

Atlanta, GA 30301

In the matter of:

Murphy y. Murphy

Jurisdiction: Superior Court of Coweta County


Date: May 27, 2014

One-half of takedown

21.65

One-half cost of tnnscript

116.85

TOTAL

138.50

THANK YOU



P.O. Box 3387

UGrange, GA 30241

7 6 812 8348

DUE UPON RECEIPT

0:

rÇt

(Q-




October 16,2013

Federal ID Number: 0 l-0566702

INVOICE NO. 13-148

TO:

Mr. MiHard Fanner

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 1728

Atlanta, GA 30301

In tite matter of:

Murphy y. Murphy

Jurisdiction: Superior Court of Coweta County


Date: October 3,2013

One-half cost oftranscripL S 352.86

TI-lANK YOU

FREEMAN REPORTING INC.


RO. Box 3387

LaGrange, GA 30241

706412-8348

DUE UPON RECEIPT




PETER

J

SKANDALAKIS

Millard Farmer

Attorney at Law

p. 0. Box 1728

Atlanta, Georgia 30301-1728

Dear Millard:

I have read your letter of July11, 2014 regarding court reporter, Ms. Nan Freeman,

listened to the audio recording and reviewed the pleadings and transcripts furnished along with

your letter.

I note you have flied, on behalf of your client Nancy Murphy, a civil suit in Fulton County

against Ms. Freeman and against the Program Manager, the Chairperson, and each Member of

the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia seeking Declaratory Judgment,

Injunctive and other Relief, Civil Action No.2014 CV 2482210, pertaining to the same conduct

as set forth in your letter and accompanying documents.

Due to the aforementioned litigation, i am reserving further action concerning this

matter until the civil suit is resolved. Please let me know when your civil case is concluded and

the results of that litigation.

Sincerely,

LMstrict Attorney

Coweta Judicial Circuit

August 12, 2014

Carroll County Courthouse

PO Box 338

Carroilton, GA 30112

phone: 710) 830-2171

Fax:

770) 830.2170

Coweta Co. Justice Center

PO Box 1918

Newnan, GA 30264

Phone: 770) 254-7300

Fax:

770) 254-7305

FL

SaLL

Heard County Courthouse

Po Box 730

Franldin, GA 30217

Phone: 706) 675-0955

Fac

706) 675-0958

Peter J. Skandalakis

District Attorney

PJS:bwc

¡8IT

Medwether County Courthouse

Po BoxSZO

Greenville. GA 30222

Phone: 706) 672-1302

Fax:

706) 672-1201

MONIQUE F. KIRBY

Chief Assistant

UNOA W. liPTON

Victim Assistance Director

Troup Co. Government Center

100 RIdley Ave. SuIte 3500

LaGrange, GA 30240

Phone: 706) 298-3708

Fax:

706) 298-3709




Attachment 155

Guardian ad Litem Billing

Guardian ad Litem Billing

Attachment 155






Attachment 156

Petition for Mandamus

Petition for Mandamus

Attachment 156



Petition for Mandamus withEmergency Motion for Rulingon Mandamus Nisi

Page 1 of 52

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TROUP COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

Nancy Michelle Murphy,Petitioner

vs. Civil Action No. A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.,

in his official capacity asChief Judge of the Coweta Judicial Circuitand as Presiding Judge in Civil Action No. 12V-413in the Superior Court of Coweta County, Georgia,

Respondent

Petition for Mandamus with Memorandum of Law for an

Emergency Motion for Ruling on Mandamus Nisi1. Preface

1.1 The developmental years and lives of Jack Murphy, age 15 and

Thomas Murphy who will be age 13 on January 1, 2014, are perishable.

1.1.1 Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. attempts to defend his political

persona, by wilfully violating the law; this conduct is a violation of the Canons of

the Code of Judicial Conduct and the laws of Georgia that unbalances the scales

of justice.

1.1.1.1 This petition for mandamus is to require Chief Judge Baldwin to

refer to another judge for adjudication the disqualification issues that he ruled

upon on June 7, 2012.

1.1.1.2 This petition for mandamus is to require Chief Judge Baldwin to rule

and otherwise comply with the Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, et seq., the

Canons of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, the appellate decisions and

the law that he refuses to obey related to the pending disqualification motions

that were filed on June 13, 2012, July 2, 2012, August 19, 2013,




Page 2 of 52 Petition for Mandamus withEmergency Motion for Rulingon Mandamus Nisi

.

August 28, 2013, September 13, 2013, October 7, 2013 and

November 26, 2013.

1.1.1.3 This Petition for Writ of Mandamus further addresses the

disqualification of Chief Judge Baldwin based upon the violation of Uniform

Superior Court Rule 3.1 et seq. by which Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

was available for the Glover & Davis lawyer to select him and Uniform

Superior Court Rule 25 et seq.

1.1.1.4 The procedures for recusal are non-discretionary directives that

Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin failed to implement and obey. This Petition

seeks to have Chief Judge Baldwin to comply with the non-discretionary

procedures required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 et seq. and to nunc pro

tunc all orders to the date that the orders were originally required.

1.1.2 This Petition seeks to direct Chief Judge Baldwin to fulfill his obligations

under Hargis v. State, 319 Ga. App. 432, 437 (2012), self executing Georgia Code

of Judicial Conduct Canon 3 (E) (1) relating to his and others, acting at his behest,

ex parte, oral and written communications with the lawyers opposing

Michelle Murphy, some of which were contained in the letters to Chief Judge

Baldwin accompanying the Orders that were each prepared by the lawyers

opposing Michelle Murphy. The ex parte communications of Chief Judge

Baldwin include the ex parte communications of those associated with him.

1.1.2.1 The six or more lawyers who oppose Michelle Murphy in various

aspects of this litigation frequently orchestrate litigation gimmicks for Chief

Judge Baldwin to implement. These litigation gimmicks include “emergencies”









.

lawyer filing for a protective order that would require Chief Judge Baldwin to

quash. Renee L. Haugerud’s lawyer just refuses to allow her deposition.

1.1.4.2 Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, provided a knowingly false

affidavit to Peter A. Durham relating to the real estate interest that she has in

Georgia. This information could be used for the purposes of having the Court

determine that it did not have jurisdiction of her in this litigation, in violation

of OCGA 16-10-20. This affidavit was provided to the Court.

1.1.4.3 Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, interferes with the custody

of the children by transporting the children across the country where they

engage in alcoholic beverage parties.

1.1.4.4 Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, participated with John Harold

Murphy in using Jack Murphy, Thomas Murphy and one of the children’s

friends, who was transported across state lines, as bartenders who mixed

alcoholic beverages that were served to adult guests at the party, who

participated in this conduct with these minor children.

1.1.4.5 This bartender event occurred before the alcohol poisoning due to

the consumption of vodka by Thomas Murphy, almost age 13, at the residence

of Renee L. Haugerud and John Harold Murphy in 2013 when they were both

in the household.

1.1.4.6 According to the mother of the friend of the children, Jack Murphy

and Thomas Murphy drank portions of the alcoholic beverages that they were

mixing and serving to adults, as these children were not supervised, as required

by law.





.

1.1.4.7 Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith participated with

John Harold Murphy in threatening Jack Murphy to sign a perjurious affidavit

relating to his conduct with alcoholic beverages in a location that the children

were transported across the state line in an aircraft under the control of

Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith.

1.1.4.8 This conduct by Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, and

John Harold Murphy relating to the alcoholic beverages was contributing to the

delinquency of minor children to the extent that the mother of the friend who

made the trip has prohibited her son from traveling any longer in the care of

John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith.

1.1.4.9 Renee L.Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, engages in her conduct of

making false statements in concert with John Harold Murphy to assist him in

his illegal endeavors, in which she has become an active participant. These

endeavors include, but are not limited to, the use of the assets of the Haugerud

Businesses for personal use without paying tax on the value of the asset used

for personal use. This conduct requires false statements by Renee L. Haugerud.

1.1.4.10 Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, engages in concert with

John Harold Murphy in order to deprive Michelle Murphy of the child support

that is due for Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy.

1.1.4.11 Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, and John Harold Murphy

use an Eight million dollar plus jet airplane to travel between their various

living places and other temporarily leased places throughout the United States

with money originating from the businesses of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a

Lauree Smith.





.

1.1.4.12 One of the media releases posted on April 21, 2010 by Christina

H., identifies Renee L. Haugerud and John Harold Murphy as follows.

!"#$%&$' )**+ – ,"-"" .&%/"$%0 &-0 123- 4%$53' 3&6" /76"- 8) 97::72- ;2

;3" <-76"$=7;' 2> ?"--"=="" &; @3&;;&-22/&A B> ;3" ;2;&:C 8DAE 97::72- 3&=

#""- /76"- ;2 "=;&#:7=3 ;3" ,"-"" .&%/"$%0 &-0 123- 4%$53' F:2#&:

!7-&-G" @"-;"$ &; ;3" @2::"/" 2> H%=7-"==A I-2;3"$ 8E**C*** J7:: /2 ;2 ;3"

university’s football program. The couple run Galtere Ltd where she is the

9&-&/7-/ 5$7-G75&: &-0 G37"> 7-6"=;9"-; 2>>7G"$A ." 7= ;3" G37">

0"6":259"-; 2>>7G"$A 4%$53' 7= &- &:%9-%= 2> <-76"$=7;' 2> ?"--"==""A

1.1.4.13 Renee L. Haugerud controls the company of which John Harold

Murphy is an employee, Galtera, N.A., Inc. and controls the company that owns

the aircraft that is used to remove the children from the State of Georgia. Thefollowing is a photo of the type of aircraft that used to ferry the children.

1.1.4.14 The company of Renee L. Haugerud provides the healthcare

insurance that supplies the health insurance coverage that John Harold Murphy is

required to provide for Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy under the terms of the

divorce decree.

1.1.4.15 Renee L. Haugerud was present in the household and was the other

adult responsible for the children and their two guests when Thomas Murphyrecently was taken to the hospital after consuming so much of John Harold





.

Murphy’s and Renee L. Haugerud’s vodka that he suffered alcohol poisoning and

required that his stomach be pumped and other medical procedures. John Harold

Murphy also left uncorrected in the hospital records that Renee L. Haugerud was

the “natural parent” of Thomas Murphy.

1.1.4.16 Counsel for Michelle Murphy has sought on numerous occasions to

take the deposition of Renee L. Haugerud, who is living in the household with

John Harold Murphy. Peter A. Durham, her Glover & Davis lawyer has informed

counsel that he would not allow the taking of her deposition under any type of

agreement.

1.1.4.17 In the event that the Court continues to violate the law and proceed

in any matter in this case, the deposition of Renee L. Haugerud is required and the

deposition expenses should be paid by John Harold Murphy, who initiated this

action.

1.1.5 The information supplied about Renee L. Haugerud is relevant to

understanding the necessity for the disqualification of Chief Judge Baldwin in order

that Michelle Murphy can obtain the information necessary to defend against the

action initiated by John Harold Murphy against her.

1.1.5.1 In contrast to the wealth and financial resources that John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud are using in order to torment the lives of

Michelle Murphy and her children, Michelle is a good custodial parent, who

tends to all of the household chores and the children’s school activities while

earning a living as a hairstylist.

1.1.5.2 Michelle Murphy has no political support to provide Chief Judge

Baldwin, her lawyers do not represent Coweta County, which provides a large





.

supplement to the salary of Chief Judge Baldwin, her lawyers do not contribute

around $9,000 to the elections campaigns of Chief Judge Baldwin when he is

unopposed and her lawyers do not represent multimillionaires in this litigation.

1.1.5.3 Even with this disparity in income and assets, Chief Judge Baldwin

required that Michelle Murphy pay John Harold Murphy $5,000 litigation cost

for the last contempt hearing that the Glover & Davis lawyers instigated against

Michelle Murphy and “defendant’s” lawyer without a constitutionally required,

due process Rule Nisi.

1.1.6 Since the day that Chief Judge Baldwin issued the August 23, Order that

John Harold Murphy relied upon to have the Deputy Sheriff come to the children’s

home and direct the children to meet John Harold Murphy at a location for him to

begin his newly modified visitation, the children, on numerous nights, have slept

on the floor of their mother’s bedroom for fear that their mother would be taken

to jail and they would be taken away by John Harold Murphy. The fear that Chief

Judge Baldwin has brought into this home is a melting away of a perishable time

of the lives of these children.

1.2 Nancy Michelle Murphy (or, “Michelle Murphy”) requests that Mandamus

Nisi be granted and the Court hold a hearing, pursuant to OCGA 9-6-27, requiring

Chief Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. to show cause why mandamus absolute

should not issue.

1.2.1 This petition is filed in the Superior Court, as the Supreme Court of

Georgia has decreed, excepting extremely rare circumstances, that a “petition for

a writ of mandamus is one that should be filed initially in superior court. Brown

v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983)”





.

Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480 (2013)

2. Respondent

2.1 A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. is the Chief Judge of the Coweta Judicial Circuit, and,

in particular, the trial judge in Civil Action No. 12V-413 that is pending in the

Superior Court of Coweta County, Georgia. The case is styled as follows.

John Harold Murphy, Plaintiff vs. Nancy Michelle Murphy, Defendant vs.Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, Third Party Defendant

2.2 Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin is a resident of Troup County Georgia and

has his permanent office and Administrative Assistant located at the Troup County

Government Center,100 Ridley Avenue, LaGrange, GA 30240.

3. Petitioner

3.1 Nancy Michelle Murphy is the petitioner who is the defendant in the Superior

Court of Coweta Civil Action No. 12V-413.

3.2 Michelle Murphy, who lives in Coweta County, Georgia is the custodial parent

of Jack Malachi Murphy (or, “Jack Murphy”), age 15 and Thomas Emerson Murphy

(or, “Thomas Murphy”), who will be age 13 on January 1, 2014.3.3 Michelle Murphy is represented in Civil Action No. 12V-413 and in this

petition by Millard Farmer and Larry King.

Millard FarmerGeorgia Bar No. 255300P.O. Box 1728Atlanta, GA 30301-1728

(404) 688-8116millardfarmermillardfarmer.com

Larry KingGeorgia Bar No. 419725P. O. Box 1648Jonesboro, GA 30237

(770) 471-3835larrykingandlsaol.com





.

4. Summary of the Necessity for a Writ of Mandamus

4.1 There is no alternative avenue of legal relief for the detrimental, ongoing

conduct of Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. engaging in violations of the Canons

of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct other than this petition for writ ofmandamus, as the Judicial Qualifications Commission of Georgia is without

authority to remove a judge in a particular case.

4.1.1 It is important to emphasize that the Canons of the Georgia Code of Judicial

Conduct, in part, provide as follows.

Canon 3

Judges shall perform the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently

E. Disqualification

(1) Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality

might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

Commentary: Under this rule, judges are subject to disqualification

whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless

of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(l) apply. For example,

if a judge were in the process of apply.

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer

4.1.2 This canon is self-executing. See, Hargis v. State, 319 Ga. App. 432, 437

(2012).

4.2 The following omissions and commissions by Chief Judge Baldwin are

examples of conduct by Chief Judge Baldwin that cannot be prevented without a

writ of mandamus, considering the cadre of persons participating with Chief Judge

Baldwin in his acts of omission and commission that affect the constitutional and







.

4.2.7 Chief Judge Baldwin denied without a hearing a motion to disqualify a

guardian ad litem who has converted funds to her personal use in violation of

Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 (8) (g), and, thereafter allowed that guardian

ad litem, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell to select a “custody evaluator.”

4.2.8 Chief Judge Baldwin has ordered Michelle Murphy to “cooperate” with a

“custody evaluator” who requires Michelle Murphy, before discussing any

matters with her, to execute a contract that provides full immunity to the “custody

evaluator” and not just statutory, bad faith immunity. The e-mail indicating that

the psychologist designated by the Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell, the guardian ad

litem, who was called out by counsel for Michelle Murphy for converting trust

funds to her personal use, required that the psychologist would not “speak to either

party until the contract was signed” follows. The psychologist, upon request from

counsel for Michelle Murphy, refused to communicate with counsel for Michelle

Murphy.

4.2.9 Chief Judge Baldwin ordered Michelle Murphy to be incarcerated untilshe cooperated with the custody evaluator, who requires the signing of the





.

contract containing, as just one of the repugnant to justice clauses, the following

provision.

4.2.10 Chief Judge Baldwin signs Orders presented to him with ex parte

communications by counsel opposing Michelle Murphy containing false findings

of facts, in violation of the laws of Georgia.

4.2.11 Chief Judge Baldwin engages in judicial conduct that is designed to

defend his disqualification and other conduct in violation of the Canons of the

Code of Judicial Conduct rather than fulfilling the oath required of all civil

officers and the additional OCGA 15-6-6 oath required to be upheld by Superior

Court judges, which follows.

"I swear that I will administer justice without respect to person and do

equal rights to the poor and the rich and that I will faithfully and

impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as

judge of the superior courts of this state, according to the best of my

ability and understanding, and agreeably to the laws and Constitution

of this state and the Constitution of the United States.

4.3 Chief Judge Baldwin illegally made himself available for the Glover & Davis

lawyers to select as a judge by participating with other judges in the Coweta JudicialCircuit in violating Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 (case management) by the





.

Coweta Judicial Circuit to total absence of a non-discretionary directed case

management plan. This allowed the Glover & Davis lawyer to select Chief Judge

Baldwin as the judge in this case just as the Glover & Davis lawyers selected the

judge from the Coweta Judicial Circuit in Mayor and Aldermen of Savannah v.

Batson-Cook Co. 291 Ga. 114 (2012).

4.3.1 Pursuant to an Open Records request to the Clerk of the Superior Court of

Coweta County (V2, pp. 310-318) for all documentation reflecting the existence

of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 (case management) plan, Cindy Brown, the

Clerk of the Superior Court, responded that there was no documented case

management plan. (V3, p.447)

4.3.2 Coweta Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby instructed

John Harold Murphy about the selection of his lawyer to bring the modification

action against Michelle Murphy. Once Chief Judge Baldwin was placed on notice

of Judge Louis Jack Kirby informing John Harold Murphy about selecting the

Glover & Davis lawyer and placed on notice about the method used to select him,

Chief Judge Baldwin refused to refer a motion for his disqualification based, in

part, on this information from another judge.

4.3.2.1 The guardian ad litem, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, appears

regularly before Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby by representing clients

in divorce cases not related to being a guardian ad litem.

4.3.2.1 The full relief sought in the Petition is required because counsel for

Michelle Murphy cannot appear before Judge Baldwin, as he without any legal

justification has held Larry King, Millard Farmer and Michelle Murphy in

contempt and continually indicates that he will place them in jail. Michelle





.

Murphy cannot receive the constitutional right to counsel that she is guaranteed

with the Glover & Davis selected Chief Judge Baldwin presiding. Counsel for

Michelle Murphy also have constitutional guaranteed rights that cannot be

protected with Chief Judge Baldwin remaining in this case, as he is illegally

retaliating against counsel for bringing the disqualification motions and

attempting to protect the rights of Michelle Murphy.

5. Michelle Murphy and the Children

5.1 The litigation in this case tells the story of Nancy Michelle Murphy, a hairstylist

by trade, and her children, Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas Murphy, who will be

age 13 on January 1, 2014, warding off the takeover acquisition of Jack and Thomas

by John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud, his hedge fund operating,

multimillionaire spouse, who sold short the commodity of children in her early life.

Renee L. Haugerud now feels the need to cover her earlier short sale with the lives

of Jack and Thomas, whom she seeks to have the Court snatch from the mother, who

has dedicated her life to them. John Harold Murphy did not live in the household of

the youngest child, Thomas Murphy, but for only four months before he obtained a

separate residence in another state. The children have expressed a strong desire to

live with their mother, as they have lived their entire lives. It is the failure of Chief

Judge Baldwin that has created turmoil in this family’s household by allowing the

Glover & Davis lawyers to select him as the presiding judge in the absence of a

Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan and thereafter refusing to

timely adhere to Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, et seq. (Recusal)

5.2 These children, unlike other commodities that are sold short, cannot be

legally purchased to cover a short sale, even with lawyers who barter their





.

judicial political status to effectuate a modification of custody for large legal

fees that these lawyers share in the political/judicial elections bartering process.

5.3 This case is a classic example of politically purchased “litigation bullying”

by litigants with an enormous disparity of wealth and by Chief Judge Baldwin,

a recipient of in-kind, financially valuable, political benefits. John Harold

Murphy obtained the assistance of his 2006 divorce attorney, now Coweta

Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge, Louis Jack Kirby, in selecting a lawyer

possessing the local political/judicial bartering status with a Coweta Superior

Court Judge. (V2, p.253) It was Jack Kirby, as the attorney, who represented

John Harold Murphy when he secreted $180,000 in stock option marital assets

from Michelle Murphy during the divorce litigation until after she agreed to a

settlement agreement that was memorialized and approved by Chief

Judge Baldwin, Judge 3 of 5 (V7, p.1294) in the divorce case. (V4, p. 748)

5.4 Judge 4 of 5, who presided at the final decree stage would not open the

settlement agreement memorialized before Judge 3 of 5 after discovery of the

false swearing of John Harold Murphy (V8, p.1651) without a threat of

detrimental consequences to Michelle Murphy.

5.5 When John Harold Murphy sought to obtain a modification of custody, as

guided by Judge Kirby, he employed Glover & Davis, which obtained Chief

Judge Baldwin. This Glover & Davis judge selection effectively exposes that

the Glover & Davis judge selection in Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v.

Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012) was not an anomaly. After the first Court

of Appeals case, Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 310 Ga.

App. 878, (2011) essentially held there was no error with the Coweta Judicial





.

Circuit/Glover & Davis judge-selection, the Glover & Davis lawyers felt

confident in selecting Chief Judge Baldwin to fill their litigation goals. As in

Savannah, this judge selection was again easily accomplished due to the absence

of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan. (V3, p.437)

5.6 Chief Judge Baldwin was easily selected for this case by the Glover &

Davis lawyer falsely alleging an emergency with the sworn statement of

John Harold Murphy that Michelle Murphy was planning to move to

South Carolina. The Standing Order in the Coweta Judicial Circuit prevents such

a move, upon the filing of any type of domestic relations complaint without the

feigned emergency hearing on the day that Chief Judge Baldwin was presiding,

which was used by the Glover & Davis lawyer to hand pick Chief Judge Baldwin

for this case. (V1, p.7) The selection of Chief Judge Baldwin occurred when he

was unopposed for reelection but before all of his “campaign contributions” had

been collected. (V7, p.1419)

5.7 The grievous errors of law, i.e., violation of the Canons of the Georgia Code

of Judicial Conduct, only identify the faade of the obstruction of justice that

has devastated the lives of Michelle, Jack and Thomas Murphy since they

refused to succumb to the Glover & Davis demand on behalf of John Harold

Murphy that the family move to Tennessee to live within ten (10) miles of John

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud. (V8, p.1567)

5.8 Once privately with Chief Judge Baldwin, twice with affidavits, and on a

regular basis with their father, both children have elected to stay with

their mother.





.

5.9 Chief Judge Baldwin has continually threatened and blamed

Michelle Murphy and her counsel for attempting to exercise the legal right to

have a judge who is not biased, rather than have Chief Judge Baldwin, who

engaged in the following conduct.

5.9.1 Chief Judge Baldwin did not read the opposed Order before signing it that

granted the guardian ad litem unconstitutional authority to modify custody that

the guardian ad litem attempted to use. (V5, p. 901)

5.9.10 Upon motion, Chief Judge Baldwin did not disqualify the guardian ad

litem who did not comply with USCR 24.9(8)(g) when the guardian ad litem

converted funds to her personal (V8, p.1556), a portion of which Michelle Murphy

could ultimately be liable to pay.

5.9.11 Chief Judge Baldwin did not refer his USCR 25 disqualification

motions to another judge, as required; instead, he disputed the facts, with false

statements, in the first disqualification motion. (This was the only disqualification

Order that he entered, or ruled upon.V2, p.306) This mandate seek to have this

first disqualification motion referred to an impartial judge for a hearing, as

Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, et seq. required, but Chief Judge Baldwin

refuses to do.

5.9.12 Chief Judge Baldwin also designated this law-breaking guardian ad

litem, whom Michelle Murphy had attempted to disqualify due to her illegal

conduct, to select a custody evaluator. (V14, p. 2752) The contract of the custody

evaluator requires Michelle Murphy to be liable for large sums of money,

expensive litigation costs and to grant the evaluator, not just bad faith immunity,

but full immunity (V12, p. 2308) before the custody evaluator will even discuss





.

the methods to be used for the evaluation. The custody evaluator’s contract

created a financial liability for Michelle Murphy that was not in the best interest

of the children. The custody evaluator is just another litigation scheme of the John

Harold Murphy lawyers after their selected judge, Chief Judge Baldwin, their

selected guardian ad litem and their expert psychiatrist witness each crashed and

burned when their misconduct ignited them.

5.9.13 The guardian ad litem, an attorney, obtained counsel who filed for a

protective order that has prevented the deposition of the guardian ad litem, who

has provided no financial records to counsel. (V12, p.2378, V13, p.2596)

5.9.14 Chief Judge Baldwin’s threats most frequently involve warning

Michelle Murphy, the party without adequate financial resources, about the

possibility of not being able to recover the attorney fees necessary to defend the

attempted takeover, modification action of these multimillionaires. Another

example follows.

!"# %&# '& (")# #*%+ *,*-. #/ #0& 1*2#-&)3 "#

$%&'' (&)* *# +,,- -.**/)0 &'' *1/2 3#),$ #.* 1,4,5

6.22/)0 &7#.* *1/2 *1/)08

9 3,&)5 &0&/)5 /6 $#. :#)%* 1&;, &)$*1/)0 *# 6,&45

/6 ,;,4$*1/)0 /2 &'' 4/01*5 &): ,;,4$*1/)0%2 7,,)

:#), *1, (&$ /*%2 2.--#2,: *# 7, :#),5 $#. :#)%*

1&;, &)$*1/)0 *# 6,&4 &7#.* '#2/)0 <.2*#:$ #6 *1,

<1/':4,)=

>): 9 ?.2* (&)*,: *# +)#( /6 $%&'' 4,&''$ (&)*

*# ?.2* +,,- :4&00/)0 *1/2 #.* '/+, *1/2= @#.

+)#(5 $%&'' <&) 2-,): 3#),$ *# +/)0:#3 <#3,5

*1&* +/): #6 *1/)0= 4.5 #0&2&6) ./ +-.5 /7

,"*2*.#&& #0*# 86' ,/-., #/ *9*25 *.: *##/2.&:6)

7&&); :/" +./9; #/ </=&2 *.: /7 #0-) )#"773





.

>0&2&6) ./#0-., #0*# 2&?"-2&) '& #/ 5/ #0*#3 4.5

)/ 8 (")# 9*.# :6*%% #/ #0-.+ *@/"# #0*#3 (Tr.

Aug. 30, 2012, p. 29, lines 2-15)

5.9.15 As the case progressed and Chief Judge Baldwin’s expressed the belief

that the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the case provided him a safe harbor for

his conduct, Chief Judge Baldwin began threatening both Michelle Murphy and

her counsel with his, “I’ll put you in Jail,” loud ultimatums, as occurred when

counsel attempted to have a calendar call taken down by the court reporter as a

part of documenting issues of the court’s deviation from a USCR 3.1 case

management plan.

AB#.)2,' 6#4 *1, -&4*/,2 &): *1, 0.&4:/&) &: '/*,3<&3, 6#4(&4: 6#4 & 7,)<1 <#)6,4,)<,=C

THE COURT: I’m telling him that I’m not going to take

*1, (1#', <&',):&4 :#() #) *1, 4,<#4:5 *1&* 9 (/''

*&+, *1/2 :#()= >): 9 (/'' 3&+, 2.4, *1&* ,;,4$7#:$

that’s involved is here, is called, and it’s on the

record as to whether they’re here or not here. And if

they’ve got any kind of objections or motions, any of

that kind of stuff will be taken down. But I’m not

0#/)0 *# *&+, :#() ,;,4$*1/)0D #) *1, <&',):&4 <&''5

9’m not going to put everybody else called. That has

)# 7,&4/)0 #) 1/2 <&2, (1&*2#,;,4=

EF= G>FEHFI @#.4 J#)#45 9 &3 *1, -,42#) *1&* 3&+,2

*1, :,*,43/)&*/#) #6 (1&* &4, *1, /22.,2 /) *1, <&2,5

&): 9

KJH BLMFKI N#= 9 &3 *1, -,42#) *1&* 3&+,2 *1,

:,*,43/)&*/on, and I’m clear on that on the law. Now,

go have a seat, and I’m going

EF= G>FEHFI B&) $#. *,'' 3, (1&* *1, '&( /2 *1&*





.

you’re following?

THE COURT: Yeah. I’m following the law that we say

,;,4$ :&$= 9 :,</:, (1&* *1, /22.,2 &4,= L+&$8 O# 1&;,

& 2,&*=

ER. FARMER: But I’m entitled to preserve them, YourJ#)#4=

THE COURT: You’re entitled to preserve the issues of

$#.4 <&2,=

EF= G>FEHFI E$ <&2,=

THE COURT: And I’ll be more than glad to do it.

EF= G>FEHFI E$ <&2,=

KJH BLMFKI P##+5 '##+=

EF= G>FEHFI E$ <&2, :,&'2 (/*1 *1, (&$ $#. <&'' *1,

<&',):&4=

THE COURT: Look, look, Millard. Don’t argue with me.

M):,42*&):8

EF= G>FEHFI 9 ?.2* (&)* *# 3&+, 2.4, *1, 4,<#4: /2

<',&4=

THE COURT: If you keep arguing with me, now, I’m going

to put you in jail. I’m not going to 3,22 (/*1 $#.

anymore. Okay? And I don’t care. You can jump up and

:#() &'' $#. (&)*5 &): $#. <&) 3&+, &'' *1, )#/2, $#.

(&)* *# 3&+,5 but you keep messing with me, and I’m

,/-., #/ 1"# :/" -. (*-%3

A/ :/" ".5&2)#*.5 '&B A/ :/" ".5&2)#*.5 '&B

A/ :/" ".5&2)#*.5 '&B (Tr. Aug. 6, 2013) (V10, p.1929; V12

p.2327)

5.9.16 The jail threats of Chief Judge Baldwin on August 13, 2013, culminated

with a speech to Michelle Murphy that she was subject to being put in jail if shedid not physically force the fifteen and nearly thirteen year old children to visit





.

with John Harold Murphy according to the terms of the 2008 divorce decree and

his modified conditions of the Standing Order. In parts, the speech was as follows.

I am ordering you to make them go. I don't care whether they jump up and

down, scream and holler, lock themselves in their room. Whatever they do, you have got to make them go. Do you understand that?

* * * If you don't do what I tell you to do -- and I'm telling you to see that they

go; I'm not giving them the option and I'm telling them they've got to go.

But if you don't do that , I'll put you in jail.

* * * THE COURT: All right. Now, so he gets to see them whenever he’s

supposed to see them. He can take them to Russia if he wants to during

that time. But he's got to have them back on time. (Tr. Aug. 13, 2013, p.259; V11, pp.2080-81)

5.10 The ex parte obtained August 23, 2013 Order followed the August 13,

2013 modification of custody, i.e., visitation pronouncement at the hearing

where counsel for Michelle Murphy was not allowed to complete

cross-examination of John Harold Murphy’s impaired witness and Michelle

Murphy was prevented from producing any of her witnesses. See, Tr. Aug. 13,

2013, pp. 274, 276.

5.11 Chief Judge Baldwin, on October 3, 2013, after being served with a

Notice of Supersedeas and Plea as to the Absence of Jurisdiction and

Unconstitutional Due Process Nature of the Alleged “Contempt” Actions (V14,

p.2810), while admittedly “mad,” had Larry King taken into custody by the

Deputy Sheriff and arrested for contempt and fined $1,000 for attempting to

explain the motion addressing supersedeas, jurisdiction and the law of contempt.

(Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, pp. 7, 112; V14, p. 2850) That first, “I was mad,” contempt





.

was withdrawn, and another contempt and $1,000 fine imposed on Larry King

at the end of the October 3, 2013 hearing. (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013)

5.12 The oral pronouncement of indirect criminal contempts for alleged

conduct not in the presence of the Court and not proven beyond a reasonable

doubt, occurred at the October 3, 2013 hearing, at which neither Michelle

Murphy nor Millard Farmer were present, as there was no subpoena or Rule Nisi

requiring that they be present at the contempt hearing based upon the August 23,

2013, ex parte Order on appeal that resulted after the August 13, 2013 hearing,

where Michelle Murphy was not allowed to present evidence. Shore v. Shore,

253 Ga. 183 (1984). Chief Judge Baldwin stated:

Q.* 9 &3 0#/)0 *# 1#': 1,4 /) <#)*,3-* &): 6/):

she’s in contempt for not having them ready on

*/3,=[Michelle Murphy allowed Thomas to shower and remove his

football practice uniform when he returned home from school. To

accommodate for this 30 minute delay, the driver for John Murphy returned

the children home 30 minutes late]

Also, it’s obvious that these RR *1/2 <&2, (&2

:/2<.22,: (/*1 *1, 7#$2= >): (1/', 9 /):/<&*, *1,-&4*/,2 &4, )#*5 *1, &**#4),$2 &4, *1,/4

4,-4,2,)*&*/;,2 &): *1,/4 &0,)*25 &): *1,$ &4, 7#.):

7$ 2.ch instructions, I believe, so I’ll say she’s

/) <#)*,3-* 6#4 *1&* 4,&2#)=

[Jack and Thomas Murphy provided affidavits to support that their mother

was not in contempt relating to visitation and their desire to remain with the

divorce decree custodial parent, their mother.

The affidavits also establish the change in visitation with the August 23,2013 modification order. (V14, p. 2711)]





.

And I’m also going to hold her in contempt for not

&--,&4/)0 &* *1/2 1,&4/)0= 96 21, 1&: 7,,) 1,4,5

(, <#.': 1&;, 4,2#';,: & '#* #6 *1,2, /22.,2=

SMichelle Murphy was provided no Rule Nisi or subpoena requiring her to

appear and answer to the charges of criminal contempt, as detailed by LarryKing to Chief Judge Baldwin when he first held Larry King in criminal

contempt=T

So what I’m going to do is, I’m going to hold her

/) (/''6.' <#)*,3-* #6 <#.4* 6#4 *1, 4,&2#)2 9 ?.2*

stated, and I’m going to let her purge herself RR

I’m going to order her confined to the Coweta County

U&/' .)*/' 21, -.40,2 1,42,'6 64#3 <#)*,3-* 7$<#3-'$/)0 (/*1 *1, #4:,4 *# <##-,4&*, (/*1 *1,

<.2*#:$ ,;&'.&*/#)5 Swhich required signing the contract] &):

*1&* 21, :# 2#=

I’m also going to require her to pay five thousand

dollars in attorney’s fees – [Requirement to pay attorney fee

awarded for the contempt hearing, without showing basis for fee with

payment due before released from jail is illegal See, Horn v Shepherd 292

Ga. 14 (2012)]

Now, she’s got to do these things before she’s

4,',&2,: RR &): RR Well, there’s never been a fee

&7#.* 1#( 3.<1 1, 1&2 -&/: *# 1&;, *# RR #*1,4 *1&)

attorney’s fees RR &): 1&2 -&/: *1, ,;&'.&*#45 7.*

we’re eventually going to have to talk to that

evaluator, and I’ll deal with that at another time.

I’m also RR I’m sorry5 E4= V/)05 7.* 9 7,'/,;,

*1&* $#. &): E4= G&43,4 21#.': 1&;, 4,W./4,: *1/2

lady to be here. I know of no reason she couldn’t

7, 1,4,= X# *1, RR so I’m going to hold y’all both





.

in contempt. Again, I’m going to fine you a thousand

dollars. I’m going to #4:,4 $#. <#)6/),: *# *1,

?&/' .)*/' $#. -&$ & *1#.2&): :#''&42= @#. <&) -&$

/* )#( if you want to, and I’ll have to draw up an

#4:,4 &7#.* *1&*=

I’m also going to order Mr. Farmer RR I’m going

*# 6/): 1/3 /) <#)*,3-* 6#4 )#* 1&;/)0 1/2 <'/,)*

1,4,5 &): &'2#5 7,<&.2, 1, ,;/:,)*'$ :/2<.22,: *1/2

<&2, (/*1 *1,2, 7#$2 &2 1/2 <'/,)* (&2 /)2*4.<*,:

)#* *#5 &):5 ,;/:,)*'$5 /* (&2 &'' :#), /) 64#)* #6

him and his mother and Mr. Farmer, and so I’m going

*# #4:,4 E4= G&43,4 RR 1#': 1/3 /) <#)*,3-*5 #4:,4

1/3 <#)6/),: *# *1, B#(,*& B#.)*$ U&/' .)*/' 1,,/*1,4 RR .)*/' 1, -.40,2 1/32,'6 7$ -&$/)0 &

*1#.2&): :#''&42 *# *1, B#.4*=

5.13 The errors of law in the case are easily defined; the more devastating

obstructions of justice designed to create large litigation costs to this mother in

order to defend the hostile takeover of her children are embedded in the

combined, continuous errors of law and judicial bullying threats by Chief Judge

Baldwin that are all-encompassing denials of due process, each of which is

violation of the Canons of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct that require

that Chief Judge Baldwin initiate the required first step for Michelle Murphy to

have the protections afforded to her by Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, et. seq.

5.14 As toxic as the bullying threats of Chief Judge Baldwin are, they do not

create the devastation that the read-without-signing, Glover & Davis prepared,

Orders of Chief Judge Baldwin create, reflecting only advocacy by Chief

Judge Baldwin against Michelle Murphy for his political bartering power and







.

KJH BLMFKI 9 *1#.01* (, <1&)0,: /* R

EF= G>FEHFI N#=

KJH BLMFKI RR &): <#44,<*,: *1&*=

EF= G>FEHFI N#5 2/4=

KJH BLMFKI Y,''5 /2 *1&* *1, :,&'8 Y1&* /2 *1,:,&' &7#.* -&$/)0 RR

EF= "F>VHI 9 *1#.01* 3$ <'/,)* (&2 0#/)0 *# -&$ /*

.- 64#)* &): (,%: &''#<&*, /* &* *1, ;,4$ ,):=

K1&*%2 (1&*%2 7,,) 1&--,)/)0=

EF= G>FEHFI >''#<&*,: &* *1, ;,4$ ,): /2 )#* R

EF= "F>VHI 9* <#.': 7, [,4#5 E/''&4:= @#.4 <'/,)*

3&$ 1&;, *# -&$ [,4#= 9* :#,2)%* 3,&) *1&* 21,%2

#7'/0&*,: *# -&$ – SDuring the divorce, it meant that theagreement before Judge 3 of 5, Baldwin, was different when it was

finalized before Judge 4 of 5 Judge Blackmon (V2, p.202]

5.16 The second prime example is the August 23, 2013 Order

(V11, p. 2187).

6. The Motion for Contempt of John Harold Murphy Documents the

Modification of Custody i.e., Visitation that the Glover & Davis Lawyer Had

Chief Judge Baldwin Order in his ex parte August 23, 2013 Order6.1 This overtly seemingly trite matter is relevant to demonstrate that this is

one of the two ways that Chief Judge Baldwin modified the custody, i.e.,

visitation, when the ex parte letter (V15, p. 3005) was hand delivered with the

August 23, 2013 proposed Order, which was signed without reading.

6.2 The Glover & Davis lawyers wished to modify custody, i.e., visitation, to

accommodate the travel to Paris, France of John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud and the speech, one visitation weekend later, of John Harold Murphy

to the UT Chattanooga Mocs football team. (V13, p. 2617) John Harold Murphy





.

and Renee L. Haugerud wished to display Jack and Thomas Murphy at the Mocs

speech. In the Motion for Contempt filed on August 28, 2013, after the August

23, 2013 Order was executed, John Harold Murphy swore (V11 p.2219)

supported by the Glover & Davis lawyers, that the weekend of August 16-18,

2013 was John Harold Murphy’s designated alternate visitation weekend (V12,

p. 2244). He sought to have Michelle Murphy held in contempt for not allowing

him visitation on that weekend, when, in actuality, he had excused the children

from having to travel to St. Thomas, where he was on Friday, August 16, 2013.

6.3 Jack Murphy, the 15 year old child, recorded the phone conversation with

his father on Friday, August 16, 2013 documenting that the children were

excused from visiting with him on that weekend (V14, p. 2744)

6.4 In order to modify visitation while attempting to shield the August 23, 2013

Order from appellate review, the Glover & Davis lawyer included the absolutely

contradictory statement, “The physical custody of the children shall not be

changed at this time” (V11, p. 2191). The statement is a self-serving defense of

the Glover & Davis lawyer, as Chief Judge Baldwin never read the ex parte

obtained August 23, 2013 Order. (V11 p.2214)

6.5 Chief Judge Baldwin defends the ex parte letter which accompanied the

proposed Order as follows.

THE COURT I’m just tired of things RR P/+, 9

noticed in this thing y’all talk about some kind

of ex parte conversations. I don’t think I have

1&: &)$ ,Z -&4*, <#);,42&*/#)2 (/*1 E4= "4&+,

&7#.* *1/2 &)$*/3, '&*,'$ /6 9 ,;,4 1&: &)$= 9don’t think, since *1, 7,0/))/)0 #6 *1/2 <&2, 9





.

have, partly because of all the stuff that’s been

0#/)0 #) /) *1, X*&*, &7#.* ,Z -&4*,

<#);,42&*/#)2= 9 .2,: *# *&'+ *# '&($,42 &7#.*

setting cases up and stuff like that. Now, I don’t

:# *1&*D 9 0,* 3$ 2,<4,*&4$ *# :# *1&*5 #4 3$clerk to do that. And I don’t believe I have had

any ex parte conversations, and I don’t see how

y’all could know about any unless you supposedly

1&;, 3$ -1#),2 7.00,: #4 1/2 -1#), 7.00,:=

But, you know, it’s stuff like that that y’all

-.* /) *1,2, *1/)02 *1&* &4, &72#'.*,'$ .)*4.,5

and I’m fed up with it.

EF= V9NOI B1/,6 U.:0,5 *1, ',**,4 *1&* (&2

2.73/**,: *# $#.5 *1, >.0.2* *1, *(,)*$R*1/4:

#4:,45 64#3 E4= "4&+, (&2 &) ,Z -&4*,

<#33.)/<&*/#)=

\ \ \

But those things are untrue. Y’all said so man$

.)*4., *1/)02 &7#.* 3,5 &2 (,'' &2 #*1,4 -,#-',5

7.* 9 +)#( &7#.* 3,5 /) *1&* 6/42* 4,<.2&' *1&*

$#. 6/',:5 /* (&2 ?.2* .)7,'/,;&7',=

Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p. 15, l. 5- p. 16, l. 14 * * *

EF= V9NOI

B#.': 9 2-,&+ #) *1, ,Z -&4*, <#33.)/<&*/#)28

9t’s at p&0, *1/4*$R*(# #6 *1/4*$R6/;, #6 #.4

4,2-#)2,= K1/2 /2 *1, ',**,4 *1&* (&2 2.73/**,:

*# $#.5 U.:0, Q&':(/)I

!"#$ &'("$#&) *# +' &,+*" - .&(&*/&) 0.$,

12& 0$$13+"" ($+(2 +1 !.'$") 4*))"& 5(2$$")&1+*"*'67 ($'1.+.8 1$ 92+1 4#: 4;.<28

.&<.&#&'1&) 1$ 8$; ;')&. $+12 *' ($;.17 2&





.

*# '$1 +9+.& $0 +'8 <.+(1*(&# *'/$"/*'6 +'8

<"+8&. $' 2*# 1&+, $' 5+1;.)+8 ,$.'*'6 $.

+'8 $12&. 1*,& );.*'6 12*# 9&&=&'): SThe letter

continued with a false statement about visitation that

contradicted the affidavit of Michelle Murphy (V14 p.2755)(V15 p. 3042) that would have been available through her

testimony if Chief Judge Baldwin had allowed her to present

evidence.

C3D3E >0*# 9*) *. &F 1*2#& </''".-<*#-/.=

KJH BLMFKI Y,''5 ',* 3, ?.2* *,'' $#. *1/2= 9

didn’t solicit the ex parte communication. I can’t

:# &)$*1/)0 &7#.* (1&* -,#-', (4/*, 3,=

Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p. 119, l. 12- 25 emphasis supplied

7. The Illegal Conduct of Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Deprives

Michelle Murphy of her Right to Counsel that only the Writ of Mandamus can

Prevent by Requiring Chief Judge Baldwin to Follow the Law

7.1 Michelle Murphy is being deprived of her right to counsel in both the

underlying Civil Action No. 12V-413 Complaint for Modification of Custody, or in

the Alternative Parenting Time (or, “Complaint for Modification”) brought against

her by John Harold Murphy and in being defended of charges for criminal contempt

brought against her by John Harold Murphy.

7.2 Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. deprived and continues to deprive

Michelle Murphy of her right to effective representation by her counsel, Larry King

and Millard Farmer, who are being subjected to charges of criminal contempt by

Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. to the extent that the conduct of Chief Judge

Baldwin interferes with the right of Michelle Murphy to counsel and interferes withthe custodial obligations of Michelle Murphy to her children, Jack Murphy and





.

Thomas Murphy. See, October 3, 2013 Transcript and the Affidavits of Larry King.

V14, p. 2832; V16, p. 3478

8. The Law that Chief Judge Baldwin Refuses to obey

8.1 Chief Judge Baldwin dogmatically refused and maintains that he will not obeyUniform Superior Court Rule 25, et seq., that dictates the conduct of Chief Judge

Baldwin which he refused to obey, and is as follows.

25.3. Duty of the trial judge

When a judge is presented with a motion to recuse, or disqualify,

accompanied by an affidavit, the judge shall temporarily cease to act

upon the merits of the matter and shall immediately determine the

timeliness of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, andmake a determination, assuming any of the facts alleged in the affidavit

to be true, whether recusal would be warranted. If it is found that the

motion is timely, the affidavit sufficient and that recusal would be

authorized if some or all of the facts set forth in the affidavit are true,

another judge shall be assigned to hear the motion to recuse. The

allegations of the motion shall stand denied automatically. The trial

judge shall not otherwise oppose the motion. In reviewing a motion to

recuse, the judge shall be guided by Canon 3(E) of the Georgia Code ofJudicial Conduct

8.2 Instead of ceasing to act, Chief Judge Baldwin, on the occasion of the first

motion to disqualify him, denied the motion by opposing the affidavit, falsely stating

that the affidavit was incorrect. Chief Judge Baldwin did not refer that first motion

to another judge for adjudication of the facts that he opposed.

See, Isaacs v. State, 257 Ga. 126 (1987); Birt v. State 256 Ga. 483 (1986).

8.3 On each of the following motions for his disqualification, Chief Judge Baldwin

refused to rule on the motions, including the constitutional challenge to Uniform





.

Superior Court Rule 25, et seq. That refusal to rule upon the disqualification motions

is one of the bases for this petition.

8.3.1 Chief Judge Baldwin didn’t just refuse to rule upon the disqualification

motions; in open court, Chief Judge Baldwin proclaimed as follows. [Under Chief

Judge Baldwin’s view, he is above the reach of the law]

And I’m not going to recuse myself. I’ll tell

you right now, I’m not going to recuse myself.

And I’m going to put in there RR 7,<&.2, y’all

have already had your chance on recusal. It’s

@&&. *11&*%&53 >0&: "10&%5 '& )#*:-., -. #0-)

case and not recusing myself. And we’re just

,/-., #/ +&&1 -# %-+& #0*#.[emphasis supplied] ( Murphy v.

Murphy, 747 S.E.2d 21, 2013 Ga. App, granted Cert Petition,

S13G1651)

8.3.1.1 The “they upheld me” proclamation of Chief Judge Baldwin was

only a dismissal of an appeal because the legislature amended OCGA 5 6-34

(a)(11) while an appeal of Chief Judge Baldwin’s disqualification motion was

pending. The Supreme Court of Georgia has accepted a petition for writ of

certiorari to decide if the legislature could vacate jurisdiction once a case was

pending before an appellate court. This grant of the certiorari case does not

resolve the issues in this petition.

8.3.1.2 Chief Judge Baldwin began escalating his defiance of the Uniform

Superior Court Rule 25.3 “Duty of a Judge” by making threats to Michelle

Murphy that she would not be provided the financial assistance to repel the

attack upon her by John Harold Murphy, Renee L. Haugerud and Chief Judge

Baldwin.





.

Now, I don’t know if your <'/,)* /2 -&$/)0 $#.=

Y’all may be eating all this stuff. But I’ll

*,'' $#. (1&*= Because of all this stuff, I’m

unlikely to give you any attorney’s fees so

y’all are working on this thing on your own money if you’re doing all of this. SOct. 3, 2013 Tr.pp.

17-18,emphasis supplied]

8.3.1.3 The threat to Michelle Murphy about not awarding her attorney fees

to defend the attack of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud upon her

and the children occurred on more than one occasion. On another occasion,

Chief Judge Baldwin warned as follows.

SE/''&4: G&43,4T >): /6 (,%4, 0#/)0 *# 7, -'&<,:

#) *4/&' 6#4 *1, (1#', (1&*,;,4 1, <'&/32 *1/2

3#4)/)05 (, 1&;, *# 1&;, )#*/<, #6 *1, /22.,25

&): 1, 1&2 *# -4#;/:, & 2(#4) 2*&*,3,)* /)

2.--#4* #6 1/2 3#*/#) (1/<1 1,%2 ),;,4 :#),=

K1&*%2 (1&* 1, :#,2)%* :# (/*1 &)$ #6 1/2

3#*/#)2= J, :#,2)%* 6#''#( M)/6#43 X.-,4/#4

B#.4* F.', ]=^ &): *1, -&4*/<.'&4 -4#;/2/#)2 #65

W.#*,5 .)W.#*,5 <'&22/6$/)0 2#3,*1/)0 &2

,3,40,)<$=K1,2, <1/':4,) &4, /) 2<1##'D *1, <1/':4,) &4,

#) *1,/4 3,:/<&*/#)5 &): *1,$%4, /) -.7'/<

2<1##'= N#(5 *1,$ &4, )#*5 &2 E2= J&4(,'' (&)*,:

*1,35 *4&)26,44,: *# *1, 6&*1,4 /) >*'&)*& (1#

'/;,2 /) B1&**&)##0&5 7.* 1&2 &

<#):#3/)/.3 /) >*'&)*&= >): *1, 3#*1,4 1&2 &

4/01* *# 1&;, *1,3 /) & 2<1##' 21, <&) &66#4:=

J, :/:)%* (&)* *# -4#;/:, *1,

*4&)2-#4*&*/#)5 &): (, *4/,: *# 0,* *1,3 *#

-4#;/:, –





.

KJH B#.4* >'' 4/01* Q.* '##+5 '##+ U.2* 1&;, &

2,&* & 3/).*,= J&;, E4= E.4-1$ &): $#. 1&;, E2=

E.4-1$ <#3, .- 1,4,=

AK1, -&4*/,2 <&3, 6#4(&4: &): 2&* (/*1 *1,/4

4,2-,<*/;, <#.)2,'=CKJH BLMFKI @#. +)#(5 /6 &)$7#:$%2 #72*4.<*/)0

&)$*1/)05 /*%2 $#.5 E4= G&43,4=

N#(5 9%3 *&'+/)0 )#( 2# :on’t interrupt me=

96 &)$7#:$ /2 #72*4.<*/)0 &)$*1/)05 /*%2 $#.=

>): $#. 3&$ 1&;, & 4/01* ',0&''$ *# :# *1, *1/)02

*1&* $#.%4, :#/)0= Q.* /6 $%&'' :#)%* 1&;,

&)$*1/)0 *# 6,&45 /6 ,;,4$*1/)0 /2 #+&$5 *1,4,%2

)# 4,&2#) *# :# *1#2, *1/)02=

96 #.4 <'/,)* /2 7,/)0 *1, 3#*1,4 *1&* 21, 21#.':

7,5 -4#;/:/)0 *1, <1/':4,) (/*1 RR 9 :#)%* +)#(

&)$*1/)0 &7#.* (1&* *1,$%4, <'&/3/)0 &7#.* 1,4D

#+&$8 9 1&;,)%* 0#**,) *1&* 6&4D 9

1&;,)%* 4,&: &)$*1/)0 &7#.* *1&*

9 :#)%* +)#( (1&* *1,$%4, <'&/3/)0 &7#.* 1,4=

>'' 9 +)#( /25 /2 $#. :#)%* -.'' &'' *1,2, 2*.)*2

*1&* $#.%4, -.''/)0 RR *1&* $#. <&) ',0&''$ :#=

Y, &'' 1&;, *1#2, +/):2 #6 *1/)02 @#. +)#(5 #),

#6 *1, 3#2* <#33#) *1/)02 /2 &2+/)0 6#4 & ?.4$

*4/&' *# :,'&$ *1/)02 (1,) /*%2 ,/*1,4 )#* 0#/)0

$#.4 (&$ #4 $#. (&)* *# :4&0 /* #.*= 9%;, :#),

*1, 2&3, *1/)0 &2 & '&($,4= X# 9%3 )#* RR $#.%;,

0#* & 4/01* *# :# *1#2, *1/)02= Q.* *1,4,%2 )#

4,&2#) *# :# *1,3 /6 ,;,4$*1/)0 /2 #+&$5 (1/<1

3&+,2 *1, *1/)0 '##+ 2.2-/</#.2=

Tr. August 30, 2012, pp. 13-14.

8.3.1.4 Chief Judge Baldwin, later on the same day continued as follows





.

9 1&;, *1#.01* &7#.* *1/2 /6 $%&'' (&)* *#= 9

1&*, *# *,'' $#.5 E4= G&43,45 7.* #), #6 *1,

4,&2#)2 –$#. +)#(5 *1, ,&2$ *1/)0 *# :#5 6#4 3#2*

?.:0,25 (1,*1,4 *1,$ *1/)+ *1,4,%2 04#.):2 6#44,<.2&' #4 )#*5 /2 ?.2* <&-/*.'&*, &): 4,<.2,

$#.42,'6 &): -.* /* #) 2#3, #*1,4 ?.:0,= Q.* #),

*1/)05 $#. 1&: /):/<&*,: *1&* $#. (,4, 0#/)0 *#

*4$ *# 4,<.2, ),&4'$ ,;,4$7#:$ (/*1/) & 1.):4,:

3/',2 *1&* *4/,: *# *&+, .- *1/2 <&2,=

EF= G>FEHFI K1&*%2 &) ,Z&00,4&*/#)=

KJH BLMFKI Y,''5 3&$7, /* (&2 6/6*$ 3/',2D ,Z<.2,

3,=

EF= G>FEHFI N#5 (, –

KJH BLMFKI L+&$= Q.* 9%3 *4$/)0 *# 2&$ –

EF=G>FEHFI K4$/)0 *# +,,- 64#3 ;/#'&*/)0 F.', _=^

KJH BLMFKI Y&/*5 (&/*5 (&/*5 (&/*5 (&/*5 (&/*=

@#. 1&: /):/<&*,: &)$7#:$ /) *1/2 </4<./* $#.

(,4, 0#/)0 *# *4$ *# 4,<.2, 7,<&.2, #6 #.4 3,*1#:

#6 &22/0)/)0 <&2,2= >): 2# /* :/:)%* 2,,3 '/+, –

/* 2,,3,: '/+,5 #), *1/)05 *1&* *1, :,'&$ (&2

0#/)0 *# 7, <#)2*&)*= X# 9 *1#.01* *1&* (&2-4#7&7'$ & W./<+,4 (&$ #6 :,&'/)0 (/*1 /*5 -'.25

9 :/:)%* *1/)+ $#. 1&: – N#(5 (,%4, )#* 0#/)0 *#

&40., &7#.* *1&*= 9 -,42#)&''$ :/: )#* *1/)+ *1&*

1,4, (,4, &)$ 04#.):2 *# 4,<.2, 3,= X#3, #6 *1,

*1/)02 $#. 2&/: /) *1,4, (,4, &72#'.*,'$ .)*4.,

&7#.* 3,5 (1/<1 9 :/:)%* &--4,</&*,= >): 9

-#/)*,: *1&* #.* /) *1, *1/)0= K1,$ (,4,)%*

04#.):2 6#4 4,<.2&'5 &): 9 1&:)%* ;/#'&*,: *1,

B#:, #6 U.:/</&' H*1/<25 &): *1/)02 '/+, *1&*= 9







.

*# :/23/22 1,4 64#3 *1/2 <&2, 7,<&.2, 21, :#,2)%*

7,'#)0 /) 1,4, &)$(&$=

K1&* 1&2 )#*1/)0 *# :# (/*1 *1, <.2*#:$ #6 *1,2,

+/:2=

EF= G>FEHFI 9* :#,2 7,<&.2, $#.%4, &**,3-*/)0 *#2*4/+, -&4* #6 *1, -',&:/)02 6/',: #) 7,1&'6 #6

E4= E.4-1$=

KJH BLMFKI >'' 4/01*= P##+5 '##+= P##+5 9%3 )#*

3&+/)0 & :,</2/#) &7#.* *1&*D #+&$8 9%3 )#* *1,

#), *# 3&+, & :,</2/#) &7#.* (1,*1,4 U.:0, V,,7',

21#.': 7, 4,<.2,:= 9%3 )#* 3&+/)0 & :,</2/#)

&7#.* *1,/4 3#*/#) *# :/23/22 *1, <&2, &0&/)2*

E2= RR

EF= G>FEHFI J&.0,4.:=

KJH BLMFKI >)$(&$5 (1&*,;,4 1,4 '&2* )&3, /2=

>): 2# *1&*%2 )#* 1,4,= 9 :/: (#):,4 RR 9 2*/''

1&;, 3$ :#.7*2 &7#.* RR #) #), 1&): /6 *1,4,%2

*4.'$ &) ,3,40,)<$ 2/*.&*/#) *1&* *1,2, +/:2 &4,

/) :&)0,4 #4 *1&* +/): #6 *1/)0= X#3,*1/)0 1&2

*# 7, :#),=

>): 9 <&) *,'' $#.5 (1,) *1/2 /2 #;,4 (/*15 (1,)

9%3 #.* #6 *1/25 9%3 0#/)0 *# 1&;, & :/2<.22/#)

(/*1 2#3, #6 *1, 3,37,42 #6 *1, X.-4,3, B#.4*

*1&* (, ),,: *# '##+ &* *1,2, 4,<.2&' 4.',2 &):

&* ',&2* 1&;, 2#3,*1/)0 *1&* <#;,42 *1/2 *$-, #6

:/',33& *1&* (,%4, /)= 9 :#.7* *1&* /* <#3,2 .-

;,4$ #6*,)=

Q.* /6 *1,4,%2 *4.'$ 2#3, +/): #6 *1/)0 *1&*

2#3,*1/)0 ),,:2 *# 7, :#), 6#4 *1,2, $#.)0 3,)4/01* )#(5 *1,)5 $#. +)#(5 9 :#) %* +)#( 1#( (,

%4, 0#/)0 *# :,&' (/*1 /* 7,<&.2, RR 7.* 9 +)#(





.

*1&* RR "/:)%* U.:0, Q'&<+3#) 2/0) *1, :/;#4<,

:,<4,, #4 2#3,*1/)0 /) *1/2 *1/)08

EF= "F>VHI @,25 2/4=

KJH BLMFKI >6*,4 *1,$ 1&: :#), *1, *1/)08

X#5 $#. +)#(5 #), #6 *1, *1/)025 9 4,<+#) (,<#.': :#5 7.* $%&'' (#.': 1&;, *# &04,, *# /*5

/2 ?.2* ',* 3, 0,* #.* #6 *1, <&2, &): ',* U.:0,

Q'&<+3#) *&+, /* 64#3 1,4, #) &): 3&+, &

:,</2/#)= Q.* $%&'' (#.': 1&;, *# &04,,5 /6 (,%4,

0#/)0 *# :# *1&*5 *# ?.2* 3#;, #) &): )#* 7,

6/'/)0 &)$ #6 *1,2, *,<1)/<&' *1/)02 '/+, 3#*/#)2

*# 4,<.2, &): ,;,4$*1/)0= J, :#,2)%* 1&;, & :#0

/) *1, 6/01*= 9%3 2.4, 1, :#,2)%* +)#( *1,2,

-,#-',=

Transcript August 30, 2012, pp. 18-21.

8.3.1.5 Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. is required by Uniform Superior

Court Rules 25, et. seq., OCGA 15-6-6, his oath of office, the decisions of

the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Court of Appeals of Georgia, to adhere

to the dictates of the following Uniform Superior Court Rule.

25.3. Duty of the trial judge

When a judge is presented with a motion to recuse, or disqualify,

accompanied by an affidavit, the judge shall temporarily cease to act

upon the merits of the matter and shall immediately determine the

timeliness of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, and

make a determination, assuming any of the facts alleged in the affidavit

to be true, whether recusal would be warranted. If it is found that the

motion is timely, the affidavit sufficient and that recusal would be

authorized if some or all of the facts set forth in the affidavit are true,another judge shall be assigned to hear the motion to recuse. The

allegations of the motion shall stand denied automatically. The trial





.

judge shall not otherwise oppose the motion. In reviewing a motion to

recuse, the judge shall be guided by Canon 3(E) of the Georgia Code of

Judicial Conduct.

The Order, nunc pro tunc to August 13, 2013, by Chief Judge Baldwin is

Relevant

August 13, 2013 hearing, Michelle Murphy was not allowed to

present available evidence (Tr. Aug. 13, 2013, p. 274, lines

7-14, p, 276, lines 23-24).

See, Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183 (1984)August 16-18, 2013 was date of premodification, alternative

visitation weekend for John Harold Murphy (V14 p. 2698).

August 23, 2013 was the newly modified August 23, 2013

ordered first weekend of visitation for John Murphy. Also, noStanding Order restriction (V14 p. 2699)

August 23, 2013 Order executed that was based upon ex parte

letter that Glover & Davis hand delivered with the Glover &

Davis prepared Order and the August 13, 2013 aborted hearing

that modified the Standing Order. (V11, p.2187).

September 23, 2013 Notice of Appeal of August 23, 2013

Order (V14, p. 2774).

September 27, 2013 Contempt Motion w/o Rule Nisi, filed

based upon August 23, 2013 Order (V14, p. 2774)

October 3, 2013 hearing on September 27, 2013 Amended

[indirect] Contempt motion that was based upon August 23,

2013 Order modification of custody, i.e., visitation. See, Shore

v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183 (1984) and its progeny. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013

Hearing) At that October 3, 2013 hearing, Chief Judge Baldwin

began holding the mother and the lawyers in indirect contempt

of court.)





.

8.3.1.6 Disqualification motions were pending against Chief Judge Baldwin

at all times. (V14, p. 2774) (V1, p.28; V2, p.188; V3, p.436; V10, p.1904; V11,

p.2195; V14, p.2890; V17, p.3639) Chief Judge Baldwin only denied the first

of the motions by opposing that initial disqualification motion with false

statements. (V10, 1935) See, Isaacs v. State, 257 Ga. 126 (1987), Birt v. State

256 Ga. 483 (1986).

9. Additional Statement of the Underlying Case and Issues

John Harold Murphy, a resident of Tennessee, initiated this case against Nancy

Michelle Murphy with a Complaint for Modification of Custody, or in the

Alternative, Parenting Time. (V1, p.1) Michelle Murphy’s responses include her

Defenses, (V7, p.1290) Counterclaims, (V7, p.1336) Third Party Complaints

against Renee L. Haugerud (V7, p.1349), demand for jury trial (V1, p.132) and

Motions, as modified, to Disqualify Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. (V1,

p.28; V2, p.188; V3, p.436; V10, p.1904; V11, p.2195; V14, p.2890).

9.1 The disqualification conduct of Chief Judge Baldwin and his violation of

USCR 25 is the all-encompassing, precipitating cause of this writ, as

Michelle Murphy has no other avenue for relief of the conduct of Chief

Judge Baldwin, who simply refuses to adjudicate the motions for his

disqualification.

10. Constitutional Infirmity of USCR 25 The conduct of Chief Judge

Baldwin in this litigation illustrates the consequence of the facial

unconstitutionality of Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 (Recusal) that is the

Georgia Uniform Superior Court Rule mandated, “catch me within five (5) days

with an oath without using hearsay” substitute for a constitutional, less





.

procedurally restricted, judicial disqualification procedure that does not shield

a judge, i.e., trier of fact, from being questioned under oath about the trier of

fact’s disqualification and that can provide the movant protections accorded by

Ga. Const. Art. I, I, Para. ; Ga. Const. Art. I, 1; 1; Ga. Const. Art. I, 1,

2; United States Due Process and Equal Protection rather than

unconstitutionally subjecting aggrieved litigants to the detrimental, procedurally

required delays permitted by USCR 25 under the May 6, 2013 enacted version

of OCGA 5-6-34(a)(11) and the overruling by the Court of Appeals of Georgia

of the supplementary protection provided by the doctrines of Braddy v. State,

316 Ga. App. 292 (2012).

10.1 Establishing the facial unconstitutionality of USCR 25 et. seq. requires

no evidence.

10.2 The facial constitutionality, vel non of USCR 25 is to be adjudicated

under the existing procedural restrictions and other statutory and binding

decisions that weigh upon USCR 25 passing facial constitutional muster.

10.3 USCR 25 and the Disqualification of Chief Judge Baldwin USCR 25

now leaves Michelle Murphy burdened with the political, judicial bartering

conduct of a judge/trier of fact with biases and prejudices against her and her

counsel created by Chief Judge Baldwin’s refusal to refer his challenge to

another jurist. Any judge/custody trier of fact, even a knowledgeable Attila the

Hun, who, by modifying vel non custody for any period of time, can destroy the

lives of children before the bias of the judge/trier of fact can be reviewed by

another jurist or before the judge/trier of fact can even be voir dired to establish

a record of the trier of fact’s bias or other impediment to being a trier of fact.





.

10.4 The Chief Judge Baldwin standard of, catch-me-if-you-can, before-I-put-

you-and your lawyer in-the-can-and-thereby-weaken-you-into-submission,

prioritizes Chief Judge Baldwin’s political, i.e., financial and social interests

over the best interest of these children. This, “I’ll get you if you challenge me,”

judicial misconduct, identifies the absence of an USCR 25 constitutional

enforcement mechanism. The value of being able to voir dire a challenged jurist

is coincidentally included in the record of the underlying case in response to a

challenge to counsel for Michelle Murphy. The 1977 transcript of the testimony,

also preserved on an audio tape, of the trial judge of William Henry Furman,

Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238, taken when that judge was assigned as judge

in another death penalty case before USCR 25 was enacted, shows the value of

the voir dire of a challenged jurist, who maintains his absence of any bias. (V5,

pp.980, 1064) That testimony would never have been available under the five

day required oath, procedural noose of USCR 25.

10.5 No person could serve as a trier of fact on a jury, even diluted with eleven

other triers of facts, after making the threats that Chief Judge Baldwin made and

engaged in his conduct. USCR 25 tolerated Chief Judge Baldwin participating

in the Coweta Judicial Circuit’s failure to adopt and adhere to a USCR 3.1 case

management plan. (V2, p. 329) This refusal to adopt and enforce a USCR 3.1

plan permitted Chief Judge Baldwin’s selection by the Glover & Davis lawyer

in this case and Judge Lee’s selection in Savannah, infra.

10.7 Even if a judge is eventually disqualified during the appellate process,

after destroying an important portion of the developmental stages of the

children’s lives, the remaining status of the destructive, disqualification





.

litigation can leave the emotionally and financially debilitated family in the due

process deprivation, appellate trap that results with a City of Mayor & Aldermen

of Savannah v. Batson-Cook, 318 Ga. App. 152 (2012) type of remand that

amounts to a detrimental, lingering effect of a disqualified judge.

10.8 USCR 25 fosters and encourages the politicizing of the judiciary that is

detrimental to the separation of powers and constitutional protections.

10.9 A facial constitutional challenge to USCR 25 was timely initiated in the

trial court, in the disqualification motions.

10.11 The tender developmental years of our youth deserve protection from a

disqualified trier of fact whom USCR 25 facially tolerates at the gavel in the

hands of an irate, retaliatory judge (Tr. Oct 3, 2013 hearing, pp. 6-10, 14-19, 21,

112-116; V14, pp.2837-2855), handpicked to be a judicial/political barterer.

10.12 At each phase of this litigation, Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

gives the appearance of being a judicial/political barterer. This judge has

opposed his disqualification with false statements in denial of the first motion,

not submitted to another judge (V10, 1935) and refused, without reading, to

adjudicate or refer any of the later disqualification motions.

11. Memorandum of Law

11.1 The August 23, 2013 Order of Chief Judge Baldwin changed custody, i.e.,

visitation. “It is well established that the term "custody includes visitation rights.

OCGA 19-9-22 (1).” Bennett v. Wood , 188 Ga. App. 630, 631 (1988).

11.2 Michelle Murphy was entitled to present the evidence of the detrimental

effect upon Jack and Thomas being jet-setted around the country on the

weekends when school is in session before Chief Judge Baldwin singly, without





.

allowing Michelle Murphy’s evidence, modified the Standing Order

implemented by the judges of the Coweta Judicial Circuit. Michelle Murphy was

also entitled to present evidence about other detrimental conduct of

John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud, including but not limited to

providing the children access to alcohol by serving as bartenders at Renee

Haugerud’s functions. The August 23, 2013 Order is a house of cards order.

Disallowing Michelle Murphy to present evidence, reverses that Order and all

of its subsequent consequences. In Shore, the Supreme Court of Georgia held as

follows.

The trial court must consider all facts and conditions which present

themselves up to the time of rendering the judgment and not merely facts

and conditions which occur prior to the filing of the petition." We adhere

to the rule that where the issue is a material change in conditions

affecting the welfare of a child, it is error to refuse to hear any evidence

which might have some bearing upon that issue. Where the welfare of a

child is involved, relevant information must be received up until the very

time that the court rules. Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183, 184 (1984)

11.3 Realistically, even Shore is swallowed by a larger fish that is thedisqualification of Chief Judge Baldwin, who abrogated his authority to the

lawyers representing John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud.

11.4 Just as Chief Judge Baldwin refused to allow his disqualification motion

to be heard, he refused to allow evidence about the disqualification of the

guardian ad litem, and, in denying the disqualification, about Elizabeth “Lisa”

F. Harwell converting money from the funds advanced in trust to the guardian

ad litem to her personal account. These funds are subject to distribution upon

notice to the parties and approval by the Court.


http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&view=full&searchtype=get&search=253+Ga.+183%2520at%2520184






.

11.5 After the filing of a comprehensive motion to disqualify Elizabeth

“Lisa” F. Harwell as guardian ad litem, Chief Judge Baldwin, as the wall of

disqualification began to crumble around him, denied the unopposed motion

without a hearing. Counsel for Michelle Murphy sought discovery from the

guardian ad litem in the form of a deposition and production of documents.

11.5.1 The guardian ad litem then engaged counsel who sought a protective

order; it was opposed. (V13, p. 2595) The guardian ad litem has acted against the

best interest of the children and as an illegal advocate for her primary paymaster,

John Harold Murphy, by assisting him and Glover & Davis in creating

unnecessary litigation costs.

11.5.2 The Uniform Superior Court Rule that governs the distribution of funds

to the guardian ad litem USCR 24.9(8)(g) is as follows.

g. Payment of GAL Fees and Expenses. It shall be within the Court's

discretion to determine the amount of fees awarded to the GAL, and how

payment of the fees shall be apportioned between the parties. The GAL's

requests for fees shall be considered, upon application properly served

upon the parties and after an opportunity to be heard, unless waived. In

the event the GAL determines that extensive travel outside of the circuit

in which the GAL is appointed or other extraordinary expenditures are

necessary, the GAL may petition the Court in advance for payment of such

expenses by the parties.

This USCR 24.9(8)(g) imposed a non-discretionary obligation upon the

guardian ad litem, as the guardian ad litem did not petition the Court in

advance for payments of expense.

11.5.1 The guardian ad litem is an attorney who is also subject to the GeorgiaRules of Professional Conduct Rule Rule 1.15(II) (a) Safekeeping Property.





.

11.5.2 The Court erred in failing to allow Michelle Murphy to present evidence

on the motion to disqualify the guardian ad litem and in not disqualifying the

guardian ad litem.

11.6 The self-executing Canons 2A, 2B, and 3E of the Code of Judicial

Conduct are substantive grounds for recusal or disqualification of a judge. After

Chief Judge Baldwin began his threats and expressions of bias toward counsel

for Michelle Murphy, he should have recused himself and not awaited the series

of disqualification motions. These grounds should be assessed in light of two

well-recognized principles of Georgia law.

11.6.1 No one has a right to select the judge of their choice, and, a judge, of

course, has no right to select the cases over which the judge presides. Glover &

Davis and Chief Judge Baldwin, in concert, violated both aspects of these

principles of Georgia law in this case and it happens in the Coweta Judicial Circuit

on a regular basis. (V2, p.310 ) See Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1.

11.7 The judge and the guardian ad litem are more relevant in a case involving

the modification of custody of minor children than in other cases, as they have

an extremely broad amount of discretion that is only reviewed by an abuse of

discretion standard. To modify the visitation of the children during the school

year from the home of the mother and permit their jet-setting around the country

is modification of the greatest magnitude. Michelle Murphy has been the

custodial parent since their birth. She and the children realize the detriment of

them being forced to trek around the country on alternating weekends with these

jetsetting multimillionaires for the reason that the never-modified child support

cannot provide the financial benefits to Michelle Murphy and the children that





.

the former husband has after marrying and going in business with a

multimillionaire hedge fund manager. This case requires a judge not tempted by

the political resources of a Glover & Davis lawyer chosen by a fellow judge,

Judge Jack Kirby.

11.8 Chief Judge Baldwin’s execution of the Order appointing the Guardian

ad Litem and his even worse Order denying his disqualification demonstrates,

without any doubt, in the mind of a reasonable person, that he is not an impartial

jurist.

11.9 Chief Judge Baldwin’s “impartiality might, to say the least, reasonably

be questioned” because he participates in a systemic practice of violating

USCR 3.1 that both permits lawyers to judge shop and judges to case shop. 11.10

This Court addressed the detriment of this type of conduct in Mayor &

Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012).

11.11 Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, as applied and facially, violates the

protections afforded the Michelle Murphy and Children Parties in this case and to

others in all cases under the United States Constitution due process, U.S. Const.

amend. IV, 1 and State of Georgia Constitution Bill of Rights due process

protection (Ga. Const. Art. I, 1, 1)

11.11.1 The problem with a judge not accepting USCR 25 is explained well,

in Isaacs v. State , 257 Ga. 126, 128 (1987).

We also recognize that a judge who actively resists recusal may be fully

capable of even-handedly presiding if the motion is denied. Nevertheless,

we think that these factors are heavily outweighed by the necessity of

preserving the public's confidence in the judicial system. We therefore





.

hold that after a legally sufficient motion to recuse has been assigned for

hearing, the judge against whom the motion is directed may not oppose

the motion.

11.12 Counsel for Michelle Murphy is well-aware this Petition can illegally and

unconstitutionally suffer the same fate that motions to disqualify Chief Judge A.

Quillian Baldwin, Jr. suffered, if it is adjudicated by a jurist in the Coweta Judicial

Circuit, or a senior judge who has participated as a jurist in the Coweta Judicial

Circuit by appointment. The selection of cases by lawyers who barter political

support to judges is not a personal benefit that judges wishes to surrender.

11.13 The motion to disqualify Chief Judge Baldwin encompassed the systemic

issue of the non-discretionary dictates of Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 that is in

somewhat disfavor by all judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit who allowed it to

operate. Its operation was very simple; the local lawyers with political strength could

select their judge, and the judges could preside over a case of their choosing, with a

politically favored lawyer. The detriment of the absence of adhering to the Uniform

Superior Court Rule 3.1 ran deeper than just judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit

benefiting from the violation of USCR 3.1; there was a cadre of senior judges whofinancially benefited from coming into the circuit and carrying out the bidding of the

local judges.

11.14 Any influx of senior judges to do the bidding of Chief Judge Baldwin in

this petition will be met with the same opposition that the bidding of the Judge in the

John Henry Furman case was met. Counsel for Michelle Murphy litigated for too

many years the conduct of judges who allowed jury composition discrimination that

is closely akin to USCR 3.1 violations.





.

11.15 The Supreme Court has established that petitions for writs of mandamus

should be initially filed in the Superior Courts.

Generally, the superior courts of this state have the power, in proper cases,

to issue process in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, specific performance, quo warranto, and injunction, and hence the need to resort

to the appellate courts for such relief by petition filed in the appellate

courts will be extremely rare.

There may occasionally appear to be a need to file an original petition in

the Supreme Court to issue process in the nature of [*437] mandamus,

and perhaps quo warranto or prohibition, where a superior court judge is

named as the respondent. This appearance is misleading. Such petition

may be filed in the appropriate superior court. Being the respondent, the

superior court judge will disqualify, another superior court judge will be

appointed to hear and determine the matter, and the final decision may be

appealed to the Supreme Court for review.

Brown v. Johnson, 251 Ga. 436, 436-437 (Ga. 1983)

Also see, Gay v. Owens, 292 Ga. 480 (2013)


12.1 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that a judge other than a judge in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit, and other than a senior judge who has served by designation

in the Coweta Judicial Circuit, be designated to adjudicate this matter.

12.2 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that the Emergency Motion for Ruling on

Mandamus Nisi be granted immediately.

12.3 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that Respondent Chief Judge Baldwin be

ordered to show cause as to why mandamus absolute should not issue compelling

the Respondent to discharge his non-discretionary duty to rule upon each of the





.

motions for his disqualification by referring each of the matters to another judge, or,

for Judge Baldwin to recuse himself, nunc pro tunc, to April 10, 2012.

12.4 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests for mandamus absolute requiring Chief

Judge Baldwin to issue an order recusing himself, as he remained presiding in this

underlying case after he was placed on notice that he was selected in violation of

Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 (case management) plan and remained presiding

after he violated the self-executing Canons of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct

and is therefore disqualified, nunc pro tunc, to April 10, 2012.

12.5 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that she be allowed to produce evidence in

support of this petition.

12.6 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that she be awarded attorney fees for

bringing this action.

12.7 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that the relief requested in this petition be

granted before Chief Judge Baldwin further violates her constitutional and legally

protected rights.

12.8 Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that she be granted such other and further

relief as justice requires. .

- Respectfully submitted, This 3rd day of December, 2013

Millard FarmerGeorgia Bar No. 255300P.O. Box 1728Atlanta, GA 30301-1728(404) 688-8116

millardfarmermillardfarmer.com

Larry KingGeorgia Bar No. 419725P. O. Box 1648Jonesboro, GA 30237(770) 471-3835larrykingandlsaol.com






I hereby certify that I have this day perfected service of a copy of the

foregoing Petition for Mandamus with Memorandum of Law for an

Emergency Motion for Ruling on Mandamus Nisi, by hand delivery as

follows.

Dennis R. DunnAssistant Attorney General132 State Judicial Building40 Capitol Square, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334ddunnlaw.ga.gov

Counsel for Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.who is authorized to accept and waive further service of processfor Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

This 3rd day of December, 2013.

Millard FarmerGeorgia Bar No. 255300(404) 688-8116millardfarmermillardfarmer.com

Larry King

Georgia Bar No. 419725 (770) 471-3835larrykingandlsaol.com





Attachment 157

Notice to Produce

Notice to Produce

Attachment 157



In the Superior Court of Coweta County

State of Georgia

John Harold Murphy,Plaintiff

vs. Civil Action No. 12V-413


Defendant

Nancy Michelle Murphy’s Notice to Produce

To: Glover & Davis P. A.,Peter A. Durham,Renee L. Haugerud,Taylor Drake andJohn Harold Murphy

This is Notice to you pursuant to OCGA § 24-13-27 to produce at the

hearing scheduled for Tuesday May 27, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in the above

styled case, and from time to time and from term to term, or until the

above styled matter is concluded, the following documents, records, and

things which are or come into your possession, custody or control for useas evidence by Nancy Michelle Murphy, her counsel Larry King and

Millard Farmer in this case.

1. All documents evidencing payments to Peter A. Durham, Taylor Drake

and/or Glover & Davis P.A. relating attorney fees that you seek to recover for

litigation expenses, costs and attorney fees relating to the litigation in this case.

2. All documents that you maintain support the value of the legal services

that you attempt to recover in this matter.

3. All documents that reflect the persons or entities that have compensated

you for litigation expenses, costs and attorney fees during the litigation in this

case.

1Attachment 157, Page 1 of 3



4. All contributions, payments, or in-kind benefits provided to Judge A.

Quillian Baldwin or to elections committees for Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

during the last ten (10) years by you or persons associated with the Glover &

Davis P.A.

4. All contributions, payments, or in kind benefits provided to other judges

in the Coweta Judicial Circuit, or to elections committees for Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. during the last ten (10) years by you or persons associated with the

Glover & Davis P.A.

This 24th day of May, 2014.


Millard Farmer


P.O. Box 1728


(404) 688-8116

[email protected]

Larry KingGeorgia Bar No. 419725

P. O. Box 1648

Jonesboro, GA 30237

(770) 471-3835

[email protected]





Certificate of Service

I certify that I have today served a copy of the foregoing Nancy Michelle

Murphy’s Notice to Produce, by electronic delivery as follows:

Taylor B. DrakeGlover & Davis, P.A.

P. O. Drawer 103810 Brown Street

Newnan, GA [email protected]

Michael W. Warner


P.O. Drawer 1038

Newnan, GA 30265

[email protected]

Peter A. Durham


P. O. Drawer 1038

Newnan, GA 30265

[email protected]

Stephen E. HudsonGa. Bar No. 374692

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528

[email protected]

William R. Poplin, Jr.Ga. Bar No. 584535

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528

[email protected]

Teresa E. [email protected]

trial court counsel for

Elizabeth F. Harwell

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. is servedelectronically at [email protected]

and [email protected]

Elizabeth F. HarwellHarwell, Brown & Harwell, PC

Newnan, GA

[email protected]

This 24th day of May, 2014.

Millard Farmer

Georgia Bar No. 255300 P.O. Box 1728


(404) 688-8116

[email protected]

Larry King

Georgia Bar No. 419725P. O. Box 1648

Jonesboro, GA 30237(770) 471-3835

Fax (770) [email protected]



mailto:[email protected]







Attachment 158

Ct. App. Rule 44 Disq. Motion

Ct. App. Rule 44 Disq. Motion

Attachment 158



IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF GEORGIA

______________________________

Case No. A14A0700

______________________________


Appellant

vs.

John Harold Murphy and

Renee Haugerud,

Appellees

______________________________

Motion for Rule 44 and Due Process Disqualification

______________________________

Millard Farmer


P.O. Box 1728


(404) 688-8116

[email protected]

and

Larry King

Georgia Bar No. 419725P. O. Box 1648

Jonesboro, GA 30237

(770) 471-3835

Fax (770) 471-8200

[email protected]




Summary of MotionThis case was docketed on December 12, 2013 after it was transferred from

the Supreme Court of Georgia. The case includes the same parties before this

Court in an earlier case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Murphy v. Murphy ,

322 Ga. App. 829 (2013) (or, Murphy 1”) That dismissal occurred after there

was a statutory change in OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11) that this Court maintained

deprived it of jurisdiction when this Court applied the statutory change

retroactively.

The parties to Murphy 1 intensely litigated this Court’s jurisdiction before the

statutory change in OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11).

The parties represented by Glover & Davis strongly urged the dismissal of

Murphy 1 from the initial filing. Nancy Michelle Murphy, with equal intensity,

urged that the Court hear the case and deny its dismissal.

The Court heard the case and denied the dismissal long before oral argument,

during which the jurisdiction was not an issue that was either raised by the Court,

or counsel for either party.

The issue in Murphy 1 was the disqualification vel non of Chief Judge A.

Quillian Baldwin, Jr. The standard of review in Murphy 1 was de novo.


https://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=97b2361a78724079b5f1de2cf3f63b31&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b2013%20Ga.%20LEXIS%20901%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=1&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b747%20S.E.2d%2021%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzt-zSkAb&_md5=41e2479fdb68512cc749a82e7a0570a4







Judge Christopher J. McFadden, unknown to counsel for Nancy Michelle

Murphy, advocated at times before May 6, 2013 for passage of a statute that he

would later maintain deprived Nancy Michelle Murphy retroactively of

jurisdiction to immediately have Chief Judge Baldwin disqualified in the

pending Murphy 1.

Between May and July of 2013, as before that time, counsel for Nancy

Michelle Murphy knew nothing of Judge Christopher J. McFadden’s advocating

for passage of a revised version of the then existing OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11).

Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy had no notice that the changes in the statute

were being considered and no notice that any changes were occurring in any

jurisdictional issue in the then pending Murphy 1 case and therefore had no

opportunity to brief the issue before the Murphy 1 dismissal by this Court.

Statement of the Rule 44 and Due Process Motion

The issue in Murphy 1 was the disqualification of Chief Judge

A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. The issue in this case involves the repercussions of the

proceedings in the trial court after the jurisdictional dismissal of Murphy 1. The

two cases are tightly connected.

Judge Christopher J. McFadden’s involvement in the statutory change that


http://www.gaappeals.us/biography/bio_judges.php?jname=Christopher%20McFadden






resulted in Murphy 1’s vacating of jurisdiction raises the core issue of this Court

of Appeals Rule 44 and Due Process Disqualification Motion. The source,

available to counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy, of Judge Christopher J.

McFadden’s involvement is derived from the public records in this case, and a

published report in the State Bar of Georgia Journal. This source was identified

in the merits brief of Nancy Michelle Murphy in Supreme Court of Georgia Case

No. S13G1651.

This motion seeks to disqualify Judge Christopher J. McFadden and possibly

the two others panel members, Presiding Judge Sara L. Doyle and

Judge Michael P. Boggs, who were also on the initial panel in Court of Appeals

Case No. A13A0206, before Judge McFadden, writing for the full Court,

dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds in Murphy 1. If Presiding Judge

Sara L. Doyle and Judge Michael P. Boggs knew of Judge McFadden’s

involvement in the statutory change, or were otherwise involved in the change

of OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11) they, too, should be disqualified.

The information that serves as the basis for this motion first came to the

attention of counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy while attempting legislative

history research in preparation for a petition for writ of certiorari of Murphy 1.










This knowledge by counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy was obviously obtained

after Murphy 1 was decided. See Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Millard Farmer.

The State Bar of Georgia’s website contains a statement attributed to Jeff

Swart, a partner at Alston & Bird LLP, who according to the article in the State

Bar of Georgia Journal, serves as the chair of the Appellate Practice Section’s

State Practice and Legislation Committee that provides the following legislative

inducement, historical information about the changes in the statute.

On May 6, the Governor signed legislation enacting into law the Section’s

proposal to amend O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(11) to restrict the types of orders

in child custody cases that can be directly and immediately appealed as a

matter of right. Under the legislation, which gained the unanimous

approval of both chambers of the General Assembly, parties in such cases

now have a right to immediately appeal only such orders that actually

affect child custody (including related contempt orders). Otherwise,

parties seeking appellate review in child custody cases will need to comply

with the discretionary appeal procedure provided by

O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(b). The purpose of the revision successfully proposed

by the Section was to reduce the appeals of collateral orders in child




custody cases, with the hope of achieving a corresponding reduction in

the time and expense required to bring such cases to final judgment. The

issue was first called to the Section’s attention by Hon. Christopher

McFadden of the Court of Appeals of Georgia [who is a member of the

State Bar of Georgia Advisory Committee on Legislation] and was

thereafter noted by the Court in Collins v. Davis, 318 Ga. App. 265, 269

n.17, 733 S.E.2d 798, 801 n.17 (Oct. 30, 2012). The Section worked

closely with the Family Law Section on this proposal.

Emphasis supplied; see Exhibit 1

Nancy Michelle Murphy was not placed on notice that the Court was

considering the statutory change of OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11), as a jurisdictional

issue, and therefore was not provided an opportunity to brief the retroactivity of

the jurisdictional issue before Judge McFadden, writing for the whole Court,

held that the new version of OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11) and the overruling of Braddy

v. State, 316 Ga. App. 292 (1) (2012) deprived her of an immediate appellate

review before Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. and a guardian ad litem, who

should have been disqualified, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell further disrupted this

family’s life in this modification of custody case in which Judge Baldwin was




selected and retained by a Glover & Davis lawyer in a Superior Court without a

Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan.

Chief Judge Baldwin’s interpretation of Murphy 1, that created some of the

issues in the case that underlies Judge Baldwin’s disqualification as late as

Oct. 3, 2013, is as follows.

And I’m not going to recuse myself. I’ll tell you

right now, I’m not going to recuse myself. And

I’m going to put in there -- because y’all have

already had your chance on recusal. It’s been

appealed. They upheld me staying in this case and

not recusing myself. And we’re just going to keep

it like that.[emphasis supplied

* * *

Now, I don’t know if your client is paying you.

Y’all may be eating all this stuff. But I’ll tell

you what. Because of all this stuff, I’m unlikely

to give you any attorney’s fees so y’all are

working on this thing on your own money if you’re

doing all of this. [Oct. 3, 2013 Tr.pp. 17-18,emphasis supplied]




This case was pending before Judge Christopher J. McFadden and the panel

of Presiding Judge Sara L. Doyle and Judge Michael P. Boggs during the time

that Judge McFadden advocated a position to a State Bar of Georgia committee

for support of legislative change that this Court thereafter held, retroactively,

deprived it of jurisdiction. The ultimate result of the position being advocated

by Judge McFadden was the position that the Glover & Davis lawyers had

initially advocated against Nancy Michelle Murphy during the litigation. The

position of the Glover & Davis lawyers throughout the litigation was clear; they

wished to retain Judge Baldwin in the case. They were able to select Judge

Baldwin for the case due to the absence of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1

case management plan in the Superior Court of Coweta County. They were able

to retain Judge Baldwin in the case as the result of the dismissal of the Murphy 1

appeal due to the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the change to

OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11).

The following timetable is relevant for Judge McFadden,

Presiding Judge Sara L. Doyle and Judge Michael P. Boggs to determine when

the advocacy for the change of OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11) by Judge McFadden

began and when Judge McFadden’s advocacy for the change became known to






June 13, 2012 Appellant Nancy Michelle Murphy’s Notice of Appeal to

the Supreme Court of Georgia, V3, p.458. The jurisdiction was based upon a

constitutional attack to Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 ET. seq. (Recusal)

In the Supreme Court of Georgia:

July 27, 2012 Docketing Notice in the Supreme Court of Georgia

Aug. 7, 2012 Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss

Aug. 8, 2012 Appellant’s Response to Motion to Dismiss

Aug. 14, 2012 Brief of Appellant

Aug. 24, 2012 Appellee’s Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss

Aug. 27, 2012 Transfer Order to the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sept. 18, 2012 Notice of Docketing-Direct Appeal

Sept. 18, 2012 Brief of Appellant

Sept. 18, 2012 Motion to Dismiss by Appellee

Sept. 18, 2012 Response to Motion to Dismiss

Sept. 24, 2012 Request for Oral Argument

Oct. 3, 2012 Appellee’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss




Oct. 4, 2012 Appellee’s Amended Renewed Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 10, 2012 Brief of Appellee

Oct. 10, 2012 Appellant’s Brief in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Oct. 11, 2012 Order Granting Appellant’s Request for Oral Argument

Oct. 15, 2012 Appellant’s Motion to Supplement Record

Oct. 17, 2012 Order Denying Motion to Supplement Record

Oct. 22, 2012 Reply Brief of Appellant

Oct. 30, 2012 Order Denying Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss

Jan. 22, 2013 Oral Argument before Judges Doyle, McFadden and Boggs

May 6, 2013 Amendment to OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11) Enacted

July 12, 2013 Opinion of the Court of Appeals Dismissing Appeal

July 15, 2013 Notice of Intention to File Certiorari

The disqualification issues involving Judges Doyle, McFadden and Boggs

arise from the May, 2013 enacted OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11) statute.

Judge McFadden, who wrote the opinion for the whole Court, reportedly

advocated for the statutory change that deprived Nancy Michelle Murphy of

jurisdiction in this case while the case was pending adjudication.

This issue is presented to the Court in order that Judge McFadden can disclose




if the State Bar of Georgia article is correct and if the other members of the panel

were knowledgeable about Judge McFadden’s participation in the legislative

change that did not specifically include a retroactive exemption that became

immediately effective upon signature of the Governor.

The disqualification motion is based upon the self-executing Canons of

Judicial Conduct in general and specifically upon Canon 3 (E) (1) that provides

as follows.

E. Disqualification

(1) Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their

impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to

instances where:

Commentary: Under this rule, judges are subject to disqualification

whenever their impartiality might reasonably be questioned,

regardless of whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(l) apply.

* * *

This Canon is self-executing. See, Hargis v. State, 319 Ga. App. 432, 437

(2012).

Judicial maneuvering to affect jurisdiction to the detriment of a party before




the Court can be a violation of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct that

disqualifies a judge from further participation in a case.

The issue is whether Judge McFadden, the advocate for the restriction upon

appeals supported by a segment of the domestic relations lawyers, created an

event where his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned“ in furtherance

of the appearance that he could have been attempting to obtain acclaim for the

decision in Murphy 1 by delaying and not addressing the less popular decision

of disqualifying Judge Baldwin in a case where a hair stylist was being defended

against hedge fund operators, well-heeled with the Glover & Davis and

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lawyers.

It is these two competing conflicts that create the situation where impartiality

might reasonably questioned. Would a prudent lawyer representing Nancy

Michelle Murphy accept this juror?

All persons, including judges, have a right to advocate for changes in the law;

this motion is not to condemn that type of conduct; this statement must be

followed by a large “however” -- a judge has an ethical responsibility not to

serve as a jurist while, or after advocating for a change in the law that is

detrimental to a party in a case pending before the judge. The public, including




other lawyers, must have confidence in the division of the judicial branch of

government from the other branches, and litigants must have their due process

rights carefully guarded.

The issues involved in the underlying case that the Court of Appeals

dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, are identified to preview the detriment of

the dismissal to Nancy Michelle Murphy and her children, ages 15 and soon to

be 13, whom she has raised since their birth. This case is about the children, as

they have elected on numerous occasions to live with their mother (V1 pp.78,85)

although John Murphy and Renee L, Haugerud financially offer the children

much more to the extent of putting them in the private corporate jet of

Renee L. Haugerud’s hedge fund and regularly flying them all over the country

and even overseas (V2 pp.213-214; V4 p.626); the children understand that the

extreme wealth of their father derived from Renee L. Haugerud is no substitute

for the mother who has cared for them without John Harold Murphy living in

the household since these children were toddlers.

At the time that Chief Judge Baldwin was selected by the Glover & Davis

lawyer for this case, the Supreme Court had not decided Mayor & Aldermen of

Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (Ga. 2012), a case where there also




was no Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 plan in the Coweta Judicial Circuit;

however, the City of Savannah record did not document an absence of a

USCR 3.1 plan in that case. See, City of Savannah n. 4. The record in this case

is supported by an Open Records request to and response from the Clerk of Court

that documents the absence of a USCR 3.1 plan. V2 pp.310-318, 447

The judge tampering in City of Savannah would have been extremely difficult

and unlikely to happen if there had been a USCR 3.1 plan. The absence of a plan

in the City of Savannah litigation permitted the Glover & Davis lawyers to

accomplish selecting the presiding judge, as the Glover & Davis lawyer did in

this case. It was between the affirming of the judge tampering by the Court of

Appeals and the reversal by the Supreme Court of Georgia in City of Savannah

that Judge Baldwin was selected in this case by the Glover & Davis lawyers and

that he signed, without reading, the Order appointing the guardian ad litem

which granted her the authority to temporarily change custody of the children

without judicial approval. The guardian ad litem appointed in the signed-

without-reading-Order co-sponsored, with the Glover & Davis lawyer, a

fundraising event for another candidate for judge attended by Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. on the night before her appointment.




The illegal Appointment Order of the guardian ad litem assisted the Glover &

Davis lawyers in attempting to illegally take custody, albeit temporarily, of the

children whom Michelle Murphy has raised since their birth. It was necessary

for Nancy Michelle Murphy to defy the Order of the guardian ad litem.

The conduct of a judge, not designated by a USCR 3.1 plan, who signed the

Order without reading it, and when challenged, did not refer his conduct to

another judge to review, is worse than the conduct of a judge who signs a warrant

without reading it, as the judge signing the warrant is only violating Fourth

Amendment rights and not assisting in the trafficking of children. The Order

appointing the guardian ad litem placed the fate of the children in the hands of

a person, an attorney, who also took money prepaid to her in trust that Uniform

Superior Court Rule 24.9(g) prohibits her from taking without an order from the

Court, after notice to the parties. The illegal conduct of taking money in

violation of the law is not an acceptable character quality for a guardian ad litem,

but instead the conduct of a person who should be disciplined.

This thumbnail sketch of information is included to emphasize the detriment

of dismissal of Murphy 1. The merits brief of John Harold Murphy to the

Supreme Court of Georgia is also attached to further emphasize the detriment of




the dismissal. Exhibit 2. The exhibit attachments to the merits brief of John

Harold Murphy are also included. (Exhibit 2, pp. 20, 29, 37 and 40)

The Glover & Davis and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lawyers, in

responding to the merits brief of Nancy Michelle Murphy in the pending

certiorari case No. S13G1651, take issue with the identification of the

participation of Judge McFadden in advocating for the repeal of what he later

found to be the jurisdictional basis for a case pending before him, without

identifying this as a violation of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

These lawyers gave the issue the bold title of “D. Ms. Murphy's "Lay in Wait"

Argument. Their response was as follows. (Exhibit 2, p. 15)

D. Ms. Murphy's "Lay in Wait" Argument

At the end of her brief, Ms. Murphy poses the following

"unanswered question" relative to the timing of the Court of Appeals'

decision in this case: "Did a judge or judges lay in wait from the time

of oral argument in January 2013, or from long before, until May of

2013 for the legislature to amend O.C.G.A. § 5-6-34(a)(11) in order

to dismiss the case without resolving the issue of the disqualification

of Judge Baldwin …?" Pet'r's Br., at 16. Ms. Murphy's brief contains




other thinly-veiled suggestions that the Court of Appeals deliberately

manipulated its decision-making process to avoid addressing the

merits of the recusal issue. See, e.g., id. at 8. Leaving aside whether

her completely unsupported "lay in wait" comment violates Rule 29 by

impugning the judicial integrity of Judge McFadden, the other

panelists who heard oral argument, and the entire Court of Appeals

(all of whom joined in the opinion), Ms. Murphy fails to cite any

authority holding it is improper Judges who break the law set the

standard of conduct for those who are appointed to assist in resolving

domestic relations disputes.

The Glover & Davis and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP highlight the

“lay in wait” term used in the merit brief of Nancy Michelle Murphy. The legal

issue is not if “laying in wait” occurred or was intended. The legal issue is could

the delay be interpreted as “impartiality [that] might reasonably be questioned”

as identified by the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The answer to this

is yes, or the Glover & Davis and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lawyers

would not have given the issue a section in their Response to the merits brief of

Nancy Michelle Murphy.




The conduct of the panel is reasonably being questioned, as it was the panel

who was making a decision with a de novo standard of review authority about

an issue involving a judge with the authority of a juror. The urgency of deciding

the issue before the panel was obvious. The decision by the panel to delay

requires this motion to disqualify the members of the panel from further serving

in litigation among the parties of Nancy Michelle Murphy, John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud.

There was certainly an interest being advocated by Judge McFadden that

conflicted with the interest of Nancy Michelle Murphy, according to the State

Bar Journal, that could have been cured by a person presenting a position of

advocating for a restrictive change to OCGA § 5-6-34(a)(11).

The issue is whether the panel’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

That question was also affirmatively answered when the Respondent’s merit

brief defended the conduct with a slam at counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy

for raising the issue.

Request for Relief

Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that the motion for the disqualifications be

granted and for such other and further relief as justice may require.






s/Millard Farmer

Millard Farmer


P.O. Box 1728


(404) 688-8116

[email protected]

Larry King


P. O. Box 1648

Jonesboro, GA 30237

(770) 471-3835

[email protected]





I hereby certify that I have this day I perfected service of a copy of the foregoing

Motion for Rule 44 and Due Process Disqualification electronically as follows.

Taylor B. Drake


P. O. Drawer 1038

Newnan, GA 30265

[email protected]

Michael W. Warner


P. O. Drawer 1038

Newnan, GA 30265

[email protected]

Peter A. Durham


P. O. Drawer 1038

Newnan, GA 30265

[email protected]

Stephen E. Hudson

Ga. Bar No. 374692

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800


[email protected]

Teresa E. Lazzaroni

[email protected]

counsel for

Elizabeth F. Harwell

And Elizabeth Harwell

[email protected]

William R. Poplin, Jr.

Ga. Bar No. 584535

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800


[email protected]

This 17th day of December, 2013.


s/Millard Farmer

Millard Farmer


P.O. Box 1728

Atlanta, GA 30301-1728(404) 688-8116

[email protected]

Larry King


P. O. Box 1648

Jonesboro, GA 30237 (770) 471-3835

[email protected]





Attachment 159

Ct. of App. Opinion on Disq. Issue

Court of Appeals Opinion on Disq. Issue

Attachment 159


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/murphyrpf-corruption-motion-w-exhibit-1-and-all-atts 311/319Attachment 159, Page 1 of 5

















