Murphy_Renee Haugerud_aka Lauree Smith_June 26, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin w Att

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COWETA COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

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

Nancy Michelle Murphy, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff

vs. Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, Third Party Defendant

June 26, 2014 Consolidated Motion for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

1. Before undertaking the duties of his authority as a Superior Court Judge, A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. as provided by OCGA § 15-6-6 swore as 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. So help me God."

1.1 In addition to Judge Baldwin’s professed allegiance to the laws and

Constitution of this state and Constitution of the United States, Judge

Baldwin recently stood in the pulpit of his church and professed allegiance

to a higher degree of morality that he tacitly urged others to maintain.

1.1.1 Judge Baldwin either has an absence of commitment to the lesser

standards of morality than those he tacitly espouses in church, that are

protected by the Constitution of this state and Constitution of the United

States, and/or he interprets these constitutional doctrines differently than the

highest courts of the United States.

1.1.2 On Thursday, June 19, 2014, Judge Baldwin, via e-mail to counsel

for Michelle Murphy, sought concessions from Michelle Murphy in order

to save Nan Freeman attorney fees. This conduct initiates the continuum of

disqualification motions brought against Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.,

each of which relate to his being selected by the Taylor Drake/Glover &

Davis lawyers.

1.1.3 Much as the Pied Piper amassed a troop, Judge Baldwin has amassed

a troop; Judge Baldwin’s weakness in breaking with the Taylor

Drake/Glover and Davis lawyers justice-for-money litigation tactics. 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 about the false assertion about fondling. 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 Thomas

Murphy to rub her feet.

1.1.4 Judge Baldwin, on May 27, 2014, had all of the witnesses in the

courtroom who could have presented the highest and best evidence of the

legal issues that should have been decided.

1.1.5 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 & financial trap that Michelle Murphy cannot afford.

1.2 After Judge Baldwin, on May 27, 2014, engaged in a temper tantrum, of 153

June 26, 2014 Consolidated Disqualification Motion,

yelling pronouncement of his planned judicial decision for temporary

custody as punishment for Michelle Murphy, counsel began attempting to

obtain an audio recording of the pronouncement following Judge Baldwin’s

unconstitutional denial of Michelle Murphy’s opportunity to present

evidence in her defense to the accusations against her.

1.2.1 The Orders of Judge Baldwin, obtained without allowing Michelle

Murphy to present evidence, publically, unjustifiably and illegally slander

Michelle Murphy.

1.2.2. The public is entitled to hear the full emotional temper tantrum of

Judge Baldwin as exposed with the audio recording that is a public record.

1.2.3 Counsel for Michelle Murphy, after Judge Baldwin’s temper

tantrum, yelling conduct approached the court reporter, Nan Freeman, in an

attempt to obtain a copy of the audio recording. Nan Freeman refused to

allow counsel to purchase a copy of the recording.

1.2.4 Counsel for Michelle Murphy informed Nan Freeman that if she did

not make a copy of the audio recording available that he would bring an

action against her. This is the constitutional system that our government

uses for persons to resolve disputes, if they cannot resolve their disputes

otherwise. If Nan Freeman has a legal defense, she is entitled to present

these defenses to a court. Unlike the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers

and Judge Baldwin, counsel for Michelle will advocate for Nan Freeman to

present each of her witnesses to a jury including Judge Baldwin.

1.2.5 Rather than adhering to our constitutional system, Judge Baldwin,

much the same as the Taylor Drake/Glover and Davis lawyers use their

political muscle with Judge Baldwin, attempted to use the power of his

position as judge that controls the lives of Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas of 153


Murphy, age 13, to assist Nan Freeman in obtaining assistance outside the

boundaries of the constitutional court system, much like Judge Jack Kirby

used his position to suggest counsel for John Murphy.

1.2.6 If a person on the street, or Nan Freeman, had made the request that

Judge Baldwin made of counsel on behalf of Nan Freeman, this would have

been legal and ethical conduct.

1.2.7 The e-mail from Judge Baldwin to counsel for Michelle Murphy

documents the second ex parte communication of Nan Freeman with Judge

Baldwin relating to the preservation of the record of issues in this case.

1.2.7.1 The first ex parte communication involved the refusal of Judge

Baldwin to allow the take down of the call of the calendar for the

preservation of a record of judge shopping and judge selection of cases,

in violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1.

1.2.8 It is when the person with the authority of a judge who makes such

request to a lawyer who has a pending case involving the purely

discretionary authority of the judge who seeks to advocate for a person that

it violates the Holy Grail of our system of justice.

1.2.9 The e-mail seeking assistance for Nan Freeman follows.

of 153 June 26, 2014 Consolidated Disqualification Motion,

Counsel for Michelle politely responded to Judge Baldwin as follows.


1.2.10 The chain e-mails relating to Nan Freeman are included as

Attachment 120.

1.2.11 Counsel for Michelle Murphy discontinued responding to the e-

mails when from Judge Baldwin ask what was counsel for Michelle Murphy

going to do with the audio recording.

1.3 Judge Baldwin is charged with adhering to the following aspects of

the law that are highly relevant to his misconduct in this litigation.

1.3.1 Judge Baldwin violates The Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct

1.3.1.1 The Preamble to the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct begins of 153


as follows. PREAMBLE

1.3.2 Judge Baldwin violates the Uniform Superior Court Rules

1.3.3 The bias of Judge Baldwin has reached the point that he no longer

even makes the pretense of being fair. It is actually dangerous for counsel

for Michelle Murphy to appear before Judge Baldwin with him getting

“mad” and engaging in untoward, irrational, retaliatory conduct to Michelle

Murphy and counsel for attempting to exercise the statutory and

constitutional rights of Michelle Murphy and her counsel Larry King and

Millard Farmer.

1.3.4 Judge Baldwin has ceased being a judicial officer who provides

either Michelle Murphy or her counsel, Larry King and Millard Farmer their

statutory and constitutional protections, as Judge Baldwin has succumb to

acting only as a defiant violator of the law.

1.3.5 This motion to disqualify Judge Baldwin and the corresponding

preparation for the May 27, 2014 hearing is required to protect, as much as

possible, Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy, age 15, and Thomas Murphy,

age 13, and their counsel, Larry King and Millard Farmer from the further

consequences of the collectively motivated illegal conduct of Judge

Baldwin and the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers. of 153


1.3.6 This motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin is timely filed within five

(5) days receiving the e-mail advocating for Nan Freeman.

1.3.6.1 In spite of illegal conduct, of Judge Baldwin conducting the

hearing without personal jurisdiction, as pled by counsel form Michelle

Murphy before the May 27, 2014 hearings and before the previous

hearings Michelle Murphy attempted to present evidence at the

May 27, 2014 hearing that Judge Baldwin would not allow before even

learning about the evidence.

1.3.6.2 Judge Baldwin began his temper tantrum without even allow

counsel for Michelle Murphy to present her testimony.

1.3.7 In understanding the modus operandi of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin

in this case and his reliance upon the Glover & Davis lawyers rather than

the law to make decisions it is necessary to understand how A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. has addressed the deprivation of constitutional rights during his

professional career. After becoming a lawyer and while practicing law in

Troup County, there was a unconstitutional representation of women and

African American person on the juries of Troup County, he never brought

actions to constitutionally correct the disparities in the juries, he never

brought actions to provide indigent people adequate counsel. The juries

were unconstitutionally skewed, the representation of indigent person was

skewed. This is the same conduct of the Glover & Davis lawyers.

1.3.7.1 Judge Baldwin has never laid eyes on Renee L. Haugerud, the

person who finances this litigation. Judge Baldwin’s perception of

Renee L. Haugerud is skewed because of her representation of the Taylor

Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers whose biases are skewed just as the

unconstitutional biases of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin. of 153


1.3.8 Renee L. Haugerud was a party to this case until the remittitur

was returned from the Court of Appeals to this Court on May 13, 2014.

She is still a relevant witness

1.3.8.1 Judge Baldwin with a challenged unconstitutional Order

attempts to require Michelle Murphy to spend large sums of money to

present evidence about the spoliation of evidence illegal conduct of

Elizabeth King, if she does not provide counsel for this information that

could have been obtained from her at the May 27, 2014 hearing, if Judge

Baldwin had permitted her testimony while she was in the courtroom in

the witness room.

1.3.8.2 This “custody evaluator” process that Tony Johnson and Patricia

Nice suggested was designed to perpetuate their pill mill/interrogation

conduct that John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud were

financing.

1.3.8.3 The large question is, did the children go to dogs without their

academic doping and interrogation sessions?

1.3.8.4 It will be interesting to hear the treatment that are prescribed

for Judge Baldwin by a “Judge Evaluator.”

1.3.8.5 Michelle Murphy is being required by Judge Baldwin to lose

thousands of dollars in potential income for loss of time at work and to

travel hundreds of miles round trip outside the Coweta Judicial Circuit

for an examination by a custody evaluator whom she can become liable

for tens of thousands of dollars to finance. The so called “test” of

Elizabeth cannot prove or disprove anything about the issue that Judge

Baldwin states is his concern.


1.3.8.6 The skewed judgment of Judge Baldwin is no different in

making such a decision than the skewed judgment of Judge Baldwin

during his practice of law about other unconstitutional triers of fact in the

Coweta Judicial Circuit albeit that these trier of fact may be selected from

an unconstitutional jury composition, or his recent view about an illegal

judge shopping process that violates Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1

case management mandate.

1.3.8.7 Judge Baldwin, despite the false statement in his Order denying

his disqualification was hand selected from an illegal Uniform Superior

Court Rule 3.1 case management plan. Judge Baldwin knew, if he is

capable of being a judge in the case, that the Coweta Judicial Circuit did

not comply with the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management

plan as he was Judge 3 of 5 during the divorce.

1.3.8.3 Michelle Murphy cannot afford the financial loss that she will

sustain by complying with the order, as this loss will be devastating to the

best interest of the children, Jack Murphy age 15 and Thomas Murphy

Age 13. Michelle Murphy loses her alimony from John Harold Murphy

this year and must financially plan to replace those funds as the children

also become more expensive as they age.

1.3.9 The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers and Judge Baldwin have

used threats of criminal prosecution to illegally deprive Jack Murphy,

age 15 and Thomas Murphy, age 13 of an appropriate amount of parenting

time with Michelle Murphy, the mother who has raised these children since

they were toddlers when John Harold Murphy abandoned this family for an

adulterous life style in New York. No rational person should want the


children to engage in the type of immoral conduct of John Harold Murphy

and the illegal conduct of Renee L. Haugerud.

1.3.9.1 Judge Baldwin entered the April 1, 2014 Orders based upon an

earlier ex parte obtained August 23, 2013 Order that is subject to a

supersedeas, as it was entered while Judge Baldwin did not have personal

jurisdiction of the case and there were unanswered motions to disqualify

him pending. There is no return of the remittitur from the appellate courts

in the Orders that Judge Baldwin attempts to enforce.

1.3.9.2 The irony of Judge Baldwin’s conduct is that he walked out of a

hearing that resulted in the August 23, 2013 Order without allowing

Michelle Murphy to present any evidence. Judge Baldwin left the hearing

not for another judicial commitment, but for personal reasons. It is Judge

Baldwin who should be sanctioned and not just disqualified for his

continuum of illegal and unethical conduct. Judge Baldwin refuses to

grant a certificate for appellate review, as he habitually threatens for

Michelle Murphy and her counsel. This Judge Baldwin does in an effort

to move pass his illegal conduct that merits his disqualification.

1.3.9.3 Michelle Murphy is a dedicated great mother to Jack Murphy and

Thomas Murphy and these children know this. That is the reason that the

children continuously inform John Harold Murphy to quit his litigation.

These children know who cares and sacrifices for them. It is nice for the

children to have the benefits of the money John Harold Murphy and

thereby Renee L. Haugerud, but they choose Michelle Murphy’s

requirement of having to tend to household chores rather than having at

their beck and call the servants and chauffeurs of John Harold Murphy

and Renee L. Haugerud. It is amazing that these children have such a of 153


value system with all of the efforts to John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud to corrupt their value system with a useless life on the beaches

of St. Thomas, etc.

4.1 The Appearance of Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith was denied

at the May 27, 2014 hearings. The testimony of Renee L. Haugerud is

required for four primary purposes and for ancillary purposes. Judge

Baldwin is attempting to disposing of this case without permitting evidence

relating to the psychological damage that he is causing the children and his

illegal conduct is a relevant cause for his disqualification. Judge Baldwin

illegally evaded being examined by counsel about his false statements in

denying the motion to disqualify him and now attempts to prevent evidence

about the psychological damages that he is inflicting upon Jack Murphy

age 15 and Thomas Murphy age 13.

4.1.1 First of the purposes for having the testimony of Renee L.

Haugerud follows. Renee L. Haugerud is the in absentia to this litigation

that controls John Harold Murphy and the lives of the children, as she both

finances this litigation and John Harold Murphy. Without examining Renee

L. Haugerud the Court is absent the detriment to the lives of the children in

being at any time with John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud. In the

presence of John Harold Murphy, Renee L. Haugerud has heard the children

beg, yes beg, John Harold Murphy to dismiss the case, quit attacking their

mother. John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud were informed by the

children that they were not forced to give their affidavits, that the affidavits

they gave were true and that they do not want to live with John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud. Essentially, Renee L. Haugerud knows

that John Harold Murphy committed false statements under oath to this of 153


Court. Renee L. Haugerud is the person who primarily settled the

malpractice case that was brought against Delia Tedder Crouch and who

could settle this case.

4.1.1.1 Renee L. Haugerud granted Nancy McGarrah an “interview,”

but no more, in her “Custody Evaluation” with Nancy McGarrah. This

interview is outside the bounds of information that H. Elizabeth “Betty”

King will use, as she did not obtain it.

4.1.1.1.1 Nancy McGarrah did not ask Renee L. Haugerud if her

income tax evasions schemes were a crime that could involve moral

turpitude that could affect the best interest of the children.

4.1.1.1.2 Nancy McGarrah did not ask Renee L. Haugerud if her

presence in the house when Thomas Murphy became near deathly ill

with the consumption of alcohol was a good parenting skill in the best

interest of the children.

4.1.1.1.3 Renee L. Haugerud was not asked if her using of the

children as bartenders was in the best interest of the children.

4.1.1.1.4 Nancy McGarrah did not ask Renee L. Haugerud many

other questions that would be relevant to determining if the children

visiting in a household with Renee L. Haugerud in St. Thomas was in

the best interest of the children. Nancy McGarrah apparently accepted

her shortcomings after a short cross-examination and resigned.

4.1.1.1.5 Nancy McGarrah did not ask Renee L. Haugerud about the

payment to Thomas Murphy for the foot messages; nor did she ask her

about the strolls on the nude beach that she John Harold Murphy and

Renee L. Haugerud had with one of the children.


4.1.1.2 Renee L. Haugerud has chosen a different tactic; she has

chosen to call upon the political favor that the Taylor Drake/Glover &

Davis lawyers have purchased from Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. and

others to have her testimony secreted from the record in this case.

4.1.1.3 Renee L. Haugerud has a substantial amount of control over

the lives of Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas Murphy, age 13, as she

determines the locations and finances the various five or six residence for

her and John Harold Murphy. Renee L. Haugerud is the source of John

Harold Murphy’s financial resources. John Harold Murphy is her “kept

man.” Without the testimony of Renee L. Haugerud the Court will not

have the full scope of the detriment to these children. Renee L. Haugerud

is a substantial motivating cause of the litigation attempts to

psychologically destabilize Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas Murphy,

age. 13. Renee L. Haugerud is attempts to use her vast wealth to

financially debilitate Michelle Murphy; thereby, Renee L. Haugerud

habitually acts against the best interest of the children.

4.1.1.4 Renee L. Haugerud and John Murphy have never chosen to

purchase or rent a residence in the Newnan area where their visitation

with the children could occur without disrupting the children’s school and

social activities and Michelle Murphy could be watchful of the behavior

of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud in the presence of the

children. This may never happen because of John Murphy’s previous

sexual abusive activities in the area of the Coweta Judicial Circuit, such

as the occasion when in a drunken condition at a Heritage School social

event, in a sexually abusive manner, John Harold Murphy attempted to

run his hands down a the dress of a woman attending the Heritage School of 153


social function in an attempt to grope the woman. This type of conduct

by John Harold Murphy, in addition to being illegal, is not a good

parenting skill. This is evidence that Judge Baldwin should hear.

4.1.1.5 Renee L. Haugerud is aware of some of the sexual illegal

conduct of John Harold Murphy and of his poor parenting conduct that is

detrimental to the best interest of the children.

4.1.1.6 John Murphy is required by law to provide a legal amount of

child support for Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas Murphy age 13.

Renee L. Haugerud illegally participates with John Harold Murphy in

secreting his disposable income that is derived from entities controlled by

Renee L. Haugerud and Renee L. Haugerud personally. Renee L.

Haugerud and John Harold Murphy instead of participating in the

educational financially or otherwise in the needs of the children John

Harold Murphy does such things as purchasing a $5,000 Martin guitar

for Jack Murphy, soon after his mother, Michelle Murphy, buys him, an

appropriate for a beginner, $200 guitar. At the same time that Jack

Murphy is purchased a $5,000 guitar, Thomas Murphy is provided

nothing, as he now refuses to earn $60 per hour rubbing the feet of Renee

L. Haugerud and as requested, will not call her “mother.” John Harold

Murphy listed Renee L. Haugerud as the mother of Thomas Murphy when

Thomas Murphy was admitted to the emergency room of the hospital for

alcohol poisoning. See, Attachment 106 to the May 16 Motion to

Disqualify Judge Baldwin

4.1.1.7 In response to the request of John Harold Murphy the Taylor

Drake/ Glover & Davis lawyers, baited Judge Baldwin into requiring

Michelle Murphy to submit to a OCGA §9-11-35 examination. This was of 153


done in violation of other acceptable means of obtaining the information

allegedly sought, as the acceptable method of obtaining the information

was under judicial review. This examination was vindictively Ordered by

Judge Baldwin as a punitive measure against Michelle Murphy for

exercising her constitutional right to challenge the personal jurisdiction

of Judge Baldwin and the unconstitutionally and otherwise illegally

obtained Order from Judge Baldwin when he was acting outside of his

constitutional authority. This OCGA§ 9-11-35 motion for examination of

Michelle Murphy was a subterfuge for the illegal method of custody

evaluation issues that are on appeal.

4.1.1.8 Renee L. Haugerud has more real world control over the lives

of Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas Murphy, age 13 than John Harold

Murphy, as she determines the residence for John Harold Murphy and is

the source of his financial resources. John Harold Murphy is the “kept

man;” of Renee L. Haugerud who maintains that she is in her 21st live of

entitlement. This is not a cult belief that the Michelle Murphy has; nor,

the professed religion of John Harold Murphy while he was married to

Michelle Murphy. Renee L. Haugerud is entitled to her religious beliefs,

but not entitled to use the techniques of her religion to disrupt the lives of

the children.

4.1.2 Second of the purposes for having the testimony of Renee L.

Haugerud follows. Renee L. Haugerud is a necessary witness, as she knows

the information that she provided to Nancy McGarrah in her interview. This

is relevant to determine if Renee L. Haugerud is again providing false

information to support John Harold Murphy as she provided when she

falsely swore under oath in the Probate Court of Troup County to obtain the of 153


marriage license that Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby used to engage

in a marriage ceremony of John Harold Murphy with Renee L. Haugerud.

4.1.2.1 It is relevant that counsel for Michelle Murphy have access to

the information that Renee L. Haugerud provided to this disqualified

custody evaluator, Nancy McGarrah.

4.1.2.2 Michelle Murphy brought a motion to disqualify Nancy

McGarrah that apparently Nancy McGarrah and her counsel, after

hearing her testimony before Judge Baldwin, accepted as good cause for

Nancy McGarrah to resign.

4.1.2.3 Without any inquiry into the information obtained by Nancy

McGarrah, the manner that it was obtain, or the verification of the

accuracy of the information, Judge Baldwin, as a part of his April 1, 2014

unconstitutional and otherwise illegal Orders, permitted the use of the

previous information provide to Nancy McGarrah.

4.1.2.4 Judge Baldwin denied Michelle Murphy a timely filed

certificate to obtain a review of the April 1, 2014 Orders.

4.1.2.5 Judge Baldwin ordered the Nancy McGarrah “custody

evaluator” file transmitted to H. Elizabeth “Betty” King in a April 1, 2014

Order appointing H. Elizabeth “Betty” F. King to conduct an

OCGA 9-11-35 examination and custody evaluation upon Michelle

Murphy. Judge Baldwin, in part, ordered Nancy McGarrah as follows.

The Court further ORDERS any documents compiled by Dr. McGarrah to be sent to the new custody evaluator, Dr. H. Elizabeth King and for Dr. King to obtain any work from Dr. McGarrah deemed necessary for her complete custody evaluation.


4.1.2.5 The Order of Judge Baldwin violates the United States

Constitution and equivalent State of Georgia equal protection and due

process protections of Michelle Murphy. The same waiver of signature

requirement are not impose upon Renee L. Haugerud and John Harold

Murphy, as can be established by the testimony of Renee L. Haugerud.

The waiver segment of Judge Baldwin’s Order is as follows.

The Court, by this Order, allows the custody evaluator, Dr. H. Elizabeth King, to waive the signatures of the Defendant’s attorneys on any documents; however the Plaintiff and Defendant are ORDERED to sign all documents necessary to begin this custody evaluation.

4.1.2.6 The adhesion contract presented to Michelle Murphy that

requires her signature absent the unconstitutional and illegal order that

allow the waiver of the “the signatures of the Defendant’s attorneys on

any documents” and further orders that “the Plaintiff and Defendant are

Ordered to sign all document necessary to begin this custody evaluation”

that makes Michelle Murphy liable for financial resources that she cannot

provide and time commitment that she cannot endure without

substantially affecting the best interest of the children. The cost of paying

“H. Elizabeth “Betty” King is far from the only financial cost to Michelle

Murphy.

The Supreme Court of the United States in two cases had dealt with the

testimony of a psychologist relating the prediction of future

dangerousness and the rights of a person when the psychologist attempts

to interview the person. The rights of constitutional rights of Michelle

Murphy sought to be protected here that the April and subsequent order

so Judge Baldwin violate are more protected than the constitutional rights of 153


protected by the United States Supreme Court in Estelle v. Smith, 451

U.S. 454 (1981) and as later better explained in Satterwhite v. Texas, 486

U.S. 249 (1988) Judge Baldwin is attempting to order Michelle Murphy

to participate in a substantial amount of junk science that does not result

in constitutional and statutory admissible expert testimony.

4.1.3 Third in the purposes for having the testimony of Renee L.

Haugerud follows. In his May 27, 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 children

are not commodities that can be used as currency to punish Michelle

Murphy.

4.1.4 Fourth in the purposes for having the testimony of Renee L.

Haugerud follows. John Harold Murphy seeks to have Michelle Murphy

held in criminal contempt of court based upon false swearing. Renee L.

Haugerud is required as a witness to rebut the false testimony of John

Harold Murphy and to support the challenge to the constitutionality of the

April 1, 2014 Orders that are being constitutionally, statutorily and

Uniform Rules of the Superior Court challenged.

4.2 Judge Baldwin, when Ordering the “Custody Evaluation” Knew

Nothing about a Custody Evaluation excepting the moniker of

“Custody Evaluator.”

4.2.1 Judge Baldwin has lost all sight of the reason that he granted the

“foot in the door” feigned “emergency” judge selection petition of Taylor

Drake by signing without reading the appointment of a guardian ad litem

with illegal authorities, without reading or understanding the Order that he

signed. The feigned emergency was that Michelle Murphy was threatening of 153


to move to South Carolina with the children. Judge Baldwin has

transgressed from accepting that a threat to move to South Carolina was an

emergency to authorizing John Harold Murphy to take the children to St.

Thomas, as punishment to Michelle Murphy and a benefit to the Taylor

Drake/Glover/Davis lawyers. The fact that Judge Baldwin attempts to

punish Michelle Murphy with threats to temporarily change custody of the

children in the May 13, 2014 Rule Nisi is another of the justifiable reasons

to disqualify him.

4.2.2 Judge Baldwin knew several things on the day that the appointed the

guardian ad litem without reading the Order before signing it.

4.2.2.1 Judge Baldwin knew on the night before he was selected to be

the Judge for Taylor Drake and his appointment of Melissa Griffis as

guardian ad litem that both of these lawyers had sponsored a fundraiser

for a candidate for a Superior Court judgeship that Judge Baldwin

supported.

4.2.2.2 Judge Baldwin also knew that both Taylor Drake, Melissa

Griffis and their law firms were large and frequent financial and political

supporters of his.

4.2.2.3 Judge Baldwin also knew that the lawyers for Michelle Murphy

practiced primarily outside the Coweta Judicial Circuit and had no

political or other connection with him or candidates for office that he

supported.

4.2.2.4 Judge Baldwin further knew that John Harold Murphy was the

wealth client and that Michelle Murphy was not a person of wealth.

4.2.2.5 By not reading the complaint filed by Taylor Drake and not

reading the order that he signed without hearing any evidence, a of 153


reasonable person can assume that Judge Baldwin simply granted favor

to the two lawyer and political supporters, Taylor Drake, and Melissa

Griffis whom had sponsored the fundraiser that he attended on the

previous night.

4.2.2.6 The saddest aspect of the signed without reading Order for

Taylor Drake and the appointment of Melissa Griffis, a co-sponsor of a

fundraiser as guardian ad litem event is that Judge A. Quillian Baldwin

made false statement after having an opportunity to study and investigate

the sworn statements in the first motion, as amended, to disqualify him.

4.2.2.7 There was no legal, or moral excuse for Judge Baldwin making

the false statements that he made in the denial of his disqualification

4.2.2.8 There is substantial law that supports that the conduct of Judge

Baldwin in not granting a hearing on his disqualification that Judge

Baldwin violated the law.

4.2.3 Once Judge Baldwin was placed on notice by counsel for Michelle

Murphy that he was caught making false statements about denying facts in

the affidavit supporting his disqualification motion, Judge Baldwin

unknowingly became a hostage of and dependent upon Taylor Drake/Glover

& Davis lawyers, as Judge Baldwin has and extremely weak knowledge of

the law and an absence of computer skills that is the present-day method to

do legal research. If Judge Baldwin knew more law he could minimize his

political dependency in rendering his judicial decisions. Judge Baldwin’s

absence of knowledge of the law that requires his dependency upon others

that he does not disclose is a basis for his disqualification.

4.2.4 No judge is entitled to require the lawyers attempting to protect the

constitutional and statutory rights of a client to choose between presenting of 153


constitutional issues with evidence, and being illegally held in criminal

contempt of because the Judge was “mad,” or because lawyers are exposing

the illegal conduct of the Judge.

4.2.5 Nancy McGarrah and H. Elizabeth “Betty” King have published

articles dealing with their admitted limitations of custody evaluations. These

articles are quoted from below.


4.2.6 The most reasonable approach is that discussed by Anthony C.

Levitas, Psy.D. in this Child Custody Evaluations: How Can you Help your

Client through the Process.

4.2.6.1 The approach of Anthony C. Levitas, Psy.D. is impressive as

there was a plea by counsel for Michelle Murphy to Taylor Drake for the

parties to discuss resolving their dispute without John Harold Murphy

bring the action to Court. This failed as John Harold Murphy apparently

believed that Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby had directed him to of 153


a lawyer who had political ties to a judge. Over and over Judge Baldwin

has refused to allow mediation. The issue is that the lawyers are feasting

upon the money derived from Renee L. Haugerud by creating litigation

events after litigation event that provide Judge A. Quillian Baldwin an

opportunity to engage in a continuum of illegal and unconstitutional

conduct. A reasonable approach to dispute resolution is not within the

ambit of acceptable solutions for clients of Glover & Davis who have the

assets that Renee L. Haugerud has, the prospects of a gigantic amount of

attorney fees by the Glover & Davis lawyer has a greater priority.

4.3. Based upon procedural grounds, the Court of Appeals dismissed the

appeal relating to Judge Baldwin’s disqualification. The appeal of the

dismissal of the third party complaint of Renee L. Haugerud was also

dismissed on procedural grounds.

4.3.4 The August 23, 2013 Order was rendered in direct violation of

Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.3 that 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, 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.

4.4 Judge Baldwin participates in the strategy that involve his illegal and of 153


unconstitutional conduct, as a necessary part of his defense to his illegal

conduct in not disqualifying himself and his illegal conduct of continuing

to preside when he does not have personal jurisdiction in the case.

4.4.1 In addition to abusing Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas

Murphy, Judge Baldwin is abusing his political friends who at some point

in time will be required to disassociate with his conduct.

4.4.2 The relief requested by the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers

for John Harold Murphy in a Second Amended Complaint, was before Judge

Baldwin on August 13, 2013 while a petition for writ of certiorari, was

pending before the Supreme Court, in spite of Michelle Murphy’ request for

continuance to Judge Baldwin.

4.4.2 At that August 13, 2013 hearing, Michelle Murphy, over objection

by her counsel, was not allowed to present any of her witnesses, including

the principal and a teacher from the children’s public school, (V9, p.1806,

1899) who were waiting in the courtroom to testify. Judge Baldwin had

other personal plans, on that and the following two days. Judge Baldwin left

the courtroom before counsel for Michelle Murphy was permitted to present

any portion of her case, or even complete the cross-examination of Dr. Nice,

the obviously substance impaired while testifying expert witness of John

Harold Murphy. The transcript of the August 13, 2013 hearing reflects the

following at page 276.

MR. FARMER: Well, I'm trying to --

THE COURT: Look. I've got to go. I'm sorry. I

told y'all I needed to leave at 6:00. I'm going to be late now. We'll just talk

about this after we find out who the guardian ad litem's going to be.

MS. HARWELL: The custody evaluator. of 153


THE COURT: Custody evaluator.

MR. DRAKE: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. FARMER: Your Honor, just so we have the record

reflect, we're in the middle of examination of Dr. Nice.

MS. HARWELL: What?

MR. FARMER: I'm showing the record says we're in the

middle of the examination of Dr. Nice.

(Proceedings concluded.)

4.4.3 This denied evidence was materially relevant as it would have

disputed the later, August 23, 2013, ex parte communication in the letter to

Judge Baldwin by the Glover & Davis lawyers. (V11, p.2214) See, Shore v.

Shore, 253 Ga. 183 (1984) modification when a party not allowed evidence.

4.4.4 Judge Baldwin’s personal priorities, not other judicial priorities,

prevented the custodial parent’s direct testimony, the testimony of the

custodial parent’s witnesses and completion of the cross-examination of the

father’s expert psychiatrist witness (Tr. Aug. 13, 2013, p.276) whose mental

condition was so impaired during her testimony that this expert witness was

slurring her speech. (Tr. Aug. 13, 2013, p.209).

4.4.5 This expert witness of John Harold Murphy has a history of

restrictions to her medical license due to substance abuse. (V12, p. 2342)

Attachment 68

4.4.6 This psychiatrist expert presented by John Harold Murphy at the

August 13, 2013 hearing was offered to establish that Michelle Murphy

would not require the children to take medication designed by this

psychiatrist to enhance the children’s academic performance. (V10 p.1924)


4.4.7 The so called, academic performance medication, actually,

academic doping, administered medication during the day necessitated that

the children also be medicated at night to sleep until awakened and be

medicated to go to school. (V10, p.1924) Michelle Murphy had witnesses

to refute the medicating procedures required of the children by the local “pill

pusher” psychiatrist. (V10 p.1925) (Tr. Aug. 13, 2013, p.167, line 1) and

the detriment of the weekend jet setting of the children around the country

by John Harold Murphy and his current spouse, Renee L. Haugerud, whose

company owned the jet plane used for the jet setting the children around the

country on the weekends. (V11 p.2163)

42.4.8 The wisdom of the children being taken off of their academic

doping medication by Michelle Murphy has proven correct. The wisdom of

the children not being required to take a part of their day with Tony Johnson

has proven correct. The children were only billing opportunities to this pill

mill. Interrogation pair. Tony Johnson knew that Dr. Nice was a substance

abuser herself and failed to warn Michelle Murphy. Tony Johnson, not so

different from the guardian ad. Litem, Elizabeth enjoyed the Renee L.

Haugerud and John Harold Murphy paid trip to Chattanooga. This provided

Tony Johnson a free ticket to visit his female friend.

4.4.9 The August 23, 2013 Order, resulting from the aborted hearing that

modified custody, i.e., visitation, by modifying the 2006 Divorce Decree’s

established visitation rotation to the detriment of the plans of Michelle

Murphy and the children. This occurred after ex parte representations were

made to Judge Baldwin in a letter from the Glover & Davis

lawyers (V14, p.2752) after the aborted hearing that resulted in Judge

Baldwin also modifying the Standing Order (V2, p.379) implemented by all of 153


judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit (V2, p. 380) by permitting the father,

with a residence in Atlanta, to remove the children from the country during

visitation without prior consent of the mother.

4.4.10 The ex parte, deceptively false communication to Judge Baldwin by

the Glover & Davis lawyers in the letter (V14, p.2752) was as follows.

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Honorable A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Coweta Judicial Circuit

100 Ridley Avenue Suite 2700 LaGrange, Georgia 30240

RE: John Murphy vs. Michelle Murphy Civil Action No. 12-V-413

Superior Court of Coweta County

Dear Judge Baldwin:

Enclosed is a proposed Order from the hearing held before the Court

on August 13, 2013. Also enclosed is an email I received from the

football coach at Arnall Middle School detailing (contrary to what Ms.

Murphy represented to you under oath in court) he is not aware of

any practices involving any player on his team on Saturday mornings

or at any other time during any weekend. Since Ms. Murphy has not

allowed my client to visit with his boys since the first week in July, I

specified in the Order that his every-other-weekend parenting time

will resume this afternoon. As you may agree, including the date my

client's every-other-weekend parenting time resumes within the

Order should avoid any confusion as to when the boys must be with

my client and it will assist the Court in adjudicating any contempt

claim that may need to be filed if a party does not comply with the

terms of the Order.

You will note Lisa Harwell, the GAL, has reviewed and approved the of 153


Order. From the review of the list of doctors supplied in an email by

your assistant on Wednesday, Lisa selected Dr. Nancy McGarrah to

be the custody evaluator. I understand Lisa does not know Dr.

McGarrah and I do not know Dr. McGarrah. However, through Lisa's

investigation Dr. McGarrah received the highest recommendation of

all doctors listed in the email.

The proposed Order was provided to Mr. Farmer, but I do not expect

any response due to his most recently filed motion to recuse you in

this case. In short, my client respectfully requests this Court

disregard the ongoing antics of Mr. Farmer as this Order must be

filed ASAP to implement what the Court ordered on August 13, 2013.

For your convenience, I enclosed a copy of the transcript detailing

your pronouncement in the event you want to review it prior to

signing the enclosed Order.

Best personal regards. GLOVER & DAVIS, P.A. 4.4.11 [Note, the Arial font style is used for the ex parte letter to Judge

Baldwin from the Glover & Davis lawyer, while to emphasize parts of the

letter relevant to a type of detrimental, ex parte information is in Times New

Roman and in other parts, the Courier New font is used for another type of

detrimental, ex parte communication contained in the letter that states that

“Ms. Murphy has not allowed my client to visit with his boys since the first

week in July.” This information was not in evidence and is a knowingly

made false statement either made to the Glover & Davis lawyers by John

Harold Murphy, and/or made by the Glover & Davis lawyers in an attempt

to again discredit the integrity of Michelle Murphy, while obtaining a

modification of the visitation to accommodate the social schedule of John of 153


Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud and to provide them an opportunity to

display the children as ornaments.

4.4.12 The ex parte letter was also designed to pander to the bias of

Judge Baldwin in order to immediately obtain the Order so that the Deputy

Sheriff of Coweta County could go to the house of Michelle Murphy

immediately in order to further intimidate Michelle Murphy and the

children. The urgent ex parte comment to Judge Baldwin in the letter was

“my client respectfully requests this Court disregard the ongoing antics of

Mr. Farmer as this Order must be filed ASAP to implement what the Court

ordered on August 13, 2013.” For ten days, the lawyers waited to hand

deliver an ex parte communication to Judge Baldwin to obtain the Order to

accommodate the social schedule of John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud, with total disregard to the plans of Michelle Murphy and the

children, or the rights that they have for their counsel to address the ex parte

communication in the letter.

4.4.13 The letter identifies that it was hand delivered to LaGrange. The

Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County in Newnan filed the

August 23, 2013 Order on Friday afternoon at 3:57 p.m., that was obviously

after it was executed and delivered to Newnan.

4.4.14 The e-mail transmitting the ex parte letter to Judge Baldwin was not

emailed to counsel for Michelle Murphy until Friday at 4:16 p.m.


4.4.15 The letter continued the deceptively false, ex parte representation

to Judge Baldwin that Michelle Murphy provided the Court deceptive, false

information under oath relating to the football practices on Saturday with

the recreational league football coach. The ex parte information was not in

evidence. Next, was the deceptive, false indication that it was e-mailed to

counsel for Michelle Murphy. (V14, p.2753) The order was executed and

the letter was never e-mailed until after it was executed and stamped filed

by the Clerk of Court. Michelle Murphy never received a copy of the Order

modifying custody or information about the modification until the Deputy

Sheriff of Coweta County arrived at her house to escort the children, who

were visiting with friends, to John Harold Murphy, who was awaiting the

Deputy to bring the children to his car (V15 pp. 3005-3012).

2.4.16 The Order prepared by the Glover & Davis lawyers attempted to

shield the modification of custody, i.e., visitation from appellate review by

including a disingenuous statement that “the physical custody of the

Children shall not be changed at this time.” (V11 p.2191)

Timeline Relevant to the Ex Parte Obtained August 23, 2013 Order

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)

August 16-18, 2013 was date of the premodification, scheduled visitation

weekend of John Harold Murphy that he chose not to exercise as he was in

St. Thomas. This is relevant to the false ex parte letter communication that

resulted in the alternative visitation weekend schedule for John Harold

Murphy (V14 p. 2698)

August 23, 2013 was the newly modified August 23, 2013 ordered first of 153


weekend of visitation for John Murphy. The August 23, 3013 Order also

removed the Standing Order restriction on geographical travel without

consent. (V14 p. 2699)

August 23, 2013 Order executed that was based upon ex parte

representation made in the letter that Glover & Davis hand delivered with

the Glover & Davis prepared Order for 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)

August 23, 2013 Order modifying custody, i.e., visitation. See, Shore v.

Shore, 253 Ga. 183 (1984) and its progeny. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013 Hearing)

4.5 Judge Baldwin at the March 17, 2014 Hearing Seem to Have only

a Faint Memory of his Contempt Citations and Seemed to Only

Remember that he was always “fair”. Judge Baldwin has made life

difficult to Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy, Thomas Murphy and their

counsel. The following section is a reminder. These people were hiding

nothing as they only sought respect for their constitutional rights as

opposed to the respect accorded John Harold Murphy, Renee L.

Haugerud and their counsel for their money and political power.

Summary of Judicial Misconduct that Resulted in the Contempt Orders

(V17, p.3624)

4.5.1 The continuum of unconstitutional conduct by Judge Baldwin has

relevance to the November 19, 2013 adjudications of contempt against Nancy

Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer (V17 p.3624) that resulted

from a Thursday, October 3, 2013 proceeding involving the Amended Motion

for Contempt (Tr. Oct 3, 2013) that was filed on Friday, September 27, 2013, of 153


and not noticed for a hearing. (V14 p. 2779)

4.5.2 There was no Rule Nisi or subpoena that required the attendance of

Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer at the previously scheduled

October 3, 2013 hearing on an earlier filed Motion for Contempt (V12, p.2243)

that also did not require attendance of these applicants with a Rule Nisi or

subpoena. See, Crocker v. Crocker, 132 Ga. App. 587, 589 (1974).

4.5.3 The adjudicated contempts resulted only from assertions made in the

September 27, 2013 filed Amended Motion for Contempt.

4.5.4 The assertions in the Amended Motion were based upon an

August 23, 2013 Order that was rendered for an August 13, 2013 hearing that

was terminated over objection of counsel without Nancy Michelle Murphy (or,

“Michelle Murphy”) being allowed to present her witnesses or evidence, or

even to complete the cross-examination of John Harold Murphy’s expert

witness, who, with a history of substance abuse, was slurring her words. See,

Shore v. Shore 253 Ga. 183 (1984) and its progeny.

4.5.5 Nancy Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer were not

provided even a due process, insufficient Notice of Hearing for the

Amended Motion for Contempt.

4.5.6 The August 23, 2013 Order that was the basis for the assertions in

the Amended Motion for Contempt was noticed for appeal by Michelle

Murphy before the Amended Motion for Contempt was filed. (V14

p.2774)There were numerous motions to disqualify Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin that were not adjudicated before the filing of the Amended Motion


for Contempt. (infra, p. 17; V3 p.436; V10 p.1904; V11 p.2195; V14

p.2890)

4.5.7 Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer filed a

comprehensive response to the September 27, 2013 Amended Motion for

Contempt. (V16, p.3334) The response pled to the jurisdiction of Judge

Baldwin to adjudicate the “Amended Contempt.”

4.5.8 Judge Baldwin was clearly placed on notice of the pending appeal,

his failure to adjudicate his disqualification and the fact that the

August 23, 2013 Order was obtained by the Glover & Davis lawyers with

an ex parte letter that contained false statements about Michelle Murphy

that were not in evidence.

4.5.9 The disqualification of Judge Baldwin and misconduct of the Glover

& Davis lawyers is relevant to exposing their malicious abuse of the

criminal process to obtain an illegal advantage in the underlying case.

4.6 Michelle Murphy was held in contempt of August 23, 2013 Order

and Ordered incarcerated until she signs documents submitted to her by

the psychologist, Nancy McGarrah, that provided this psychologist

complete immunity -- not just statutory, bad faith immunity, and obligated

Michelle Murphy, a hair stylist, to be responsible for expensive fees and

financial liability to depose the witness, have the witness’ presence in Court.

(V17 p.3627) This Order has now become impossible to perform, as Nancy

McGarrah has exited the case.

4.6.1 The contract of Nancy McGarrah that Judge Baldwin ordered

Michelle to sign was an illegal and unconstitutional adhesion contract.

4.7 Michelle Murphy ordered to pay $5,000 to John Murphy within

thirty (30) days pursuant to OCGA. 19-9-3 and is based on, inter alia, the of 153


attorney's fees Plaintiff incurred in seeking to compel Defendant's

compliance with the August 23, 2013 ex parte obtained Order. See, Horn

v. Shepherd, 292 Ga. 14, 14-21 (2012) The Court did not consider the

disparity of the ability to pay. (V17 p.3628) This matter is pending on

appeal.

4.8 Millard Farmer held in indirect criminal contempt of the

provisions of the August 23, 2013 Order prohibiting either party from

discussing this case or the issues raised herein with the Children, unless

such discussions are necessary to implement the terms of this Order or the

terms of the Final Decree, and further held Millard Farmer in contempt for

Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at October 3, 2013 indirect criminal

contempt hearing. Millard Farmer was ordered incarcerated for 20 days or

until he pays $1,000.00. (V17 p.3628)

4.9 Larry King was held in contempt twice. After being taken into

custody and paying $1,000, Larry King was released after Judge Baldwin

withdrew the first contempt that occurred as quoted below (Tr. Oct 3, 2013

p.8, lines 8-21) at the beginning of the hearing, as Larry King was

attempting to explain the rights of persons charged with indirect contempt.

Judge Baldwin later stated he withdrew the first contempt because he was

“mad.” (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013 p.19, line 4)

[MR KING] That order is on appeal, and it has been superseded.

THE COURT: What was that? I haven’t seen an appeal.

MR. KING: You’d have to look in the Clerk’s file, Judge.

THE COURT: It’s not my business to look at the Clerk’s file. It’s y’all’s

business to show me where it is. Do you understand? of 153


I’m tired of this. I’m holding you in contempt for not having this stuff.

And I want him put in jail until he purges himself of contempt by paying

at least a thousand dollars’ attorney’s fees. All right. Anything else?

At the end of hearing, Larry King was held in contempt again because

Michelle Murphy failed to appear at the October 3, 2013 contempt hearing.

Larry King was ordered incarcerated for 20 days or until he paid One

Thousand Dollars ($1,000). (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p. 112, l. 4 – p.113, l. 24)

After the first contempt of Larry King, Judge Baldwin had an obligation

under the rationale of Dowdy v. Palmour, 251 Ga. 135 (1983) to discontinue

adjudicating the other contempts.

This same rationale disqualifies Judge Baldwin from participating in the

May 27, 2014 Rule Nisi issues.

5. The Background of the Underlying Case and Happenings in the Coweta Judicial Circuit is Relevant, as the Contempts were Retaliatory, but Worse, were Illegally and Unconstitutionally Obtained as Part of a Very Detrimental Obstruction of Justice Created by a Modification of Custody Complaint filed by John Harold Murphy that Judge Baldwin has yet to Pay Michelle Murphy litigation expenses to defend. 3.1 Michelle Murphy, is defending herself and the choices of her children

to continue living with her as a family in two equally difficult arenas due

to her income and financial resources. She is defending in the courts and

defending in the real world, where the children are being financially

deprived and emotionally attacked in order to facilitate their takeover by

John Harold Murphy and Renee Haugerud, his current multimillionaire

spouse. (V16 p.3436) While the efforts of John Harold Murphy and Renee

Haugerud, (or, collectively, “Murphy/Haugerud”) are in two very different

arenas, Murphy/Haugerud and their cadre of lawyers have one unified

tactic, i.e., to financially deplete the resources of Michelle Murphy to cause of 153


her submission. See, e.g., Renee Haugerud’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

(V7 p.1437); Glover & Davis’ request for attorney fees (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013,

p.68, lines 13-22) motion for $9,000 supersedeas bond to allow appeal of

these contempts.V18, p.3823) The $9,000 supersedeas bond was not

required.

5.2 The litigation against Michelle Murphy was initiated and continued

with combined attempts by John Harold Murphy to create a financial crisis

for Michelle Murphy with the combination of expensive litigation costs and

the deprivation of financial, educational support for the children that he and

Renee Haugerud voluntarily provided since Superior Court Judge Louis

Jack Kirby performed John Harold Murphy’s marriage ceremony with

Renee Haugerud, a multimillionaire hedge fund operator. (V16 p.3440)

5.3 Judge Kirby has a History of Not Acting Judicially Prudent 5.3.1 Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby, before becoming a judge,

represented John Harold Murphy in the 2006 divorce case against Michelle

Murphy.

5.3.2 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).

5.3.4 The Horn case refers to a deposition that counsel for Michelle

Murphy took of Judge Kirby in this case.

5.3.5 Melissa Griffis, mentioned in the Horn case, was the first guardian

ad litem appointed by Judge Baldwin in this case in the Order presented to

him by Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis that Judge Baldwin signed without

reading. of 153


5.3.6 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.

5.3.7 In another case Judge Kirby also acted inappropriate according to

information available to counsel for Michelle Murphy.

5.3.8 Judge Louis Jack Kirby engaged in illegal political favoritism to a

member of a popular family in the Coweta County area and the Sheriff of

Coweta County.

5.3.9 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.

5.3.10 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.

5.3.11 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. of 153


3.4 The wrongdoings of Judge Louis Jack Kirby in the Spradlin case begins at this point.

5.4.1 Information, believed to be accurate, is that Judge Louis Jack Kirby,

after the indictment of Casey Allen Spradlin, a person charged with murder

of an infant, without additional evidence or a judicial hearing, was

approached and asked to remove the conditions of the $100,000 bond that

prevented contact by Casey Allen Spradlin with the surviving child who was

not killed.

5.4.2 Judge Kirby, either orally or with an unfiled Order, acquiesced in

allowing the removal of the bond condition preventing contact with a

surviving child in the household of the killed child.

5.4.3 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.

5.4.4 A reasonable person can assume that Judge Kirby, without notice to

any of the adverse parties, even his wife, Monique Lynn Fouque, who is an

assistant district attorney, removed the conditions of the bond that allowed

Casey Allen Spradlin contact with the surviving child.

5.4.5 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.

5.4.6 The District Attorney, upon specific request in an e-mail, although

he has confirmed other information related to the case, has not confirm or

denied if the District Attorney was notified of the no contact with the of 153


surviving child conditions being removed from the bond before Judge Kirby

removed the no contact conditions of the bond. It is seriously doubted that

the District Attorney would have participated in any such conduct.

5.4.7 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.

5.4.8 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 Spradlin extended family.

5.4.9 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.

5.4.10 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.

5.4.11 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.

5.4.12 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.

5.5The uninvestigated aspect of this wrongdoing Judge Kirby involves

whether or not Judge Baldwin, the trial judge in the 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. If Judge

Baldwin had any knowledge before the trial of the secret change of the bond

by Judge Kirby and took no action, this would be an additional reason for

the disqualification of Judge Baldwin.

5.5.1 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?

5.5.2 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.

5.5.3 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 of 153


Fouque, an assistant district attorney, who is primarily assigned to the

Superior Court of Troup County.

5.6 The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers instigated this case in a

Superior Court knowing of the judge shopping corruption allowable at the

time that the case was filed. Eventually the Glover & Davis lawyers were

called out by the Supreme Court of Georgia in the City of Savannah v.

Batson Cook case.

5.6.1 Before the case was filed, after Michelle Murphy informed John

Harold Murphy that she would not yield to his request for her and the

children to move to Tennessee near Renee Haugerud’s home on Lookout

Mountain, he began the Murphy/Haugerud financial assault upon the family

by withdrawing transportation for the children from Newnan to the private

school in Atlanta that Murphy/Haugerud had previously, voluntarily

provided. (V9 p.1768)

5.6.2 The type of conduct in which John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud have engaged is a clear indication that it is not in the “best interest

of the children.” It is a part of their agenda that is to obtain another

possession that just happens at this time to be the children, whom they

display as ornaments. Their possession is to fill a void in what Renee

Haugerud calls her 21st payoff life. (V14, 2766)

5.6.3 Taylor Drake initially sent a proposed contract to Michelle Murphy

that required her and the children to move to Chattanooga, or be imperiled

with this modification litigation. (V8 p.1567)

5.6.4 John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud apparently view

Michelle Murphy only as a “nanny” or a surrogate mother for the children.

John Harold Murphy maintained that Renee Haugerud was the natural of 153


mother of Thomas Murphy on a recent visit to the emergency room for his

alcohol poisoning that occurred while visiting in their Atlanta residence.

(V16, p.3489) Murphy/Haugerud consider Michelle Murphy to be a hair

stylist beneath their social and economic status and do not accord her the

dignity deserved for the mother who raised the children when their father

left their home for New York and other women long before he began living

with Renee Haugerud.

5.6.5 When Michelle Murphy refused to move from Newnan to Tennessee,

the Glover & Davis lawyer used an “emergency” motion to select Judge

Baldwin.

5.6.6 Judge Baldwin was easily selected by Taylor Drake falsely alleging

an emergency, with the sworn statement of John Harold Murphy that

Michelle Murphy was planning to move to South Carolina. (V1 p.13) The

Standing Order prevents such a move, in the Coweta Judicial Circuit, upon

the filing of any type of domestic relations complaint without the feigned

emergency hearing on the day that Judge Baldwin was presiding. This tactic

was used by the Glover & Davis lawyer to hand pick Judge Baldwin for this

case. (V1, p.7)

5.6.6 Judge Baldwin, without granting a requested hearing and over

strenuous objection, signed by counsel for Michelle Murphy and without

reading, Taylor Drake’s prepared order illegally appointing Melissa Griffis

as the guardian ad litem. (V1, p.23) Judge Baldwin delegated to Melissa

Griffis authority unauthorized by law. This guardian ad litem had sponsored

a judicial political rally with the Glover & Davis lawyer, attended by Judge

Baldwin on the night before her appointment. The Order, contrary to what

Judge Baldwin maintains that he believed that he was signing, made of 153


Michelle Murphy potentially liable for payment of the fees of the guardian

ad litem. (Tr. Nov. 15, 2012, p.33, l. 25- p. 34, l. 22)

Melissa Griffis as the guardian ad litem was illegally granted the authority

to temporarily modify custody without judicial approval that “shall” be

followed. Without such authority Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, urged by

5.6.7 Taylor Drake attempted to use this illegal authority that was granted

to Melissa Griffis, but not granted to Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell. This

illegal authority is not authorized by statute, or the Uniform Superior Court

Rules. Uniform Superior Court Rule 24.9 provides the authority authorized

for a guardian ad litem. Superior Court judges are restricted from delegating

the authority that Taylor Drake included in the appointment order that Judge

Baldwin signed without reading. This illegal authority that 3.6.8 Taylor

Drake both inserted in the signed without reading appointment order of

Melissa Griffis and encouraged Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell to illegally

order is, as follows.

The GAL may make temporary recommendations/adjustments during the pendency of this action regarding custody and parenting time and the parties shall follow said recommendations of GAL. (V1 p.23)

5.6.8 Judge Baldwin, without knowing, or by intentionally misstating

the Uniform Superior Court Rules, states as follows in his

disqualification order.

While the court acknowledges that it is better practice to read such order, in this case it was not needed. The GAL order was a standard order that the Judge has seen a number of times. Further, the order tracts the Uniform Superior Court Rules for the duties of a GAL.


5.6.9 Judge Baldwin did accurately state that the Glover & Davis lawyer

includes this illegal authority in the Glover & Davis prepared guardian ad

litem appointment orders that apparently Judge Baldwin, as a matter of

practice always signs without reading.

5.6.11 Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, to the detriment of Michelle Murphy,

attempted to use this authority to create an order to Michelle Murphy about

the children going to school in Atlanta rather than near their home in Coweta

County. This order by the guardian ad litem created very expensive

litigation costs for Michelle Murphy. (V16 p.3394)

5.6.10 The illegal conduct of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell is relevant, as it

was Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell alone who selected the psychologist with

the illegal contract that Judge Baldwin attempted, with an aspect of the

contempt, to force Michelle Murphy to sign.

5.6.11 This conduct of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell attempting to modify

custody at the beginning of the school year with the illegal authority granted

to Melissa Griffis initiated an expanded disqualification of Judge Baldwin

motion that he denied on June 7, 2012. (V2 p.306), That disqualification

motion addresses the illegal conduct that Judge Baldwin identifies as

“messing” with him.

5.6.12 The June 7, 2012 denial of disqualification Order was appealed and

is pending before the Supreme Court of Georgia. 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


5.6.12 The lynchpin in all 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

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 engaged in a pattern of judge selection conduct. See, Mayor &

Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012).

5.6.13 When John Harold Murphy began withdrawing voluntarily provided

transportation to an Atlanta private school that Murphy/Haugerud had

previously offered to the children, (V9 p.1768) Michelle Murphy informed

the Murphy/Haugerud couple that she could not afford the transportation to

Atlanta schools twice a day while engaging in her occupation as a hair

stylist. The Glover & Davis lawyer, after rejecting alternative suggestions

for transportation, wrote a letter accusing this hair stylist of “laziness” in not

making the two trips to the Atlanta schools each day from Newnan. (V9

p.1783)

5.6.14 When Michelle Murphy made it clear that if alternative suggestions

for transportation (Tr. Aug. 30, 2012 p. 10) were not accepted she would

not take the children to the Atlanta schools, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell,

without court approval, ordered the children to stay with John Harold

Murphy in Atlanta at the beginning of school. (V9 p.1788)

Michelle Murphy refused to surrender the children, as ordered by Elizabeth

5.6.15 “Lisa” F. Harwell and enrolled the children in public school in

Coweta County.


5.6.15 Taylor Drake then obtained an “emergency” hearing before Judge

Baldwin on August 30, 2012. Judge Baldwin, after hearing the testimony of

the psychiatrist expert witness for John Harold Murphy to whom the

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell $1,500 to testify, was unable to identify any

emergency. (Tr. Aug.30, 2012 p. 72, lines 20-25) The hearing was a flop for

the goals of “Murph,” as Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell called John Harold

Murphy.

5.6.17 Judge Baldwin, at that August 30, 2012 hearing, issued the

following threat to Michelle Murphy, whom he knew could not afford the

litigation.

But let me just talk again to the parties. Do y'all want to keep putting all this money out here, fussing about this thing? I mean, again, if you don't have anything to fear, if everything is all right, and everything's been done the way it's supposed to be done, you don't have anything to fear about losing custody of the children. And I just wanted to know if y'all really want to just keep dragging this out like this. You know, y'all can spend money to kingdom come, that kind of thing. And there's no kind of guarantee that I'm going to award any attorney's fees, you know, to cover any of this stuff. There's nothing that requires me to do that. And so I just want y'all to think about that. (Tr. Aug. 30, 2012, p. 29, lines 2-15)

5.6.18 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). (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.

5.6.19 Those paid from the bank accounts controlled by Renee Haugerud

seek “experts” for litigation, e.g., the Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell selected

“custody evaluator,” not experts for the best interest of the children, as their

lives are being tormented by the snatch and grab litigation tactics of the John

Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud cadre of lawyers, investigators and

experts who cannot even turn up an untidy lawn at Michelle Murphy’s

house.

5.6.20 Judge Baldwin, who was very ruffled by the disqualification

motions’ disclosure of his conduct and the appeal of his Order denying

them, began further participating with the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis

lawyers, who were using the tremendous disparity in income and wealth of

the parties as a detriment to Michelle Murphy.

5.6.21 Judge Baldwin’s denial of his disqualification was before the Court

of Appeals in Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (2013). That appeal was

dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and is now pending on certiorari in

case no. S13G1651.

5.6.22 In another related appellate matter addressing Judge Baldwin’s

disqualification in this case, the Supreme Court transferred its Case No.

S14A0275 to the Court of Appeals. The record citations in that transferred

appeal and in this application are synchronized in the Court of Appeals.

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 of 153


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)

5.7 The disqualification motions affected the contempt adjudications;

more accurately stated, the disqualification motions were Judge Baldwin’s

motivation for the contempt adjudications. The contempts began when

Judge Baldwin admittedly got “mad” at Larry King.

5.7.1 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

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] (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p. 17) See,

Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (2013)

5.7.2 Sticking by that manifesto, but failing to perform his non-

discretionary, sworn duty, Judge 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 of 153


(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)

5.7.3 Adding grounds to his disqualification 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 Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis

lawyers’ request to hear the merits at an August 13, 2013 hearing. That

hearing resulted in the ex parte obtained August 23, 2013 Order.

5.7.4 The ex parte obtained August 23, 2013 Order (V11, p.2187) modified

visitation, i.e., modified custody, (Edge v Edge, 290 Ga 551, 552 (2012) as

determined by the Divorce Decree (V2, p.411 ) and Standing Order of all

the Circuit Judges (V1, p.7), after the Court refused to allow Michelle

Murphy to present evidence, (Tr. Aug. 13, pp.235, 274) or to complete the

cross-examination of John Harold Murphy’s witness (Tr. Aug 13, p. 276),

at the August 13, 2013 hearing, contrary to Shore v. Shore, 253 Ga. 183 (Ga.

1984) and its progeny. All, while there were four pending, unadjudicated

judge disqualifications motions. (V3 p.436; V10 p.1904; V11 p.2195; V14

p.2890)

5.7.5 In order to modify visitation while attempting to shield the ex parte

August 23, 2013 Order from appellate review, the Taylor Drake/Glover &

Davis lawyers included the absolutely contradictory statement, “The of 153


physical custody of the children shall not be changed at this time”

(V11, p. 2191). The statement is an illegally included defense of the Glover

& Davis lawyer, as Judge Baldwin never read before signing and filing the

ex parte obtained August 23, 2013 Order. (V11 p.2214) Judge Baldwin

defends the ex parte letter (V14, p.2752) that accompanied the proposed

August 23, 2013 Order.

THE COURT I’m just tired of things -- Like I

noticed in this thing y’all talk about some

kind of ex parte conversations. I don’t think

I have had any ex parte conversations with Mr.

Drake about this anytime lately if I ever had

any. I don’t think, since the beginning of this

case I have, partly because of all the stuff

that’s been going on in the State about ex

parte 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 you supposedly have my phones bugged or

his phone bugged. (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p.15, lines 4-17).

5.7.6 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, came to the home of Michelle Murphy to

get the children to comply with the modified visitation, nunc pro tunc to

August 13, 2013. (V14, p. 2702)

5.7.7 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)

5.7.7 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)

5.7.8That motion and the Amended Contempt were abuses of the criminal

process.

5.7.9 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)

5.7.10 After John Murphy and the Glover & Davis lawyers orchestrated the

Deputy 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.

5.7.11 The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers then attempted to use the

August 23, 2013 Order, while it was on appeal to the Supreme Court of of 153


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.

5.7.12 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)

5.7.12.1 The Amended Contempt Motion did not include a Rule Nisi

5.7.12.2 The Amended Contempt Motion did not subpoena any person.

The Amended Contempt Motion was not even copied to Larry King.

5.7.12.3 The Amended Contempt Motion stated that it was for contempt

of “Defendant’s lawyer” [singular] when Michelle Murphy had two

lawyers and the lawyer charged was not named. (V14, p.2782)

5.7.12.4 The Amended Contempt Motion was not a charging document

that comported with due process to the extent that it could legally be

adjudicated. (V14, p.2817)

5.7.12.5 The Thursday, October 3, 2013 court calendar posted and sent

to counsel from the Clerk of Court of Coweta County did not indicate that

the Amended Motion for Contempt, or any motion for contempt, was on

the Thursday, October 3, 2013 calendar, as the “Prosecutor/Plaintiff”

5.7.12.6 Taylor Drake of Glover& Davis did not obtain from the Judge,

or any Clerk, a Rule Nisi to have served upon the persons charged. (V14

p. 2807) See, Crocker v. Crocker, 132 Ga. App. 587, 589 (1974)


5.7.12.7 Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer filed a

comprehensive response to the September 27, 2013 Amended Motion for

Contempt. (V16, p.3334) The response pled to the jurisdiction of Judge

Baldwin to hear the Amended Contempt Motion.

5.7.12.8 Judge Baldwin abrogated his judicial authority in all relevant

matters in the entirety of this case to the Glover & Davis lawyers. It is

unconscionable, but certainly not unpredictable that Judge Baldwin

delegated the preparation of the contempt orders to the Taylor

Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers.

5.7.12.9 It is unconscionable that the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis

lawyers included false findings of fact in the Order that was prepared for

Judge Baldwin to sign. The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers included

the findings in the Order that Judge Baldwin again did not have read before

singing.

5.7.12.10 The November 19, 2013 Contempt 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.”

5.7.12.11 The ironic aspect of this finding that Defendant “failed to

present evidence” is the ex parte obtained 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.

5.7.12.12 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.

5.7.12.13 Judge Baldwin doesn’t read the orders that he signs, and,

worse, has such little 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 Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis

lawyers filed without the vaguest understanding of the due process

protections associated with criminal prosecutions, albeit the prosecution

for contempt.

5.7.12.14 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.

6 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

Georgia 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 of 153


in this case and happened in the Coweta Judicial Circuit on a regular basis.

(V3 pp.447-448)

6.1 Persons accused of conduct that subjects them to incarceration are

entitled to 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.

6.1.1 Judge Baldwin not only deprived Nancy Michelle Murphy, Larry King

and Millard Farmer of a fair hearing, he deprived them§ of 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)

6.1.1.1 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 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. *** of 153


http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/358/case.html

Ex parte communications “are presumed to have been in error.”

emphasis supplied

"[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)

6.1.1.2 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 [indirect] 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]

6.1.1.3After the first contempt of Larry King, Judge Baldwin had an

obligation under the rationale of Dowdy v. Palmour, 251 Ga. 135 (1983) to

discontinue adjudicating the other contempts.

6.2 Renee L. Haugerud was legally served with a subpoena on April 21, 2012 by serving the subpoena upon he counsel of Record 6.2.1 On May 1, 2014, after Renee L. Haugerud was served the

April 21, 2014 subpoena for her attendance at the April 27, 2014 hearings

that she attempts to quash, John Harold Murphy instigated a Petition for

Contempt of Court against Michelle Murphy. At the time that the subpoena

was served upon Peter a. Durham the remittitur had not been returned to

this Court and therefore at the time of service the subpoena was properly of 153


served upon Peter A. Durham.

6.2.2 The Petition for Contempt of Court against Michelle Murphy was

apparently instigated by John Harold Murphy as he committed to Jack

Murphy age 15 that he would have his mother, Michelle Murphy put in jail

if Renee L. Haugerud was subpoenaed. This threat of criminal prosecution,

as the petition for contempt is, exemplifies the just one of the attempts of

John Harold Murphy, the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers to suppress

evidence relevant to the best interest of the children.

6.2.3 Michelle Murphy is constitutionally entitled to present evidence

at the May 27, 2014 hearing. At the last hearing before Judge Baldwin on

March 17, 2014, Judge Baldwin even prohibited counsel for Michelle

Murphy from obtaining from John Harold Murphy the address of his and

Renee L. Haugerud’s residence in the State of Georgia. Upon specific

request, Judge Baldwin stated that he would prohibit a deposition of Renee

L. Haugerud until after the May 27, 2014 hearing. The only method of

obtaining the sworn testimony of Renee L. Haugerud is with the subpoena

that is served upon her for the hearings scheduled for May 27, 2014.

6.2.3.1 Renee L. Haugerud is a party who is represented by Peter A.

Durham/Glover & Davis lawyers who has secreted herself from

examination by counsel for Michelle Murphy although Renee L. Haugerud

has engaged in conduct with Jack Murphy age 15 and Thomas Murphy

age 13 that was not in the best interest of these children.

6.2.3.2 Judge Baldwin should allow the examination of Renee L.

Haugerud in order to determine if the children are to be allowed to be in her

presence. She is the person who participating with John Harold Murphy is

withdrawing the funds being used for the children’s education when of 153


Michelle Murphy refused to move with the children to Chattanooga,

Tennessee.

6.2.4 Glenn H. Miller, MD, a noted psychiatrist, in J Am Acad

Psychiatry Law 30:196-200, 2002, identified that a custody evaluation by

the psychologist can be damaging to the child.

Custody examinations can be very involved. The examiner may gather a

mass of information but it important that the information be directly

relevant to the intent of the evaluation. If not, the evaluation may be

damaging.

6.2.4.1 Upon specific inquiry to both Nancy McGarrah and H. Elizabeth

“Betty” King they both have refused to disclose the type of tests that they

plan to use and their qualification as an expert that supports the opinions

that they could render as the results of the test.

6.2.4.2 Harriette. Elizabeth “Betty” King requires that Michelle Murphy

initially provide her the information in Attachment 107 and warns Michelle

Murphy as follows.

6.2.4.3 This is a relevant point to emphasize, as H. Elizabeth “Betty”

King warns in her Limitations, Risks and Services section of her adhesion

contract; “neither the Profession of psychology nor the State of Georgia

has established criteria.”


6.2.4.3.1 Who knows if H. Elizabeth “Betty” King preference wealth

parties who pay her fees, of provides equal an equal opinion of a party

who is not capable of providing her fees and who is challenging her

methodology.

6.2.4.3.2 This case offer a good example of the way that Judge

Baldwin accorder his regular campaign financial donors and political

friends is signing without reading an order over the objecting of an

opposing party who wished for evidence. The treatment of the illegal

conduct of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell by Judge Baldwin is another

example.

6.2.4.3.3 Our judicial system is organized to accommodate advocates

who are attentive to the rights of parties. It is only those who do not have

respect for the constitutional and statutory rights of litigants who through

their biased judgments believe that persons exercising their constitutional

rights are attempting to hide something. Michelle Murphy is not now, nor

has she ever attempted to hide anything. Plainly stated, Judge Baldwin

has obtained to hide an examination of his judicial conduct by not

providing a Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 et. seq. review of his

conduct by an impartial jurist. This is illegal and not a constitutionally

protected right of Judge Baldwin, as his position as a judge belongs to the

people and not him.

6.2.4.3.4 Judge Baldwin, without knowing anything about “custody

evaluators,” their cost or their potential detriment to Jack Murphy age 15

and Thomas Murphy 13, accepted the judgment of Elizabeth “Lisa” F.

Harwell whose judgment is so poor that she converts funds held in trust


by her to her personal account without the Uniform Superior Court

Rule 24.9 (8)(g) mandated, in its relevant part as follows.

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.

6.2.4.3.5 The fees of H. Elizabeth “Betty” King and the time

consumed away from the income necessary business of Michelle Murphy

are financially debilitating to Michelle Murphy. The fees and time is

identified in H. Elizabeth “Betty” King’s adhesion contract, in part, is

identified as follows.

6.2.4.4 After being subjected to the “test” the adhesion contracts of this

“custody evaluators” H. Elizabeth “Betty” King further warns Michelle

Murphy as follows.


6.2.4.5 Any mother who would trust Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell with

confidential information about her assessment of her children as required by

the form of H. Elizabeth “Betty” King that is Attachment Initial 107

interview would be not acting in the best interest of her children It would

be poor judgment to provide information in trust to this guardian ad litem

who converted funds in violation of the laws of Georgia to her personal use

without, as required by law, presenting documentation of the justification

for conversion of the funds. This guardian ad litem was also involved in

marital infidelity whom Judge Baldwin should have disqualified after

granting her a hearing as requested by counsel for Michelle Murphy.

6.2.4.5.1 There are two well established patterns of conduct of the

parties in this case.

6.2.4.5.2 John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud have made

false statements under oath. John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud have engaged in other illegal conduct. Their misconduct

continues.

6.2.4.5.3 Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell has converted funds that she

held in trust to her personal use in violation of Uniform Superior Court

Rule 24.9 (8) (g).

6.2.4.5.4 Michelle Murphy has only sought to protect her

constitutional rights and the best interest of the children.


The record in this case present a great case study for both law,

psychology and economic students and accomplish professionals in a

seminar setting.

6.2.4.6 The approval by Judge Baldwin of the conduct of Elizabeth

“Lisa” F. Harwell who attempted to act with the authority of the Court

without approval in temporarily transferring the custody of the children to

John Harold Murphy when he ceased paying for the transportation of the

children from Newnan to Atlanta to attend their school is relevant to

understanding the unconstitutional conduct of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell

that is damaging to the best interest of the children.

6.2.4.7 How can a judge who allowed Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell to

serve as guardian ad litem, after her conversion of trust funds in violation of

USCR 2.4.9 (8) (g) and who make false statement in response to a motion

to disqualify him and denied Michelle Murphy a hearing to determine the

necessity for a custody evaluator.

6.2.4.10 In discussing a specific case, Glenn H. Miller, MD, the

psychiatrist stated as follows.

More importantly it harmed the boy. He had recurring nightmares and fears of being taken away and it caused the common-law parents to be frightened that their son would be taken from them. Even if the expert’s examination allowed a deeper understanding of Ely and his family, it did provide information that was relevant to the disposition.

6.2.5 When Judge Baldwin prevented Michelle Murphy from presenting

evidence relating to the necessity for a custody evaluation, while admitting

that he knew anything about what a custody evaluator would involve, or

accomplish Judge Baldwin participated in the John Harold Murphy, the


Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers’ litigation strategy of attempting to

psychologically destabilize Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas

Murphy.

6.2.5.1 The litigation strategy of John Harold Murphy, financed by Renee

L. Haugerud and carried out by the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers

coincides the business model of the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers

in representing clients who are willing to pay a large amount of legal fees

for the large amount of unnecessary litigation expenses that the Taylor

Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers create.

6.2.5.2 The business model of the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers

requires that each of their numerous lawyer contribute about a $1,000 to

Judge Baldwin during each election cycle even when it is obvious that he

will not have any opposition and to otherwise politically support

supplemental financial funding to Judge Baldwin by Coweta County.

6.2.5.3 Judge Baldwin accords and has accorded in this case the Taylor

Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers preferential treatment that is detrimental to

Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy, age 15, and Thomas Murphy, age 13.

6.2.5.4 Judge Baldwin has refused to abide by the Uniform Superior

Court Rules.

6.2.5.5 John Harold Murphy has done everything within his ability to

interrupt the lives of the children to the extent that the interruption of the

lives of the children can be used to further his and Renee L. Haugerud’s

litigation goals.

6.2.5.6 John Harold Murphy fails to address the reality that he abandoned

the children in order to further his life of adultery in New York that was

only a continuum of the life of infidelity in other areas of the country. of 153


6.2.5.7 If counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy had not persistently

challenged Nancy McGarrah, this “custody evaluation” would have

interrupted the business of Michelle Murphy to the extent that the “custody

evaluation” would have been financially debilitating to Michelle Murphy

and the best interest of the children.

6.2.5.8 The experiment that Judge Baldwin has had with “custody

evaluation” in this case shows a galling disregard for the best interest of

Jack Murphy age 15 and Thomas Murphy age 13, and demonstrates the

necessity for the disqualification of Judge Baldwin.

6.3. The Subpoena Renee L. Haugerud for Production of Evidence

4.3.1 On April 21, 2014 Peter A. Durham, counsel for Renee L.

Haugerud, was served by hand delivery with the subpoena for production

of evidence that he seeks to have the Court quash.

4.3.1.1 The subpoena was served as provided by OCGA § 24-13-24 that

provides as follows.

OCGA § 24-13-24. Service of subpoenas. A subpoena may be served by any sheriff, by his or her deputy, or by any

other person not less than 18 years of age. Proof may be shown by return or certificate endorsed on a copy of the subpoena. Subpoenas may also be served by registered or certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, and the return receipt shall constitute prima-facie proof of service. Service upon a party may be made by serving his or her counsel of record.

6.3.2 The subpoenas required the appearance of Renee L. Haugerud and

production of evidence at a hearings scheduled by Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. for May 27, 2014.

6.3.3 There has been a habitual problem with serving Renee L. Haugerud

a.k.a. Lauree Smith, as she with the assistance of Peter A. Durham/Glover


& Davis lawyers have attempted to evade service by false statements to

process servers and false affidavits.

6.3.3.1 In attempts to evade service of process in this case, Renee L.

Haugerud has identified herself as Lauree Smith and stated that she was

not Renee L. Haugerud to the process server. The children observed

Renee L. Haugerud making a knowing false statement to process server

as Renee L. Haugerud exhibited her tantrum in the lobby of the hotel of

throwing the Third Party Complaint on the floor.

6.3.3.2 Previous to that false statement to the process server by Renee

L. Haugerud, she earlier attempted to evade service at her, then home, at

829 North Bragg Street, Lookout Mountain, Tennessee 37341.

6.3.3.3 Renee L. Haugerud, wealth and apparent feeling of entitlement to

evade service of process was and is derived from Galtere, Ltd, a registered

investment advisor that is headquartered in New York City. Galtera N.A.,

Inc. is the sub-advisor to Galtere, Ltd.

6.3.4 Renee L. Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith has participated in an array

of illegal conduct that is supportive of John Harold Murphy. She now once

again seeks the protection of the laws of Georgia that she has fragrantly

violated.

6.3.4.1 It is understandably that Renee L. Haugerud does not wish to

expose her conduct and participation in the attempts of John Harold

Murphy to financially debilitating and psychologically destabilize this

family that John Harold Murphy abandoned after first engaging in a

swingers lifestyle of adultery.

6.3.4.2 When John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud were

“caring” for the children and the youngest child, Thomas Murphy, of 153


became over intoxicated with alcohol, John Harold Murphy, consistent

with his deceptive character, identified to the hospital that “Renee

Haugerud” was the natural mother of Thomas Murphy see,

Attachment 106.

6.3.4.3 Renee L. Haugerud a/k/a Lauree Smith was participating in

funding the education of Jack Murphy and Thomas before this

educational benefit of these children was withdrawn by John Harold

Murphy as a part of his and the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers’

litigation strategy to financially debilitating and psychologically

destabilize this family in order to prevail in modifying custody of Jack

Murphy and Thomas Murphy who do not wish to live with John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud.

6.4. There is a Constitutional Protection of Michelle Murphy that Cannot be Protected Without the Attendance of Renee L. Haugerud at the May 27, 2014 Hearings 6.4.1 Renee L. Haugerud, as counseled by John Harold Murphy, entered into

an illegally conducted marriage ceremony with John Harold Murphy by making

false statements under oath to obtain a marriage license that Judge Louis Jack

Kirby used to conduct and illegal marriage ceremony. This is not the only false

statement under oath made by Renee L. Haugerud during to her relationship

with John Harold Murphy.

6.4.2 Renee L. Haugerud provides residences for John Harold Murphy, and

otherwise financially provides for him. John Harold Murphy is what some

people would call the “kept man” of Renee L. Haugerud. This “kept man” now

seeks to fulfill the needs of Renee L. Haugerud for children whom she does not

have. The children of Michelle Murphy do not wish to become the house “kept

children” of Renee L. Haugerud anywhere and especially not in St. Thomas, of 153


her latest residence that is shared with John Harold Murphy.

6.4.3 Renee L. Haugerud, through financial resources that she derives from

her businesses, funds this litigation for John Harold Murphy. The Taylor

Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers constantly bring new litigation while similar

issues are on appeal. Judge Baldwin becomes angry with counsel for Michelle

Murphy for defending her from his illegal conduct that results from his

favoritism to his campaign contributors and political allies. Judge Baldwin

know that he cannot be examined under oath before an impartial jurist about

his conduct. To compensate Judge Baldwin threatens incarceration for this

mother and her counsel. Such threats are one of the weakest character traits of

a jurist.

6.4.4 The time has arrived for Renee L. Haugerud to tell the world about the

person whom she selected as her husband. He is the person who moved

Michelle Murphy from California to LaGrange, Georgia and left her, when he

left for an adulterous lifestyle in New York. Renee L. Haugerud’s husband is

the person who is attempting to jail the mother who cared for the toddlers whom

John Harold Murphy left in LaGrange. John Harold Murphy, with the aid of

the lawyers for Renee L. Haugerud, is attempting to deplete Michelle Murphy’s

family resources with litigation by requiring her to endure time consuming and

expensive tests with the equivalent accuracy of determining the best interest of

the children with a Quija board.

6.4.5 It will be intellectually interesting to hear the “expert” selected by the

Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell, explain the methodology that the “expert” used to

determine if it was in the best interest of the children for Renee L. Haugerud

and John Harold Murphy to take one of the children beach walking with them

on a nude beach. This must have been an interesting family outing and of 153


promenade in the best interest of the child and others participating in this peer

review.

6.4.6 It will be intellectually interesting to hear the “expert” explain the

methodology that the “expert” used to determine if it was in the best interest of

the children for Renee L. Haugerud to supply John Harold Murphy the financial

resources to purchase an expensive ear stud for one of the children; Michelle

Murphy strongly opposed piercing his body and displaying pierced hardware.



the children for Renee L. Haugerud to use the children and one of their friends

to tend bar for guests in the Haugerud residence.



the children for Renee L. Haugerud and John Harold Murphy, on every

occasion, to flaunt their wealth to the friends of the children.

6.4.9 It will great to hear Renee L. Haugerud explain to her peers the source

of the funds used to finance her husband’s legal team and the “experts.”

6.4.10 It will be great to hear Renee L. Haugerud explain why she refuses

to take the test of the expert designated by counsel for Michelle Murphy.

6.4.11 It is only Judge Baldwin who does not understand that John Harold

Murphy is once again playing the court system for the same type of

incompetent decision making that he played the

Court when he hid his $180,000.00 in stock

options from Michelle Murphy until one day

after she agreed to a settlement agreement that

was memorialized before Judge Baldwin. of 153


6.4.12 Judge Baldwin has yet to qualify his Quija board “experts”.

6.4.2. The Glover & Davis Lawyers maintain that they filed their OCGA § 9-11-35 motion against Michelle Murphy for the reason that Michelle Murphy would not present herself to Nancy McGarrah for examination; yet, Renee L. Haugerud never had such examination. 6.4.2.1 Renee L. Haugerud has only participated in an interview although she

has exhibited parenting skills that are far from the best interest of the children,

including participating the withdrawal of funds for the children’s education

once the Complaint for Modification of Custody was filed. There was no reason

for the children to be deprived of the financial educational support that they had

been provided before the Complaint was filed, as a means to obtain litigation

leverage. Between high price legal fee that indirectly support campaign

contributions for judge with no opposition in an election and the educational

and other needs of the children, John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud

did not make a decision in the best interest of the children. If the past is any

clue to the future, it should not take a $30,000 psychologist to tell this story to

Judge Baldwin.

6.4.2.2 There was a just and legal cause for Michelle Murphy not presenting

herself to Nancy McGarrah.

6.4.2.3 Judge A. Quillian Baldwin was presented evidence of this just and

legal cause for Nancy McGarrah being disqualified in a comprehensive motion.

Instead of identifying the just and legal cause for Michelle Murphy not

presenting herself to Nancy McGarrah, Judge Baldwin had someone write for

him as follows in an order that he signed accepting the resignation of Nancy

McGarrah.

In the hearing, Defendant admitted on the stand that she had not cooperated in the custody evaluation in any way.


6.4.3.1 This disingenuous statement in the Order of Judge Baldwin

characteristic of Judge Baldwin attempting to deceptively defend his

conduct, as Michelle Murphy in the best interest of the children could not

execute the adhesion contract of Nancy McGarrah.

6.5. After the same hearing, Nancy McGarrah’s counsel filed a motion that

essentially granted the motion of Michelle Murphy to disqualify Nancy

McGarrah by acknowledging as follows.

6.5.1` Nancy McGarrah, for just cause was disqualified as she was not a fairly

selected person with whom Michelle Murphy was required to enter into an

adhesion contract, or be required to exhaust her financial resources to expose

the unfairness and ineptness of Nancy McGarrah, who did not perform any

testing upon Renee L. Haugerud.

6.5.2 Michelle Murphy did not present herself to Nancy McGarrah for

examination because of the adhesion contract that Nancy McGarrah required

Michelle Murphy and her counsel to sign before she would begin her custody

evaluation, additionally due to the financial liability that the contract created

for Michelle Murphy to expose the unfairness of the so called custody


evaluation, and, further, due to the other illegal conduct encompassing the

selection of Nancy McGarrah, or any custody evaluator selected by Judge

Baldwin and Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, and, in particular, Nancy McGarrah.

6.5.3. At the hearing to determine if a custody evaluator would be appointed,

Judge Baldwin stopped the hearing before counsel for Michelle Murphy was

allowed to complete the cross-examination of the psychiatrist, Patricia Nice,

M.D., who was apparently testifying under the influence of some type of

controlled substance.

6.5.4 Nancy McGarrah was not qualified to render the expert opinion that

Judge Baldwin sought to obtain from her.

6.5.5 Judge Baldwin was not a jurist who is qualified to exercise the

discretion concerning the qualifications of the expert witnesses to render the

opinions for which he is ordering Michelle Murphy to expend resources while

being away from her job and family duties. The concept of qualifying a witness

is apparently not even on the radar screen of Judge Baldwin, as he has never

allowed counsel for Michelle Murphy to explore the “junk science,”

inadmissible testimony of the so called experts. The concept of determining if

evidence from an expert is admissible for consideration is not just determined

by the credentials of the individual, but, for example, the expert witness’

testimony must meet the following test.

Our Supreme Court has enunciated the standards under which a trial court reviews the testimony of an expert witness for admission under former OCGA § 24-9-67.1: In determining the admissibility of expert testimony, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper, assessing both the witness' qualifications to testify in a particular area of expertise and the relevancy and reliability of the proffered testimony. … Reliability is examined


through consideration of many factors, including whether a theory or technique can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, the known or potential rate of error for the theory or technique, the general degree of acceptance in the relevant scientific or professional community, and the expert's range of experience and training. There are many different kinds of experts and many different kinds of expertise, and it follows that the test of reliability is a flexible one, the specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applying to all experts in every case.

Lavelle v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 260, 7-8 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2014) 6.5.6 To determine the admissibility of any expert witness, an extensive right

to examine the witness must be granted. This gives cause for the same testing

of Renee L. Haugerud, as being required of Michelle Murphy.

6.5.7 At the end of this “junk science” testing to determine the only issue,

i.e., the best interest of the children, the testimony is going to be inadmissible.

6.5.8 These “junk science” determinations by persons whom Judge Baldwin

is appointing from some list does not qualify their testimony to be admissible

evidence relating to the “best interest of the children.” There must be an

established, acceptable correlation between the testing and the opinion

rendered; not just the witness’ opinion. There is a deprivation of the United

States equal protection and due process rights of Michelle Murphy, as she

cannot afford the process necessary to defend against the “junk science,” best

interest of the children determination in which she is being required to

participate.

6.5.9 Upon request to Nancy McGarrah, she would not discuss any

information relating to her until after Nancy Michelle Murphy and her

counsel signed an adhesion contract with Nancy McGarrah. This alone is


adequate justification for not participating with this expert, whom Judge

Baldwin did not qualify before his appointment.

6.5.10 The following was the e-mail from Sarah, Office Manager for Nancy

McGarrah.

6. 5.11 The adhesion contract required by Nancy McGarrah, in part,

contained the following conditions that are repugnant to the rights of Michelle

Murphy and the laws of the State of Georgia when ordered for Michelle

Murphy to execute or be incarcerated, as Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. stated

in an Order filed on November 19, 2013.

6.5.12 The adhesion contract that Nancy McGarrah required to be signed

before she would discuss anything is so repugnant to the public policy of the

State of Georgia, that the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers, in order to

justify the adhesion contract, made a false statement to an appellate court about

the consequences of the contract. The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis Lawyers

falsely maintained to an appellant court that the adhesion contract required no

more immunity for Nancy McGarrah than provided by law. The section XVII

provision of the contract clearly states, “the Evaluator has immunity from being

held civilly liable for performing her duties.” It further states, “The parties to of 153


this agreement shall not bring any actions for damages or any other claims of

any kind or character against the Evaluator for any acts or omissions under the

terms of this Court Order/Consent Order.” These two provisions of contractual

immunity are in addition to the OCGA § 19-9-3 (a) (7) immunity that does not

exclude “unless such act or failure to act was in bad faith.”

6.5.13 Michelle Murphy was sentenced to jail essentially because she would

not execute a court ordered adhesion contract. The saddest thing about the

sentences for contempt by Judge Baldwin is that neither he nor the Taylor

Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers had enough knowledge of the law to provide

Michelle Murphy her constitutional protections in bringing the motion for

contempt before the Court. Issues relating to the contempt findings by Judge

Baldwin are pending on appeal. The filing of the contempt motions by the

Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers is indicative of the low level of legal

knowledge of these lawyers who obtain relief from Judge Baldwin based upon

political favoritism rather than the law. Judge Baldwin has a financial and

political dependency upon the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers that

disqualifies him from being the “fair” jurist that he maintains he is.

6.5.14 The even sadder point is that Judge Baldwin can stand before the

court workers and five or six deputy sheriffs and look Michelle Murphy in the

eye and proclaim how “fair” that he is. This Judge Baldwin does while he

attempts to create an absence of confidence of Michelle Murphy in her lawyers.

6.5.15 It is the money and political influence provided to Judge Baldwin by

the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers that he has long accepted of a long

period of time that skews Judge Baldwin’ perception of fairness.


6.5.16 Judge Baldwin has never seen Renee L. Haugerud, yet he has ordered

that John Harold Murphy can take the children to her wherever John Harold

Murphy pleases.

6.5.17 The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers are so afraid of John

Harold Murphy being cross-examined that they filed their motion in limine

with their OCGA § 9-11-35 motion and jumped up and down like jacks-in-the

boxes, objecting to numerous questions propounded to John Harold Murphy.


6.5.18. There was No Legal Reason for Granting the Examination of

Michelle Murphy

6.5.19 John Harold Murphy had no reason to support the granting of his

motion for the OCGA § 9-11-35 examination of Michelle Murphy at the

hearing, except that the judge required it. There was no such order by Judge

Baldwin at the time that John Harold Murphy was being cross-examined about

the basis for his, not the Court’s motion, for the OCGA § 9-11-35 examination.

The basis for Judge Baldwin granting the motion for the OCGA § 9-11-35

examination was upon circular reasoning and not any evidence. The motion

for the OCGA § 9-11-35 examination of Nancy Michelle Murphy was a

pretense to avoid the supersedeas relating to the custody evaluation.

6.5.10 The motion for the OCGA § 9-11-35 examination was no more than

a sham in which Judge Baldwin willfully participated.


6.5.11 The above information is relevant in determining the Judge Baldwin

standard for both ordering the custody evaulation and the OCGA § 9-11-35

examination. Admitedly, Judge Baldwin’s standard is flawed; however, his

standard should be applied equally if he is to maintain that he is “fair.”

6.6. The time has arrived for an OCGA § 9-11-35 equivalent examination of Renee L. Haugerud. 6.6.1 Allowing this OCGA § 9-11-35 equivalent examination will only be

“fair.” Judge Baldwin has had not problem rendering illegal orders against

Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer.

6.6.2 The Glover & Davis lawyers have never, NEVER, allowed the

deposition or the examination in any form of Renee L. Haugerud, who has run

from service processors like a fugitive on the lam.

6.6.3 It is absurd to require an OCGA § 9-11-35 examination of Michelle

Murphy, the mother who has raised these 15 and 13 year old children since they

were toddlers when John Harold Murphy abandoned the family for a life of


adultery in New York and not requiring this woman who has never raised a

child, Renee L. Haugerud, to evade the same OCGA § 9-11-35 examination.

6.6.4 The children know best; they know that Renee L. Haugerud is not an

acceptable substitute mother even for purposes of visitation during short

periods of time.

6.6.5 During a recent visit of one of the children with John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud, 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 with one of the children at that

time feared service of a subpoena upon her, as her location in Georgia

was detected.

6.6.6 The child, to whom John Harold Murphy relayed the warning, called

Michelle Murphy twice, to obtain assurance from her that she had obtained

assurance from Millard Farmer that Renee L. Haugerud would not be served

with a subpoena when they were visiting with John Harold Murphy and

Renee L. Haugerud.

6.6.7 The child brokering the “no subpoena service upon Renee L.

Haugerud” commitment has returned from the visit and the commitment of

Millard Farmer not to subpoena Renee L. Haugerud while the children were

away from their mother has expired.

6.6.8 The children, through Michelle Murphy, have obtained other

assurances from Millard Farmer relating to the conduct of Renee L.

Haugerud and John Harold Murphy that are now also not binding, as the

threat of John Harold Murphy has crossed the line and the time for

regulatory diminishing of the power plays of John Harold Murphy has of 153


arrived.

6.6.9 During her examination, the appointed psychologist, Nancy McGarrah,

testified that she had not done any psychological testing of Renee L. Haugerud

and that she had only interviewed her.

6.6.10 Michelle Murphy spent months attempting to inform Judge Baldwin

that Nancy McGarrah should be disqualified. It was not until after her

cross-examination that Nancy McGarrah essentially confessed her

disqualification with a motion to the Court. She was replaced by another

psychologist, H. Elizabeth “Betty” King, who was appointed after once again

being selected by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the guardian ad litem who was

caught violating the laws of Georgia relating to funds that she held in trust in

this case.

6.6.11 This psychologist has not provided any interview documents, or her

conditions for examination to Renee L. Haugerud although she has provided

these documents for Michelle Murphy and John Harold Murphy to complete.

6.6.12 Renee L. Haugerud is the person in the residence that the children

were required by Judge Baldwin to visit. The residence had an unprotected,

fully stocked bar in a living area that was left unattended when Renee L.

Haugerud went to another area of the house and John Harold Murphy when he

fell asleep.

6.6.13 When the bar became accessible to the children and their guest, the

younger child obtained and consumed an excessive amount of alcohol to the

extent that he had to be taken to the hospital. It was Renee L. Haugerud who

neither went to the hospital with the child nor called Michelle Murphy to inform

her of the child’s condition.


6.6.14 John Harold Murphy initially informed the hospital where the

younger child was taken that Renee L. Haugerud was the natural mother of the

child. It was only the social services person at the hospital who later informed

Michelle Murphy that her child was in the hospital.

6.6.15 It was Renee L. Haugerud who introduced the two children to

alcoholic beverages at a very young age by allowing them and their friends to

tend bar while they were visiting with her.

6.6.16 It was Renee L. Haugerud who paid the younger child approximately

$60 per hour to rub her feet while the children were visiting with her.

6.6.17 It is Renee L. Haugerud who primarily finances the residences in

which she and John Harold Murphy live in St. Thomas, New York,

Minnesota, Tennessee and Atlanta.

6,6.18 It is Renee L. Haugerud who maintains that she is living her “21st life

of entitlement.”

6.6.19 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.

6.6.20 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.

6.6.21 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.

6.6.22 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. of 153


6.6.23 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.

6.6.24 It was Renee L. Haugerud who used corporate assets in order to

transport the children to visit with her and John Harold Murphy.

6.6.25 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.

6.6.26 At the time that John Harold Murphy filed for modification of

custody, all of these funds were terminated.

6.6.27. 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)

6,6,28 The Third Party Complaint filed in this case that was dismissed

without adjudication upon the merits by the appellate court contains the

following information relating to the conduct of Renee L. Haugerud that is

relevant to the granting of this motion. The remittitur has not been returned to

the Superior Court of Coweta County in the case and the subpoena was served

upon Peter A. Moulton, as counsel for Renee L. Haugerud. The Third Party

Complaint stated as follows.

TPC Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, resides in a house with John

Harold Murphy in Lookout Mountain, Tennessee, as that State provides its

residents exemption from State income tax; she resides in a house in New

York for business purposes; she has a house and ranch in Minnesota for


business related and social purposes and a place for living in the Atlanta,

Georgia area for other purposes.

TPC-2.2.1 Renee Haugerud, contrary to her affidavit, Attachment TP-2

(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, Georgia. Attachment

TP-3

TPC-2.2.2 The affidavit (R-495) of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree

Smith, was sponsored to this Court by Peter A. Durham, a Glover & Davis

lawyer who had counseled Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith about

evading both service of process and evading jurisdiction of the Court.

TPC-2.2.3 Before sponsoring the affidavit (R-495) of Renee Haugerud,

a/k/a Lauree Smith, to the Court, Peter A. Durham, a Glover & Davis

lawyer, with real estate “expertise” had access to both electronic records

and the “expertise” of other Glover & Davis lawyers who also do real

estate title work and transactions.


TPC-2.2.4 Peter A. Durham, a Glover & Davis lawyer, who sponsored

the affidavit (R-495) of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith had easy

access to the electronic real estate records before filing the affidavit of

Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith.

TPC-2.2.4.1 There are lawyers at the Glover & Davis law firm who

have had an ownership interest in Georgia Lawyers Insurance

Company who had many years of experience in dealing with real estate

in Georgia. Peter A. Durham could have obtained this available

assistance, if he had chosen to detect if Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree

Smith, has a financial interest in real estate in Georgia.

TPC-2.2.4.2 The Glover & Davis lawyers in this case have accepted

another affidavit for filing from a person who made a sworn false

statement, as Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith made in her

affidavit (R-495).

TPC-2.2.4.3 The point is that the Glover & Davis lawyers were on

notice that Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, and John Harold

Murphy engaged in making false statements under oath and they

possessed the knowledge and resources to detect that the affidavit

(R-495) of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, was not truthful and

being provided for illegal purposes.

TPC-2.2.4.4 The Glover & Davis lawyers should learn that

John Harold Murphy will participate in placing anyone’s head on a

platter, albeit his lawyers’ heads and apparently now the head of Peter

A. Durham, Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith and once again what

remains of the reputation of the Glover & Davis law firm after the case


of Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114

(2012).

TPC-2.2.4.5 The Glover & Davis lawyers should have just asked

Judge Louis Jack Kirby just how it felt after having his head placed on

a platter over a show-of-status wedding ceremony.

TPC-2.2.5 The following are some examples of the false statements

made under oath by Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith and/or

John Harold Murphy that have been exposed during this litigation, even

before either of these parties have been deposed.

TPC-2.2.5.1 The Court is first reminded of the false statements that

Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith and John Harold Murphy made

in obtaining their marriage license.

TPC-2.2.5.1.1 First, on the left, below, is the Application, followed

on the right by the Marriage License signed by Coweta Judicial Circuit

Judge Jack Kirby. Attachment 7 pp 64-65, to the Addendum to the First

Amended Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin. (R-223, 224)

TPC-2.2.5.1.2 These two false statements made under oath place

Judge Louis Jack Kirby’s head on a platter, as the ceremony that he

performed for their marriage was a violation the law of Georgia.


TPC-2.2.5.1.3 The law of Georgia provides as follows about the

illegal conduct of a marriage with an improper marriage license.

OCGA § 19-3-48. Penalty for officiating at illegal marriage ceremony. If the Governor or any former Governor of this state, any judge, city recorder, magistrate, minister, or other person authorized to perform the marriage ceremony joins together in matrimony any man and woman without a license or the publication of banns or if the person performing the marriage ceremony knows of any disability of either of the parties which would render a contract of marriage improper and illegal, that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

TPC-2.2.5.2 The Court should also be reminded of another false

statement that Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith made.

TPC-2.2.5.2.1 The process server provides, in part, the following

sworn information. (Attachment TP-1 to the Response of Nancy

Michelle Murphy to Renee Haugerud’s Motion to Dismiss Third Party

Complaint for Insufficient Service of Process, Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction and Improper Venue)


TPC-2.2.5.2.2 The conduct of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith,

in making a false statement about her identity to the court appointed

process server is typical of the gulling by Renee Haugerud,

a/k/a Lauree Smith and John Harold Murphy in an attempt to make the

litigation expensive to Michelle Murphy and to engage in the conduct

of interfering with the custody of the minor children, the contract that

John Harold Murphy had with Michelle Murphy relating to the minor

children and to obstruct justice by attempting to secret from the Court

facts related to the counterclaim of Michelle Murphy to obtain of 153


additional child support by attempting to secret the assets of John

Harold Murphy.

TPC-2.2.5.2.3 Gulling can rise to the level of criminal conduct,

as OCGA § 16-10-20 establishes as follows and as both criminal

predicate act under Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act, OCGA § 16-14-1 (or, “RICO”) and a civil

predicate RICO violation that is a Georgia tort.

A person who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of state government or of the government of any county, city, or other political subdivision of this state shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both.

See also, Haley v. State, 289 Ga. 515, 527-528 (2011) that, in part,

holds as follows.

. . . a defendant need not make his false statement directly to the federal agency with jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. Krause, 507 F2d 113, 117 (5th Cir. 1975). Our Court of Appeals has properly construed OCGA § 16-10-20 in this way as well. See Tesler, 295 Ga. App. at 576. Indeed, the statutory language would not bear a construction so tightly linking the false statement and the government agency, since the legislature used the phrase "in any matter within the jurisdiction of" a government agency rather than simply "to" a government agency. Compare e.g., OCGA § 16-10-26("A person who willfully and knowingly


gives or causes a false report of a crime to be given to any law enforcement officer or agency of this state is guilty of a misdemeanor."). On the other hand, and while there was less consistency on this point, at the time OCGA § 16-10-20 was enacted and substantively amended, several leading federal cases interpreted § 1001 to require that the false statement "inevitably" deceive a federal agency. See Krause, 507 F2d at 117 (citing United States v. Candella, 487 F2d 1223 (1973)). The Second Circuit in Candella had explained that "[c]ase law makes it clear . . . that a violation of § 1001 does not require that the false statement must actually have been submitted to a department or agency of the United States, but rather that it was contemplated that the statement was to be utilized in a matter which was within the jurisdiction of such department or agency." Id. at 1227 (emphasis added) (upholding a conviction under § 1001 where the defendant provided false billing affidavits to the City of New York, rather than directly to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, because the affidavit stated that the defendant knew the City would rely on it to seek reimbursement from HUD and would make the affidavit available to HUD). Similarly, the Eighth Circuit had held that § 1001 applies not only to a false statement or writing presented to a federal agency, but also to "any knowing making or using of such a statement or document in intended relationship to a matter that is within the jurisdiction of the department or agency." Ebeling v. United States, 248 F2d 429, 434 (1957) (emphasis added). In more explicit terms, we are of the opinion that HN16it constitutes a violation of § 1001, for anyone willfully to make or use a false writing or document, knowing that it contains a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry,


and intending that it shall bear a relation or purpose as to some matter which is within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. . . .Id. (emphasis added). See also United States v. Hooper, 596 F2d 219, 223 (7th Cir. 1979) (upholding a § 1001 jury instruction that relied on Ebeling to charge that the false statements or documents must be "used in some intended relationship to a matter within the jurisdiction of the department"); Lowe v. United States, 141 F2d 1005, 1005 (5th Cir. 1944) (reversing the § 1001 conviction of a shipyard employee who made false statements to his private employer, who would be reimbursed by the United States Maritime Commission, where the employee was apparently unaware of that arrangement and, "[i]nsofar as the employee was concerned, every aspect of his employment was exactly the same as it would have been had there been no contract with any government agency of any kind"). We think these decisions construing § 1001 are a good guide to how the General Assembly meant the statute it modeled on that law to be understood. We recognize that in 1980 the former Fifth Circuit took a different view of § 1001. See United States v. Baker, 626 F2d 512, 515-516 (1980). After noting that "[t]he statutory language is simply unclear" as to whether the "knowingly and willfully" requirement modifies the jurisdictional element, the court looked to the "policy and purposes of the law" and concluded that "it is irrelevant whether defendant knew that his intentionally false statements might eventually influence a federal agency." Id. at 515-516 & n. 7. And four years later, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that "proof of actual knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction is not required under§ 1001." See Yermian, 468 U.S. at 75 (relying on the plain language of that statute — with the jurisdiction clause placed at the


introduction due to the 1948 [**846] revision, see footnote 3 above — and its legislative history). But these decisions do not change our conclusion, for several reasons. First, they came after the enactment of Ga. Code Ann. § 26-2408, the predecessor to OCGA § 16-10-20 in 1976 and its last substantive amendment in 1979 and therefore could not be judicial interpretations the General Assembly considered in drafting the Georgia statute. Second, the subsequent opinions relied heavily on the legislative history and policy of § 1001 to construe that statute. See Yermian, 468 U.S. at 70-74. We have been offered no legislative history of § 16-10-20, and while we often presume that the General Assembly was aware of how courts had previously interpreted the language it included in a statute, we have not presumed that the Georgia legislature is aware of, much less relies on, the legislative history or the "purpose" of other sovereigns' statutes that it uses as a model. Third, the majority in Yermian emphasized that it was deciding only that a defendant was not required to have "actual knowledge" that his false statements came within an agency's jurisdiction, expressly reserving the question whether some lesser degree of mens rea was required. See Yermian, 468 U.S. at 68 n.5 (noting that "[t]he Government never objected to the District Court's instruction requiring proof that respondent reasonably should have known that his false statements were made within the jurisdiction of a federal agency," so that "in this case the Government was required to prove that federal agency jurisdiction was reasonably foreseeable" (emphasis in original)), 75 n.14 (stating that the fact Yermian's jury had to find that "federal agency jurisdiction was reasonably foreseeable by the


defendant" helped to "preclude[ ] the possibility that criminal penalties were imposed on the basis of innocent conduct"). The dissent also emphasized the point: Seemingly aware of the broad range of conduct that § 1001 could sweep within its scope under today's interpretation, the Court apparently does not hold that the words "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States" are jurisdictional words only and that no state of mind is required with respect to federal agency involvement. Instead, the Court suggests that some lesser state of mind may well be required in § 1001 prosecutions in order to prevent the statute from becoming a "trap for the unwary."Yermian, 468 U.S. at 83 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (citation omitted; emphasis in original). See also id. at 82 (explaining that it seems "highly unlikely" that Congress "intended to criminalize the making of even the most casual false statements so long as they turned out, unbeknownst to their maker, to be material to some federal agency function. [This] interpretation would substantially extend the scope of the statute even to reach, for example, false statements privately made to a neighbor if the neighbor then uses those statements in connection with his work for a federal agency."). Finally, while pre-1979 judicial interpretations of 18 USC § 1001 suggest how we should read the parallel language the General Assembly put in OCGA § 16-10-20, federal court interpretations of a federal statute do not, in the end, bind this Court's interpretation of a Georgia statute. At a minimum, the decisions in cases like Candella, Ebeling, Hooper, and Lowe, as well as the view of four Justices of the United States Supreme Court in Yermian, show that it is at least reasonable to interpret § 16-10-20 to require the defendant to have some knowledge and intent with respect to


the potential that a state or local government agency will respond to his false statement. And when the alternative construction would lead to substantial constitutional concerns, that is enough. See Marcus, 249 Ga. at 345. To the extent that these tools of statutory construction leave doubt about the meaning of the statute, moreover, the rule of lenity would require us to interpret it in favor of the defendant. See Harris v. State, 286 Ga. 245, 253 (686 SE2d 777) (2009); Yermian, 468 U.S. at 76, 83 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). Accordingly, we hold that OCGA § 16-10-20 requires proof that the defendant knowingly and willfully made a false statement and that he knowingly and willfully did so in a matter within the jurisdiction of a state or local department or agency. We reiterate that this does not require proof that the defendant made the false statement directly to the government agency, although in such cases it would normally be undisputed that the defendant knew and intended that the statement came within the jurisdiction of the agency. However, the statute does require the defendant to have made the false statement in some intended relationship to a matter within the state or local agency's jurisdiction, that is, to have contemplated that it would come to the attention of an agency with the authority to act on it. Our holding is consistent with the only Court of Appeals' decision in this area, which properly rejected the defendant's "assert[ion] that [§ 16-10-20] is designed to punish only those false statements made directly to a department or agency of state or local government." Tesler, 295 Ga. App. at 575. The Tesler majority cited and quoted the passages from Candella and Hooper that undergird our holding (although it also cited some post-1979 federal cases). See 295 Ga. App. at 576. Moreover, Judge Blackburn's special concurrence did not suggest that no knowledge of government jurisdiction is


required; to the contrary, he believed that the false statement at issue needed to be made directly to a state agency to avoid the sort of overcriminalization concerns that our construction of the statute also seeks to preclude. See id. at 578-579. (c) When OCGA § 16-10-20 is construed as we conclude it should be, Haley's constitutional claims dissipate. It is debatable whether a false statement, standing alone, lacks any First Amendment protection, as discussed at length by the majority and dissenting opinions in United States v. Alvarez, 617 F3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2010). However, a knowingly and willfully false statement that is made knowingly and willfully in a matter within a government agency's jurisdiction is a lie that threatens to deceive and thereby harm the government, if only because the government may need to expend time and resources to determine the truth. See id. at 1212-1213. Such harm would not be self-inflicted by the government, as might be said if an agency reached out to act on a false statement someone made without any expectation that it would reach the government. Instead, the State may lawfully punish such a course of potentially deceptive and injurious conduct. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555 (85 SCt 453, 13 LE2d 471) (1965) (HN22"'[I]t has never been deemed an abridgement of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.'" (citation omitted)). Thus, Haley acknowledges that § 16-10-20 would be constitutional if the false statement is "intended for a government agency or department and/or . . . made with the intent of causing some harm." We believe our construction of the statute ensures that result. Likewise, as properly construed, § 16-10-20 may only be applied to conduct that persons of common


intelligence would know was wrongful because it could result in harm to the government

Haley v. State, 289 Ga. 515, 524-528 (Ga. 2011)

TPC-2.2.5.3 Renee 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.

TPC-2.2.5.3.1 Renee 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.

TPC-2.2.5.3.2 Independent of John Harold Murphy, Renee

Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, intentionally engages in the tortious

interference with valid contracts between Michelle Murphy and John

Harold Murphy without privilege or justification to the financial

detriment of Michelle Murphy.

TPC-2.26 Renee 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

in Colorado with money originating from the businesses of Renee

Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith.

TPC-3 The Use of the Business Assets Controlled by Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, is Relevant to the Third Party Complaint as Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, and John Harold Murphy Co-mingle


the Assets of the Businesses of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, with their Personal Use of the Assets

TPC-3.1 One of business assets that John Harold Murphy and

Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, use for their non-tax paid personal trips

is a Hawker jet piloted by private pilots employed by Renee Haugerud’s

businesses. The plane is similar to the Hawker jet in the following picture. One

advertised advantage of this Hawker jet is that it only uses 277 gallons of jet

fuel per hour; which is just one of the costs that John Harold Murphy is evading

paying on his personal trips.

TPC-3.1.1 The nontax paid, financial benefits, available upon

John Harold Murphy’s demand, that he receives from the businesses of

his spouse, Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, is relevant in

determining his disposable income that should be used to increase the

money that he should provide to Michelle Murphy for child support, as

well as determining the nexus of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith,

to the State of Georgia for just one of the purposes of determining the

Court’s jurisdiction.

TPC-3.1.2 The Hawker 850XP jet airplane made at least the

indicated trips from February through September 8, 2012. (see next

pages)


TPC-3.1.3 The names of the pilots and other information related to

the flights of this jet airplane from 07/31/2008 are not included here.

This is the same jet airplane that Judge Louis Jack Kirby was

describing that is used by Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith and

John Harold Murphy to bring the children from Atlanta, KFTY to

Chattanooga, KCHA.

TPC-3.1.4 The letter “K” that precedes the various airport codes,

such as “KCHA,” can be disregarded, it will identify the commercial

code abbreviation that most people recognize, e.g., “KCHA” is

“CHA,” Chattanooga, Tennessee and KCCO is Newnan Coweta

County.

TPC-3.1.4 Judge Jack Kirby testified, in part, as follows about the use of the airplane.

Page 28 18: A. Yeah. I understand that he uses it to get 19: his children for visitation. That's what I've been 20: told.


TPC-3.1.5 Some of the recent trips by this airplane are listed

below. Over twenty (20) trips to Georgia by the airplane are

documented from February to September 8 during 2012, with an

approximate proportionally equal amount in 2011.


[List of flights continue on next page]


TPC-3.1.6 The flight history of this airplane also assists in showing the

relationship that Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, has with the State

of Georgia. This airplane is used by Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith,

in her conduct of interfering with the settlement agreement contract of


Michelle Murphy with John Harold Murphy, that the children cannot be

transported outside of the State of Georgia and to engage in other conduct

with the children that is not in their best interest.

TPC-3.1.7 Renee 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.

TPC-3.1.7.1 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.

TPC-3.1.7.2 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.

TPC-3.1.7.3 Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, has 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 a

aircraft under the control of Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith.

TPC-3.1.7.4 This conduct by Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith,

and John 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 Murphy and Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree

Smith.

TPC-3.1.8 Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, has participated with

John Harold Murphy in threatening Jack Murphy to sign a document

stating that he wished to live with Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith,

and John Harold Murphy for thirteen (13) days a month or

John Harold Murphy would never see Jack Murphy again in life. This

threat occurred during a weekend visit of the children to the home owned

by Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, in Lookout Mountain, Tennessee

between July 28, 2012 and July 29, 2012.

TPC-3.1.9 Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, has participated

with John Harold Murphy in sending the children home on Sunday,

July 29, 2012 in the unwashed, dirty clothes which they originally wore

when they left their home in Newnan, Georgia on Friday, July 27, 2012.

TPC-3.1.10 It is highly relevant to this case that John Harold Murphy

and Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith are attempting to bring the

children into an environment that appropriates money to purposes not

allowed by law. This is not in the best interest of the children.

TPC-3.1.11 It is highly relevant to this case that the money of

Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith, is being used to appease

John Harold Murphy in making the life of Michelle Murphy so miserable

that she will surrender her obligation of the children into a lifestyle of

illegal conduct.

TPC-1.12 For example, Michelle Murphy cannot style enough hair to

even pick up the tab for one $1,000 evening restaurant meal that


Renee Haugerud, a/k/a Lauree Smith’s, business finances for the children

and their driver.

7. Taylor Drake, once again, on March 27, 2014 Dictating to Judge

Baldwin and Elizabeth “Lisa’ F. Harwell as follows.

7.1 Taylor Drake’s e-mail, a personally insulting response to opposing

counsel, was copied to Judge Baldwin as a directive and slam at opposing

counsel in order to raise Judge Baldwin’s anger level. This e-mail follows

the request below of counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy to Elizabeth

“Lisa” F. Harwell, the guardian ad litem relating to Harriette Elizabeth

"Betty" King. From: Millard Farmer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:15 PM To: [email protected]; 'Lazzaroni, Teresa'; 'Taylor Drake'; [email protected]; 'Peter Durham'; 'Poplin, Robbie'; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Response to Inquiry about CE Hi Lisa, I received your e-mail this morning. I looked at the impressive curriculum vitae and thought the research would be easy. The research has once again scared my mule. I have to bite my tongue to restrain my initial comments. I must work outside the perimeter the remainder of the week and have a lengthy appointment with an expert witness on Monday. We will have responses to our research and be able to respond to you by Tuesday. Millard [email protected] 404 688-8116

The e-mail response of Taylor Drake follows.

Millard:


mailto:[email protected]






Neither your input or my input is relevant. Judge Baldwin instructed the guardian to make a recommendation on a substitute custody evaluator and she has done so. The new custody evaluator should be appointed ASAP based upon the guardian’s recommendation. Once the order is entered, I am confident you will seek to appeal it as you have done every other order in this case or you will seek to disqualify this evaluator just like you tried to disqualify the initial evaluator. These ongoing delay tactics should not be tolerated.

Taylor

7.2 Taylor Drake informed counsel for Michelle Murphy that essentially

there was nothing that Michelle Murphy and her counsel could present to

affect the proposed selection of Harriette Elizabeth “Betty” King by

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, as the guardian ad litem.

7.3 Knowing that Taylor Drake, acting on behalf of John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud, essentially controls the decision making

and the Orders entered and attempted to be enforced with contempt of court

sanctions by Judge Baldwin and Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the guardian

ad litem, counsel bring this plea and motion to the Court in order for

Michelle Murphy or her counsel to again avoid the fate of Larry King being

held in direct criminal contempt of court and fined $1,000 before he was

released from custody.

7.4 After paying the $1,000 fine that was returned to him, the contempt

finding was vacated, as Judge Baldwin admitted that he was “mad” when

he entered the direct contempt Order.

7.5 Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy have obtained a source of

information concerning reasons that counsel for Michelle Murphy should

be allowed to present evidence relating to both the necessity and of 153


appropriateness of Harriette Elizabeth "Betty" King, a psychologist using

the moniker of “custody evaluator” being designated by the Court to

perform a OCGA § 9-11-35 examination or a custody evaluation.

7.5.1 Harriette Elizabeth "Betty" King does not receive high ratings from

her clients and information has been provided to counsel for Michelle

Murphy from a professional who has knowledge of Harriette Elizabeth

"Betty" King that reflect poorly upon her ability to perform the tasks sought

from her. Supporting information is being sought from a professional who

must obtain client waivers before providing the information. She has

engaged in spoliation of evidence in a case involving her professional

opinion.

7.5.2 Nancy McGarrah, the formerly appointed psychologist, to perform

the tasks that Harriette Elizabeth "Betty" King is being assigned to perform

after creating a large amount of litigation expenses for Nancy Michelle

Murphy, finally acknowledged, what was suspected of her from the

beginning, i.e. she could not be impartial.

7.5.3 The motion from counsel for Nancy McGarrah was, in part, as

follows.

The entire Motion for Nancy McGarrah is in the record as Attachment 102. of 153


7.5.4 The book, A Mother’s Journal, Let My Children Go by Wendy

Titelman indentifies one the cases that Harriette Elizabeth "Betty" King was

involved.

7.5.5 Counsel for Michelle Murphy requested the right to present

evidence to the Court relating to the ability of Harriette Elizabeth "Betty"

King to harvest unbiased information in this case, the cost to perform the

task ordered by Judge Baldwin, the cost to Michelle Murphy to defend or

use the information obtained, and the value of the conclusions reached by

Harriette Elizabeth "Betty" King. The Court would not allow her testimony

at the May 27, 2014 hearing when this witness was in the witness room.

7.5.6 Judge Baldwin has no concept of the scope of what he is ordering,

the accuracy of the opinions rendered, or frankly anything else about what

is going on related to such examination.

7.5.6.1 Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell is mad because she was exposed for

converting money to her personal use in violation of Uniform Superior

Court Rule 24.9 (8) (g) and her violation of the laws of Georgia related to

adultery and seeks to continue retaliation against Michelle Murphy and her

counsel, as she did by attempting to illegally order Michelle Murphy to

temporarily transfer the children to John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud in order that the children could attend school in Atlanta. Elizabeth

“Lisa” F. Harwell ordered this illegal change of custody rather than

suggesting to John Harold Murphy to continue providing transportation for

the children from Newnan to Atlanta, which was within the scope of her

authority.

7.5.6.2 Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell is beholding to John Harold

Murphy’s former divorce attorney and friend, Judge Louis Jack Kirby. of 153


7.5.6.3 Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, through November of 2013 has

billed over $13,000 for her fees and expenses and has not supplied her

current bill. Attachment 98.

7.5.6.4 Nancy McGarrah billed $1,800 to Michelle Murphy in addition

to receiving her witness fee for her testimony on Monday, March 17, 2014

that resulted in her admission that she could not serve impartially.

Attachment 99.

7.5.6.5 If there is to be an OCGA § 9-11-35 examination required of

anyone, it should be of Renee L. Haugerud by a qualified professional who

is familiar with the cult involving persons who claim to be in their 21st life

of entitlement.

7.5.6.6 When John Harold Murphy took Thomas Murphy to the hospital,

he had Renee L. Haugerud entered on the hospital form as the “mother” of

Thomas Murphy. Renee L. Haugerud is a relevant person who counsel for

Nancy Michelle Murphy should be allowed to examine. She evaded service

of process for months with the assistance of the false statements of Peter

A. Durham of Glover & Davis.

7.5.6.7 It is money originating from Renee L. Haugerud that has fueled

the six or more lawyers who include the lawyers engaging in such illegal

conduct as ex parte communications with Judge Baldwin and false

statements to the appellate courts.

8 We are at a similar pivotal point to the time when Coweta Judicial Circuit

Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby advised John Harold Murphy that

Taylor Drake was a good attorney for him to employ to bring an action

against Nancy Michelle Murphy to modify custody.


8.1 Coweta Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby was

a poor decision maker when he engaged in providing legal advice to John

Harold Murphy for him to bring a specific cause of action against a specific

person in the Superior Court Judge that he served as a judge.

8.2 At the time of Judge Louis Jack Kirby’s advice to John Harold

Murphy, Judge Kirby had knowledge that John Harold Murphy had sworn

falsely in secreting $180,000 in stock options from Michelle Murphy during

the divorce proceedings in which then Louis Jack Kirby represented John

Harold Murphy. His representation to the court and Michelle Murphy that

did not include the $180,000 value of stock options that were cashed one

day after the settlement agreement was announced in open court, and was

as follows.


Murphy, in or before 2012, Judge Kirby had knowledge that John Harold

Murphy had attempted to retain the value of a Qualified Domestic Relations

Order that resulted in a legal malpractice action against Delia Tedder

Crouch, the lawyer for Nancy Michelle Murphy in the divorce. This action

was brought by Millard Farmer; the required expert witness in the case was

Larry King.


Murphy, Judge Kirby had knowledge that the Superior Court of Coweta

County did not have a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management


rule and that the attorneys suggested to John Harold Murphy knew how to

judge shop and obtain the judge of their choice, as was accomplished

initially, and upheld in the Court of Appeal 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.


Murphy, Judge Kirby had performed an illegal marriage ceremony for John

Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud in Walker County, Georgia with a

marriage license that these two Tennessee residents had obtain by giving

false oaths to the Probate Court of Troup County in their marriage license

application.

8.6 Superior Court Judge Louis Jack Kirby is such a poor decision

maker that he was also acting outside the ethical bounds of the law in other

matters, during the time period in which he advised John Harold Murphy

about selecting an attorney.

8.6.1 Upon information and belief, Judge Kirby modified the

September 17, 2010, $100,000 bond provide to Casey Allen Spradlin that

was conditioned upon that accused person not having contact with a

specific minor child.

8.6.2 In that case, Casey Allen Spradlin was charged with malice

murder, murder and other related charges relating to the death of an

infant. The modified bond authorized by Judge Louis Jack Kirby was in

a case tried by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

8.6.3 The illegal conduct occurred because the modification of the bond

was not filed in the records of the Superior Court of Meriwether County,

as the original Order relating to the bond was filed. of 153


8.6.4 It is suspected, but not known, that the District Attorney was not

advised of the modified conditions of the bond before the bond was

modified for Casey Allen Spradlin. It is also not known when or if Judge

Baldwin, as the trial judge in the case, became knowledgeable about the

modification of the bond conditions which was not filed with the Court.

It is known that the records of the Superior Court of Meriwether County

do not reflect the modification of the bond conditions.

8.6.5 The poor ethical and legal decision making of Judge Louis Jack

Kirby was in not filing the conditions of the modified bond in order that

the people would know of this judicial act by Judge Kirby. It is suspected

that the bond was modified by Judge Kirby as a judicial favor not

supported by evidence that the District Attorney was allowed to contest.

Had this been determined to be in the best interest of society, an Order

modifying the body conditions would have alerted persons having an

interest in other minor children such as the Department of Family and

Children Services.

8.6.6 Judge Kirby, according to assertions and rank hearsay, also did

not inform his wife, who is an assistant district attorney in the Coweta

Judicial Circuit, of his conduct in modifying the condition of the bond for

Casey Allen Spradlin.

8.6.7 The conduct of Judge Louis Jack Kirby is relevant to the conduct of

Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, as Judge Kirby, under the current Uniform

Superior Court Rule 3.1, is assigned to the Superior Court of Coweta County

in a disproportionate number of case.

8.6.8 It is relevant that the guardian ad litem, with her private clients has

a higher amount of her cases heard by Judge Kirby and Judge Baldwin that of 153


would occur if other judges in the Coweta Judicial were equally assigned to

Coweta County. It is the conflict that the guardian ad litem,

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell has with appearing before Judge Kirby in her

private cases that exacerbates the participation of Judge Kirby in advising

John Harold Murphy and Judge Baldwin appointing a guardian ad litem who

appears regularly before Judge Kirby.

8.6.9 We are at a similar pivotal point in time to when Taylor Drake

judge shopped and selected Judge A. Quillian Baldwin for this case that

Judge Baldwin, over strong objections of counsel for Nancy Michelle

Murphy, signed without reading the Order prepared by Taylor Drake, with

only Taylor Drake’s handwritten modifications, appointing Melissa Griffis

as the guardian ad litem. Judge Baldwin, Taylor Drake and Melissa Griffis

knew that the night before Judge Baldwin assigned the Order that he had

attended a fund raising political gathering for a candidate in a judicial

election sponsored by Taylor Drake and Melissa Griffis.

8.6.9.1 Judge Baldwin was a poor decision maker when he did not

provide counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy a hearing on the appointment

of the guardian ad litem, that even the Taylor Drake motion seeking the

appointment acknowledged should be granted if there was any dispute about

the guardian ad litem designated.

8.6.9.2 Judge Baldwin was a poor decision maker when he did not even

read the marked through portions of the Taylor Drake, computer generated

Order before he signed the Order, as Taylor Drake did not permit counsel

for Michelle Murphy to view the portions of the Taylor Drake, computer

generated Order that he had marked through before Judge Baldwin signed


without reading the original or stricken portion of the Taylor Drake,

computer generated Order.

8.6.9.3 We are at a similar point in time as when Millard Farmer and

Larry King, immediately after Judge Baldwin signed the appointment of

the guardian ad litem Order, scheduled a meeting with Melissa Griffis and

Taylor Drake in the presence of a court reporter.

8.6.9.3.1 It was poor decision making by the just appointed state actor,

Melissa Griffis, not to allow the court reporter to record the meeting. It was

poor decision making by Melissa Griffis to leave the room upon viewing

the court reporter and allow Taylor Drake to accompany her back into the

room with the directive, “We are not going to allow a court reporter to be

present.”

8.6.9.3.2 The poor decision making by Melissa Griffis resulted in the

filing of the initial motion to disqualify Judge Baldwin.

8.6.10 We are at a similar point in time as when, on the same day that

an extensive motion to disqualify Melissa Griffis was prepared, Melissa

Griffis resigned and prepared an Order for Judge Baldwin to sign that

appointed Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, that Judge Baldwin signed without

consulting counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy, who had already moved to

disqualify him.

8.6.10.1 Judge Baldwin was a poor decision maker when, on

June 18, 2012, with a June 13, 2012 motion to disqualify him pending, he

accepted Melissa Griffis’s resignation and appointed Elizabeth “Lisa” F.

Harwell as the guardian ad litem, in violation of Uniform Superior Court

Rule 25 et seq. and the well established law.


8.6.10.2 Judge Baldwin was a poor decision maker when he accepted

the recommendation of one of the lawyers whom Superior Court Jack Kirby

recommended to represent John Harold Murphy, Melissa Griffis, to select

the replacement guardian ad litem without providing counsel for Michelle

Murphy an opportunity to provide his objections to the selection of

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell.

8.6.10.3 Judge Baldwin was a poor decision maker in appointing a

guardian ad litem who engaged in the criminal offense of adultery and the

conversion of funds held in trust to her person use to provide moral and legal

guidance “in the best interest of the children.” Who wants this type of person

making decisions in the best interest of their children? Elizabeth “Lisa” F.

Harwell, the appointed guardian ad litem testified, in part, as follows before

Judge Baldwin on November of 2012.


8.6.10.4 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.

8.6.10.5 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.

8.6.10.6 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.

8.7 We are at a similar point in time to when there was a hearing that of 153


Judge Baldwin terminated with a rant that John Harold Murphy could take

the children to Russia, if he wished.

9. The Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta, as mandated by the newly

enacted USCR 3.1 plan, assigned this case to Judge Dennis H. Blackmon.

9.1 The Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County, after confirming

to the Court of Appeals that the Superior Court of Coweta County did not

have a USCR 3.1 plan, confirmed to the Court of Appeals that Coweta

Judicial Circuit Judge Dennis Blackmon was appointed under the newly

enacted USCR 3.1 plan. (V7, p.1435)

9.2 The letter from the Clerk of Superior Court of Coweta confirming

to the Court of Appeals that this case was assigned to Coweta Judicial

Circuit Judge Dennis Blackmon follows.


9.3 As the result of the assignment of this case to Judge Dennis H.

Blackmon by the Clerk of Court of the Superior Court of Coweta County,

this Court, as presided over by Judge Baldwin, does not have personal

jurisdiction of Nancy Michelle Murphy.


9.4 There was the absence of personal jurisdiction of the parties by Judge

A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. after the adoption by the Circuit Judges of a

USCR 3.1 plan and the assignment of the case to Judge Dennis Blackmon.

9.5 Nancy Michelle Murphy again pleas to the personal jurisdiction of

this Court presided over by Judge Baldwin and her subjection to his

appointee, Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, as guardian ad litem.

9,6 The Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County, after confirming

to the Court of Appeals that the Superior Court of Coweta County did not

have a USCR 3.1 plan, confirmed to the Court of Appeals that Judge

Blackmon was appointed under the newly enacted USCR 3.1 plan. (V7,

p.1435)

9,7 Judge Blackmon rejected the appointment by the Clerk of Court of

the Superior Court (V8, p.1670) under the Circuit’s newly enacted

USCR 3.1 plan and, unbelievably, illegally, with no force and effect

illegally attempted to, “transfer” the case back to Judge Baldwin (V7,

p.1503) without complying with USCR 3.1, that requires the Clerk of Court

to make the case assignments according to USCR 3.1.

9.8 Horn v. Shepherd, 294 Ga. 468, 472-473 (2014) on a relevant

judicial qualification issue, states, “no judge was authorized to rule on the

GAL's pending contempt motion against Husband . . . .”.

9.9 The hearing that resulted in the August 23, 2013 Custody Evaluator

appointment Order, as did the October 3, 2013 hearing that resulted in the

contempt Orders, occurred while there were four pending disqualification

motions against Judge Baldwin, upon which he had failed to rule or refer to

another judge. (V3, p.436; V10, p.1904; V11, p.2195; V14, p.2890) (infra,

p. 26) of 153


9.10 For the reason that there is a supersedeas in effect during the appeal

of the Order that resulted in the appointment of the custody evaluator, there

were pending motions to disqualify Judge Baldwin and there were illegal

Orders issued by Judge Baldwin after the case was assigned by the Clerk of

Court to Judge Blackmon, as confirmed to the Court of Appeals. Judge

Baldwin and Elizabeth “Lisa F. Harwell are without personal jurisdiction of

Nancy Michelle Murphy.

10 As the result of the ex parte communication of Nan Freeman, the court

reporter for cases before Judge Baldwin, the transcription of the calendar

call was prevented and counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy was abusively

treated by Judge Baldwin in open court.

10.1 Judge Baldwin came into the courtroom apparently mad about the

request, as he must have believed that it was in furtherance of a challenge

to the biased judge selection conduct and the connection between the private

cases of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell with Judge Louis Jack Kirby.

10.2 The transcript picks up at that point, as follows.

of 153


10 .3 The above incident occurred during the time that there were a number

of disqualification motions pending against Judge Baldwin that he refused

to refer to another judge for adjudication.

10.4 Millard Farmer, after the hearing, requested that Nan Freeman, the

court reporter, allow him to purchase the audio recording of the above

transcribed event. Nan Freeman acknowledged that she had the recording,

but refused the request.

10.5 The office of Judge Baldwin just informed counsel that the audio of

the latest temper tantrum of Judge Baldwin is being sent to counsel.

This motion will be amended upon receipt of the audio recording.

Conclusion

The conduct of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin is far worse than just a breach

of his oath of office, his violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, his

violations of the Uniform Superior Court Rules and his violations of the of 153


laws of Georgia involving conduct that should remove him from this case

and subject him to action that will prevent his continuance of this conduct.

1.1.1.1 The Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, in part, provides as

follows.

• E. Disqualification.

o (1) Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

COMMENTARY:

(a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; * * *

(viii) any factor relevant to the issue of campaign contributions or support that causes the judge's impartiality to be questioned.

Ga. Code of Judicial Conduct 3

* * *


1.1.1.1.1 Judge Baldwin had never provided counsel for Michelle Murphy

information about the advice that he has received applicable to this

proceeding before the court. Upon information and belief, Judge Baldwin

has consulted with an individual about aspects of this proceeding. This and

other reasons related to the defense of Judge Baldwin related to his

disqualification are viable reasons that counsel for Michelle Murphy is

entitled to examine Judge Baldwin under oath relating to this

disqualification motion.

1.1.1.2 Judge Baldwin violates the Uniform Rules of the Superior Court

USCR Rule 3.1 provides as follows.

USCR 3.1. Method of assignment (Case Management) In multi-judge circuits, unless a majority of the judges in a circuit elect to adopt a different system, all actions, civil and criminal, shall be assigned by the clerk of each superior court according to a plan approved by such judges to the end that each judge is allocated an equal number of cases. The clerk shall have no power or discretion in determining the judge to whom any case is assigned; the clerk's duties are ministerial only in this respect and the clerk's responsibility is to carry out the method of assignment established by


the judges. The assignment system is designed to prevent any persons choosing the judge to whom an action is to be assigned; all persons are directed to refrain from attempting to affect such assignment in any way. If the order or the timing of filing is a factor in determining case assignment, neither the clerk nor any member of the clerk's staff shall disclose to any person the judge to whom a case is or will be assigned until such time as the case is in fact filed and assigned.

Judge Baldwin was initially selected as the judge in this case in

violation of USCR 3.1 (case management).

Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 provides the method to be used after a

disqualification motion of a judge is filed.

Judge Baldwin totally violates the mandates of the Rule 25 and fails

even to bring his conduct of rendering Orders based only upon unsworn

and unauthenticated assertions provided by the Taylor Drake/ Glover

& Davis lawyers.

L. Haugerud were attempting to uphold on behalf of Judge Baldwin, whom

someone, apparently incorrectly, led to believe 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] Oct 3, 2013 Tr. p. 17 line 4

2.3.4 The “they upheld me” proclamation of Chief Judge Baldwin

referred only to 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.


3 Reasonable Litigants Should Realize the Time is Now to Resolve this Dispute. 3.1 John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud have found a residence

in St. Thomas. Michelle Murphy and the children have their residence near

where John Harold Murphy abandoned them to begin living in New York

and other places.

3.2 The parties cannot engage in settlement negotiations so long as

Respondents continue attempting to put Michelle Murphy in jail and

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. fuels the fire as if his dominance as judge in

this case can continue. Disputes are best resolved among the parties with

guidance of counsel.

3.3 It is only John Harold Murphy, funded by Renee L. Haugerud, who

wishes this assault upon the lives of Jack Murphy, age 15, and Thomas

Murphy, age 13, to continue.

Horn v. Shepherd identifies the issues that the Courts will not tolerate.

4. The lawyers for John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud, Apparently in Anticipation that Judge Baldwin Will Soon be Extracted from the Case, with a Barrage of Pleadings, Attempt to Further Attack Michelle Murphy

4.4.2 It is legally necessary that the legal issues be continually raised.

5.1. Incorporation Provision 5.1.1 This June 26, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr., supplements, without replacing and incorporates all previous

documents, including supporting affidavits attached to previous motions to

disqualify Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., including but not limited to the

March 10, 2014 Consolidation Motion,

August 19, 2013 Consolidated Motion, and the August 28, 2013 amendment


to the August 19, 2013 Consolidated Motion, the Friday, September 13, 2013

Addendum, the October 7, 2013 Second Addendum and the November 26,

2013 Motion to Disqualify Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, together with all

information supplied in those disqualification motions and all relief sought in

those disqualification motions.

5.1.2 These disqualification motions, include but are not limited to the

following, 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” Threats that 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.

November 26, 2013 Consolidated Motion for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

6.5 In making a decision about referring, or not, this motion to another

judge for adjudication, Judge Baldwin should reflect upon the highly

inappropriate advice that he gave to Nancy Michelle Murphy about


allowing the lives of her children to be adjudicated by him. Judge Baldwin

should remember his words to Nancy Michelle Murphy, “you don’t have

anything to fear if everything is alright.”

But let me just talk again to the parties. Do y'all want to keep putting all this money out here, fussing about this thing? I mean, again, if you don't have anything to fear, if everything is all right, and everything's been done the way it's supposed to be done, you don't have anything to fear about losing custody of the children. And I just wanted to know if y'all really want to just keep dragging this out like this. You know, y'all can spend money to kingdom come, that kind of thing. And there's no kind of guarantee that I'm going to award any attorney's fees, you know, to cover any of this stuff. There's nothing that requires me to do that. And so I just want y'all to think about that. (Tr. Aug. 30, 2012, p. 29, lines 2-15)

The failure of Judge Baldwin and the other judges in the Coweta Judicial

Circuit to implement and adhere to Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 was

an insult to the dignity of the Clerk of Superior Court of Coweta County

Cindy Brown, as she was required to provide a response to an open records

request that identified that Judge Baldwin was not selected in this case as

required by Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1.

7.3 Cindy Brown responded, with a copy to Judge Baldwin, that there was

no Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan as follows.


7.4 Cindy Brown could not legally or politically do anything about the

failure of the judges to implement a case management plan; however,

apparently through some type of further insult to her dignity, Cindy Brown,

very inappropriately wrote a letter to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals in

an attempt to derail an adjudication against Judge Baldwin that was as

follows.


7.4.1 Judge Blackmon responded to the representation of Cindy Brown,

Clerk of Superior Court as follows.


7.4.2 These communications were an insult to the dignity of the Clerk of

Court of Appeals by Cindy Brown, or those coaching her, believing that

this letter could cause a dismissal of the case of Michelle Murphy in the

Court of Appeals with a letter from the Clerk of Court.

7.4.3 The untenable position of the persons whose dignity was insulted

was created, in part, by the conduct of Judge Baldwin in placing himself in

the position to be selected by the Glover & Davis lawyers due to the

absence of a case management plan.

8. Judge Baldwin habitually engages in conduct that insults the dignity of Jack Murphy, age 15, and Thomas Murphy, age 13. 8.1 These children are not commodities that can be traded as Renee L.

Haugerud engages in her hedge fund business.

8.2 Judge Baldwin should reflect upon the mental anguish that he created

for these children, Jack Murphy, age 15, and Thomas Murphy, age 13, and

the financial hardship that he has imposed upon their mother.

8.2.1 The financial disparity in the resources of Michelle Murphy and

John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud seems to have never phased

Judge Baldwin, as he habitually creates litigation events that are expensive

and do nothing, but display the absence of Judge Baldwin’s

judicial temperament that disrespects the dignity of those whom he affects.

8.2.2 In open court, Judge Baldwin insults the dignity of the legal system.

8.2.3 At the August 13, 2013 hearing, Judge Baldwin reconfirmed his

intent relating to the disposition of his disqualifying conduct as follows.


(Tr. Aug. 13, 2013 p. 27 line 8)

8.2.4 Judge Baldwin continues to threaten his prejudgment of the case as

he insults the dignity of counsel and their client as follows.

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]

8.2.5 Judge Baldwin began threatening both Michelle Murphy and her

counsel with the following insult to their dignity, “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. This is but one

of the many obstructions of justice by Judge Baldwin that disqualifies him.

(Counsel for the parties and the guardian ad litem came forward for a bench conference.) THE COURT: I’m telling him that I’m not going to take the whole calendar down on the record, that I will take this down. And I will make sure that


everybody 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 going to take down everything; on the calendar call, I’m not going to put everybody else called. That has no bearing on his case whatsoever. MR. FARMER: Your Honor, I am the person that makes the determination of what are the issues in the case, and I THE COURT: No. I am the person that makes the determination, and I’m clear on that on the law. Now, go have a seat, and I’m going MR. FARMER: Can you tell me what the law is that you’re following? THE COURT: Yeah. I’m following the law that we say every day. I decide what the issues are. Okay? Go have a seat. MR. FARMER: But I’m entitled to preserve them, Your Honor. THE COURT: You’re entitled to preserve the issues of your case. MR. FARMER: My case. THE COURT: And I’ll be more than glad to do it. MR. FARMER: My case. THE COURT: Look, look. MR. FARMER: My case deals with the way you call the calendar. THE COURT: Look, look, Millard. Don’t argue with me. Understand? MR. FARMER: I just want to make sure the record is clear.


THE COURT: If you keep arguing with me, now, I’m going to put you in jail. I’m not going to mess with you anymore. Okay? And I don’t care. You can jump up and down all you want, and you can make all the noise you want to make, but you keep messing with me, and I’m going to put you in jail. Do you understand me? Do you understand me? Do you understand me? (Tr. Aug. 6, 2013) (V10, p.1929; V12 p.2327)

8.2.6 The jail threats of Judge Baldwin on August 13, 2013, culminated

with a speech to Michelle Murphy that she was subject to being put in jail

if she did not physically force the fifteen and nearly thirteen year old

children to visit with John 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.

* * * 8.2.7 At the beginning of the hearing that ended with the irrational rant

of Judge Baldwin about physically forcing 15 and 13 year old children to

get in a car to be transported to the airport to fly to and from, what is now

St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands, for a weekend visit with John Harold

Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud, he committed to counsel for Michelle


Murphy as follows when counsel attempted to correct false and deceptive

statements made by Taylor Drake.

8.2.8 This commitment by Judge Baldwin to allow counsel for

Michelle Murphy to present evidence to rebut the information presented

by the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers ended just as most of Judge

Baldwin commitment to counsel for Michelle Murphy. Judge Baldwin

did not keep his commitment and even ten days after the hearing entered

the August 23, 2013 Order prepared by the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis

lawyers that they hand delivered to Judge Baldwin with an ex parte letter

containing false information that was presented at the hearing.

The hearing without counsel for Michelle Murphy being allowed to

complete the cross-examination of the expert psychiatrist witness of John

Harold Murphy, who was obviously under the influence of some type of of 153


substance while she was testifying. Michelle Murphy was not allowed to

present any of her witnesses. The hearing ended with the breached

commitment of Judge Baldwin as follows.

8.2.9 The ending rant of Judge Baldwin about taking the children

anywhere on their weekend visits and about physically loading them into

the car for their visits is as absurd a discretionary judgment by Judge

Baldwin as his conduct in signing Orders prepared by the Taylor

Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers without reading the Orders.

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)

8.2.8 After that rant by Judge Baldwin that was a gross insult to the legal


system, Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell, the guardian ad litem who converted

money to her personal use and who has a history of also engaging in

adultery that is another violation of the laws of Georgia, asserted that Judge

Baldwin should order Michelle Murphy not to tell the children about what

happened at the hearing that includes the false, uncorrected statement of

Judge Baldwin to Jack Murphy that he could choose to continue to live with

his mother if he so elected.

9. After Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell converted some of the guardian ad litem trust funds to her personal use and thereby insulted the dignity of the legal system, Judge Baldwin further insulted the dignity of the legal system by allowing Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell to continue serving as the guardian ad litem. 9.1 Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. has a judicial obligation not to

participate in the attempt of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell to secret her

misconduct; however, as soon as Judge Baldwin was aware that the

conversion of funds and other misconduct of this guardian ad litem was

about to be fully exposed, Judge Baldwin denied the motion to disqualify

Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell with a two line, “Saturday night special,”

Order.

9.2 The “Saturday night special,” two line denial of the motion to

disqualify Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell reflects poorly upon the entire

misconduct.

9.3 The “Saturday night special,” two line denial of the motion to

disqualify Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell reflects poorly and is an insult to

the dignity of the entire Coweta Judicial Circuit, as Judge Baldwin is the


Chief Judge, who should role model ethical standards for the circuit judges

and lawyers.

9.4 The detriment of Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell is threefold; first, she

selected the custody evaluator who required that Michelle Murphy enter

into a contract that provides the custody evaluator full immunity from any

cause of action by Michelle Murphy and not just statutory, bad faith

immunity. Second, Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell has continuously suggested

events to Judge Baldwin that potentially cost Michelle Murphy money.

Third, Elizabeth “Lisa” Harwell engaged in the same type of illegal conduct

i.e., adultery in which “Murph,” as John Harold Murphy is called by this

guardian ad litem, engaged while he was married to Michelle Murphy.

10. Judge Baldwin’s remedy for not insulting the dignity of the children is apparently to treat them like packages that can be rerouted during shipment. 10.1 Judge Baldwin should know that Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy

were so afraid after Judge Baldwin issued that last Order that they slept on

the floor of their mother’s bedroom for several nights for fear that the

Sheriff would come and require them to go with John Harold Murphy and

Renee L. Haugerud, as John Harold Murphy had the Deputy do on August

24, 2013, after Judge Baldwin modified custody, i.e., visitation on Augustt

23, 2013, on receiving the ex parte letter from the Glover & Davis lawyer.

10.2 The conduct of John Harold Murphy and the Glover & Davis lawyers

who represent the Sheriff of Coweta County is an insult to the dignity of

the Sheriff of Coweta County and the Deputy Sheriff who was called upon

to pick up the children after the change of custody, i.e., visitation, August

23, 2013 Order.


11. Judge Baldwin and the lawyers do not understand that their litigation house is built on quicksand. 11.1 At some point, the insults to the dignity to the justice system by

Judge Baldwin are going to crumble. The disqualification conduct of Judge

Baldwin cannot stand. The Order upon which the contempts were based

cannot stand and the contempt accusations cannot stand.

11.2 The only issue is, will the children be under the house and buried in

the quicksand due to the insults that have been unnecessarily suffered to

the dignity of the judicial process.

12. The Particularized Need for an Impartial Trier of Fact in Domestic Relations Cases 12.1 The authority provided to Superior Court Judges relating to the

custody of minor children should mandate close oversight and even closer

scrutiny and oversight once the conduct of a Superior Court Judge is

challenged. This motion provides an opportunity for closer scrutiny.

12.2 The Uniform Superior Court Rules provide one of the procedural

methods for challenging the disqualification of a Superior Court Judge to

serve in a particular case. The other method is based upon federal due

process protections that is a not a five (5) day, time restricted, direct

challenge to the qualification of a Superior Court Judge to serve in a

particular case.

12.3 The procedural requirements of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, et

seq. challenge to the qualifications of a Superior Court Judge to serve in a

particular case must accord the litigant making such a challenge Ga. Const.

Art. I, § I, Para. X; Ga. Const. Art. I, § 1; ¶ 1; Ga. Const. Art. I, § 1, ¶ 2

rights and protections; together with the United States Fourteenth

Amendment protected rights of Due Process and Equal Protection. of 153


12.4 This motion is brought within five (5) days of the most recent series

of unethical, illegal and prejudicial acts and omissions by Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. that qualify this motion for adjudication under Uniform

Superior Court Rule 25.

12.5 The disqualifying conduct of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. that

occurred within the five (5) days of bringing this motion is relevant conduct

for the Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 aspect of this motion. The

disqualifying conduct of Judge Baldwin happening outside the five (5) day

limitation is eligible for tacking onto this Uniform Superior Court Rule 25

challenge, as the totality of the conduct of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

comprises this disqualification challenge.

12.6 The federal due process violations that this motion addresses

relating to the disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. are not

time restricted by Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.

12.7 The State and United States constitutional challenges, facially and

as applied to Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, are also not restricted by

Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.

12.8 Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, as applied and facially violates the

protections afforded Nancy Michelle Murphy in this case and to others in all

cases under 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) This, in part, occurs due to the illegal application of

USCR 3.1.

12.9 Uniform Superior Court Rule 25, as applied and facially, violates the

protections afforded Nancy Michelle Murphy in this case and to others in all

cases under the United States Constitution due process, U.S. Const. of 153


amend. XIV, § 1 and State of Georgia Constitution Bill of Rights due process

protection (Ga. Const. Art. I, § 1, ¶ 1)

12.10 It is elementary that constitutional challenges to statutes and rules

based upon similar provisions in the federal Constitution and Georgia

Constitution must be independently evaluated. See Pope v. City of Atlanta,

240 Ga. 177 (1977).

12.11 This independent evaluation of the equal protection

constitutional claims and class of persons protected by these

guarantees is relevant to the challenges brought, as equal protection

challenges must be determined from the record of evidence in the

case.

12.12 The Georgia Constitution requires greater vigilance under its

equal protection clause than does the United States Constitution. Georgia

law clearly requires courts to conduct equal protection analysis based on

the record evidence. See Allied Chemical Corp. v. Georgia Power Co.,

236 Ga 548, 555 (1976) ("the evidence before the court was adequate to

show that the higher price assessed against the industrial class rested upon

a rational basis which was reasonably related to legitimate ends");

BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. v. Cobb County, 277 Ga. 314, 316

(2003)("Cobb County has produced evidence that explains why only

telecommunications companies are charged the permit fee."); Dixon v.

Perry, 262 Ga. 212, 213 (1992) ("the City presented evidence that the

ordinance was intended to ensure prompt response . .. the City established

on the record a facially valid purpose for the enactment."); Shurman v.

Atlanta, 148 Ga. 1, 10 (1918) (municipal ordinance classification of

property sustained based upon "[t]he evidence in the record" that


justified the classification).

12.13 Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 denies Nancy Michelle

Murphy the due process protection to present a record of evidence to

support these equal protection challenges.

Additional Memorandum of Law 13.1 The Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts are the procedural rules that

the Judges of the Coweta Judicial Circuit are required by law to follow. Judge

A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., (Judge 3 of 5) chose not to follow USCR 3.1 and

thereafter chose to deprive Nancy Michelle Murphy of her rights under the laws

of Georgia, while also violating her constitutional protections.

13.2 USCR 25.7 is as follows.

USCR 25.7. Voluntary recusal If a judge, either on the motion of one of the parties or the judge's own motion, voluntarily disqualifies, another judge, selected by the procedure set forth in Rule 25.4 above, shall be assigned to hear the matter involved. A voluntary recusal shall not be construed as either an admission or denial to any allegations which have been set out in the motion.

13.3 USCR 25.4, referenced in USCR 25.7 above, is the procedure to be

followed when there is a voluntary recusal by a judge, in parts, is as follows.

25.4. Procedure upon a motion for disqualification The motion shall be assigned for hearing to another judge, who shall be selected in the following manner:

* * * (C) If within a multi-judge circuit, composed of three (3) or more judges, selection shall be made by use of the circuit's existing random, impartial case assignment method. If the circuit does not have random, impartial case assignment rules, then assignment shall be made as follows:


(1) The chief judge of the circuit shall select a judge within the circuit to hear the motion, unless the chief judge is the one against whom the motion is filed; or

(2) In the event the chief judge is the one against whom the motion is filed, the assignment shall be made by the judge of the circuit who is most senior in terms of service other than the chief judge and who is not also a judge against whom the motion is filed; or

(3) When the motion pertains to all active judges in the circuit, the district administrative judge shall select a judge outside the circuit to hear the motion.

(D) If the district administrative judge is the one against whom the motion is filed, the judge within the district senior in time of service (or next senior in time of service, if the administrative judge is the one senior in the time of service) shall serve in this selection process instead of the district administrative judge. If the motion is sustained, the selection of another judge to hear the case shall follow the same procedure as outlined above.

(E) If all judges within a judicial administrative district are disqualified, including the administrative judge, the matter shall be referred by the disqualified administrative judge to the administrative judge of an adjacent district for the appointment of a judge who is not a member of the district to preside over the motion or case.

13.4 USCR 25.1, in part provides as follows.

25.1. Motions All motions to recuse or disqualify a judge presiding in a particular case or proceeding shall be timely filed: in writing and all evidence thereon shall be presented by accompanying affidavit(s) which shall fully assert the facts upon which the motion is founded. Filing and presentation to the judge shall be not later than five (5) days after the affiant first learned of the alleged grounds for disqualification, and not later than ten (10) days prior to the hearing or trial which is


the subject of recusal or disqualification, unless good cause be shown for failure to meet such time requirements. In no event shall the motion be allowed to delay the trial or proceeding.

13.5 The requirement of USCR 25.1 places an as-applied and facially

unconstitutional burden upon Nancy Michelle Murphy in this case, and, upon

litigants, in general.

13.6 USCR 25.3, in part provides as follows.

25.2. Affidavit The affidavit shall clearly state the facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, being definite and specific as to time, place, persons and circumstances of extra-judicial conduct or statements, which demonstrate either bias in favor of any adverse party, or prejudice toward the moving party in particular, or a systematic pattern of prejudicial conduct toward persons similarly situated to the moving party, which would influence the judge and impede or prevent impartiality in that action. Allegations consisting of bare conclusions and opinions shall not be legally sufficient to support the motion or warrant further proceedings.

13.7 A facial federal or state constitutional challenge is a challenge to a

statute or rule that is always, and under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and

therefore void. This is contrasted with an as-applied challenge, which alleges

that the statute may be, in part, unconstitutional, in redress of specific and

particular injury.

13.8 A facial challenge to a statute or rule is, of course, the most difficult

challenge to mount, since the challenger must establish that no set of

circumstances exists under which the challenged statute or rule would be valid.

United States v. Salerno 481 U.S. 739 (1987).

13.9 An example of a facial vs. as-applied challenge is Finley v. National

Endowment for the Arts, 524 U.S. 569 (1998). In Finley, the federal of 153


government, acting as a patron of the arts through the NEA, promulgated

guidelines for NEA grants that granted the NEA the power to evaluate works

subjectively before funding them, on the basis of the offensiveness of the work

in question.

13.10 The Roberts Court has tended to highlight the differing uses of facial

versus as-applied challenges.

13.10.1 In Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), Justice Kennedy

declined a request to invalidate a law that would have banned an abortion

procedure - specifically, dilation & extraction, even when the health of the

mother required as much. Kennedy writes that the procedure is only

beneficial at the extremes, making the law only unconstitutional at the

extremes, and therefore the law should be vulnerable to an as-applied

challenge, but not a facial challenge.

13.10.2 In Wisconsin Right to Life v. Federal Election Comm'n, 551

U.S. 449 (2007), the Supreme Court considered the Bipartisan Campaign

Finance Reform Act, which, in part, prohibited issue advertisements

within 30 days of an election. Chief Justice Roberts invalidated the act "as

applied" to Wisconsin Right to Life's particular issue ad, saying that this

prong of the Act would rarely be constitutional, and closed his opinion by

expressing his belief that the entire Act was unconstitutional.

The point is that Nancy Michelle Murphy was entitled to present evidence

in support of her motion in order to more adequately demonstrate her as

applied constitutional attack upon the USCR.

The Affidavit of Millard Farmer is attached.

Request for Relief

Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that her previous and this of 153


incorporated challenge to the constitutionality of Uniform Superior Court

Rule 25 be granted and that Michelle Murphy and her counsel be allowed

to present evidence in support of this request.

Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that Judge A. Quillian

Baldwin, Jr. be disqualified from serving as a judge in this case.


Baldwin, Jr. grant their plea to the personal jurisdiction in this case.


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.

Counsel for Michelle Murphy request that there be an investigation and

report of the investigation made to the Administrative Judge of the District,

the Council of Superior Court Judges and the Georgia Judicial

Qualifications Commission

Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that all Orders entered in this

case before the filing of this motion be vacated.

Michelle Murphy and her counsel request that Michelle Murphy be

granted interim attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Michelle Murphy and her counsel request such other and further relief as

justice requires

Millard Farmer GA Bar No. 255300 P.O. Box 1728, Atlanta, GA 30301 (404) 688-8116 [email protected]

and Larry King, GA Bar No. 419725 P. O. Box 1648, Jonesboro, GA 30237 (770) 471-3835 [email protected] Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy Larry King and Millard Farmer


Attachment 120, Page 1 of 7

Certificate of Service

I certify that I have today served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Disqualify Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. by electronic delivery as follows:

Taylor B. Drake Glover & Davis, P.A. P. O. Drawer 1038 10 Brown Street Newnan, GA 30265 [email protected]

Michael W. Warner Glover & Davis, P.A. P.O. Drawer 1038 Newnan, GA 30265 [email protected]

Peter A. Durham Glover & Davis, P.A. 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 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528 [email protected]

William R. Poplin, Jr. Ga. Bar No. 584535 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4528 [email protected]

Teresa E. Lazzaroni [email protected] trial court counsel for Elizabeth F. Harwell Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. is served by United States Priority Mail to: P.O. Box 1364 LaGrange, GA 30241 and electronically at [email protected] and [email protected]

Elizabeth F. Harwell Harwell, Brown & Harwell, PC Newnan, GA [email protected]

Page 152 of 153 June 26, 2014 Consolidated Disqualification Motion,



This 26th day of June, 2014

Millard Farmer Georgia Bar No. 255300 P.O. Box 1728 Atlanta, GA 30301-1728 (404) 688-8116 [email protected]

Larry King Georgia Bar No. 419725 P. O. Box 1648 Jonesboro, GA 30237 (770) 471-3835 Fax (770) 471-8200 [email protected]

Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer

Page 153 of 153 June 26, 2014 Consolidated Disqualification Motion,

Murphy_Renee Haugerud_aka Lauree Smith_June 26, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin w Att

Documents

Transcript of Murphy_Renee Haugerud_aka Lauree Smith_June 26, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Judge Baldwin w Att