IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
J. Andrew Rice and Kathryn W. Rice )
Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
) NUMBER: 00-1-9027-28
TERENCE E. SAY, SUSANNA C. SAY, )
WILLIAM ODOM, and JENNIFER )
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF ___Cobb____
AFFIDAVIT OF KATHRYN W. RICE
1. My name is Kathryn W. Rice; I am a citizen of the United States, in good standing.
2. I am over the legal age of majority.
3. I am appearing SUI JURIS in all regards to the above styled action, despite the continual
and repeated alteration by this Court and Attorney Parker to deny my status as a natural
person, acting NOT in a “Pro Se” fashion, but as a SUI JURIS, natural person, without
prejudice UCC 1-207.
4. I give this affidavit based upon my own personal knowledge.
5. This affidavit is submitted in support of a Motion for Certificate of Immediate Review and
Motion to Recuse and Motion to Disqualify Judge Mary E. Staley, in any past, present,
and/or future legal action, which involves my husband, our property, or me personally.
6. This filing of a Motion for Certificate of Immediate Review and Motion to Recuse and
Disqualify Mary E. Staley, is being submitted pursuant to actions taken following an
alleged hearing and falsified Orders, improper service, and objections, as well as recusals
ignored by this Court, creating an intentional and overt denial of due process received
7. The first Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Mary E. Staley dated September1,
2006, was not adjudicated prior to any hearing in this matter, as evidenced September 11th,
8. The second Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Mary E. Staley dated September 15,
2006, was also not adjudicated prior to any hearing in this matter.
9. This third Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Mary E. Staley dated December 18th,
2006, is entered based on falsified copies of alleged Orders received by the Rices and
attached as exhibits, demonstrating as fact, fraud upon the Court, in direct violation of
Judicial Canon 3B and Superior Court Rules without consideration by an unbiased party
as mandated by law.
10. Though Judge Staley received an Objection to a hearing of December 4th, 2006, in
addition to a conflict by requesting Attorney Parker, via documents generated upon
Attorney Parker‟s letterhead, a ruling was seemingly generated.
11. The Rices having submitted an Objection to a Rule Nisi for November 27, 2006, and
Motion for Continuance of December 4, 2006 Hearing, and Motion for Change of
Venue and Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Mary E. Staley, was NEVER ruled
on prior to the December 4th Hearing date, for which Attorney Parker himself noted a
12. The Rices Motion to Recuse and Disqualify was NOT reviewed prior to any hearing, and
as a result NO legal action could be effectuated by Judge Staley, whether sufficient or
13. At no time has Judge Staley identified any specific lack of sufficiency, further reinforcing
her lack of legal compliance and willingness to negate the rule of law, transferring such
actions into no less than extortion.
14. Due process under the federal Constitution and the mandates of due process in 42 U.S.C.
1983, require that Judge Staley disqualify/recuse herself from deciding this case, based on
the factual violations to the Rules of the Court, and codified law.
15. The Rices were not afforded the fundamental components of due process, based on the
fact Judge Staley refused to rule upon or further the issue of her recusal prior to any
hearing, which is a repetitive pattern of behavior, denying a fair trial, which is a basic
requirement of due process.
16. Judge Staley has allowed Attorney Parker to author multiple Orders on her behalf, as
noted on a “Defendants‟ Certificate of Service,” mailed ALONE dated December 7th,
2006, but contained no Orders, in direct opposition to the document.
17. The “Defendants’ Certificate of Service” did not accompany any other document, nor
include the referenced „Orders,‟ (Exhibit A).
18. On December 18th, 2006, a green and white envelope, containing a group of alleged
„Orders‟ appeared via US Mail with a cover letter from Attorney Parker and/or Colby
Jones, accompanied by a Certificate of Service, noting “pleadings”.
19. The “ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY JUDGE
MARY E. STALEY, MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE, MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE OF DECEMBER 4, 2006 HEARING, AND OBJECTION TO RULE
NISI DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2006” (Exhibit B), was created on Attorney Parker‟s
letterhead, which purported to rule on various matters simultaneously in violation of the
rules of the Court and in direct violation of the mandates of both state and federal law.
20. In Exhibit B., Judge Staley‟s signature is clearly NOT an original signature, and therefore
cannot be a true and certified Order of the Court.
21. An Order issued on a hearing and Recusal already pending FOLLOWING the alleged
hearing, clearly violates the due process rights of the Rices.
22. In Exhibit B, the Rices are listed falsely as “Pro Se” litigants, in violation of their
constitutional rights and/or assertions as SUI JURIS Litigants.
23. On the signature page of Exhibit B, Judge Staley‟s name appears to be misspelled as
24. In addition, also on December 18th, the Rices received in the aforementioned green and
white envelope, an “ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSES TO ORIGINAL DISCOVERY,” (Exhibit C), also dated December 6th,
2006, despite multiple Motions to Recuse Judge Staley pending prior, but NOT
25. Exhibit C is also NOT signed by Judge Staley.
26. The “Presented By” notification also is unsigned.
27. In Exhibit C, the Rices are noted incorrectly as “Pro Se” Litigants, denying their
undeniable status as natural people with their constitutional rights in tact, pleading those
protections and rights as SUI JURIS Litigants.
28. On December 18th, in the same green and white envelope that Exhibits A and B arrived,
there was also a third document titled, “ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE AND
DISQUALIFY JUDGE MARY E. STALEY,” (Exhibit D).
29. The date of Exhibit D is December 6th, after a hearing allegedly held on the 4th.
30. Exhibit D asserts Judge Staley is denying her own recusal AFTER continuing actions
and/or rulings taken WITHOUT the proper and prior adjudication of outstanding recusals.
31. Judge Staley in Exhibit D, refuses to recuse herself on December 6th, altered, created,
and/or provided, following an alleged hearing of December 4th.
32. Exhibit D is NOT signed by Judge Staley.
33. Exhibits B, C, and D do not bear any authentic signature by Judge Staley, and as a result
cannot be true or certified copies.
34. Attorney Parker has committed improper service at a minimum, as the documents are
NOT true and authentic copies, and mischaracterizes the Rices, not as natural citizens with
constitutional rights intact and/or SUI JURIS Litigants.
35. Judge Staley has continued to act with bias in total disregard of the rules of the court,
denying the rights federally protected rights to due process.
36. By furthering this “fraud upon the court,” Judge Staley must be prohibited from acting.
37. Judge Staley has carried out biased and prejudiced actions against the Rices, following the
Rices public disclosure of the Cobb County Judiciary‟s illegal acts, which were posted in
various locations following Judge Staley‟s actions.
38. The Rices obligation to notify the public of the ongoing pattern of “fraud upon the
court,” being perpetrated by members of the Cobb Judiciary, has made the Rices targets
of multiple SLAPP efforts, to include the documents received December 18, 2006.
39. The Rices, like Wendy Titelman, Marquitta Portman, Donna Marie Smith, Marla Wright,
Bahji Adams, Peter N. Popham, along with a myriad of others, have undeniably
documented the ongoing pattern of fraud and racketeering, those who speak out about this
continuing “fraud upon the court” effort, attested to before the Georgia (GA) Supreme
Court on November 7th, 2006, regarding Judge Staley‟s contemporary, Judge Adele
40. The acts carried out and described herein are VOID, as a matter of law.
41. This affidavit is fully documented, sets forth facts demonstrated by the court record, as per
document stamps noted on Exhibits B, C, and D, which provides NO conclusion,
summary, but restatement of undeniable facts.
42. Judge Staley possesses a pecuniary interest in the acts currently pending before the GA
Supreme Court, against her co-worker Judge Grubbs along with the contemporaries on the
Cobb County Bench, who have aided and abetted members of the Court, by further
denying the Rices access to the Court and their federally protected due process rights.
43. Judge Staley‟s refusal to rule upon the Rices Motion for Sanctions and Default Judgment
and Request for Criminal Indictment and Request for Hearing, against Attorney Joe
Parker PRIOR to the awarding of attorney fees to Attorney Parker for his response to the
aforementioned is clearly biased and prejudiced.
44. On February 16th, 2006, the Rices filed a “Motion to Vacate Order and Motion for
Sanctions and Motion for Time to Respond,” upon which a ruling was issued denying
evidence provided and citing Uniform Rule 6.2, USCR 2.1, USCR 16, and O.C.G.A. §
15-1-8, and Carpenter v. Carpenter, 276 Ga. 746, 583 S.E.2d 852 (2003).
45. The Rices submit this timely affidavit, sufficient in all manners containing undeniable
facts regarding the efforts of Judge Staley as evidenced by documents generated by
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT
Without prejudice UCC 1-207
Kathryn W. Rice
Sworn to and Subscribed to before me
This ____day of December 2006.
My commission expires on