Docstoc

Georgia Good Behavior Affidavit

Document Sample
Georgia Good Behavior Affidavit Powered By Docstoc
					                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
vs.                                          )
                                             )
TERENCE E. SAY, SUSANNA C. SAY,              )
WILLIAM ODOM, and JENNIFER                   )
ODOM                                         )
Defendants,                                  )



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.




                                                 1
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

   December 16th.

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,

   2006.

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

   conflict.




                                             2
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

   NOT.

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




                                              3
   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

   “Staly”.

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

   adjudicated prior.

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.




                                              4
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.




                                              5
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

   Grubbs.

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).




                                              6
  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

      Attorney Parker.



   FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT

                                                               Without prejudice UCC 1-207




                                                           ___________________________
                                                                   Kathryn W. Rice


Sworn to and Subscribed to before me

This ____day of December 2006.




___________________________
Notary Public

My commission expires on




                                                7

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Georgia Good Behavior Affidavit document sample