Legal Emergency Research Motions by blc18549

VIEWS: 23 PAGES: 8

More Info
									                IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY
                           STATE OF GEORGIA

J. ANDREW RICE and KATHRYN W. RICE,                 )
      Plaintiffs,                                   )       Civil Action File
                                                    )       No. 05-1-0437-18
                                                    )
       Vs.                                          )
                                                    )
ADELE L. GRUBBS,                                    )
Judge, Superior Court of Cobb County,               )
       Defendant.                                   )
                                                    )


 EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID ORDER OF JUDGE FUDGEROR
      TO DECLARE ORDER VOID DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION
                            AND
    EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OR TEMPORARY
                     RESTRAINING ORDER

       COME NOW Plaintiffs, J. Andrew Rice and Kathryn W. Rice, Sui Juris, sovereigns,

aggrieved parties in the above styled action, and file these Emergency Motions, showing the

Court as follows:

                     ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY

       The Rices bring these Motions pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-60(a) and 9-12-16, which

allow an action declare an order void to “any court” at “any time.”          These Motions are

appropriately directed to a Senior Judge of Cobb County, as the Rices presented a similar

Motion, during a properly noticed hearing on August 11, 2005, to Judge Kreeger, the last Judge

who issued a valid Order in the above styled action. As such, the last legal or valid order issued

May 26, 2005, has not been complied with, (Exhibit A). Judge Kreeger correctly determined

that Judicial Qualifications Committee Opinion 220, is a “bright-line rule”, which serves to

remove jurisdiction from all Cobb County Judges in this matter, over Defendant Grubbs.



                                                1
However, Judge Kreeger refused to hear a matter properly before him, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§

9-11-60(a) and 9-12-16, solely regarding Judge Fudger’s attempt to take jurisdiction where he

has none, even though he was shown his May 26, 2005 Order was not complied with. All

jurisdiction must be clear and in writing, whether it be written in the Constitution, Codified

Laws, a Contract, or an Order such as the one Judge Kreeger asked the District Court

Administrator to file.    Since the record clearly shows no filings between the date of Judge

Kreeger’s Order and Judge Arthur Fudger’s VOID Order, on July 7, 2005, clearly there is no

record of nor has there been any required assignment or notification to the Court as well as

parties of Judge Fudger’s inclusion, or any other Judge, in this case. A certified true copy of the

docket for the above styled action, dated August 11, 2005 is attached hereto as Exhibit B).

       ***Additionally, the District Court Clerk’s Office verified, no assignment had been made

in the matter, which fully supports the certified and true record attached, (Exhibit B). Thus, any

action or alleged publication by Judge Fudger is inappropriate and void at best. In keeping, any

additional actions attempted, which rely upon Judge Fudger’s void order, would similarly be null

and void. Specifically those actions would include the efforts of Rebecca Mick of the GA

Attorney General’s Office (Exhibit D) and Judge Grubbs (Exhibit E).              Conclusively and

undeniably, Judge Kreeger was the last Judge to have any legitimate claim as to jurisdiction

alone. Therefore, these Motions must be brought before Judge Kreeger, who has the sole

authority to ensure his May 26, 2005 Order is followed, instead of being willfully disobeyed by

members of the Judiciary, via willful, orchestrated, and conspiratorial acts of obstruction.

       On May 26, 2005, the Honorable Judge George Kreeger filed an Order directing the

District Court Administrator to assign an appropriate Judge from outside the Cobb Circuit to

preside over the above styled action, (Exhibit A). However according to Cobb County Superior




                                                 2
Court Records and the District Court Administrator, no such assignment has ever been made.

Additionally neither the Court nor the Rices, have to date been notified of any assignment, as

evidenced in true and certified copies provided by the Cobb County Superior Court Clerk’s

Office (Exhibit B).

       Instead, Judge Arthur Fudger, “Senior Judge Cobb Superior Court”, and a frequent as

well as continual implement of the Cobb Superior Court, fraudulently took jurisdiction without

any required assignment, notification, or authorization, and proceeded to publish a ruling on the

subject matter Writ of Prohibition. This ruling was entered in the Court on July 7th, with Judge

Grubbs’ actions occurring on the 8th, just prior to a pending traverse filed by the Rices, while

Judge Fudger never scheduled a hearing, much less once addressed the issues contained in the

subject matter Writ. As no evidence was in the record regarding an en banc request, it would

appear Judge Fudger, in quite an expeditious fashion, engaged in either research beyond the

record before him regarding the Writ, or was a party to some ex parte conversation. Moreover

the statements he makes erroneously presented are subject matter NOT for the Writ of

Prohibition he alleges is before him, nor the Rice v. Cannon Case Judge James Bodiford

erroneously transferred to Judge Grubbs at the request of Attorney Calhoun, but rather addressed

a pending Motion to Declare Order Void, which even Judge Fudger does not claim jurisdiction

with regard to. That is where Judge Grubbs’ actions become more focused. And strangely

enough, before the documents were listed or scanned into evidence, Attorney Calhoun had a

copy of both Judges Fudger and Grubbs’ orders, so as to enter those documents in the Gwinnett

County traverse hearing, one of 2 prevailed upon by the Rices.

       Upon Judge Fudger’s fraudulent act of allegedly ruling on the outstanding Writ of

Prohibition, Judge Grubbs chose not to deal with the 10 Motions pending before her Court




                                               3
languishing for well over 90 days, but instead immediately dismissed a Motion to Declare Order

Void, and an attached Motion to Disqualify her, without any regard to the latter. Additionally,

she scheduled hearings in multiple cases, on the same date August 3rd, when Mr. Rice has

scheduled duty regarding a commitment with the federal government. Despite the Rices filing

July 27th an Objection and Notice of Conflict for the hearings scheduled for August 3rd, no

response or notification from the Court was provided prior to the hearing in accordance with

Rule 17 of the Uniform Rules of Cobb Superior Court. In addressing this matter to Chief Judge

Bodiford via written correspondence, his law clerk, Ms. Dolin authored a letter, stating the Chief

Judge will not address issues in violation of Court Rules, and provided a copy of the document to

Judge Grubbs, who according to her clerk, will not be present until the morning of the hearing.

       Additionally, in a related and concerted effort, both Rebecca Mick of the GA Attorney

General’s Office, acting as representative counsel to Judge Adele Grubbs, the Defendant in the

Writ of Prohibition matter, and Judge Grubbs, immediately began filling fraudulent documents

and rulings, solely relying upon Judge Fudger’s deceitful act, to allege jurisdiction.

       Subsequent to Judge Fudger’s effort, Judge Grubbs within 24 hours began an unceasing

and all encompassing effort to violate her oath of office by taking jurisdiction, where she clearly

knew she had none, in keeping with her modus operandi for the last 3 years. Judge Grubbs

sought to negate any evidence or claim the Rices had asserted in an overt and biased manner,

orchestrated to obstruct justice and mask her efforts to deny the Rices and the citizens of GA,

their Constitutional and God given rights in multiple matters. Judge Grubbs’ calculated efforts

were consistent, clearly well organized, and undeniable to any party reviewing Judge Grubbs

immediate and historic efforts on behalf of Brock & Clay in any matter involving Attorney

Calhoun. Specifically, she denied a current Motion to Declare Order Void, without convening a




                                                 4
hearing, while refusing to address the attached Motion to Disqualify her, as well as multiple prior

Motions regarding same, still pending against her, in addition to the pending Writ of Prohibition.

She further sought to dismiss actions, schedule hearings, or deny justice and every semblance of

legal order, with a willful and wanton disregard to her sworn duty.

       In direct correlation, Attorney Calhoun of Brock & Clay, “miraculously” had both

knowledge and awareness of Judge Fudger’s action and all subsequent as well as related efforts

by Judge Grubbs, before they were even available from the Court, though Mr. Calhoun is not a

representative counsel in the Writ of Prohibition Matter, nor a party of interest. Moreover,

Calhoun was not only aware, but possessed a copy of both Judges Fudger and Grubbs void

orders, which he submitted to a Gwinnett Court in an effort to deny the Rices’ traverse,

specifically to Judge Pamela South, and further perpetrate both theft by deception and theft by

taking. Calhoun’s effort continues to be afforded by Judge Grubbs, just as in the underlying

effort, in which she allowed a dissolved corporate entity to not only bring a lawsuit against a

party with no contractual relationship, but to also fraudulently prevail, which was further aided

and abetted by Judge Fudger, Attorney Mick, and Judge Grubbs. Additionally Judge Grubbs’

threats to the Rices regarding contempt and incarceration for using their own corporate name is

again, but rather an undeniable indication of how far Judge Grubbs is willing to go to protect her

illegal acts, along with those of Mr. Calhoun, as well as Brock & Clay.

          TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR PROTECTIVE ORDER
                                 AND
         JUSTIFICATION FOR EMERGENCY STATUS OF THESE MOTIONS

       These motions are presented as emergency motions in accordance with USCR 6.7, due to

the necessity to halt the improper and ongoing actions of Defendant Grubbs in the tow lawsuits

which are the subject of the above styled action. Based solely upon the void Order of Judge




                                                5
Fudger in this case, Defendant Grubbs convened a hearing on August 3, 2005, for both Civil

Action Numbers 02-4560-42 and 04-00020-33. The hearings were conducted despite the filing

of a timely Notice of Conflict, Objection to Hearing, and several Motions to Disqualify Judge

Grubbs, filed in both the aforementioned cases. In CAN 02-4560-42, Defendant Grubbs issued

an Order denying the Rices’ O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(a) action, although it was not filed to her,

while ignoring the other outstanding motions. This Order denying the Rices’ Motion was filed,

along with Rule Nisis for both cases, the morning after Judge Fudger filed his void Order, which

is the subject of these Emergency Motions. Judge Grubbs convened the hearing in CAN 02-

44560-42 despite a timely Notice of Appeal being filed on the O.C.G.A. § 9-11-60(a) collateral

attack on the Final Order she seeks to enforce. After the hearings were improperly convened on

August 3, 2005, Defendant Grubbs filed Orders, on August 5, 2005, finding the Rices in

Contempt of her Final Order in CAN 02-4560-42 and denying all other motions filed by the

Rices. Defendant Grubbs has ordered the Rices incarcerated at 5 p.m. on September 8, 2005,

based upon the hearing she convened in their absence and under what she claims is the authority

granted her by Judge Fudger’s void Order. Defendant Grubbs also filed an Order dismissing the

Rices’ Complaint in CAN 04-1-00020-33 and denying the Rices’ 10 outstanding motions in that

case, without notice that the Rices’ motions would be the subject of the hearing.

       Meanwhile, despite her receipt, on August 9, 2005, of the Rices’ Notice of Appeal to the

Supreme Court in the above styled action, Defendant Grubbs, by and through Senior Assistant

Attorney General Rebecca Mick, Bar Number 504300, is threatening to hold the Rices in

Contempt of Judge Fudger’s void Order. Defendant Grubbbs and Clerk Jay Stephenson willfully

failed to comply with USCR 17.2 which states in pertinent part, “The judges or clerks…shall

give prompt written notice to all counsel of the manner in which the conflicts have been




                                                6
resolved.” (emphasis added). The only response the Rices received to their Notice of Conflict

and Objection was in Defendant Grubbs’ three Orders, filed August 5, 2005 and received in the

mail on August 11, 2005, the afternoon of the hearing before Judge Kreeger. In her Order of

August 5, 2005, Defendant Grubbs announced she would not accept the Rices’ Notice of

Conflict, and she denied the Rices’ Objection and Motion to Disqualify. However, as mentioned

above, Defendant Grubbs gave the Rices no notice that she expected them to appear on August 3,

2005, prior to the hearing. Then, without notification, Defendant Grubbs continued her pattern

of deprivation of the Rices’ rights by finding them in contempt of her void Final Order and

dismissed their Complaint against Ronald Cannon, without so much as receiving one pleading on

the merits, and threatening contempt in the above styled action.

               For the foregoing reasons Defendant Grubbs must be forced, by this Court, to

obey the law. She has violated the Rices’ rights at every turn. The Rices currently have 3

actions pending, which could establish her Final Order as void. The above styled action would,

once and for all, instruct Defendant Grubbs that she is not allowed to take jurisdiction in CAN

02-1-4560-42 and 04-1-00020-33, due to her demonstrated bias against the Rices. Appeal No.

05-10273-D would declare her Final Order void, if the Rice prevail.          And the appeal of

Defendant Grubbs’ improper Order, filed on July 8, 2005, would declare the Final Order void.

Therefore, Defendant Grubbs must be restrained, and the Rices protected, from any further

action by Defendant Grubbs CAN 02-1-4560-42 and 04-1-00020-33 until the three cases

mentioned are finally resolved. This Court is authorized to restrain and prohibit her, pending the

outcome of a real trial in the above styled action.

                                             CONCLUSION




                                                  7
       WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs hereby pray this Court will vacate and declare void the Order

filed by Judge Fudger on July 7, 2005 in the above styled action. Plaintiffs further pray the

Court will assign this matter to a truly impartial Judge and/or Court outside the Cobb Judicial

Circuit, who has never had any judicial relationship to the Cobb County Superior Court, Brock &

Clay, or Judge Adele Grubbs, pursuant to the intent and mandate of JQC Opinion 220. Plaintiffs

further pray an impartial judge will convene a jury trial, as required by law, so the facts can be

determined regarding the merits of the above styled action. Furthermore, Plaintiffs hereby pray

this Court will issue an immediate protective order, and/or temporary restraining order,

prohibiting Defendant Grubbs from taking any action in Civil Action Numbers 00-1-2603-42,

02-1-04560-42, and 04-1-00020-33, until the final resolution of Plaintiffs’ Petition for Writ of

Prohibition. Plaintiffs further pray this Court will award them such other relief as is appropriate,

and do hereby request a hearing upon the matter.



       Respectfully submitted this ______ day of August 2005.




                                                           ________________________
                                                           J. Andrew Rice, Sui Juris
                                                           Plaintiff
                                                           Constitutional Rights Intact




81 Old Mountain Place                                      ________________________
Powder Springs, GA 30127                                   Kathryn W. Rice, Sui Juris
(770) 499-8716                                             Plaintiff
                                                           Constitutional Rights Intact




                                                 8

								
To top