murphy_rpf part 2 motion for investigation, et al

Attachment 145, Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT 1

First Supplement to Motion for Investigation of Judge Baldwins Corruption With Plea to Jurisdiction Page 1 of 19

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COWETA COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

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

Nancy Michelle Murphy, Defendant

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

Part 2 of Motion for an Investigation, Public Disclosure and Termination of the Corruption of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.

a/k/a Response to Glover & Davis Justification of Participants in Judge Baldwins Corruption and

those participating in and initiating his corruption, by financing, and

otherwise providing incentive to those persons and entities engaging in

fraud, perjury, false statements, false swearing and other conduct in

violation of the protections due to Michelle Murphy and her counsel by the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Uniform Superior Court Rules, Constitutional

provisions of the United States and State of Georgia equivalent, First Amendment,

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

Professional Conduct (or, collectively or separately, LAW*) 1. This Motion is a Supplement to the Friday, January 30, 2015 and the

February 2, 2015 requests for the investigation of the corruption of Judge Baldwin

and those participating with Judge Baldwin that includes a request for the immediate

disqualification / suspension of Judge Baldwin, until he is provided his protections

under the LAW* that accompany the more appropriate, permanent removal of Judge

Baldwins judicial authority.

Part 2, Motion for Investigation of Judge Baldwins Corruption With Plea to Jurisdiction

Page 2 of 19

1.1 The Glover & Davis lawyers, with their February 5, 2015 letter, signaled to

Judge Baldwin that it will be very detrimental to Judge Baldwin and to those

participating in his corruption if Judge Baldwin allows the filing of that January 30,

2015 Motion and February 2, 2015 Response.

1.2 This motion responds to the February 5, 2015 letter of Taylor Drake to

Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. that is one of the methods that Taylor Drake, Michael

Williams Warner and other lawyers associated with Glover & Davis use to provide

directives to Judge Baldwin, Melissa Sams, the law clerk of Judge Baldwin and Julia

Harris, the Judicial Assistant of Judge Baldwin.

1.2.1 Taylor Drake, Michael Williams Warner, other lawyers associated with

Glover & Davis (or, Glover & Davis lawyers), Melissa Sams, and Julia Harris

(or, in chambers corruption participants) are participants in the corruption of

Judge Baldwin.

1.2.2 The Glover and Davis lawyers send off-the-record letters to Judge Baldwin

and Judge Baldwins in-chambers corruption participants as a method of

directing the conduct of Judge Baldwin.

1.2.3 When the Glover & Davis lawyers opine that specific language, not in

evidence, would benefit them if included in an Order, or if Judge Baldwin should

deny Michelle Murphy an opportunity to produce evidence at a hearing, the

Glover & Davis lawyers have used letters and e-mails as a method of concealing

the corruption of Judge Baldwin such as the Glover and Davis lawyers are

attempting to use the February 5, 2015 letter. See, Attachment 160. 1.2.4 Letters from the Glover & Davis lawyers are used as a method not to

comply with the Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.1 requiring an affidavit. The

Glover & Davis letters most frequently do not provide counsel for Michelle


Page 3 of 19

Murphy an adequate opportunity to respond to false and deceptive statements

included in the letter before Judge Baldwin and the in-chambers corruption

participants act upon the Glover & Davis request.

1.2.5 It is not difficult to understand how John Harold Murphy and Renee L.

Haugerud would finance the conduct of the Glover & Davis lawyers when their

conduct in employing the Transporters as the method of transporting Jack and

Thomas to be incarcerated as the remedy to their failed parenting skills that Judge

Baldwin and Elizabeth Lisa Harwell allowed, without providing Michelle

Murphy an opportunity to establish a record in order to have their conduct

immediately reviewed by an appellate court.

1.2.6 Judge Baldwin and his participants allowed Jack and Thomas to be

transported and incarcerated without the protection of the LAW*, just as if they

were prisoners in a third world country.

1.2.6.1 If our courts do not believe that the language used in the Corruption

Motion deserves the strong language that was used, their views are outside the

LAW*. Jack and Thomas need and deserve the immediate removal of the

judicial authority of Judge Baldwin; our system of justice deserves the

permanent removal of the judicial authority of Judge Baldwin.

1.2.6.2 The February 5, 2015 letter is the last straw in the delay of the

removal of Judge Baldwin and the restrictions of his no-contact Order.

1.2.7 In the February 5, 2015 letter to Judge Baldwin, the Glover & Davis

lawyer attempts to supply Julia Harris and Judge Baldwin a bogus defense related

to the ex parte communication that Julia Harris had with the representative at Elevations RTC that was twice identified to Judge Baldwin and Julia Harris

electronically on January 30, 2015 on page 112 of Part 1 of the Corruption


Page 4 of 19

Motion and again as follows on February 5, 2015 in Part 1-a of the Response to

a motion for Summary Judgment.

2.2.1 Judge Baldwin is engaging in ex parte communication even as this motion is being written if information provided to Millard Farmer is correct.

See January 30, 2014 Corruption Motion p. 112.

A more detailed account of the Julia Harris ex parte conduct follows. 1.1 Because Judge Baldwin has not removed the no contact Order, Elevations RTC will not allow Michelle Murphy to talk with Jack and Thomas. Counsel for Michelle Murphy also cannot contact the witnesses, who are incarcerated, as the results of the illegal conduct of John Harold Murphy, Renee L. Haugerud, Elizabeth Lisa Harwell and Judge

Baldwin. 1.2 During the preparation of the Friday, January 30, 2015 motion, related to the violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, counsel for Michelle Murphy was provided information that a person acting on behalf of Judge Baldwin engaged in an ex parte communication with the people at Elevations RTC. Counsel learned of this conduct within the last five (5) days and timely brings this motion to disqualify Judge Baldwin. 1.2.1 Counsel for Michelle Murphy was not informed by Judge Baldwin, Julia Harris, or persons acting on behalf of Judge Baldwin of the communication that Julia Harris had with Elevations RTC either before or after the communication. The phone records of Julia Harris and the questioning of her under oath is necessary to preserve and obtain immediate action based upon the information supplied to counsel for Michelle.


Page 5 of 19

1.2.1.1 Judge Baldwin is the trier of fact in this litigation, i.e., Judge Baldwin is the juror who is obtaining information which was and

remains outside the record in this case. This is a recurring violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct that appears to have no remedy excepting his immediate removal as a judicial officer. 1.2.1.2 Judge Baldwin is the judge in this case who is obtaining information outside the record that Michelle Murphy does not have. 1.2.1.3 Julia Harris is the judicial assistant to Judge Baldwin who engaged in the communication with Elevations RTC. People contact Julia Harris, as they know that she is one of the conduits of ex parte communications with Judge Baldwin that are not reported to counsel for Michelle Murphy. 1.3 With over 20 documents, counsel for Michelle Murphy has informed Judge Baldwin that violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct are not acceptable.

1.3 People who have ever served on a jury all know that the triers of fact are not

entitled to engage in an independent investigation of fact.

1.4 Judge Baldwin engaged in inappropriate conduct as both the trier of fact and as

the judge.

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

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

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

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

Professional Conduct (or, collectively or separately, LAW*) clearly prohibited

the conduct of the judicial assistant to Judge Baldwin and provided guidance that


Page 6 of 19

she chose not to respect.

1.5.1 The prejudicial attitude of the judicial assistant to Judge Baldwin was

identified in one of the motions of Michelle Murphy that Judge Baldwin did not

allow to be filed. (See Attachment 149 to the December 22, 2014 disqualification motion that Judge Baldwin refused to allow to be filed.) 1.5.2 These documents contained in that Attachment 149 were obtained from Nan Freeman in the litigation against her, that Judge Baldwin asked counsel for

Michelle Murphy not to initiate. See Part 1-a of the Response to a motion for

Summary Judgment, served on February 2, 2014.

1.5.3 The view of the Code of Judicial Conduct, according to the Glover &

Davis lawyers, and, apparently according to what they believe to be the views of

Judge Baldwin and his in-chambers corruption participants, is as Taylor Drake

states in his letter.

Accordingly, because both the Investigation Motion and the February 2 Disqualification Motion are frivolous, neither of Michelle Murphy's most recent "Requests to File" should be allowed. I again thank the Court for its prompt attention to these matters.

This motion, again by incorporation, contains the preservation of the

disqualification of Judge Baldwin with a plea to the jurisdiction of Judge

Baldwin.

1.5.4 Sticking by his manifesto that a lawyer can only file one motion to

disqualify, regardless of later events, 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


Page 7 of 19

(V3, p.436); July 2, 2012 (V3, p.502); Aug. 19, 2013 (V10, p.1904); Aug. 28, 2013 (V11, p.2195); Sept. 13, 2013 (V12, p.2321); Oct. 7, 2013 (V14, p.2890); and Nov. 26, 2013 (V17, p.3639) until December 4, 2013 when he

entered yet another Order in which he, as he did in his June 7, 2012 denial of

his disqualification motion, once again opposed by disputing the

disqualification motions affidavits with both deceptive and false statements. (V17 p.3827)

Adding grounds to his disqualification and thereby his corruption in the

unadjudicated, pending disqualification motions, Judge Baldwin, with the

motions pending, and without adhering to USCR 25.3 to temporarily cease to

act upon the merits of the matter and shall immediately determine the timeliness

of the motion and the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, and make a

determination, assuming any of the facts alleged in the affidavit to be true,

whether recusal would be warranted, proceeded with the Glover & Davis

request to hear John Harold Murphys evidence at an August 13, 2013 hearing.

That August 13 hearing, deceptively mentioned in the February 5, 2015 letter

resulted in the August 23, 2013 Order. The transcript of the August 13, 2013

hearing reflects both the broken commitment of Judge Baldwin to allow counsel

for Michelle Murphy to present her evidence at a later time and the failure of

Judge Baldwin to allow counsel for Michelle Murphy to complete the cross-


Page 8 of 19

examination of Dr. Nice, who appeared under the influence of a mind altering

substance.

Excerpt from August 13, 2013 Transcript, p. 232, line 5 p. 239, line 7.

THE COURT: Look. Let me tell y'all something. It is 25 after 4:00. Now, I'm not going to stay here longer than six o'clock because my mind gets bumfuzzled after a while. And we're going to have to see. This is obviously going to go longer than that.

MR. FARMER: But, Your Honor, we have no problem with you recessing.

THE COURT: Well, the only thing is is finding a time to do it. That's the only problem. I could do it -- I can't do it tomorrow -- or rather not do it tomorrow. Y'all can come to LaGrange tomorrow if you wanted to. But-- and it sounds like we've gotten down to everybody but the parties.

I could do it here because I've got a senior judge coming in for me Thursday morning because I've got to be somewhere Thursday afternoon at two o'clock. So I could do it Thursday morning, but we've got to finish by 12:00 noon.

MR. FARMER: That's a tight restriction. THE COURT: What did you say? MR. FARMER: I said that is a tight restriction.

What else do we have? THE COURT: Well, I don't have anything

until next week, next Wednesday, the 21st. That's the only -- only --


Page 9 of 19

MR. FARMER: That would be agreeable with us. MR. DRAKE: Well, Your Honor, all they want to do

is delay so they can come in say the kids are established and all those things.

THE COURT: Look. I know that. I know that. But at the same time I can't help -- we're not going to go till-- longer than six o'clock this afternoon. Okay?

MR. DRAKE: And I'm not suggesting that. THE COURT: I mean, so I don't -- I can't help it.

I thought, actually, that we would be finished by the middle of the afternoon. But -- but obviously I misjudged that.

MR. DRAKE: The only other witness I have is my client. That's it. And so if we start over, I think you said Wednesday morning, it would be solely Mr. Farmer, anything he wants to put up. He doesn't have any affirmative claims in this case other than his claim to modify child support.

THE COURT: I thought he had -- had somebody from one of the schools coming in. I don't know.

MR. FARMER: We do. We have the principal. But what I'm telling you if it won't be enough room to get it in, we are reaching a point of, let's say, irritability. And that's no disrespect to anybody here. And if we -- if we -- ain't going to be on tomorrow. Ain't any need doing it today. And if you have a time that you can give us, then we can --

THE COURT: Well, I want to go as far as we can today. But I just want to tell y'all I'm going to stop at six o'clock.


Page 10 of 19

MR. FARMER: Can we -- can we have the deposition of Mrs. Haugerud, who is not a party --

THE COURT: No. I'm going to -- what I'm going to do-- I'm going to tell y'all when we're going to do it. I mean, y'all have been wanting to get this done. I just was trying to come out with a date. I really need to take care of some things in LaGrange tomorrow. But we'll just-- we'll just -- I've got -- I've got to be in LaGrange tomorrow morning. I don't have to be there tomorrow afternoon. Well, I'm supposed to go get some therapy on one of my old athletic injuries -- actually it's a new one.

The -- but I can do it, I'm pretty sure, all day tomorrow. But you're going to have to come to LaGrange if you do it in the morning.

MR. FARMER: Well, we -- we've got -- we've got a witness who is a principal of the school. And we've got another witness that's local here that cannot -- we couldn't ask them to travel from their obligations to go-- to come to LaGrange.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know why. MR. FARMER: Well, because it takes too

long from there day. THE COURT: It ain't but about a thirty-

five-minute drive. MR. FARMER: Well -- THE COURT: They couldn't drive to Atlanta. Let

me just look. It's supposed to be at the Hughston Clinic. I can cancel that. But I can't be up here tomorrow morning.


Page 11 of 19

MR. FARMER: When can you be up here? THE COURT: Well, I could -- I could be up here,

you know, right after lunch. MR. FARMER: Well, why don't we do that? It'll

make it -- we'll start after lunch. If we don't get through, we'll pick another day. I mean, it's -- it's we they -- we haven't put on our case.

THE COURT: What did you say? MR. FARMER: We have not put on our case. THE COURT: I know you haven't. I'm telling y'all

where we've been trying to figure out what to do. Okay? MR. FARMER: And I'm just being realistic about it

and pick a time where we can do it here and we're not

THE COURT: All right. MR. DRAKE: Your honor, that's fine. We've

got an hour and a half today and then start tomorrow at 1:00?

THE COURT: Yeah. We can do that. MR. DRAKE: Okay. THE COURT: Well, I'm going to be honest with you. I

would like, before we get to y'all's case, to hear what Ms. Harwell has to say. And the reason I want to do that is -- of course they've got the burden on their case and they will have finished their case. I may decide at that point I don't need to hear anything else.


Page 12 of 19

MR. FARMER: All right. THE COURT: So I want to hear what she's got to say. MR. FARMER: Well, do we want to stop and -- right

here and bring back Dr. Nice and hear her -- what she's got to say?

THE COURT: No. I want to just keep going till six o'clock, get as much as we can done.

MR. FARMER: All right. THE COURT: If I didn't have to come up here at

all tomorrow, I'd rather do it. MR. FARMER: Well, I was just thinking if we were

going to get through after hearing her, then -- THE COURT: No. I didn't say we were going to get

through. I said we could get through. MR. FARMER: Well, if we can. THE COURT: Okay. I don't know that we are. MR.

FARMER: Okay.

THE COURT: I'm just making a point. MR. FARMER: Okay. THE COURT: I'd just like to try that. Okay? I'm

getting a pretty good feel for what I want to do in this case.

And I'd like to hear what she's got to say. And I haven't read any report from her. I haven't -- other than I've gotten some of these motions about we need to go on and do something about this and those kinds of thing, which I think have come from Mr. Drake.

And I'm pretty clear in my mind about what I think needs to be done. But I want to hear what she's got to say first. And then I'll decide whether I think we


Page 13 of 19

need go any further or I, at that point, can -- can say something about, you know, what I think we need to do. Okay?

MR. FARMER: Have you had any conversations with her about the case?

THE COURT: I don't think so other than in the courtroom or anything.

MR. FARMER: I'm just wondering what you -- when you were saying --

THE COURT: Well, I've gotten so many motions and different things in there, I don't know what I've gotten, if you want the truth.

MR. FARMER: I understand that. THE COURT: And -- and -- but I do know I've got

that letter. I do know I got the motion saying that we -- I think I got a motion saying something about we've got the letter and we need to go on and do something, it seems like. But I got something like that sometime. But I don't think I've ever talked to Ms. Harwell about this case at all other than to, you know, notice that she was in the case. And -- and I don't think I've ever talked to you about the case.

MR. FARMER: I know you haven't. THE COURT: And I don't think I've ever talked to

Mr. Drake about the case other than to try to set up things so I come into court. And I of course tried to do that because you're very ticklish about the rules. And that's all right. You've got a right to be.

MR. FARMER: Thank you.


Page 14 of 19

THE COURT: And -- and so I've tried to make darn sure that nothing has been said or done that wasn't supposed to be done. Okay? Now, I just wanted to let y'all know. And I do need to make a --

How much longer do you think she's going to be up here?

MR. FARMER: A little while, a good while. THE COURT: I need to make a phone call real quick. MR. FARMER: Okay. THE COURT: And then we'll start right out. I

won't be gone but two or three minutes. (Recess from 4:30 until 4:37.)

* * * p. 232, line 5 p. 239, line 7:

MR. FARMER: We havent had any of our witnesses.

We didnt examine any witnesses. Thats the problem.

You just looked at this side of the hand, cross-examination is

* * *

p. 276, lines 13 - 25:

THE COURT: Look. Ive got to go. Im sorry. I told

yall I needed to leave at 6:00. Im going to be late

now. Well just talk about this after we find out who

the guardian ad litems going to be.

MS. HARWELL: The custody evaluator.

THE COURT: Custody evaluator.


Page 15 of 19

MR. DRAKE: Thank you, Your Honor.

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

reflect, were in the middle of the examination of Dr.

Nice.

MS. HARWELL: What?

MR. FARMER: Im showing the record says were in

the middle of the examination of Dr. Nice. (Proceedings concluded.)

Judge Baldwin never read before signing and filing the ex parte obtained

August 23, 2013 Order. (V11 p.2214) Judge Baldwin defends that particular ex

parte letter delivered by Michael Williams Warner (V14, p.2752) that

accompanied the proposed August 23, 2013 Order as follows.

THE COURT Im just tired of things -- Like I

noticed in this thing yall talk about some kind

of ex parte conversations. I dont think I have

had any ex parte conversations with Mr. Drake

about this anytime lately if I ever had any. I

dont think, since the beginning of this case I


Page 16 of 19

have, partly because of all the stuff thats been

going on in the State about ex parte

conversations. * * * And I dont believe I

have had any ex parte conversations, and I dont

see how yall could know about any unless you

supposedly have my phones bugged or his phone

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

Before Michelle Murphy received or learned of the ex parte supported

August 23, 2013 Order, a deputy sheriff, whose office is represented by Glover

& Davis PA, came to the home of Michelle Murphy to get the children to comply

with the modified visitation, nunc pro tunc to August 13, 2013. (V14, p. 2702)

The August 23, 2013 Order was obtained with an ex parte communication to

Judge Baldwin, containing facts not in evidence and false statements, not

provided to counsel for Michelle Murphy, until after the Order was obtained and

filed. (Tr. Oct. 3, 2013, p. 19, lines 12-23)

2. Memorandum of LAW to Request for State of Georgia funded Investigation of Corruption Corruption Defined It is relevant to offer a few definitions of corruption, as corruption is the conduct

that this Motions seeks investigating.


Page 17 of 19

It is ironic that the root cause of the corruption that this motion seeks to obtain

assistance in having investigated and thereafter being the basis for his prompt

permanent removal from office is the corruption of Judge Baldwin who must

approve of this motion before the Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County

will not file without the approval of Judge Baldwin.

Corruption is dishonest actions that destroys people's trust in the person or group, as the news of corruption in how your bank is run, that makes you close your account and invest your money somewhere else.

When you corrupt something that society requires to be pure or honest, you take

away those qualities from all courts. To prevent judicial corruption, we have the

Code of Judicial Conduct, Rules of Court, the Constitution of Georgia and United

States, the statutes of Georgia and United States.

The Affidavit of Millard Farmer is attached.

3. The Disgusting Irony of the Necessity for this Motion, as well as the numerous other motions and pleadings in this case, is that counsel for Michelle Murphy, the mother of Jack and Thomas who had physical custody of Jack and

Thomas since they were toddlers, is illegally handicapped by being required to

request permission for Michelle Murphys documents to be filed, while the lawyer

for John Harold Murphy uses off-the-record communications to influence Judge

Baldwin and his in-chambers participants.

Michelle Murphy, Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy: Blame Yourself! Blame

Yourself! Blame Yourself! for not having Renee L. Haugeruds money to hire you

a judicially connected and contributing lawyer.

murphy_rpf part 2 motion for investigation, et al

Documents

corruption of judge

conduct of judge baldwin

law clerk of judge baldwin

quillian baldwin

glover davis lawyers

nancy michelle murphy

code of judicial conduct

letter of taylor drake