1. law, govt and politics

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TROUP COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
Nancy Michelle Murphy,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action No. 15-CV0109
Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc.,
Defendants [Only two Defendants remaining after Fulton Superior Court transfer]
The Summary Judgment should be Denied and the Demand for a
Jury Trial by twelve persons should be Granted
Nancy Michelle Murphy’s Response to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5
Theories of Recovery and Statement of Material Facts of Nan Freeman and
Freeman Reporting, Inc.
This case involves Nan Freeman, who is an
official court reporter engaging in illegal conduct.
Nancy Michelle Murphy (or “Michelle Murphy”) responds here to the Uniform
Superior Court Rule 6.5, purported Theory of Recovery and purported Statement
of Material Facts of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc. (or, “Nan
Freeman,” collectively or individually).
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 1 of 28
Introduction --- Applicable to each of Nan Freeman’s theories of recovery.
A substantial portion of Nan Freeman’s Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5
purported Statement of Material Facts reflects the vindictiveness of those
opposing Michelle Murphy for exposing the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin and
those, such as Nan Freeman, who attempted to conceal the illegal conduct of
Judge Baldwin.
This is to state that Nan Freeman is assisted by persons attempting to support
the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin, who have either benefited from the conduct
of Judge Baldwin, or who seek to obtain future benefit derived from supporting
Judge Baldwin and/or financial benefits derived from John Harold Murphy and
Renee L. Haugerud.
The information contained in the March 14, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Nan
Freeman in Murphy v. Murphy, in the Superior Court of Coweta County, Civil
Action No. 12V-413 (or, “Murphy v. Murphy”) is incorporated and made a part
of this introduction, as Attachment 7.
Nan Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment attempts to demean Michelle
Murphy and to use the tactics of John Harold Murphy and Judge Baldwin in an
attempt to defend Nan Freeman’s illegal conduct and the illegal conduct of Judge
Baldwin in not adhering to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case
management plan. Nan Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment identifies, as
much as anything, the bias of Nan Freeman and that the illegal conduct of Nan
Freeman was not that of an innocent court reporter who made a few errors, but
that of a person engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct allowing her to obtain
illegal compensation and job security by protecting the conduct of Judge Baldwin,
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 2 of 28
whose judicial authority should have been vacated by the regulatory authorities.
The e-mails copied and exchanged among those working in Judge Baldwin’s
office and Nan Freeman using either the nickname, “Nanny” or “Nan” do not
depict Nan Freeman as an independent, unbiased official court report covering
matters relating to Judge Baldwin. These exchanges, produced in discovery after
the deposition of Nan Freeman, are attached to the Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon
as “Exhibit D,” and are incorporated here.
When Judge Baldwin eventually recused himself after twenty or more attempts
by Michelle Murphy to disqualify him by all legal means, Judge Baldwin obtained
a position for Nan Freeman, as an official court reporter with the newly appointed
Coweta Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge W. Travis Sakrison, the son-in-law
of Congressman Lynn Westmoreland.
The recusal Orders of the judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit in Murphy v.
Murphy and the replacement judge are included as Attachment 8.
No separate response is required to the Theory of Recovery of Nan Freeman
and Freeman Reporting, Inc. (or, “Nan Freeman”, collectively or individually )
The response of Michelle Murphy to Nan Freeman’s purported Statement of Rule
6.5 Facts Memorandum of Law is incorporated in the Introduction to the Response
to Nan Freeman’s Theory of Recovery.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 3 of 28
Just as a heads up --- counsel for Nan Freeman filed her motion for summary
judgment before Michelle Murphy’s First Amended Complaint was filed and
therefore Nan Freeman’s issues in her current motion for summary have become
stale and mostly legally immaterial before the allotted time for Michelle Murphy
to respond.
An official court reporter, as was and is Nan Freeman, cannot legally design a
template, as she did around 1996, and use it in each of her official court reporting’s
contractual fulfilments until she is caught producing illegal transcripts with that
template in 2014 and then creditably urge the defense of “mistake” --- the law
burdens Nan Freeman, as a condition of qualifying and being compensated, as an
official court reporter, both to learn and to comply with the legally permissible
fees and the legal requirements for the preparation of transcripts pursuant to the
Fee Schedule mandated by the Judicial Council of Georgia and OCGA § 15-145.
Returning compensation which was illegally taken does not absolve one of the
consequences of violating the law. Nan Freeman held a position of trust that
required both her competence and integrity that she breached to the detriment of
Michelle Murphy, that consumed Michelle Murphy’s financial resources and
created an enhanced level of prejudice against Michelle Murphy’s effort to obtain
custody of J. M. and T. M., her children.
It is relevant to understand that Judge Baldwin was the exclusive trier of fact in
Murphy v. Murphy. Michelle Murphy could not obtain a jury trial in that case.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 4 of 28
The fees and the conditions upon which an official court reporter in the State
of Georgia can obtain compensation is mandated by the Judicial Council of
Georgia.
Nan Freeman was required by law to charge only the Judicial Council of
Georgia authorized fees to persons who wished, or were required, to purchase
transcripts from her in her capacity as an official court reporter for the Coweta
Judicial Circuit.
The fees follow that were allowable for Nan Freeman to charge for legally
prepared transcripts in the Superior Court of Coweta County case of Murphy v
Murphy.
Nan Freeman did not comply with the certificate requirements, which were
legally imposed upon her by the OCGA § 15-14-5, Duty to transcribe statute
--- Nan Freeman used an abbreviated, incomplete version of the required
certificate.
OCGA § 15-14-5. Duty to transcribe; certificate.
It shall be the duty of each court reporter to transcribe the
evidence and other proceedings of which he has taken notes as
provided by law whenever requested so to do by counsel for any
party to such case and upon being paid the legal fees for such
transcripts. The reporter, upon delivering the transcript to such
counsel, shall affix thereto a certificate signed by him
reciting that the transcript is true, complete, and correct.
Subject only to the right of the trial judge to change or require
the correction of the transcript, the transcript so certified shall
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 5 of 28
be presumed to be true, complete, and correct. emphasis
supplied
Nan Freeman, as a part and parcel of her habitual violations of the laws of
Georgia, did not provide Michelle Murphy’s transcripts with an OCGA § 5-14-5
required certificate containing the certification that the transcript is “true,
complete and correct” as required by OCGA § 5-14-5 --- -- The transcripts
provided and paid for by Michelle Murphy were not true, complete or correct.
Nan Freeman has never provided to Michelle Murphy, or other litigants, the
required certificate that is an indication of the pattern of her illegal conduct.
The habitual violations of the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements and the
authorized fees is relevant to identify that Nan Freeman did not just make a onetime error, but instead engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct, including
overcharging and not including the required certificate.
Nan Freeman was therefore not entitled to any compensation, as she prepared
no transcript meeting the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements. If she had complied,
the following fees, with which she also did not comply, govern.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 6 of 28
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 7 of 28
Nan Freeman, by using a template that consistently produced a transcript that
did not comply with OCGA § 15-14-5, and using a template that consistently
allowed her to collect more compensation than she was permitted to receive under
the law, engaged in illegal conduct and actionable fraud, negligent
misrepresentation of facts, theft by taking, breach of contract, unjust enrichment
and conversion.
The laws of Georgia do not deprive Michelle Murphy from obtaining damages
from an official court reporter who engaged in the illegal conduct in which Nan
Freeman engaged.
Procedural Background
Michelle Murphy, through counsel, first, informally and very politely, sought the
audio recording of the May 27, 2014 proceedings from Nan Freeman, the official
court reporter in Murphy v. Murphy--- counsel approached Nan Freeman while she
was still sitting at her court reporting station.
The audio recordings were initially sought by counsel to provide to regulatory
authorities to report the Code of Judicial Conduct violations by Judge Baldwin that
had just occurred. The report of the conduct of Judge Baldwin was appropriate, as
his violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct were prevalent on several earlier
occasions, but none were as monstrous as Judge Baldwin’s mental blowout on May
27, 2014. The audio was relevant to obtaining the removal of Judge Baldwin from
Murphy v. Murphy.
Nan Freeman initially refused the literal begging of counsel to purchase the audio
recording for Michelle Murphy’s use --- counsel then, to no avail, sought the audio
recording with a Georgia Open Records Act request to Troup County, Coweta
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 8 of 28
County and Nan Freeman. The Open Records Act request is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to
the Deposition of Nan Freeman, and is Attachment 6 to this response.
Counsel sought assistance from the Board of Court Reporting, with first an
informal request for help, followed by a formal complaint.
Counsel for Michelle Murphy was refused assistance in obtaining the audio
recordings for Michelle Murphy until after an action was filed against the Board of
Court Reporting, Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc., that, with other efforts
and concessions, resulted in Michelle Murphy obtaining the audio recordings.
It was a review of the audio recording that supported the illegal conduct of Nan
Freeman.
Nan Freeman, over an extended period of time, thought to have begun on, or
before, 1996, engaged in illegal court reporting that counsel for Michelle Murphy
discovered and documented at the initial cost of in excess of $10,000.
The Answer of Nan Freeman to the original complaint against her by Michelle
Murphy is included as Attachment 1. That Answer, as well as the complete record
of the original case, are now in the records of the Superior Court of Troup County
and are relied upon in support of this response.
The litigious nature of Nan Freeman in not fulfilling her contract with Michelle
Murphy, by engaging in false, demeaning depictions of Michelle Murphy, in this
Motion for Summary Judgment and elsewhere, qualifies Nan Freeman’s breach of
contract for an award of attorney fees and punitive damages.
A video recording and official copy of the transcript and video deposition of Nan
Freeman are in the record of the Superior Court of Troup County.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 9 of 28
Nan Freeman’s attorney attached a copy of that transcript, without Exhibits, of
Nan Freeman’s deposition to Nan Freeman’s motion for summary judgment. It is
relevant to distinguish between the stringent requirements for an official court
reporter to receive compensation, from the requirements of a court reporter, who, for
example, reports at depositions.
In order to obtain the audio recordings of the May 27, 2014 hearing and to have
transcribed omitted portions of the transcripts that were thought available with the
audio recordings, the Georgia Open Records Act requests were filed by counsel for
Michelle Murphy. See Attachment 6 hereto, and Exhibit 6 to the deposition of Nan
Freeman includes the Georgia Open Records Act requests to the Counties of Troup
and Coweta, and to Nan Freeman.
After the Board of Court Reporting members were dismissed as defendants from
the Superior Court of Fulton County portion of this case, Nan Freeman, on her
motion, was successful in having the case transferred to the Superior Court of Troup
County.
The original complaint, upon which the motion for summary judgment relies, was
amended before the response Michelle Murphy to this motion for summary
judgment was due.
The Complaint against Nan Freeman contains issues that are embedded within
each of the causes of action that affects the damages that should be awarded against
Nan Freeman. The embedded issues in each cause of action are (1) the proportion of
the tortious conduct by Nan Freeman that can be attributed to her violation of
protections provided to litigants by the Code of Judicial Conduct, OCGA §15-14-5,
the Uniform Superior Court Rules, the Constitutional provisions of the United States
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 10 of 28
and the State of Georgia equivalent, First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due
Process protections, statutes, decisional law, Georgia Code of Professional Conduct,
the Court Reporter Code of Professional Ethics (or, collectively, or separately,
“LAW*”). Nan Freeman’s intentional participation in the illegal conduct of Judge
Baldwin in order to deprive Michelle Murphy and her children of their protections
under the LAW* by Nan Freeman’s reckless and wanton disregard of consequences,
evinced an intention to inflict injury upon Michelle Murphy --- (2) the proportion
of Nan Freeman’s tortious conduct that is attributed to her intent to obtain illegal
financial and employment benefits for herself --- (3) the proportion of Nan
Freeman’s tortious wrongdoing that is attributed to her fraud and negligent
misrepresentation; and --- (4) the damages caused to Michelle Murphy as the result
of Nan Freeman’s illegal and unethical conduct that included Nan Freeman’s
participation in attempting to secret and otherwise participate in the illegal conduct
and other violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by Judge A. Quillian
Baldwin, Jr.
Response to the Individual Statement of Purported Facts relied upon by
Nan Freeman in support of her motion for summary judgment.
[The purported statement of fact by Nan Freeman is first quoted in an italicized
font, then the response follows.]
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 11 of 28
1. Since 2012, Ms. Freeman has served as the court reporter for Chief Judge A. Quillian
Baldwin, Jr. of the Coweta County Superior Court. Dep. of Nan Freeman at 8:19-9:12.
A copy of the transcript of Ms. Freeman' s Deposition is attached to the Affidavit of Kenneth
Lamar Gordon ("Gordon Affidavit") as Exhibit A.
Response to No. 1
Nan Freeman has been an official court reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit
since approximately 1999, and a court reporter since approximately 1996
(Freeman Dep. p. 8). During that time, she has been the official court reporter first
for Judge Keeble, then Judge Baldwin, and, now, the newly appointed Judge W.
Travis Sakrison. At all times excepting August 13, 2013, when another reporter,
Alice Moore, was assigned to the case for that one hearing, Nan Freeman was the
official court reporter during the Murphy v. Murphy case. The official transcript
of the deposition of Nan Freeman is filed in the Superior Court of Troup County.
Counsel for Nan Freeman did not attach the exhibits to the deposition of Nan
Freeman, which are relevant to the testimony contained in the transcript. The
exhibits are attached to the official transcript filed with the Clerk of the Superior
Court of Troup County.
2. From April 2012 until February 2015, (other than a brief period of time in which the case
had been transferred to another judge) Judge Baldwin presided over child custody litigation
between Plaintiff and her ex-husband, John Murphy (the “Child Custody Litigation”) See
Murphy v. Murphy, No. 2012-cv-413 (Ga. Super. Ct., Coweta Cnty. filed Apr. 11, 2012).
Response to No. 2
After Michelle Murphy filed extensive challenges to the absence of a Uniform
Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan with disqualification motions and
otherwise in the Superior Court of Coweta County, a Rule 3.1 mandated case
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 12 of 28
s.
management plan was implemented by the Coweta Judicial Circuit. Under that
plan, Judge Dennis Blackmon was assigned the Murphy v. Murphy case, as
confirmed by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County.
Judge Baldwin, through a process that did not comply with the LAW*, obtained
the case from Judge Blackmon. There were continuous pleas to the jurisdiction of
Judge Baldwin presiding after Judge Blackmon’s Rule 3.1 case management plan
assignment.
The Murphy v. Murphy case was a modification of custody, or in the
Alternative, Parenting Time of John Harold Murphy that also involved a
modification of child support. John Harold Murphy initiated the litigation that
resulted in Counterclaims against John Harold Murphy and a Third Party
Complaint against Renee L. Haugerud, his spouse, who is a hedge fund operator.
At that time, the case in the Superior Court of Coweta County was styled as
follows.
John Harold Murphy,
Plaintiff
vs.
Nancy Michelle Murphy,
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff
Civil Action No. 12V-413
A Jury Trial is Requested on the Child Support Issues, the Counterclaim and
the Third Party Complaint
Renee Haugerud,
Third Party Defendant
The hedge fund operator, third party defendant was dismissed by Judge
Baldwin without allowing a hearing. Judge Baldwin refused counsel for Michelle
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 13 of 28
Murphy the right to depose Renee L. Haugerud or to call her as a witness at any
time, despite numerous requests.
3. On April 1, 2014, Judge Baldwin issued an Order in the Child Custody Litigation
(a) requiring Plaintiff
to
submit
to
a
psychological
examination pursuant
to
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-35;
(b) setting a compliance hearing for May 27, 2014; and
(c) warning Plaintiff that the issue of temporary custody of the children would be considered at
the compliance hearing, if necessary. A copy of the April 1, 2014 Order in the Child Custody
Litigation is attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit B.
Response to No. 3
On April 1, 2014, Judge Baldwin filed an Order in Murphy v Murphy, that is
incorporated as Attachment 2. The Attachment is the representation of the
designation of the content of the Order, as Michelle Murphy is opposed to the
characterization of the litigation and the characterization of the Order contained
in the No. 3 statement of purported fact of Nan Freeman.
4.
On May 27, 2014, Judge Baldwin conducted the compliance hearing in the
Child Custody Litigation. Following Plaintiff's admission on the stand that she had
failed to comply with the Rule 35 psychological examination, Judge Baldwin awarded
temporary custody of the children to Plaintiff's ex-husband, John Murphy.
Response to No. 4
Judge Baldwin, on May 27, 2014 did not conduct a hearing that provided
Michelle Murphy her Due Process rights, as Judge Baldwin presided at a
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 14 of 28
proceeding that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, as evidenced by his
recusal. Attachment 8, p. 1 is incorporated here.
On May 27, 2014, Judge Baldwin commenced what was scheduled to be a
hearing in the case of Murphy v. Murphy.
Judge Baldwin would not allow any of Michelle Murphy’s witnesses to testify
and would not even allow direct examination of Michelle Murphy by her counsel,
while Judge Baldwin, in attempting to examine Michelle Murphy, violated the
Code of Judicial Conduct as well as the protections that the law provided to
Michelle Murphy.
Judge Baldwin abruptly refused to allow Michelle Murphy even to explain her
answers to questions that he posed, or questions posed by opposing counsel.
Judge Baldwin apparently predetermined that he was going to use his judicial
authority to abuse Michelle Murphy. Judge Baldwin, by illegal and unethical
conduct, attempted to and did prevent Michelle Murphy from presenting her
justifiable defense.
Judge Baldwin would not allow Michelle Murphy, through her testimony, or
through her witnesses’ testimony, to present her defenses. The characterization of
the litigation and the purpose of the proceeding is inaccurate, and is accurately
explained in the Affidavit of Michelle Murphy, Attachment 3. Nan Freeman’s
illegal conduct deprived Michelle Murphy of a verbatim transcription or even a
complete and accurate audio version of the May 27, 2014 proceeding, explained
in the First Amended Complaint against Nan Freeman as follows.
Nan Freeman, intentionally or through negligence engaged in a
deceptive physical appearance at the May 27, 2014 proceeding that
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 15 of 28
gave Michelle Murphy and her counsel the appearance that she was
fulfilling her legal obligations in the courtroom, as an official court
reporter under contract to Michelle Murphy, including being located
at her reporting station with her equipment, that was a scheme or an
artifice to defraud Michelle Murphy and thereby her counsel and the
appellate courts and all other courts.
On May 27, 2014, Nan Freeman failed to take down, audio record,
accurately and completely transcribe Judge Baldwin’s Order and
assurance to Michelle Murphy, her children and her counsel that the
children would be allowed to testify at the May 27, 2014 proceeding,
and, thereby, deceptively engaged in actionable fraud and/or
alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, creating damages
sought in the First Amended Complaint against Nan Freeman by
Michelle Murphy. See, Affidavit of Millard Farmer attached to this
Response.
At the time of the May 27, 2014 proceeding, Nan Freeman was a
person known to Michelle Murphy and her counsel as the official
court reporter who was assigned to the case as the official reporter
whom Michelle Murphy, through her counsel, contracted to report
and transcribe the proceeding on May 27, 2014.
Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct, requested that Michelle Murphy make
payment to her for work which Nan Freeman deceptively failed to
perform while appearing to perform as required by the Board of
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 16 of 28
Court Reporting Rules and Regulations. Nan Freeman charged, and
Michelle Murphy paid for pages of the transcript that did not meet
the legal requirements of being page eligible to be included in the fee
charged and collected by Nan Freeman.
In addition to not recording and transcribing the first part of the
proceedings, while deceptively appearing to be recording the court
proceedings, Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation, provided Michelle Murphy, opposing
counsel and the Court a certificate stating that the transcript of the
May 27, 2014 proceedings provided to the parties, which Nan
Freeman was compensated to produce, was a “true” record of the
proceedings. (Freeman Dep., Exhibit 5) Not only was the certificate
not legal, but Nan Freeman had illegally charged for ineligible pages
and omitted portions of the proceedings.
Nan Freeman, who personally transcribed the transcript from a
recording that she produced, (Freeman Dep. p. 7) as a part of her
fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, in
addition to omitting the beginning of the proceeding, omitted the four
pages of Judge Baldwin’s massive temper tantrum at the end of the
proceeding that no human in attendance could forget. Nan Freeman
engaged in fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation
conduct by attempting to have Judge Baldwin use his authority as the
presiding Judge to influence counsel for Michelle Murphy not to
bring an action against Nan Freeman that ultimately provided
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 17 of 28
counsel for Michelle Murphy the information to learn of a substantial
portion of the fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation
conduct of Nan Freeman, much of which was verified during the
deposition of Nan Freeman, where she continued to conceal her fraud
and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation, by first making
false statements and frequently feigning that she did not remember.
5.
After issuing this ruling, Judge Baldwin stated ''that's the end of this
hearing today" and left the bench. Compl., Attach. 7, at 41.
Response to No. 5
Purported Statement 5 is deceptive, as it attempts to imply the end of the
proceeding. Instead, Judge Baldwin stood up, but did not leave the bench, and
immediately was engaged by counsel and responded with his monstrous temper
tantrum, contained in the omitted pages of the “true record” transcript involving
the “Blame Yourself,” “Blame Yourself,” Blame Yourself,” of Judge Baldwin
that is included in the Addendum, accompanied with the “indicating” comment
and the statement of Larry King to Judge Baldwin that is also included in the
Addendum to the May 27, 2014 transcript of Nan Freeman. (Attachment 4) Even
if Judge Baldwin accosted counsel, as he had during the monstrous temper
tantrum, after a hearing, and Nan Freeman had the recorded audio of that conduct,
she was equally required to transcribe the conduct of Judge Baldwin in order that
the relevance of the conduct could be weighed by the regulatory authorities and
an appellate court.
Purported Statement 5 of Nan Freeman mischaracterizes the type of deceptive
conduct in which Nan Freeman engaged when she took money that did not belong
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 18 of 28
to her for preparation of numerous transcripts. See, OCGA §15-14-5; Court
Reporters’ Fee Schedule of the Judicial Council of Georgia. It also raises the issue
of what conduct and testimony was omitted from the transcripts of other litigants
for whom she was contracted to provide transcripts.
6.
Despite Judge Baldwin having ended the hearing, one of Plaintiff's
attorneys in the Child Custody Litigation continued to argue, prompting Judge
Baldwin to return to the courtroom and direct Ms. Freeman to "[s]top taking
down." Compl., Attach. 8, at 4.
Response to No. 6
Purported Statement 6 continues to mischaracterize the litigation and the
conduct of counsel for Michelle Murphy, and the location of Judge Baldwin in
the courtroom.
At a point in time, at the end of the proceeding’s omitted pages of the certified
as “true” transcript, Judge Baldwin, while remaining in the courtroom, did direct
Nan Freeman to stop taking down the statements of counsel to Judge Baldwin.
This occurred at the very end, after the omissions of Nan Freeman that she, after
being caught, included in the Addendum. Attachment 4, p. 4.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 19 of 28
7.
On June 5, 2014, Judge Baldwin entered an Order in the Child Custody
Litigation regarding his award of temporary custody of the children to Plaintiff's
ex-husband. A copy of the June 5, 2014 Order in the Child Custody Litigation is
attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit C.
Response to No. 7
The June 5, 2014 Order in Murphy v. Murphy is attached to the Gordon
Affidavit as Exhibit C.
There are problems with the veracity of the content of Orders of Judge Baldwin.
It is the opinion of counsel that the false statements contained in the Orders of
Judge Baldwin are most predictably derived from persons other than Judge
Baldwin. Counsel for Michelle Murphy observed that Michael Williams Warner,
a young Glover & Davis lawyer, made a false swearing to the Magistrate Court
of Coweta County that other Glover & Davis counsel acquiesced in Michael
William Warner’s using. This case against Nan Freeman does not include the
illegal conduct of persons other than Nan Freeman, although the illegal conduct
of persons other than Nan Freeman is identified, as Nan Freeman attempts to
demean Michelle Murphy and her counsel.
Having observed the legal ability of Judge Baldwin during this litigation,
counsel for Michelle Murphy has the opinion that Judge Baldwin did not write the
June 5, 2014 Order, but that a person undisclosed to counsel for Michelle Murphy,
either presented the Order to Judge Baldwin’s law clerk, or to Judge Baldwin for
Judge Baldwin’s signature.
The June 5, 2014 Order contains false statements not supported by evidence
that comports with Due Process requirements, or obtained while Judge Baldwin
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 20 of 28
was conducting a proceeding within the requirements of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
Nan Freeman, upon their request, earlier provided the Glover & Davis lawyers
a copy of the last portion of her transcript, which she certified as “true” and which
she filed with the Court that did not include the Addendum.
It was that early provided portion of the transcript that was used for the drafter
of the June 5, 2014 Order signed by Judge Baldwin, most likely, again, without
him reading the Order before he signed it. The Addendum was not produced by
Nan Freeman until June 11, 2014. See Attachment 9.
Judge Baldwin has signed Orders prepared by the Glover & Davis lawyers in
the Murphy v. Murphy case without reading them on at least two other occasions
during that litigation. This comports with Judge Baldwin’s signing without
invoices presented by Nan Freeman to authorize payment by the Counties for her
services as official court reporters, without checking to see that she is in
compliance with the law. (Freeman Dep. pp. 34-35)
8.
At the request of Plaintiff's attorneys in the Child Custody Litigation, Ms.
Freeman prepared and filed an "Addendum" to the transcript of the May 27, 2014
hearing. The "Addendum" included the additional statements made by Plaintiff's
counsel after Judge Baldwin had terminated the hearing. Compl., Attach. 8.
Response to No. 8
Nan Freeman, initially in her purported statement mischaracterizes the
litigation issues in Murphy v. Murphy, most likely as counsel for Nan Freeman
and those opposing Michelle Murphy wish to continue concealing the fact that
Nan Freeman assisted Judge Baldwin in attempting to conceal his misconduct.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 21 of 28
The statements by Larry King and Millard Farmer toward the end of the
proceeding that are included in the Addendum were made before Judge Baldwin
terminated the hearing. Judge Baldwin did not terminate the hearing until the end
of the Addendum. A copy of the May 27, 2014 Addendum, as provided to us by
Nan Freeman, is included as Attachment 4.
9. On June 10, 2014, one of Plaintiff's lawyers in the Child Custody Litigation
sent an Open Records Request to Ms. Freeman seeking, inter alia, the audio
recording of the May 27 hearing. Compl., Attach. 5.
Response to No. 9
Again, Nan Freeman, initially in her purported statement mischaracterizes the
litigation issues in Murphy v. Murphy. Attachment 6 and Exhibit 6 to the
deposition of Nan Freeman contain the Georgia Open Records Act request sent to
the Counties of Troup and Coweta and to Nan Freeman. The audio recordings
were sought.
10. On June 26, 2014, Ms. Freeman and Judge Baldwin forwarded CDs of
the audio recording of the May 27 hearing to Plaintiff's counsel.
Gordon Aff., Exhibit D, at 16.
Response to No. 10
The events relating to obtaining the audio disk forwarded on June 26, 2014
occurred as follows.
On June 18, 2014 Nan Freeman communicated that she would file a copy of
the audio recording in the Clerk of Court’s file. Exhibit D, p. 18 to Affidavit of
Kenneth Gordon.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 22 of 28
On June 19, 2014 Judge Baldwin sent a letter to Millard Farmer; the copy of
this letter which Nan Freeman provided to counsel contains on the right side of
the page a note in the handwriting of Nan Freeman as follows, “This email is not
altogether accurate, but it of course is what he sent to MF.” Exhibit D, p. 25 to
Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon.
On June 24, 2014, The Board of Court Reporting dismissed the Complaint
that was filed for Michelle Murphy against Nan Freeman. Attachment 5
On June 25, 2014, after the dismissal of the Complaint by the Board of Court
Reporting, Michelle Murphy filed the civil action against Nan Freeman, et. al.
that included as defendants members of the Board of Court Reporting in the
Superior Court of Fulton County.
On June 26, 2014, the CD containing the audio recording of the May 27, 2015
proceeding was forwarded to counsel for Michelle Murphy.
11. In March 2014, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the Board of Court Reporting
challenging Ms. Freeman's refusal to provide an audio recording of an earlier
hearing. Plaintiff alleges that she later amended her grievance to include
allegations that Ms. Freeman overcharged for certain transcripts due to the
number of spaces per line in the transcripts. The Board of Court Reporting has
not issued a decision on Plaintiff's complaint. Compl. 1.3.1, 1.4.9.
Response to No. 11
The Board of Court Reporting had issued a decision on June 24, 2014, as
described above in Response to 10. Attachment 5.
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 23 of 28
12. Before Plaintiff raised the "spaces per line" issue, Ms. Freeman was not
aware of any error in the number of spaces per line in her transcripts. Ms.
Freeman testified that, when she initially set up the word processing program for
her court reporting software, she "remember[ed] counting spaces, "but that "at
some point," the spaces per line in her transcript "inadvertently [ ] changed from
63 to 61,"possibly a result of changes in the different versions of Microsoft Word.
Freeman Dep. (Gordon Aff. Exhibit A) at 31:2-8.
Response to No. 12
Nan Freeman does not create a defense by maintaining that she did not know
the law --- in fact as an official court reporter, Nan Freeman concedes both her
liability and her absence of understanding of her computer program.
13. As soon as Ms. Freeman learned of the "spaces per line" issue, she
immediately corrected her transcript program and recalculated the cost of
Plaintiff's transcripts to determine if the error had resulted in any overcharges.
Ms. Freeman determined that, over the entirety of the Child Custody Litigation,
the spaces per line issue had resulted in only $45 of overcharges to Plaintiff.
Freeman Dep. at 28:21-29:24, 31:4-9, 33:5-9, 86:24-87:7.
Response to No. 13
An official court reporter, as Nan Freeman, cannot personally design a
template, as she did around 1996, and use it in each of her official court reporter’s
contractual fulfilments until she is caught in 2014 and then legally urge the
defense of mistake --- the law burdens Nan Freeman, as a condition of qualifying
and being compensated, as an official court reporter, to both learn and comply
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 24 of 28
with the legally permissible fees and the legal requirements for the preparation of
transcripts that qualify for the fees legally obtainable as an official court reporter.
Nan Freeman stated at her deposition that she produced her transcripts and did not
have an assistant do her transcriptions. (Freeman Dep. p.6)
Returning compensation illegally taken does not absolve one of the
consequence of violating the law.
14.
Shortly after Ms. Freeman's deposition, Mrs. Freeman' s attorney, Ken
Gordon, tendered Plaintiff a check for $50 to cover any overcharge. Gordon
Aff.ii7, Exhibit E.
Response to No. 14
Nan Freeman’s check in the amount of $50 to cover any overcharge did not
cover the liabilities of Nan Freeman. For further response, the response to
purported Statement 13 is incorporated and included here.
The fees and the conditions upon which an official court reporter in the State
of Georgia can obtain compensation is mandated by the Judicial Council of
Georgia.
Nan Freeman was required by law to charge only the Judicial Counsel of
Georgia authorized fees to persons whom wished, or were required to purchase
transcripts from her in her capacity as an official court reporter for the Coweta
Judicial.
The fees follow that were allowable for Nan Freeman to charge for legally
prepared transcripts in the Superior Court of Coweta County case of John Harold
Murphy v. Michelle Murphy, and related Counterclaim, Third Party action
Civil Action No. 12V-413 (or, “Murphy v Murphy.”)
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 25 of 28
Nan Freeman did not comply with the certificate requirements legally imposed
upon her by the OCGA § 15-14-5, Duty to transcribe statute --- Nan Freeman
used an abbreviated, incomplete version of the required certificate.
OCGA § 15-14-5. Duty to transcribe; certificate.
It shall be the duty of each court reporter to transcribe the evidence
and other proceedings of which he has taken notes as provided by
law whenever requested so to do by counsel for any party to such
case and upon being paid the legal fees for such transcripts. The
reporter, upon delivering the transcript to such counsel, shall affix
thereto a certificate signed by him reciting that the transcript is
true, complete, and correct. Subject only to the right of the trial
judge to change or require the correction of the transcript, the
transcript so certified shall be presumed to be true, complete, and
correct. [emphasis supplied]
Nan Freeman, as a part and parcel of her habitual violations of the laws of
Georgia, did not provide Michelle Murphy’s transcripts with an OCGA § 5-14-5
required certificate containing the certification that the transcript is “true,
complete and correct. . ” as required by OCGA § 5-14-5 --- -- The transcripts
provided and paid for by Michelle Murphy was not true or complete or correct.
Nan Freeman has never provided to Michelle Murphy, or other litigants, the
required certificate that is an indication of the pattern of her illegal conduct.
The habitual violations of the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements and the authorized
fees is relevant to identify that Nan Freeman did not just make an one time error,
Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported
Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment
Page 26 of 28
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TROUP COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
Nancy Michelle Murphy,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action No. 15-CV0109
Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc., Defendants
Affidavit of Millard Farmer
State of Georgia
County of Fulton
Personally appeared before the undersigned, an officer duly authorized
by law to administer oaths, Millard Farmer, who after being duly sworn,
states as follows.
I am counsel for Plaintiff Nancy Michelle Murphy in the above-styled
case, and am over the age of eighteen, competent to make this affidavit ,
and have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Affidavit stated
herein.
Attached as Attachment 1 to Nancy Michelle Murphy’s Response to the
Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5 Theories of Recovery and Statement of
Material Facts of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc. (or, hereafter,
“the Response”), is a true and correct copy of Defendant Nan Freeman’s
Answer to Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive and Other
Relief.
Attached as Attachment 2 to the Response is a true and correct copy of
the April 1, 2014 Order of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. in the case of
John Harold Murphy v. Nancy Michelle Murphy in the Superior Court of
Coweta County, Civil Action No. 2012-V413, (or, “Murphy v. Murphy”).
Attached as Attachment 3 to the Response is a true and correct copy of
the “Affidavit of Nancy Michelle Murphy in Support of Relief from the
Conduct of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. at the May 27, 2014 Hearing,”
filed in Murphy v. Murphy, on June 2, 2014.
Attached as Attachment 4 to the Response is a true and correct copy of
the “Addendum” Transcript of Proceedings before the Honorable A.
Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Judge, at the Coweta County Courthouse Newnan,
Georgia on the day 27 th of May, 2014, filed on June 16, 2014.
Attached as Attachment 5 to the Response is a true and correct copy of
a June 24, 2014 letter from Marla S. Moore, Secretary of the Judicial
Council Board of Court Reporting to Millard Farmer, regarding the
dismissal of Formal Complaint 2014-04 by the Board of Court Reporting.
Attached as Attachment 6 to the Response is a true and correct copy of
the Georgia Open Records Act request to Nan D. Freeman, and lawyers for
Coweta and Troup County, dated June 10, 2014.
Attached as Attachment 7 to the Response is a true and correct copy of
the “Motion to Disqualify Nan Freeman, as the Court Reporter for the
Scheduled March 17, 2014 Hearing on the Motion to Require a ‘Rule 35’
Examination of Nancy Michelle Murphy by Nancy A. McGarrah,” filed on
March 14, 2014 in Murphy v. Murphy.
Attached as Attachment 8 to the Response are true and correct copies of
the Recusal Orders of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Judge John T.
Simpson, Judge Dennis Blackmon, Judge William G. Hamrick III, Judge
2
Judge Jack Kirby, Judge Emory L. Palmer, Judge W. Travis Sakrison and
Senior Judge William H. Ison in Murphy v. Murphy.
Attached as Attachment 9 to the Response is the June 11, 2014 email
from Nan Freeman to Larry King (copied to Millard Farmer) transmitting
a copy of the Addendum (which is Attachment 4 to the Response).
The facts contained in the Introduction and Procedural Background
sections of the Response are true and correct, based on my personal
knowledge.
The quotations contained in the Response are true and correct depictions
of the documents they purport to be.
The following refer to individual responses to Nan Freeman’s Statement
of Material Fact, Nos. 1-15.
Response to No. 1
The facts contained in “Response to No. 1” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 2
The facts contained in “Response to No. 2” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 3
The facts contained in “Response to No. 3” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 4
The facts contained in “Response to No. 4” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 5
The facts contained in “Response to No. 5” are true and correct based
3
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 6
The facts contained in “Response to No. 6” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 7
The facts contained in “Response to No. 7” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge. The
opinions stated in this response are my opinions, based upon information
that I have received and my experience.
Response to No. 8
The facts contained in “Response to No. 8” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 9
The facts contained in “Response to No. 9” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 10
The facts contained in “Response to No. 10” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
esponse to No. 11
The facts contained in “Response to No. 11” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 12
The facts contained in “Response to No. 12” are true and correct based
upon the record in the above-styled case and my personal knowledge.
Response to No. 13
The facts contained in “Response to No. 13” are true and correct based
4
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 11 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 12 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 13 of 14
Attachment 1, Page 14 of 14
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 3
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 3
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 3
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 8
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 8
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 8
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 8
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 8
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 8
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 8
Print | Close Window
Subject: Fw d: Jack and Thomas
From: michellemurphy michellemurphy <michellemurphy@summergrove.net>
Date: Sat, May 31, 2014 6:50 pm
To: Millard Farmer <millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: michellemurphy michellemurphy <michellemurphy@summergrove.net>
Date: Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:49 PM
Subject: Jack and Thomas
To: john murphy <jackthomas1060@msn.com>
John and Renee,
Yesterday, Thomas was very upset. I tried to do something to make him feel more comfortable. Today he became
even more upset about insignificant details. The more I tried to calm him, the more emotional and distressed he and I
became.
The boys just told me that you were fly the them to the Virgin Islands tomorrow. I understand you took Thomas to
the doctors yesterday after I requested he be taken earlier. I believe he was diagnosed with an acute sinus infection
since Tuesday. You have not shared with me the results of the Strep test. Please provide me with the name of the doctor
and number he was taken to yesterday. Also, please tell me what medications he is on. I understand he is now on
antibiotics as of only yesterday, He is loaded with mucus. He tell me such and it is evident when he talks. He is not in a
position to fly. The pressure will more than likely be excruciating for him, it could blow an ear drum even causing
irreparable damage. More importantly, you may not know it, but Thomas has very very sensitives ears and goes to the
ENT every 4 months. In addition to the physical detriment to Thomas, this very emotionally disturbing to move the
children further away from their home here in Newnan, knowing they do not wish to be in Chattanooga nor the Virgin
Islands. They have pleaded to come back to their home in Newnan.
If the children are taken further away, It will be necessary for me to take VERY serious legal action. This has been
their fear of visiting with you and Renee since you had the police come to the house and force them to go with you
against their will. Millard has informed me that your actions in having the sheriff take the children with out a written order
was illegal, as was removing them across the state line with out such order.
Again, they have informed me they DO NOT want to go tomorrow. They also have told me several times, they want to
come back home to Newnan. They do not want to be in Chattanooga. That you are forcing them to stay and go tomorrow
to the VI.
Please let me know your plans.
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COWETA COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
JOHN HAROLD MURPHY,
Plaintiff
vs.
NANCY MICHELLE MURPHY,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
) CASE NUMBER:
)
)
)
)
)
2012-V-413
Transcript of Proceedings
before
the Honorable A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Judge,
at the Coweta County Courthouse
Newnan, Georgia
on the day 27th of May, 2014
ADDENDUM
FREEMAN REPORTING, INC.
Certified Court Reporters
P.O. Box 3387
LaGrange, Georgia 30241
(706) 812-8348
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 4
P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
3
[REPORTER’S NOTE:
This addendum is being filed because
4
this final objection, made after the judge’s ruling,
5
although taken down at the time, was inadvertently
6
omitted from the main transcript.]
7
8
MR. DRAKE:
9
MR. FARMER:
10
Thank you.
Your Honor, may we have an immediate
review for --
11
THE COURT:
12
MR, KING:
No.
May we go on the record, Your Honor, and
13
state that you have not allowed Ms. Murphy to present a
14
defense to this contempt, that you have, as a sanction,
15
transferred custody.
16
has a sanction ever transferred custody of the children.
17
MS. MURPHY:
18
MR. KING:
In no case in the State of Georgia
(Unintelligible.)
And we want to put that on the record as
19
an objection to the conduct of the Court and the ruling
20
of the Court that has just been made that we have been
21
denied due process of law.
22
opportunity to present witnesses to this Court about
23
these children, and we sternly and strongly object.
24
25
THE COURT:
We’ve been denied the
Well, let me just tell you this, both
to you, and Mr. Farmer, and to Ms. Murphy:
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 4
If y’all
2
1
would do what you were supposed to do, you wouldn’t be
2
having this problem so --
3
Wait just a minute.
4
Blame yourself (indicating); blame yourself
5
(indicating); blame yourself (indicating).
That’s what we’re doing.
6
7
I told her the last
time --
8
MS. MURPHY:
9
THE COURT:
10
MS. MURPHY:
11
THE COURT:
I haven’t -Don’t -- be quiet, please, ma’am.
(Unintelligible.)
Be quiet.
12
I told her --
13
If you speak up again, I’m going to put you in
14
jail.
Do you understand me?
15
I told her the last time to go see this -- see
16
this doctor, and I told y’all then that if she didn’t do
17
it, I was going to consider taking the children and
18
putting them with her (sic).
19
I told you that the last time, and I’m tired of this
20
stuff.
21
He (sic) hasn’t done it.
If y’all had done what you were supposed to
22
do, if y’all had done your job, if you had done your
23
job, this thing would have been over two years ago.
24
wouldn’t have all the expense involved.
25
haven’t been doing your job, and you need to be -- you
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 4
It
And y’all
3
1
need to be checking on that instead of checking on what
2
I’m doing.
3
4
5
Okay?
You’re not doing your job.
All right.
MR. FARMER:
That’s it.
May I respond?
We have the children here to present evidence.
6
We wish to present evidence, and you’re preventing us
7
from presenting evidence.
8
9
THE COURT:
It’s over with.
Stop taking down.
(Proceedings concluded.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 4
4
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 1
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 1
Attachment 7, Page 1 of 11
1.2.1 Before completing the first paragraph in his two page Order, Judge
Baldwin engaged in what has become expected in his Orders. Judge
Baldwin, in that first paragraph, makes a false statement about the current
relevant reason that created the particular necessity to file the March 10,
Disqualification Motion. The false statement that Judge Baldwin made in
this Order is as follows.
1.2.2
Contrary to the false statement included in Judge Baldwin’s Order
that “More than 30 days had passed and there was no response from the
Defendant,” more than 30 days had not passed.
1.1.3
Michelle Murphy, as provided by law, did file her Opposition and
Response within the thirty days allowed by law for her to respond and
Judge Baldwin did not read, or have anyone associated with him, read
it before he signed the March 5, 2014 Order.
This is verified by the electronic records of the Clerk of Court and the
stamped filed copies of both documents in possession of counsel for
Michelle Murphy that contain the Clerk of Court s’stamps, which are shown
on the next page.
1.1.4
Counsel for Michelle Murphy accepts that on this ocassion that this
was just sloppy work by someone on Judge Baldwin’s behalf; however, this
2
Attachment 7, Page 2 of 11
is just another example of Judge Baldwin not protecting the interest of
Michelle Murphy and the reason that Michelle Murphy, Millard Farmer and
Larry King do not trust Judge Baldwin to be fair to Michelle Murphy, Jack
Murphy, age 15, and Thomas Murphy, age 13. The left stamp below is when
the Glover & Davis motion was filed; the right stamp is when Michelle
Murphy’s opposition was filed.
.
2.
Just what does this false statement and the denial of Judge Baldwin’s
disqualification have to do with the nice and polite Nan Freeman?
2.1 Answer: very much.
2.2 A court reporter is required by law to be neutral and to accurately record
the proceedings. The following August 6, 2013 conduct of Nan Freeman and
Judge Baldwin is a serious breach of of the trust that the law places in each of
them.
2.3 On August 6, 2013, counsel for Michelle Murphy, before the beginning
of the calandar call, requested that Nan Freeman take down the call of the
calendar. There is an issue in this case that Chief Judge Baldwin was selected
in violation of the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1, and that the guardian ad
litem appointed by him is beholding to Judge Louis Jack Kirby, who has
engaged in illegal conduct.
3
Attachment 7, Page 3 of 11
2.4 Obtaining a record of the call of the calendar is just one of the links of
information that could support the case of Michelle Murphy related to the
misconduct of Judge Baldwin, et al.
2.5 Judge Baldwin will not allow his testimony to be presented before an
independent judge. This requires more diligence in supporting his
disqualification.
2.6 On August 6, 2013, after Millard Farmer approached Nan Freeman and
informed her that he wished to engage her to take down the call of the calendar.
Nan Freeman did not inform Millard Farmer that she was going to ask Judge
Baldwin to assist her in not being required to take down the call of the calendar.
This communication of Nan Freeman with Judge Baldwin was an ex parte
communication that neither Judge Baldwin nor Nan Freeman disclosed to
counsel for Michelle Murphy. This ex parte communication resulted in the
following conduct by Judge Baldwin that was directed to counsel for Michelle
Murphy.
2.7 The transcript of that August 6, 2013 hearing documents the following
portion of the transcript before the lawyers, their clients and other persons
awaiting a full call of the calendar.
4
Attachment 7, Page 4 of 11
5
Attachment 7, Page 5 of 11
6
Attachment 7, Page 6 of 11
2.8 After Judge Baldwin issued his contempt orders made the statements that
he made at the October 3, 2013 hearing, and made the false statements that he
made in the March 11, 2014 denial of his disqualifiation, Nan Freeman can no
longer be qualified to apppear as the court reporter due to her ex parte
communications with Judge Baldwin that was designed to deprive Michelle
Murphy of information that would be beneficial to her in this case.
2.9 After the August 6, 2013 hearing, Millard Farmer requested that Nan
Freeman allow him to purchase an audio recording of the above transcribed
portion of the hearing, as this would accurately reflect the volume of Judge
Baldwin’s yelling at Millard Farmer, and the passive nature of Millard Farmer’s
voice. Nan Freeman refused to allow Millard Farmer to purchase the limited
audio recording.
7
Attachment 7, Page 7 of 11
3. Request for Relief
3.1 Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer request that Nan
Freeman be disqualified as the court reporter in all proceedings involving any
of them, and, in particular, the March 17, 2014 hearing.
3.2
Michelle Murphy, Larry King and Millard Farmer request such other
and further relief as justice require.
Respectfully submitted,
A
Millard Farmer, Georgia Bar No. 255300
P.O. Box 1728
Atlanta, GA 30301
(404) 688-8116
millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com
Larry King, Georgia Bar No. 419725
P. O. Box 1648
Jonesboro, GA 30237
(770) 471-3835
larrykingandls@aol.com
Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy
8
Attachment 7, Page 8 of 11
Attachment 7, Page 9 of 11
Attachment 7, Page 10 of 11
Attachment 7, Page 11 of 11
Attachment 8, Page 1 of 4
Attachment 8, Page 2 of 4
Attachment 8, Page 3 of 4
Attachment 8, Page 4 of 4
Millard Farmer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Nan Freeman <freemannd@hotmail.com>
Wednesday, June 11, 2014 12:59 PM
larrykingandls@aol.com
millard farmer; Taylor Drake
Murphy vs. Murphy
MurphyVsMurphy5-27-14Addendum.doc
Mr. King, I appreciate your bringing this omission to my attention. I did take down your objection at the time, but when Judge Baldwin announced the hearing over that first time, I inadvertently ended the transcript there without including your objection. I am sorry for the oversight, and will file this addendum with the clerk and forward copies to you, to Mr. Farmer, and to Mr. Drake. I will also make Judge Baldwin aware of this addendum. I have attached a copy of this addendum to this e‐mail. I hope this is a satisfactory resolution. Nan Freeman Attachment 9, Page 1 of 1