May 9, 2000

The Honorable Kenneth O. Nix
Superior Court of Cobb County
Cobb Judicial Court
Superior Court Building
30 Waddell Street
Marietta, Georgia 30090-9642

Dear Judge Nix:

Thank you for your letter of direction and explanation, including your Recusal Order of May 4, 2000. I certainly plead guilty to an absence of legal training, yet I would very much like to understand the application of Superior Court Rule 25.3.

Simple logic determines that the Duty of the Trial Judge precede the party's request for hearing. Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 25.3, Duty of the Trial Judge:

When a judge is presented with a motion to recuse, or disqualify, accompanied by an affidavit, the judge shall 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. If it is found that the motion is timely, the affidavit sufficient and that recusal would be authorized if some or all of the facts set forth in the affidavit are true, another judge shall be assigned to hear the motion to recuse. The allegations of the motion shall stand denied automatically. The trial judge shall not otherwise oppose the motion.

The motion could not be assigned to another judge without your direction to do so. It would have been presumptuous of me to assume that jurisdiction of the Motion belonged to any particular judge. The Motion was truly waiting for you to complete your Duty, as identified by Superior Court Rule 25.3.

Precisely because of the absence of a "determination," this civil action remained with your Court since October 1999, barring me from adequate discovery. I shall seek justification through the established court system and process. I shall, as you advise, govern myself accordingly.

Sincerely,

Marquitta Portman