Transcript, September 16, 1998

AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE GOING TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE RULES AND I’M GOING TO ENFORCE THEM EQUALLY, SO DO NOT SIT DOWN AND SPEAK WITH ME, DO YOU UNDERSTAND, UNLESS YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION BEFOREHAND?

Plaintiff Portman: I DO UNDERSTAND, SIR. I APOLOGIZE.

Court: SO YOU -- YOU WOULD -- IF JUDGE INGRAM NOW RECUSED HERSELF -- IF BASICALLY IF I ALLOWED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO GO TO HER OFFICE TO SEE WHAT JUDGE INGRAM’S INTENTIONS WERE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE IS UNDER SUBPOENA SO SHE WOULD HAVE TO REPORT HERE IF NEEDED, THAT YOU WOULD OBJECT TO HER RECUSING HERSELF?

Plaintiff Portman: YES, I WOULD.

Court: OKAY, THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.

WE’LL COME BACK TO THE RECUSAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT I’M GOING TO LET MRS. ALLEN GO TALK WITH HER CLIENT TO SEE IF SHE WISHES TO RECUSE HERSELF AND IF SHE DOES, THEN I HAVE GOT AN ISSUE HERE THAT MIGHT CHANGE THE COMPLEXION.

MY -- THE NEXT AREA I WANT TO GO INTO IS SIMPLY I -- I’M READY, WILLING AND ABLE AND I’M VERY CAPABLE OF THAT OF SIMPLY TAKING THE TRANSCRIPT -- TAKING THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF THIS JUNE HEARING AND PREPARING -- FIRST OF ALL, MRS. PORTMAN, I BELIEVE MY

INITIAL LEGAL RESEARCH HAS TOLD ME AND, AGAIN, I HAVE READ THE ENTIRE FILE -- I BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE JUDGE’S ORDER WHEN SHE TOLD YOU TO PREPARE THE ORDER BUT YOU DID NOT AND NOW YOU’VE TURNED AROUND AND I THINK IN A RATHER UNIQUE ACTION AND SAID TO THE JUDGE “YOU PREPARE THE ORDER”

WHAT’S SO INTERESTING ABOUT THIS CASE IS YOU WON AND YET AT THE -- EVEN THOUGH YOU WON, YOU DIDN’T WANT TO PREPARE THE ORDER. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT, AT THE SAME TIME, I’VE GOT TO DEAL WITH IT BECAUSE IT’S ASSIGNED TO ME. I -- I -- AS AN EFFORT BASICALLY TO MOVE THIS CASE ALONG AND FOR JUDICIAL ECONOMY, I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN TAKING THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT AND PREPARING THE ORDER MYSELF -- SIMPLY PREPARING THE ORDER AND SENDING IT, NOT SIGNING IT BECAUSE I WOULDN’T HAVE PERMISSION TO DO THAT -- I DIDN’T MAKE THE RULING -- BUT PREPARING THE ORDER BASED UPON THE TRANSCRIPT AND SIMPLY SUBMITTING THAT TO THE JUDGE.

ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT?

Plaintiff Portman: IF YOU’RE ASKING FOR MY RESPONSE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. IT’S WHAT I HAVE REQUESTED IS THE OPINION OF THE COURT AND YOU ARE A JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT, JUST AS SHE IS. UH --

Court: WHAT I AM SAYING TO YOU, MRS.

PORTMAN, IT WOULD NOT BE -- MY -- MY OPINION SIMPLY -- YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO BASICALLY BEING THE SCRIBNER -- YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO --

Plaintiff Portman: CORRECT.

Court: -- PUTTING DOWN ON PAPER WHAT SHE HAS ORDERED. IT’S HER ORDER. SHE HAS ISSUED AN ORDER. THERE’S A TRANSCRIPT MADE. YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION -- I DO NOT THINK IT’S A VALID OBJECTION. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, WE’VE GOT IMPORTANT CASES HERE IN SUPERIOR COURT LIKE DEATH PENALTY CASES AND I AM READY, WILLING AND ABLE AND I HAVE TWO VERY CAPABLE LAW CLERK. I’M -- I’M WILLING AND ABLE TO DO THIS -- TO GIVE THEM THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT. I THINK YOU HAVE GOT A COPY OF IT HERE BUT ACTUALLY TO TAKE THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT WHICH I THINK COULD BE -- WE COULD GET HERE IN A FEW HOURS AND WITHIN, SAY A WEEK OF NOW -- A WEEK FROM NOW PREPARE THE ORDER -- PREPARE THE ORDER AS JUDGE INGRAM DIRECTED BACK IN JUNE, NOT PUTTING ANYTHING IN THERE THAT I SAID BUT SIMPLY CAREFULLY LOOKING AT THE TRANSCRIPT, SEEING WHAT JUDGE INGRAM ORDERED, PUTTING IT DOWN ON PAPER AS SHE ASKED YOU TO DO AND SIMPLY SUBMITTING IT THEN TO JUDGE INGRAM AND IF JUDGE INGRAM IS STILL ON THE CASE, SHE WILL THEN REVIEW MY -- MY ORDER AND SHE’LL SAY “NO, THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID,” AND SHE’LL SCRATCH OUT OR AMEND IT OR

SHE’LL SAY, “THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID,” AND SHE WOULD SIGN IT.

OBVIOUSLY IF SHE IS -- IF SHE RECUSES HERSELF, LET’S SAY THAT I RESOLVE THIS MATTER AND I’M GOING TO RESOLVE IT HERE IN A FEW MINUTES. HOPEFULLY BOTH -- ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE GOING TO AGREE ON HOW I RESOLVE IT. WHETHER THEY DO OR NOT, I’M GOING TO RESOLVE IT. IF SHE -- IF -- I’M STILL GOING TO PREPARE THE ORDER IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT AND I’M GOING TO SUBMIT IT TO HER. IF SHE THEN RECUSES HERSELF BASICALLY ON HER OWN MOTION, WHICH I THINK THAT SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO EVEN THOUGH YOU OBJECT, THEN BASICALLY WE’VE GOT AN ORDER PREPARED FROM THE JUNE CASE AND THE NEXT JUDGE THAT’S BASICALLY UP IN THE BARREL, SO TO SPEAK, WILL THEN HAVE TO LOOK AT MY ORDER.

THAT WAS A LONG WAY AROUND SAYING YOU DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM IN ME PREPARING THE ORDER? SHE DIRECTED YOU TO DO IT BUT I DON’T MIND DOING IT BASICALLY TO GET OUT OF THIS QUAGMIRE.

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME DOING IT?

Plaintiff Portman: I DON’T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO ANY JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT WRITING THE ORDER.

Court: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MRS. ALLEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO ME

PREPARING THE ORDER?

Counsel for Defendant: I CERTAINLY DON’T. I SHOULD CONSULT WITH MY CLIENT ABOUT WHETHER SHE WANTS TO RECUSE HERSELF FROM THE UNDERLYING CASE AND SHE WANTS THE ORDER SENT TO HER OR WHETHER SHE WILL -- YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER JUDGE WILL GET IT IF SHE RECUSES HERSELF. I NEED TO -- I NEED TO TALK TO HER ABOUT THAT.

Court: ALL RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT LET’S JUST SAY -- OKAY, LET’S SAY -- AND I’M GOING TO GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES TO GO TALK TO HER NOW. I NEED -- WE NEED TO MOVE THIS MATTER ALONG BECAUSE I’VE GOT -- I’M RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A DIVORCE CASE TOO.

TO MOVE THIS CASE -- THIS CASE ASIDE AND I’M VERY SELFISH IN THIS MANNER AND I HOPE I’M NOT A SELFISH INDIVIDUAL. I HOPE THAT’S NOT HOW I’M DESCRIBED BUT IN THIS COURTROOM, I AM.

I’M ONLY REALLY CONCERNED RIGHT NOW WITH MY LEGAL DUTY, THIS ‘98 CASE. I’M NOT GOING TO CONCERN MYSELF WITH THE ‘96 CASE. BUT WITH THE ‘98 CASE, THAT IS, PORTMAN VERSUS INGRAM, JUDGE BODIFORD IS ASSIGNED TO THAT.

EVEN IF SHE RECUSES HERSELF, DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH ME -- MRS. PORTMAN, IS SAYING SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PREPARE THE ORDER AND BASICALLY SHE SAYS SHE’S NOT GOING TO DO IT AND I -- I AM SAYING I HAVE

NO PROBLEM. I THINK I HAVE AN INTELLECTUAL PROBLEM IN DOING IT BUT AFTER THIS MANY YEARS ON THE BENCH, I’M WILLING AND ABLE JUST TO SAY, HEY, LET’S SPEND -- WE’VE ALREADY SPENT HOURS ON THIS CASE AND I’M WILLING JUST TO SPEND ANOTHER HOUR OR TWO AND CAREFULLY GET THE WORDING DOWN AND PRESENT IT AND IF JUDGE INGRAM’S NOT ON THE CASE, THEN SHE’S NOT ON THE CASE BUT TO HAVE IT DONE AND TO THEN SEND IT TO MRS. PORTMAN AND SHE CAN THEN SAY -- SHE CAN THEN SAY “I DIDN’T PREPARE IT,” YOU KNOW, AND I THINK SHE HAS A PROBLEM SAYING THAT SHE PREPARED IT, SHE IS WORRIED ABOUT WAIVING SOME OF HER RIGHTS AND THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE ANY FEARS BUT SHE WOULD THEN HAVE IT AND SHE WOULD THEN PRESENT IT TO WHOEVER -- WHATEVER JUDGE WAS -- WAS PART OF THE CASE.

DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT?

Counsel for Defendant: I THINK IT’S A GREAT SOLUTION.

Court: VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD COMMENT. A LITTLE LEVITY GOES A LONG WAY. THAT’S WHAT GOT US THROUGH THE TOKARS TRIAL, I BELIEVE, AND THE DEFENSE AND THE STATE AGREED WITH ME. WE HAD A LITTLE LEVITY, ALTHOUGH THAT WAS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER -- IT WAS A VERY DRAINING MATTER. WE HAD SOME LEVITY, HOPEFULLY NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF ANYBODY OTHER THAN PERHAPS THE JUDGE.

I’M GOING TO GIVE YOU -- IT’S TEN TILL 10:00 AND I’M GOING TO GIVE YOU TEN MINUTES TO CONFER WITH YOUR CLIENT AND LET’S COME BACK IN AT 10:00 A.M. AND SEE WHERE WE STAND. AT LEAST APPARENTLY WE’VE GOT AN AGREEMENT ON ONE ISSUE BUT CERTAINLY YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TALK WITH YOUR CLIENT. ALL RIGHT.

Counsel for Defendant: SHE’S ON THE BENCH TOO.

Court: I AM GOING TO ASK YOU --

Counsel for Defendant: TO INTERRUPT HER.

Court: TO INTER -- WE HATE TO INTERRUPT A JUDGE ON THE BENCH AND I KNOW -- I KNOW SHE IS PROBABLY WORKING BUT I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO INTERRUPT HER SO YOU CAN CONSULT WITH HER SO YOU CAN COME BACK.

Counsel for Defendant: ALL RIGHT, I’LL DO THAT.

Court: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MRS. PORTMAN, YOU’RE EXCUSED FOR TEN MINUTES, AS IS MRS. ALLEN.

Plaintiff Portman: THANK YOU.

Court: ALL RIGHT, WE’LL BE COMING BACK IN TEN MINUTES, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

(RECESS)

Court: MRS. PORTMAN, ARE YOU TAPING?

Plaintiff Portman: YES, SIR.

Court: WELL, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE WE’LL UNDER A RULE 22 WITH A CORRECT FILING, WE’LL ALLOW A RADIO STATION TO TAPE. BUT WE HAVE PROVIDED AN

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER AND OF COURSE THE RECORD IS GOING TO BE HERE AND BOTH SIDES -- SINCE BOTH SIDES ARE GOING TO BE PAYING FOR IT, BOTH SIDES MAY ACCESS IT.

ALL RIGHT, NOW, YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE, MRS. ALLEN, TO TALK WITH YOUR CLIENT? DID YOU HAVE THAT CHANCE?

Counsel for Defendant: YES.

Court: OKAY -- OKAY, TELL ME WHERE WE ARE.

Counsel for Defendant: SHE IS -- SHE UNDERSTANDS NOW THAT SHE HASN’T RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE UNDERLYING CASE AND SHE WILL ENTERTAIN AN ORDER DRAFTED BY YOU, YOU KNOW, AND MODIFIED IF IT DOESN’T REFLECT HER RULING OR JUST SIGN IT. SHE’S WILLING TO DO THAT.

Court: ALL RIGHT, OKAY, SO WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

THERE APPEAR TO BE THREE ISSUES. LET ME STATE THIS FOR THE RECORD AND I HAVE REVIEWED THE PETITION AND I HAVE REVIEWED THE AMENDMENT AND THERE MAY BE SEVERAL AMENDMENTS. THERE ARE NO PRAYERS. MRS. PORTMAN DID NOT PUT ANY PRAYERS IN THE PETITION SO IT MADE IT HARD. AT THE SAME TIME, PLEADINGS SHOULD BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED SO THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT I’VE FOUND.

TWO; MRS. PORTMAN WANTS ME TO ORDER THE JUDGE TO INVESTIGATE THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT AND A COURT CLERK WHERE ALLEGEDLY THE JUDGE WAS NOT IN THE COURTROOM. SHE WANTS ME TO ORDER THE JUDGE TO INVESTIGATE A CONVERSATION.

ADDITIONALLY, SHE WANT ME TO REQUEST THAT THE JUDGE AD -- ADHERE TO THE JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT AND LASTLY, I SAID THREE ISSUES BUT REALLY THERE ARE PROBABLY FOUR THE WAY I HAVE SEPARATED THEM. AGAIN, THEY’RE NOT -- THEY’RE PUT OUT IN LEGAL PLEADINGS AS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM BUT JUST THE SAME, IF WE GET TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PART, I GUESS EVERYBODY WILL BE HAPPY AND MRS. PORTMAN WANTS HER CASE PROPERLY ADJUDICATED AND FOR THE JUDGE TO ABIDE BY TIME LIMITS.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE REVIEWED THE PLEADINGS IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE ANSWER. THERE ARE -- THERE ARE NO GENUINE ISSUES OF FACT FOR DETERMINATION BY A JURY. THEREFORE, THERE IS A DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL BUT THE DEMAND WILL BE DENIED AT THIS TIME.

MRS. PORTMAN HAS MADE THE DEMAND AND I AM DENYING IT. THERE’S NOTHING TO BE DECIDED. THERE IS -- THERE IS -- BASICALLY, EVERYTHING’S AGREED UPON. IT’S ONLY A MATTER OF LAW.

YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO -- BASICALLY, MRS. PORTMAN, YOU HAVE -- I GUESS YOU COULD SAY YOU HAVE WON YOUR FIRST POINT, WHICH I THINK WAS YOUR IMPORTANT POINT, AND THAT WAS TO GET THE ORDER PREPARED BY SOMEBODY OTHER THAN YOU AND I’VE JUST VOLUNTEERED TO DO IT AND THAT’S FINE AND I WILL HAVE IT DONE WITHIN -- WELL, WE’LL HAVE IT DONE BY FRIDAY -- WE’LL JUST SAY BY FRIDAY AT 5 O’CLOCK, WE’LL HAVE IT DONE AND WE’LL DISSEMINATE -- WE’LL BRING THE ORIGINAL DOWN TO JUDGE INGRAM’S CHAMBERS AND SEND A COPY TO BOTH MRS. PORTMAN AND MRS. ALLEN. WE’LL DO THAT BY FRIDAY.

NOW AS TO THE OTHER THREE, MRS. PORTMAN, YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE ME SOME AUTHORITY WHERE I -- BECAUSE BASICALLY A MANDAMUS WOULD BE ORDERING A JUDGE TO DO SOMETHING. I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING -- AND I’M ONE THAT JUST WANTS TO BE STRAIGHT UP WITH SOMEBODY. I KNOW OF NO AUTHORITY WHERE I CAN ORDER A JUDGE TO INVESTIGATE A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A COURT CLERK AND A LAWYER FOR THE DEFENDANT.

AS FAR AS THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, ALL OF US HAVE AN OATH. WE MUST FOLLOW THAT. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY JUDGE -- JUDGE BODIFORD, JUDGE INGRAM, ANY OTHER JUDGE IS FOLLOWING THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, OF COURSE THERE ARE REMEDIES THAT

YOU WOULD HAVE.

ADDITIONALLY, THAT YOU WANT YOUR CASE PROPERLY ADJUDICATED. THAT WOULD BE -- THAT’S ALL PARTIES, OBVIOUSLY YOU AND MRS. ALLEN WANT THIS CASE PROPERLY ADJUDICATED AND YOU WANT YOUR UNDERLYING CASE PROPERLY ADJUDICATED AND YOU HAVE A REMEDY IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT’S PROPERLY ADJUDICATED. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE A REMEDY OF APPEAL AND IN ADDITION, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT JUDGE ABIDING BY THE TIME LIMITS. AGAIN, YOU HAVE A REMEDY IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THE JUDGE HAS ABIDED BY ANY TIME LIMITS, YOU CAN THEN -- YOU CAN PROPERLY APPEAL.

BY THE WAY, TODAY WHEN I GIVE YOU THIS ORDER, THIS WILL BE A FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE SO EITHER SIDE -- ALTHOUGH I’M HOPING, AGAIN, THAT WE CAN GET AN AGREEMENT. WE’VE GOT AN AGREEMENT AS TO THE ONE PART BUT IF SOMEONE IS UNHAPPY, EITHER MRS. PORTMAN, YOU’RE UNHAPPY OR JUDGE INGRAM IS UNHAPPY WITH MY ORDER, YOU’VE GOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT AS SOON AS WE PREPARE THE ORDER SINCE THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT -- YOU HAVE GOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO APPEAL. YOU DON’T HAVE TO ASK MY PERMISSION. SO YOU WOULD HAVE THIRTY DAYS I THINK -- IT’S BEEN YEARS SINCE I’VE APPEALED. I THINK IT’S 20 IN FEDERAL COURT AND 30 HERE BUT DON’T TAKE -- I’M PRETTY SURE IT’S 30 BUT DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

YOU NEED TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH WHEN WE FILE THE ORDER AND WHAT WE WOULD DO, I HAVE GOT TO SEE WHETHER WE’RE GOING TO DO THE ORDER OR MRS. ALLEN IS GOING TO DO THE ORDER BECAUSE I KNOW YOU DON’T WANT TO DO THE ORDER SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THE ORDER, MRS. PORTMAN.

ALL RIGHT, TELL ME -- YOU HAVE GOT TO GIVE ME SOME AUTHORITY -- IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME -- SOME AUTHORITY THAT SAYS I HAVE DISCRETION TO ORDER THE JUDGE TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, THEN I’VE GOT SOMETHING TO LOOK AT AND IF I DON’T HAVE ANY DISCRETION, THEN IT’S EASY FOR ME AND I JUST -- I CAN DENY IT AND SIMPLY SAY “I CAN’T ORDER IT.”

FOR INSTANCE, LET’S JUST START WITH THE INVESTIGATION. WHAT AUTHORITY DO I HAVE? ALL RIGHT YOU’RE UP.

Plaintiff Portman: I HAVE NO AUTHORITY OTHER THAN THE JUDGE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COURTROOM. IF YOU’RE ASKING ME CITATION OF LAW, I DO NOT HAVE THAT.

Court: ALL RIGHT, I DON’T BELIEVE -- I’M TELLING YOU, THROUGH, AS THE JUDGE SO I AM BASICALLY GIVING YOU HEADS-UP, I DON’T BELIEVE I HAVE ANY AUTHORITY AND I’M GOING TO BE ASKING YOU AND THEN I’M GOING TO ASK -- EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE AGAINST MRS.

ALLEN’S CLIENT’S INTEREST, I’M GOING TO ASK HER DO I HAVE ANY AUTHORITY AND SHE AS A COURT OFFICIAL MUST GIVE ME -- IF SHE KNOWS OF SOME AUTHORITY THAT YOU DON’T, SHE MUST GIVE IT TO ME. I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY AUTHORITY WHERE I -- WHERE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO SAY, “I HEREBY ORDER JUDGE INGRAM TO INVESTIGATE THIS COURT CONVERSATION.” I -- I -- I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY AND YOU’RE SAYING YOU’RE NOT AWARE OF ANY.

Plaintiff Portman: NO, I’M NOT AT THIS TIME.

Court: ALL RIGHT, LET’S -- YOU MAY BE SEATED AND LET’S ASK MRS. ALLEN. IS THERE ANY AUTHORITY FOR ME TO DO THAT?

Counsel for Defendant: I’M NOT AWARE OF ANY AUTHORITY, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD -- THIS IS THE WAY I WOULD ANALYZE THE QUESTION ON THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE COURT CLERK AND THE ATTORNEY. IF THE COMPLAINT IS THAT IT EFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE THEN PENDING BEFORE THE JUDGE, HER DECISION WHETHER TO INVESTIGATE OR NOT WOULD BE A JUDICIAL ACT BECAUSE IT IN UNDER -- WAS IN THAT CASE. THE CASE LAW ON THAT IS, I THINK, HENDERSON VS. MCVAY AT 269 GA. 7, A 1998 CASE, WILL TELL YOU THAT JUDICIAL ACTS MAY NOT BE MANDAMUSED -- AND THAT’S WHERE WE ARE IN THIS CASE IS A MANDAMUS. MANDAMUS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY REMEDY. IT CANNOT BE USED TO CONTROL DISCRETIONARY ACTS OF ANY OFFICIAL AND

IT CANNOT BE USED TO CONTROL JUDICIAL ACTS OF A JUDGE.

THERE IS EVEN SOME OLD CASE LAW THAT -- THAT SEEMS TO INDICATE YOU CAN’T MANDAMUS A JUDGE PERIOD BUT THE LATER CASE LAW DOESN’T REALLY SUPPORT THAT. THE OLD CASE -- VERY OLD CASE OF BARTSDALE VS. COBB, IS 16 GA 13 AND 14, 1854.

Court: WELL, THAT’S BEFORE I WAS BORN.

Counsel for Defendant: THAT’S MUCH BEFORE I WAS BORN TOO. BUT -- SO THE OTHER PART OF THAT ANALYSIS -- SUPPOSE JUST AS A TAXPAYER MRS. PORTMAN WANTED TO BE SURE THAT JUSTICE WAS DONE AND, YOU KNOW, SHE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THE JUDGE KEPT HER ADMINISTRATIVE PEOPLE ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW, THAT WOULD BE THE JUDGE ACTING IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY, I WOULD THINK, RATHER IF IT DIDN’T EFFECT THE CASE PENDING BEFORE HER BUT STILL IT’S A DISCRETIONARY DECISION, SO EVEN IF IT’S TO A JUDICIAL ACT SO THAT IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE CONFINES OF HENDERSON VS. MCVAY, IT’S STILL A DISCRETIONARY ACT WHICH CANNOT BE MANDAMUSED AND THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT WE HAVE SET OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM UP IN A CERTAIN WAY TO HAVE IT WORK AND IF THE LITIGANT IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE JUDGE RULES, THE PROPER REMEDY IS APPEAL AND THAT’S THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS THE BEST.

NOW, THERE’S ALSO J.Q.C. IF THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE JUDICIAL CODE -- A COMPLAINT TO THE J.Q.C. BUT

OUR SYSTEM IS NOT SET UP TO HAVE ONE JUDGE MANDAMUS ANOTHER JUDGE ON HER DECISIONS IN THE COURTROOM IN CASES PENDING BEFORE HER. WE WOULD JUST HAVE A ZOO IF THAT WERE THE CASE -- IF THAT WERE ALLOWED ALL OF THE TIME.

Court: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING REGARDING THE -- REGARDING THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE -- THE ALLEGED CONVERSATION BETWEEN COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT AND COURT CLERK? ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WISH TO SAY?

Plaintiff Portman: MRS. ALLEN HAS REFERRED TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND IN THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT IT STATES THAT THE JUDGE UNDER ANY SUSPICION OF MISCONDUCT IS TO REPORT THAT, NOT TO INVESTIGATE IT BUT TO REPORT IT TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES AND THAT IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THE STATE BAR. IT WAS BROUGHT TO HER ATTENTION THROUGH MY PETITION FOR MANDAMUS AND THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE TO SIMPLY TURN IT OVER TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES FOR INVESTIGATION.

Court: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS; HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT SHE HASN’T DONE THAT?

Plaintiff Portman: I DON’T KNOW THAT. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT.

I’M GOING TO DENY AS TO THE FIRST -- AS TO THE FIRST REQUEST WE HAVE -- BY THE WAY, I DON’T BELIEVE UNDER THE SAME REASONING THAT MRS. ALLEN HAS GIVEN US, I DON’T BELIEVE THAT I CAN COMPEL THE JUDGE BASICALLY TO ISSUE A WRITTEN ORDER. SHE HAS ISSUED AN ORDER BUT THAT -- WE ARE BEYOND THAT. I’M GOING TO DO THAT. THE COURT ACCEPTS THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

AS FAR AS AN INVESTIGATION OF THE CONVERSATION, I’M GOING TO DENY THE RELIEF AND I ACCEPT THE REASONING GIVEN TO ME BY JUDGE INGRAM’S ATTORNEY.

AS FAR AS THE JUDGE ADHERING TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, I MEAN BASICALLY IN YOUR PETITION YOU SEEM TO BE LECTURING AND SAY THE JUDGE OUGHT TO ADHERE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. ANY -- I

MEAN, IF YOU DON’T ADHERE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, I CAN TELL YOU, YOU WON’T BE A JUDGE FOR VERY LONG.

DO YOU HAVE ANY -- ANYTHING -- ANY AUTHORITY WHERE YOU SAY THAT I SHOULD BASICALLY LECTURE THE JUDGE AS YOU WANT TO -- I SHOULD LECTURE THE JUDGE AND SAY, “JUDGE INGRAM, YOU ADHERE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT”? ANY AUTHORITY?

Plaintiff Portman: NO, I DON’T.

MAY I ASK A QUESTION --

Court: YES, MA’AM.

Plaintiff Portman: -- OR DIRECTION FROM THE COURT? IS THIS, IN FACT, A HEARING TODAY?

Counsel for Defendant: YES, MA’AM.

Plaintiff Portman: TODAY -- I WAS TOLD BY THE COURT CLERK THIS WAS NOT A HEARING. I ASKED TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS FOR FILING AND I WAS TOLD IT WAS NOT A HEARING AND I NEED THAT CLARIFICATION IF THIS IS A HEARING.

Court: ABSOLUTELY. WE ARE HEARING YOUR CASE ON THE MERITS. NOW, LET ME MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE -- THAT WE’VE GOT A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING. AS A FAVOR TO YOU, ALTHOUGH THIS COURT KNOWS THAT NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED, AS A FAVOR TO YOU BASICALLY, WE TOOK AN INITIAL -- WE MADE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION -- A

PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION THAT THIS WAS NOT A JURY MATTER BECAUSE, AS YOU REMEMBER, YOU SET THIS CASE DOWN I THINK ON LAST WEEK’S CALENDAR AND MRS. ALLEN THEN CALLED OUR OFFICE AND BY THE WAY, I HAVEN’T TALKED TO ANYBODY ABOUT THIS CASE OTHER THAN MY STAFF. MY STAFF, I KNOW, HAS TALKED TO MRS. PORTMAN SEVERAL TIMES AND I THINK MRS. ALLEN SEVERAL TIMES. WE, AS A -- AS A COURTESY TO MRS. ALLEN -- AND WE WOULD DO THIS FOR ANYBODY -- MRS. ALLEN APPARENTLY WAS GOING TO BE ON VACATION AND SHE WAS ASSIGNED THIS CASE AND WE CONTINUED THIS CASE OVER FOR A WEEK.

WE HAD GIVEN A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION THAT THIS WAS A JURY TRIAL AND MRS. PORTMAN, I BELIEVE, AND SHE CAN SPEAK FOR HERSELF -- MRS. PORTMAN HAD INDICATED THAT I THINK SHE WANTED A JURY TRIAL AND WANTED -- SHE ALSO WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER TODAY’S HEARING WOULD BE A HEARING ON THE MERITS OR NOT AND YOU WERE ADVISED, WERE YOU NOT, MRS. PORTMAN, SOMETIME AGO BY MY LAW CLERK THAT THIS WOULD BE A HEARING ON THE MERITS TODAY AND UNLESS YOU SHOWED ME SOME AUTHORITY OTHERWISE THAT THE -- THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE A JURY TRIAL? WERE YOU ADVISED THAT?

Plaintiff Portman: YES, I WAS BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 8 AND I RESPONDED TO THAT AND HAND-DELIVERED THAT TO YOUR OFFICE.

A HEARING TODAY AND THAT I SHOULD TAKE THEM TO THE FILING DESK, WHICH I DID, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVEN’T DONE SOMETHING ERRONEOUSLY.

Court: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE SEATED.

MRS. HOLLIFIELD, STAND, PLEASE, TO BE SWORN. YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE YOU SHALL GIVE IN THE CASE OF PORTMAN V. INGRAM, CIVIL FILE NUMBER 948-16130-33 WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

Witness: YES, SIR.

JAN HOLLIFIELD, HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: EXAMINATION BY THE COURT:

Question by Court: SPEAK UP, PLEASE, WHERE EVERYBODY CAN SEE YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED WHILE YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. TELL US YOUR NAME.

Answer by Witness: JAN HOLLIFIELD.

Question by Court: TITLE?

Answer by Witness: DEPUTY COURT CLERK FOR JUDGE JAMES G. BODIFORD.

Question by Court: WHO IS YOUR EMPLOYER?

Answer by Witness: JAY C. STEPHENSON, CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT.

Question by Court: AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A COURT CLERK?

Answer by Witness: 12 YEARS. I’VE WORKED FOR THE CLERK’S OFFICE FOR

12 YEARS AND BEEN IN THE COURTROOM FOR 7.

Question by Court: I’M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LEAD YOU A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE NEED TO MOVE ON.

YOU ARE THE COURT CLERK FOR JUDGE JAMES G. BODIFORD?

Answer by Witness: YES, SIR.

Question by Court: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION TODAY WITH MRS. PORTMAN?

Answer by Witness: YES, SIR.

Question by Court: ALL RIGHT, JUST -- WOULD YOU JUST DESCRIBE THE CONVERSATION IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN REMEMBER BASICALLY WHAT YOU AND MRS. PORTMAN SAID AND SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER WE WERE HAVING A HEARING.

Answer by Witness: SHE ASKED TO FILE IN SOME PLEADINGS UP HERE. I ASKED HER IF SHE WOULD PLEASE TAKE THEM DOWNSTAIRS WITHIN THE 10 MINUTES THAT WE HAD ON BREAK AND SHE SAID SHE WOULD DO THAT. I EXPLAINED TO HER AFTER LOOKING AT THE PLEADINGS AND SEEING THAT THERE WAS A JURY DEMAND -- SOMETHING TO DO WITH A JURY DEMAND AND KNOWING THAT YOU HAD ALREADY RULED ON THE ISSUE THAT I THOUGHT WE WERE HERE FOR, I MADE THE COMMENT, “IF THERE IS A HEARING I WILL GET THE PLEADINGS FROM DOWNSTAIRS.”

Question by Court: ALL RIGHT, HERE’S WHAT -- MRS. PORTMAN, THIS IS A HEARING AND WHAT I AM GOING TO DO IS I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO CONDUCT IT AND I’M ALMOST

THROUGH WITH MY PORTION OF IT AND I’M GOING TO CONTINUE TO CONDUCT IT AS I WANT IT CONDUCTED AND THEN I’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE -- AGAIN, I HAVE LOOKED THROUGH ALL YOUR PLEADINGS AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE I’VE LEFT SOMETHING OUT, THAT I HAVEN’T ADDRESSED AN ISSUE THAT YOU ADDRESSED AND, AGAIN, IT’S VERY HARD TO FIND FROM YOUR PLEADINGS BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE PRAYERS IF YOU NOTICE -- IF YOU NOTICE AT THE END OF THE DEFENSE’S ANSWER, THEY HAVE PRAYERS. THEY SPECIFICALLY SAY CERTAIN THINGS. THEY ARE ASKING ME TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND WE IN THE LEGAL -- AND BY THE WAY, THAT’S THE LAW. THE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE GOT TO DO THAT BUT YOU DON’T HAVE ANY PRAYERS SO I HAVE GONE THROUGH IT. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOME ISSUE THAT I HAVE LEFT OUT, I’M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO IT. I’M ALSO GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO STATE ON THE RECORD IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH ANYTHING WE HAVE DONE HERE.

ALL RIGHT, AS FAR AS THE REQUESTING THE JUDGE TO ADHERE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT; ANYTHING YOU WISH TO SAY REGARDING THAT POINT?

Plaintiff Portman: I APOLOGIZE BUT COULD YOU GIVE ME MORE CLARIFICATION AS TO THE JUDGE -- YOU THE JUDGE OR THE HONORABLE JUDGE INGRAM?

Court: OKAY, NOW, MRS. PORTMAN, YOU HAVE A

LOT OF EDUCATION, DO YOU NOT?

Plaintiff Portman: I HAVE TWO MASTER’S DEGREES.

Court: ALL RIGHT, LISTEN TO MY QUESTION. IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, I’LL BE GLAD TO GO OVER IT. YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I’M TAKING THE LANGUAGE EXACTLY FROM YOUR PLEADINGS. I AM TAKING IT AND I’VE HAD TO DO A LOT OF EXTRA WORK BUT I DON’T MIND. I’M PAID FOR THAT. BUT YOU HAVE REQUESTED JUDGE INGRAM TO ADHERE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

Plaintiff Portman: I APOLOGIZE. I UNDERSTAND.

Court: NOW, TELL ME WHAT -- TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO ABOUT THAT. THAT IS WHAT YOU’RE ASKING ME. YOU HAVE FILED A MANDAMUS AGAINST HER AND IT’S ASSIGNED TO ME. TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, PLAIN AND SIMPLE, AND I’LL THEN HEAR FROM MRS. ALLEN AND I’LL MAKE MY RULING AND WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, EITHER ONE OF YOU, IN A FEW MINUTES YOU WILL HAVE A FINAL RULING AND YOU CAN APPEAL IT.

WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO ABOUT IT?

Plaintiff Portman: YOUR HONOR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT JUDGES HANDLE THAT ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND I DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHETHER THEY ACTED ON THEM OR NOT. ADHERING TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT IN THE INSTANCE OF REPORTING AN

ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS TO THE STATE BAR WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL. REPORTING THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER JUDGE TO THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMITTEE WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL,. I UNDERSTAND THAT. MY PRAYER IS THAT -- THAT JUDGE INGRAM IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ADHERING TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

Court: I AGREE WITH YOU -- I AGREE WITH YOU -- JUST AS JUDGE BODIFORD IS. BUT -- I AGREE WITH YOU ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY PERCENT AND I DON’T THINK WE COULD FIND ANY JUDGE IN GEORGIA AND IN FACT IF ONE JUDGE IN GEORGIA SAID AT ANY LEVEL OF THE COURTS “I DON’T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT”, WE NEED TO REMOVE HIM OR HER FROM THE BENCH. I AGREE WITH YOU BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS JUDGE INGRAM MUST ADHERE TO THE RULE -- TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AS WELL AS JUDGE BODIFORD BUT I MEAN, WERE YOU JUST - WERE YOU JUST REMINDING THE JUDGE?

Plaintiff Portman: YES, SIR.

Court: ALL RIGHT, SO YOU -- SO THERE’S NOTHING THAT I NEED TO DO?

Plaintiff Portman: CORRECT.

Court: OKAY, ALL RIGHT, I AM SATISFIED WITH THAT, SO THERE’S NO -- THERE NO RULING ON THAT. THAT BASICALLY BECOMES A MOOT ISSUE.

NOW I HAVE BASICALLY PUT THESE TWO TOGETHER. I

DON’T KNOW WHETHER THEY BELONG TOGETHER. I PUT THEM TOGETHER. YOU WANT YOUR CASE PROPERLY ADJUDICATED AND FOR THE JUDGE TO ABIDE BY THE TIME LIMITS. WAS THAT JUST ANOTHER THING THAT YOU WERE JUST REMINDING THE JUDGE OF?

Plaintiff Portman: WELL, JUDGE INGRAM HAS ALREADY BEEN OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF TIME LIMITS. IN MY PREPARED PRESENTATION TO THIS COURT, I WAS PREPARED TO EXPLAIN THAT IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER.

Court: LET ME -- I TELL YOU I DON’T KNOW HOW -- HOW IS JUDGE INGRAM -- WE DON’T HAVE TO -- JUDGE BODIFORD DOESN’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT BUT REALLY, HOW IS -- IF YOU’RE BASICALLY ATTACKING JUDGE INGRAM --

Plaintiff Portman: IF I --

Court: NO, NO, MA’AM. WHEN I TALK, YOU DON’T. THAT GOES FOR MRS. ALLEN TOO.

YOU’RE BASICALLY -- HOW IS JUDGE INGRAM GOING TO CONTINUE TO HANDLE THIS CASE? I DON’T -- I PERSONALLY THINK -- MY OWN JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY IS YOU DO NOT RECUSE YOURSELF FROM A CASE UNLESS YOU -- UNLESS THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE LEGAL RIGHT. YOU DON’T -- YOU DON’T ESCAPE THE HARD CASES AND YOU DON’T ESCAPE THE POLITICAL, TOUGH CASES, THE ONES THAT MAKE THE NEWSPAPER OR WHATEVER. YOU JUST HAVE TO TAKE WHAT’S

GIVEN TO YOU AND SOMETIMES IT’S NOT EASY AND SOMETIMES YOU WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF SCOOT THAT CASE TO SOMEBODY ELSE BUT MY OWN THINKING IS -- AND THIS IS OUTSIDE WHAT YOU’RE EVEN ASKING BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT ASKING ME TO MANDAMUS HER TO RECUSE HERSELF. I DON’T SEE HOW SHE CAN NOW CONTINUE BASICALLY WITH SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU’VE SAID -- YOU ARE SAYING SHE HAS DONE WRONG. HOW IS SHE GOING TO -- HOW IS IT GOING TO APPEAR TO THE PUBLIC IF SHE CONTINUES TO BE ON YOUR CASE AND EVERY TIME -- ALTHOUGH APPARENTLY SO FAR SHE HAS RULED FOR YOU EACH AND EVERY TIME WHICH IS -- THAT’S WHY IT’S SO HIGHLY UNUSUAL THAT YOU’RE IN HERE BASICALLY WANTING ME TO GET HER TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU’RE WINNING SO FAR, IT APPEARS, IF THERE’S A WINNER OR LOSER, BUT HOW IS SHE GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE IN THIS CASE? I DON’T KNOW. THAT’S JUST A QUESTION THAT SHE’LL HAVE TO ANSWER. I’M NOT DOING ANYTHING. I HAVEN’T BEEN ASKED TO DO ANYTHING BUT I DON’T KNOW -- I DON’T KNOW HOW SHE IS AND, THEREFORE, YOU’RE SAYING TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE AND YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET ANOTHER JUDGE. THIS WILL BE YOUR THIRD JUDGE AND YOU’LL BE WORKING ON -- YOU’LL BE WORKING BECAUSE YOU HAD JUDGE FLOURNOY, I SEE FROM YOUR PLEADINGS, AND YOU NOW HAVE JUDGE INGRAM AND YOU BASICALLY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST HER AND I GUESS

YOU’LL BE WORKING ON YOUR THIRD JUDGE. THAT IS -- THAT’S SOMETHING YOU WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

I’LL ALLOW YOU AT THIS TIME, MA’AM, AND YOU MAY BE SEATED AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED, IF YOU’LL ASK MY PERMISSION -- YOU MAY GO AHEAD AND JUST GO THROUGH ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO TELL ME WITHIN REASON AND I WILL LISTEN AND LISTEN BUT IF IT’S JUST LECTURING THE JUDGE, SKIP THAT. I’M NOT IN -- YOU KNOW, MY JOB IS TO TO LECTURE OTHER JUDGES BUT ONLY UPON REQUEST. I’VE NEVER LECTURED ANOTHER JUDGE WHEN THEY DIDN’T WANT ME TO AND I DON’T THINK I HAVE THE AUTHORITY NOR PROBABLY THE WISDOM TO LECTURE SOME OTHER JUDGE, SO IF IT’S JUST ADVISING THE JUDGE TO ADHERE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, I DECLINE TO DO THAT AND THERE IS NO AUTHORITY OF COURSE AND IF I’M TO TELL HER THE CASE SHOULD BE PROPERLY ADJUDICATED, WELL, I DECLINE TO DO THAT. OBVIOUSLY SHE’S EITHER GOING TO DO THAT OR SOME HIGHER COURT WILL CORRECT HER AND ASK FOR THE JUDGE TO ABIDE BY THE TIME LIMITS; IF SHE HAS TO DONE THAT, THEN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EITHER APPEAL OR GO TO THE J.Q.C. AND SO -- AND YOU MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO BOTH. YOU DON'T HAVE TO -- PARTICULARLY SOMETIMES IF YOU FEEL LIKE THE JUDGE WAS LEGALLY WRONG AND THEN DID SOMETHING, FOR INSTANCE,

AGAINST THE RULES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, YOU COULD GO BOTH WAYS. ALL RIGHT.

Plaintiff Portman: I UNDERSTAND.

Court: OKAY, THANK YOU.

DO YOU WANT TO BE SEATED?

Plaintiff Portman: I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT MY PREPARED CASE.

Court: THAT WOULD BE FINE. I’LL ALLOW THAT AT THIS TIME.

Plaintiff Portman: AND BEFORE I DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT YOU MADE THE COMMENT THAT I HAVE WON EVERY RULING SHE HAS MADE AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU TO REVIEW -- I HAVE HAD NO ORDERS FROM HER EXCEPT HER RECUSAL.

Court: NO, MA’AM, YOU HAVEN’T HAD A WRITTEN ORDER BUT YOU HAD AN ORDER. YOU’VE HAD -- I’M NOT SO SURE A WRITTEN ORDER IS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, I’M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE WRITTEN ORDER. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, AS WE TALKED ABOUT. SHE’S GIVEN YOU THE ORDERS IN COURT. WOULD YOU -- WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

Plaintiff Portman: UNTIL IT’S PUT DOWN IN WRITING, IT CANNOT BE APPEALED.

Court: YOU’RE PROBABLY CORRECT ABOUT THAT, WHY WOULD -- WHY WOULD YOU APPEAL A RULING THAT YOU WON? WOULD YOU APPEAL SOMETHING WHEN YOU -- IF YOU

WIN HERE TODAY, ARE YOU GOING TO GO AND APPEAL IT AND SAY, “THE JUDGE MUST HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED ME”?

Plaintiff Portman: I THINK WINNING OR LOSING IS A MATTER OF OPINION AND MY OPINION IS NOT THAT I WON ON THE ISSUE OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. I DID NOT PERCEIVE IT THAT WAY. I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD BUT OF COURSE WHEN IT’S PUT DOWN IN WRITING, YOU HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE IT.

Court: WHICH I’M GOING TO DO.

ALL RIGHT, LET’S MOVE FROM THAT POINT. I’M GOING TO PUT IT DOWN THERE AND AS I TOLD YOU, I WILL ABIDE BY THOSE TIME LIMITS THAT I TOLD YOU. ON FRIDAY WE’LL GET IT DOWN TO JUDGE INGRAM AND THEN SHE’LL HAVE TO DECIDE. SHE’LL -- SHE’LL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS WHEN SHE’S GOING TO SIGN IT AND WHAT TIME. OKAY?

Plaintiff Portman: MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT BEFORE WE GET STARTED IS THAT I HAVE -- I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN JUDGE INGRAM TO RULE. SHE IS A SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE I RESPECT SUPERIOR COURT. I’LL LET THAT SUFFICE.

Court: OKAY, I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE -- MRS. PORTMAN, SO YOU WILL KNOW -- AND I’M TRYING TO HELP YOU AND SAYING MORE THAN I NORMALLY WOULD IF YOU WERE REPRESENTED. I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE HARD FOR HER AFTER SHE HAS BEEN SUED BY YOU -- I THINK THAT SHE HAS

AN ABSOLUTE LEGAL RIGHT TO RECUSE HERSELF. THAT WOULD BE MY LEGAL OPINION AND IF SHE DECIDED TO WRITE AN ORDER THIS AFTERNOON RECUSING HERSELF, THAT WOULD BE UP TO HER. IF SHE HAD -- IF SHE THEN RECUSES HERSELF, I THINK SHE’S GOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DO SO AND BASICALLY ALL SHE’S GOT TO SAY IS THIS LADY HAS SUED ME AND I’M AN ADVERSE PARTY AND I HAD TO GO AND BASICALLY GET COUNSEL AND I’M ON THE OTHER END OF THE V AND I HEREBY RECUSE MYSELF.

NOW WHETHER SHE WILL OR NOT, I DON’T -- I DON’T KNOW AND BY THE WAY, THE ONLY REASON I TALK ABOUT THAT IS IF SHE DOES, I’M GOING TO DO MY PART BUT IF SHE DOES WHEN WE TAKE THAT ORDER DOWN TO HER ON FRIDAY, IF SHE RECUSES HERSELF TODAY, YOU’RE IN LIMBO AND YOU’RE IN LIMBO AND I DON’T KNOW, YOU MIGHT SAY IT’S OF YOUR OWN MAKING BUT ALL I CAN DO IS DO MY PART AND I CAN BRING THE ORDER DOWN TO HER. IF SHE SAYS, “JUDGE BODIFORD, I’M RECUSED,” THEN WHAT WE’LL PROBABLY DO AS A COURTESY TO WRITE BOTH OF YOU -- YOU AND MRS. ALLEN, AND SAY “WE DELIVERED THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND IT’S -- JUDGE INGRAM SAYS SHE’S BEEN RECUSED” AND THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT ,WHICH IS MRS. HOLLIFIELD, WILL THEN TAKE THE APPROPRIATE OR DO THE APPROPRIATE METHOD AND PROCEDURE TO APPOINT ANOTHER JUDGE AND THE ORIGINAL ORDER PREPARED BY JUDGE BODIFORD WILL BE

THERE.

OKAY, THAT IS A HEADS-UP ON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. IF JUDGE INGRAM DOES NOT RECUSE HERSELF OR SIGNS THE ORDER AND THEN RECUSES HERSELF, THEN AT LEAST YOU’VE GOT THAT ORDER THAT YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR, OKAY AND MAYBE THAT WILL HAPPEN.

Plaintiff Portman: I UNDERSTAND.

Court: OKAY.

Plaintiff Portman: YOUR HONOR, PURSUING ONE’S RIGHTS SOMETIMES INCLUDES BEHAVIOR AND COMMENTS WHICH COULD EASILY BE PERCEIVED AS CONTUMACIOUS OR INSUBORDINATE. I ASSURE THIS COURT THAT IS NOT MY INTENT. AS A TEACHER AND PARENT, I DEAL EVERY DAY WITH TEENAGERS WHO ARE TESTING THEIR RIGHTS AND BELIEFS AND IT IS SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN CONFIDENCE AND INSUBORDINATION, I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT MY STUDENTS WOULD TELL THIS COURT THAT I HAVE FAITHFULLY ALLOWED THEM TO PURSUE THEIR RIGHTS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF COURTESY AND RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY. I SIMPLY ASK THE SAME OF THIS COURT.

I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY SOLELY OUT OF RESPECT FOR THIS COURT’S AUTHORITY. I HAVE REQUESTED A JURY TRIAL AND I REMAIN COMMITTED TO MY STATEMENT THAT I DO NOT WAIVE ANY OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL OR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. I HAVE ASKED FOR THE COURT’S DIRECTION CONCERNING ANY

INHERENT WAIVER OF MY RIGHTS BY PARTICIPATING IN TODAY’S HEARING. I HAVE CLEARLY STATED MY ARGUMENT IN THE PLEADINGS OF THIS CASE AND I DO NOT WISH TO BELABOR THAT ISSUE FURTHER.

AS STATED IN THIS COURT’S STAFF LETTER TO PLAINTIFF, DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 “THE JUDGE HAS A DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY TO SET THE JURY TRIAL SCHEDULE AND ASSIGN CASES IN A TIMELY MANNER.”

Court: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. SINCE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A JURY TRIAL, WHAT ISSUE IS LEFT FOR A JURY TRIAL? I -- I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT A JURY TRIAL. I WANT TO BE A MILLIONAIRE, ALL RIGHT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT WE WANT, WE DON’T ALWAYS GET. WHAT -- WHAT ISSUE IS LEFT TO BE TRIED BY A JURY? BECAUSE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY IN THIS CASE -- SOMETIMES WE HAVE HOUR-LONG ARGUMENTS OR HOURS-LONG ARGUMENTS IN THESE CASE. THEY’RE CALLED SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS WHERE ONE SIDE IS SAYING, “JUDGE, THERE IS NO ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT” OR EVEN -- EVEN TAKING ALL OF THE FACTS -- IF WE TAKE ALL THE FACTS THAT THEY GIVE US AND WE ACCEPT THOSE, THERE’S STILL NO ISSUE. THE JURY -- YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO GO TO A JURY IN GEORGIA JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO. YOU HAVE -- BY THE WAY, LITIGANTS IN GEORGIA HAVE MORE JURY RIGHTS THAN PROBABLY MOST OTHER STATES. GEORGIA IS ONLY ONE OF

TWO STATES WHERE YOU CAN HAVE ACTUALLY A DIVORCE PROCEEDING IN A FRONT OF A JURY. YOU HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A MATTER OF LAW, MANDAMUS, AND EVEN THOUGH MY RESEARCH INDICATES, YES, YOU WOULD HAVE IF THERE IS A FACTUAL DISPUTE, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL ON BASICALLY THOSE LIMITED ISSUES, THERE’S NO FACTUAL DISPUTES HERE, ARE THERE, AND IF THERE ARE YOU NEED TO SET THEM OUT RIGHT NOW -- YOU NEED TO SET THEM OUT, ONE, SO I’LL UNDERSTAND THEM, AND TWO, FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE IF YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO REVIEW THIS, IF YOU THINK I’VE MADE A MISTAKE, YOU’LL NEED TO SET IT OUT FOR THE HIGHER COURT JUDGES SO THEY CAN SAY, “WELL, YOU KNOW, SHE TOLD JUDGE BODIFORD WHAT -- WHAT THE ISSUES IN CONTROVERSY WAS AND HE EITHER WASN’T LISTENING OR HE MISSED THE POINT.” SO WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES THAT WOULD GO TO A JURY?

Plaintiff Portman: ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE IS THAT SHE CLAIMS AS A FOURTH DEFENSE THAT SHE HAS RECUSED HERSELF FROM THE UNDERLYING ISSUE AND IN HER CLAIM AS A FOURTH DEFENSE, SHE SAID THEREFORE IT MAKES THE ISSUE MOOT.

Court: AND I -- I HAVE MADE A FINDING AND I HAVE STRUCK THAT BASICALLY AND MADE A FINDING

RIGHT WHEN I CAME OUT, JUST AS I MADE CERTAIN FINDINGS, THAT WAS NOT TRUE AND WE’VE CONFIRMED THAT AND THEY’VE COME BACK AND SAID, “YOU’RE EXACTLY RIGHT, JUDGE BODIFORD,” SO THERE’S NO -- WE ALL AGREE IN THIS COURTROOM -- EVERYBODY THAT’S BEEN SITTING IN HERE AGREES THAT SHE HAS NOT RECUSED HERSELF SO WE DON’T NEED A JURY. I’M SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT OUT. WE DON’T NEED TWELVE INDIVIDUALS TO COME IN AND YOU GET UP AND SAY, “SHE SAID SHE RECUSED HERSELF BUT SHE HASN’T” AND MRS. ALLEN THEN GETS UP AND SAYS, “YOU'RE RIGHT, SHE HASN’T RECUSED HERSELF” AND I CHARGE THE JURY, “FIGURE OUT WHETHER SHE HAS RECUSED HERSELF.” NO, WE DON’T NEED TWELVE INDIVIDUALS TO DO THAT. WE’RE NOT GOING TO WASTE OUR INDIVIDUAL TIME OR THE COURT’S TIME TO DO THAT.

WHAT OTHER ISSUES ARE THERE THAT A JURY NEEDS TO DECIDE?

Plaintiff Portman: THE ISSUE OF MANDAMUS IS ONE THAT IS SET OUT -- IS SET OUT FOR A JURY TRIAL IF A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT IS CONTAINED IN THE PLEADING, THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS OR IN THE ANSWER AND I HAVE SIMPLY PLACED BEFORE THE COURT THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE OF -- A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THAT.

Court: MRS. PORTMAN, TELL ME, OTHER THAN

THAT BECAUSE I HAVE ELIMINATED THAT, TELL ME OTHER THAN THAT ARE THERE ANY, THAT YOU BELIEVE, ANY ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT? IF NOT, THEN EVEN I THINK YOU WILL AGREE AND YOU DON’T HAVE TO AGREE ON THE RECORD BUT EVEN YOU WILL HAVE TO AGREE THAT THE LAW IN GEORGIA SAYS THAT IF THERE ARE NO ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT, IT’S A JUDGE ISSUES. ALL RIGHT.

Plaintiff Portman: THAT’S CORRECT. I CHALLENGE THE POINT OF WHETHER THERE WAS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT AS OF BEFORE THIS HEARING BEGAN.

Court: WHAT I’M SAYING TO YOU, MRS. PORTMAN, AND APPARENTLY I’M NOT DOING A GOOD JOB BECAUSE YOU AND I HAVE ABOUT SAME LEVEL OF EDUCATION. IF THERE IS NO ISSUE AS OF RIGHT NOW AT 10:36 -- IF THERE IS NO ISSUE TO SUBMIT TO A JURY, WHY WASTE A JURY’S TIME? WHAT WOULD THE JURY DECIDE? TELL ME -- TELL ME WHAT FACTS WE WOULD GIVE THEM FOR THEM TO MAKE A DECISION? I DON’T UNDERSTAND. IF EVERYBODY AGREES RIGHT NOW THAT THAT WAS IN ERROR -- THAT DEFENSE NUMBER 4 WAS IN ERROR AND THE COURT HAS MADE A RULING THAT EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THERE IS NO ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, SHE DID NOT FILE A RECUSAL, WHAT THEN IS THE JUDGE -- WHAT THEN WOULD THE JURY DO? I AM HERE FOR THE LAW. I WOULD INSTRUCT THEM ON THE LAW. THEY DON’T FIGURE OUT WHAT THE LAW IS. THEY APPLY THE FACTS TO THE LAW AS I

GIVE THEM AND IF THERE ARE NO FACTS IN DISPUTE, THEN THE JUDGE MAKES THE DECISION OF LAW. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Plaintiff Portman: I UNDERSTAND --

Court: I UNDERSTAND, MRS. PORTMAN, YOU WANT A JURY TRIAL. FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU WANT A JURY TRIAL. BUT UNLESS THE LAW GUARANTEES YOU ONE, THEN I AM NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ONE SO YOU HAVE GOT -- NOW -- NOW IS YOUR TIME OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR TONGUE TO SAY ARE THERE ANY ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT OTHER THAN THE RECUSAL ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY TOLD ME ABOUT?

Plaintiff Portman: I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR A JURY TRIAL.

Court: OKAY, I UNDERSTAND. I DENY -- I DENY YOUR JURY TRIAL REQUEST AND I’LL ASK YOU IN YOUR PREPARED REMARKS TO SKIP ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY FURTHER ABOUT JURY REMARKS AND GO TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

Plaintiff Portman: I HOPE THAT I HAVE DONE THAT.

AS STATED IN THIS COURT’S STAFF --

I APOLOGIZE. I LOST MY PLACE.

Court: THAT’S ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN TAKE A MINUTE AND FIND YOUR PLACE.

Plaintiff Portman: I SUBMIT THAT SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY, SPECIFICALLY THE HONORABLE S. LARK INGRAM, HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO ACT IN A TIMELY

MANNER, ACCORDING TO UNIFORM SUPERIOR COURT RULE 25, SO THAT THIS PETITION FOR MANDAMUS COULD BE PLACED ON THE CALENDAR, AND I QUOTE, “NO EARLIER THAN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AND NO LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING.”

THE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS WAS FILED JULY 30 AND A TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED ON THE CALENDAR BY AUGUST 30. THE PRESIDING JUDGE, THE HONORABLE MELODIE CLAYTON, NOTIFIED ME ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, JULY 31 THAT A RECUSAL WOULD BE NECESSARY AND I, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED A REQUEST FOR RECUSAL TO THE HONORABLE S. LARK INGRAM THE FOLLOWING MONDAY MORNING, AUGUST 3. SHE WAS PROPERLY SERVED BY THE SHERIFF WITH THE PETITION ON AUGUST 5, 1998. HOWEVER, THE RECORD SHOWS THAT SHE DID NOT ACT UNTIL AUGUST 19, AND EVEN THAT WAS HIDDEN FROM ME UNTIL AUGUST 28, 1998. THROUGHOUT THE MONTH OF AUGUST, I CONSISTENTLY CALLED BOTH PAIGE MOFFETT, THE COURT’S LAW CLERK, AND TRISHA CRAWFORD THE SUPERIOR COURT CALENDAR CLERK, SEEKING VERIFICATION OF JUDGE INGRAM’S RECUSAL. ALTHOUGH MS. MOFFETT INDICATED THAT SHE THOUGHT THE JUDGE INTENDED TO RECUSE HERSELF, I COULD GET NO VERIFICATION.

AS OF AUGUST 20, 1998, AND WITH ONLY TEN DAYS LEFT IN WHICH TO HAVE A TRIAL, I HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY VERIFICATION. REALIZING THAT TIME WAS RUNNING OUT, I

AGAIN REQUESTED BY LETTER THAT JUDGE INGRAM RECUSE HERSELF FROM THE MANDAMUS, SINCE TO ACT AS BOTH DEFENDANT AND TRIER WAS A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

AUGUST 28, 1998, I AGAIN PERSONALLY CHECKED THE CLERK’S FILE AND AGAIN FOUND NO VERIFICATION OF ANY RECUSAL, IN FACT, THE CASE FILE WAS IN THE FILE ROOM, RATHER THAN IN THE JUDGE’S OFFICE, AS WOULD BE EXPECTED IF A RECUSAL WAS IN PROCESS. AS I HAD DONE BY TELEPHONE AND PERSONALLY DURING THE PREVIOUS WEEKS, I SOUGHT ASSISTANCE FROM TRISHA CRAWFORD THE CALENDAR CLERK. THE INFORMATION WHICH MS. CRAWFORD RETRIEVED FROM HER COMPUTER AND RELAYED TO ME AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M. AUGUST 28, 1998, WAS THAT NO RECUSAL HAD BEEN FILED AND THAT THE CASE WAS STILL ASSIGNED TO JUDGE INGRAM. ONLY AFTER I PRESSED THE ISSUE BY SETTING A CALENDAR DATE DID TRISHA CRAWFORD SEEK HELP FROM LISA, AND TOGETHER THEY LOCATED THE AUGUST 19 RECUSAL ORDER, ALREADY NINE DAYS IN THE FILING PROCESS. I HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WITH ANY ORDER, AS WOULD BE EXPECTED BY THAT TIME WITH NORMAL U.S. MAIL DELIVERY.

I PRESENT THIS SEEMINGLY PETTY INFORMATION TO THE COURT AS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH I BELIEVE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. BY SUCH ACTIONS, THE COURT HAS SHOWN

A DISREGARD FOR LEGAL MATTERS WHICH AFFECT THE VERY HEART AND CORE OF MY RIGHTS, STATUS, AND LEGAL RELATIONS. I BELIEVE MY ACTIONS HAVE EVIDENCED RESPECT FOR THE JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT IN MY LIFE. PARTICULARLY DURING THE LAST FOUR YEARS. I HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUPERIOR COURT. I HAVE ABIDED BY THE DECREES AND JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT SYSTEM. I HAVE INSISTED THAT MY FAMILY ABIDE BY THE DECREES AND JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT SYSTEM. I HAVE EVEN BEEN SO BOLD TO INSIST THAT THE JUVENILE COURT RESPECT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPERIOR COURT AND IN THAT LIGHT, I HAVE A COPY I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT AS EVIDENCE.

Court: ARE YOU SAYING -- LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND THIS RECUSAL BECAUSE I’M LOOKING NOW AT -- LET ME REFER YOU TO THE AUGUST 19TH ORDER AND THIS WAS WHERE JUDGE INGRAM SAID “A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS WAS FILED ON JULY 30, 1998 AND WAS SERVED UPON THIS COURT ON AUGUST 5TH, 1998, INASMUCH AS IT APPEARS THAT THE PLAINTIFF SEEKS RECUSAL OF THIS COURT, THAT REQUEST IS HEREBY GRANTED.”

WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT WAS SERVED ON AUGUST 5TH?

Plaintiff Portman: I HAVE VERIFICATION FROM THE SHERIFF.

Court: AUGUST 5; SO YOU BELIEVE THAT A

14-DAY TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THE TIME THAT IT WAS SERVED AND THE TIME THAT SHE RECUSED HERSELF IS -- IS SOMEHOW ILLEGAL?

Plaintiff Portman: I BELIEVE THAT’S EXCESSIVE ACCORDING TO UNIFORM SUPERIOR COURT RULE 25.

Court: ALL RIGHT, IT IS NOT. IT IS -- MY RULING IS THAT A 14-DAY PERIOD TO TAKE IN A BUSY JUDICIAL CIRCUIT WHERE YOU HAVE HUNDREDS OF CASES AND DEMANDS ARE MADE DAILY, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A 14-DAY -- ONCE YOU RECEIVE A PETITION FOR MANDAMUS UNTIL YOU HAVE ISSUED AN ORDER RECUSING YOURSELF, THAT 14 DAYS IS NOT EXCESSIVE AND IN FACT IT APPEARS TO BE -- AND THIS IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT -- VERY REASONABLE.

NOW, YOU’VE GOT -- YOU’VE SAID TO ME THAT YOU MUST HEAR A MANDAMUS WITHIN NOT EARLIER THAN TEN DAYS OR WITHIN THIRTY DAYS; IS THAT CORRECT?

Plaintiff Portman: YES.

Counsel for Defendant: ALL RIGHT, SO SINCE THE RECUSAL WAS FILED ON AUGUST 19 AND SINCE WE’RE HEARING IT ON SEPTEMBER 16, WE’RE WITHIN -- AT LEAST FROM THE RECUSAL DATE, WE’RE WITHIN OUR GUIDELINES; WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

Plaintiff Portman: IF YOU COUNT IT FROM THE RECUSAL DATE, YES.

ALL RIGHT, SO AS FAR AS THAT ISSUE, I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. I WILL RULE AGAINST YOU ON THAT ISSUE. WHAT’S YOUR NEXT ISSUE?

Plaintiff Portman: MAY I CONTINUE HERE?

Court: YES, MA’AM. THAT'S WHAT I’M ASKING YOU TO DO.

Plaintiff Portman: I HAVE BEEN MADE TO FEEL OBSTINATE AND LITIGIOUS FOR SIMPLY RESPECTING THE JUDGMENTS OF SUPERIOR COURT. OUT OF SELF-PRESERVATION, I HAVE SPENT AN INORDINATE NUMBER OF HOURS RESEARCHING AND STUDYING THE LAW, SO THAT I COULD WORK WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF THE LAW. SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE AN ELDERLY LAW STUDENT, TAKING ONE LONG GRUELING BAR EXAM.

I PRESENTLY DO NOT KNOW IF I AM TRULY DIVORCED OR IF THE FINAL DECREE IS, IN FACT, NOW VOID, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT WHICH I AM SEEKING FROM DEFENDANT

HOLDS WITHIN IT THE ANSWER AS TO MY LEGAL RIGHTS, STATUS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS. WITHOUT IT, I AM LEFT IN A NO-MAN’S LAND OF MAYBE DIVORCED, MAYBE NOT DIVORCED.

Court: DO YOU HAVE A FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF DIVORCE?

Plaintiff Portman: I DO.

C: LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY; YOU’RE LEGALLY DIVORCED UNTIL A COURT SAYS OTHERWISE. BUT I DON’T NEED TO GET INTO THAT. THAT’S THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. IN FACT, DO NOT TELL ME ABOUT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. I’VE GOT ANOTHER CASE, WE HAVE GOT OTHER LITIGANTS THAT ARE WAITING ON YOU. NOW, LET ME SAY THIS; ARE YOU SAYING AS FAR AS -- AS FAR AS THE WAY YOU WERE DESCRIBING YOURSELF -- ARE YOU SAYING THIS COURT TREATED YOU ANYTHING WITH LESS THAN COURTESY, DIGNITY AND RESPECT?

Plaintiff Portman: YOU ARE REFERRING TO --

Court: YES, JUDGE JAMES BODIFORD. IF SO, YOU NEED TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING READY TO FINISH THIS UP.

Plaintiff Portman: I DO OBJECT TO BEING INTERRUPTED IN MY PREPARED COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH THEM.

Court: OKAY, WE’RE ONLY GOING TO CONTINUE IF

YOU’VE GOT SOMETHING REGARDING THE WRITS OF MANDAMUS.

Plaintiff Portman: I BELIEVE EVERYTHING I HAVE TO SAY IS REGARDING THE WRITS OR WRIT OF MANDAMUS --

Court: OKAY, THEN I’LL HAVE TO TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD AND YOU MAY CONTINUE.

Plaintiff Portman: PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. 9-4-1, THE PURPOSE AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS TO SETTLE AND AFFORD A PETITIONER RELIEF FROM UNCERTAINTY AND INSECURITY WITH RESPECT TO RIGHTS, STATUS AND OTHER LEGAL RELATIONS. THE ACT IS TO BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED, GEORGIA LAW 1945, PAGE 137, SECTION 13.

BY THE VERY NATURE OF RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION ANY ACTIONS FOLLOWING RECUSAL, AND I EMPHASIZE, OR AFTER JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF ARE VOID CASE LAW --

Court: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NOW? DO YOU HAVE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT YOU HAVEN’T -- I -- I HAVE READ YOUR PLEADINGS AND I’VE WRITTEN -- NOT ONLY HAVE I HAD MY LAW CLERK RESEARCH IT BUT I HAVE READ IT MYSELF, OKAY, SO WE DON’T -- THERE’S NO MYSTERY HERE.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Plaintiff Portman: I’M REFERRING TO THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE FLOURNOY.

Court: WE’RE NOT -- WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RECUSAL OF JUDGE FLOURNOY. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT S. LARK INGRAM. GO TALK TO WHOEVER YOU WANT TO ABOUT JUDGE FLOURNOY WHO WILL LISTEN. THIS JUDGE IS NOT GOING TO LISTEN BECAUSE IT’S NOT PART AND PARCEL OF THIS CASE. I’M TELLING YOU, WE’VE GOT OTHER LITIGANTS THAT ARE WAITING TO GO ON TRIAL. DON’T -- DO NOT -- YOU’RE WASTING MY TIME, MRS. PORTMAN, WHEN YOU CAN START TALKING ABOUT A PROBLEM WITH JUDGE FLOURNOY. I REALIZE THAT YOU’VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH JUDGE FLOURNOY AND I REALIZE THAT YOU’VE GOT A PROBLEM FROM YOUR OWN PLEADING WITH JUDGE ROBINSON. IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME YOU HAVE GOT A PROBLEM WITH JUDGE INGRAM, WHICH ARE THE THREE JUDGES THAT YOU’VE BEEN IN FRONT. YOU PROBABLY AFTER TODAY ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH JUDGE BODIFORD. I REALIZE YOU’VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH DARRELL KIDD, A FORMER ATTORNEY. I REALIZE THAT YOU’VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH LARRY CUSTER, YOUR FORMER ATTORNEY. I DON’T CARE. I PLAIN AND SIMPLY DON’T CARE ABOUT WHATEVER YOUR PROBLEMS ARE AND TO BE VERY FRANK WITH YOU, I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE OR MRS. ALLEN’S PERSON LIFE EXCEPT HOW IT EFFECTS THIS CASE.

STAY ON -- START FOCUSING ON THIS CASE. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS ISSUE, THEN TELL ME ABOUT IT. IF NOT, SIT DOWN SO WE CAN WRAP IT UP. NOW, WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE, AND BY THE WAY THE FACT THAT I’M INTERRUPTING YOU, TOO BAD. I’M TRYING TO DO JUSTICE HERE. WE’RE NOT DOING WHAT PORTMAN WANTS. IF -- I THINK IF BASED ON WHAT I’VE SEEN SO FAR, YOU HAVE WASTED THIS COURT’S TIME. THIS IS FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION. YOU APPARENTLY WOULD RATHER BE HERE WASTING OUR TIME THAN BE AT THE SCHOOL YARD AND THAT’S FINE IF A JUDGE ALLOWS YOU TO DO IT. THIS JUDGE ISN’T GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO DO IT. DO YOU HAVE ANYMORE LEGAL POINTS THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE BEFORE I ISSUE MY FINAL ORDER?

Spectator: SIR, WHY DON’T YOU LET HER FINISH?

Court: I HOLD YOU IN DIRECT CONTEMPT OF THIS COURT AND YOU ARE FINED FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. YOU HAVE MADE A COMMENT. YOU ARE NOT A PARTY TO THIS MATTER. YOU HAVE MADE A COMMENT THAT’S INAPPROPRIATE. YOU HAVE STOOD UP AND YOU HAVE INTERRUPTED THE PROCEEDINGS. YOU WILL PAY FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS BY FIVE P.M. TODAY YOUR NAME, SIR?

Spectator: PETE POPHAM. YOU KNOW MY NAME, SIR.

Court: DID YOU UNDERSTAND MY ORDER?

Spectator: I THINK YOU’RE ABUSING HER AND I AM

AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AS WELL, AND I THINK YOU REALLY -- HAVE REALLY ABUSED HER AND IF THIS IS GOING TO COST ME FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, I WANT THIS ON THE RECORD TOO, THAT YOU HAVE INTERRUPTED HER AND YOU HAVE BEEN RUDE AND YOU HAVE ABUSED HER AND SHE’S BEEN ABUSED FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND IT HAS COST HER 33 THOUSAND DOLLARS AND SHE STILL ISN’T DIVORCED BECAUSE OF THIS CONDUCT OF THIS COURT SYSTEM.

Court: MR. POPHAM --

Spectator: SIR --

Court: MR. POPHAM --

Spectator: I STAND DOWN, SIR.

Court: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ORDER OF THE COURT?

Spectator: I UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR, AND I’M GOING TO APPEAL IT TOO IF I CAN POSSIBLY. COBB COUNTY HAS ONLY PUT ME IN JAIL FOUR TIMES FOR THIS TYPE OF THING BECAUSE OF YOUR ABUSE OF INNOCENT PEOPLE LIKE THIS LADY THAT CAN’T HELP HERSELF BECAUSE HER ATTORNEYS HAVE RIPPED HER OFF AND YOU KNOW THE RECORD ON THE CASE, SIR. I STAND DOWN. I JUST ASKED YOU TO PLEASE LET HER FINISH HER CASE. SHE WILL TELL YOU IF YOU’LL STOP ABUSING HER AND UPSETTING HER.

Court: MR. POPHAM, IF YOU SAY ONE MORE WORD, YOU’RE GOING TO JAIL APPARENTLY FOR THE FIFTH TIME. I

DON’T BELIEVE THAT I PUT YOU IN JAIL ANY TIMES BUT BASED ON THE ACTIONS THAT I HAVE SEEN HERE THIS MORNING, I SEE WHY YOU HAVE VISITED THE COMMON JAIL OF COBB COUNTY. SAY ONE MORE WORD AND YOU ARE GOING WITH THIS YOUNG LADY AT THIS VERY MOMENT. HAVE A SEAT.
WE’LL TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

(RECESS)

Court: ALL RIGHT, PLEASE BE SEATED

MR. POPHAM, STAND UP FOR ME. I’M WILLING TO GIVE YOU A PARDON IF YOU WANT TO ACCEPT IT. IT’S GOING TO BE COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. YOU’VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG. YOU KNOW THAT YOU’VE DONE SOMETHING WRONG AND I’VE NOW BEEN TOLD THAT -- I MEAN, I KNEW THAT I RECOGNIZED THE NAME. APPARENTLY YOU HAD CASES SIGNED TO ME BUT I THINK JUDGE BULLARD ACTUALLY HANDLED THEM. I DON’T THINK -- DID I EVER HANDLE ANY OF YOUR CASES?

Mr. Popham: I THINK YOU’RE STILL ON THAT CASE, YOUR HONOR.

Court: ALL RIGHT, WE’RE NOT -- I MEAN, WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT BUT I THINK JUDGE BULLARD HAS ALWAYS DONE IT. IS THAT RIGHT?

Mr. Popham: YES, SIR, I THINK YOU HAD THE CASE AND JUDGE BULLARD HEARD THE CASE BUT I THINK YOU ARE STILL IN CHARGE OF THE CASE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

Court: OKAY. THAT WOULD BE TRUE BUT I’M

WILLING TO GIVE YOU -- I -- I DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM IN GIVING YOU A PARDON IF I HAVE THE ASSURANCE -- FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU WANT ONE AND SECONDLY, IF I HAVE AN ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE FROM YOU THAT YOU CAN CONTROL YOUR EMOTIONS HERE IN THE COURTROOM AND NOT SAY ANYTHING AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE THAT YOU’RE GOING TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR EMOTIONS, THEN YOU’LL LEAVE THE COURTROOM AND OF COURSE, OUTSIDE THIS BUILDING, YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT.

DO YOU WANT A PARDON?

Mr. Popham: SIR, I AM IKE MS. PORTMAN. I HAVE THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR YOUR POSITION AND IT’S AN EMOTIONALLY CHARGED ISSUE. I WOULD REPEAT AGAIN, CERTAINLY I DON’T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY OUT A FIVE HUNDRED DOLLAR FINE.

Court: YOU’RE ASKING FOR A PARDON?

Mr. Popham: WHAT I’M SAYING IS --

Court: NO, NO, NOW, MR. POPHAM, YOU’VE GOT -- THIS IS -- THE JUDGE IS GOING TO DIRECT THIS. ONE PERSON HAS TO BE IN CHARGE AND THE JUDGE IS GOING TO BE IN CHARGE, RIGHT OR WRONG. ARE YOU ASKING ME -- YOU’VE GOT -- THIS IS A TWO-PRONG THING; ONE, I’VE ALREADY ORDERED IT AND I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO PREPARE THE PAPER WORK. HOWEVER, THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT GOING BACK THERE, I -- I’M WILLING BASICALLY

TO SAY, IF I CAN MAKE SURE THAT YOU’LL ADHERE TO THE RULES -- TO COMMON SENSE RULES THAT YOU WON’T SAY ANYTHING ELSE, I’M SATISFIED. I DON’T GET THE MONEY AND YOU SAID THAT YOU COULDN’T AFFORD IT, SO I’M SATISFIED IN BASICALLY TAKING MY COMPASSIONATE SIDE THAT SOMETIMES GETS ME IN TROUBLE, MY MERCIFUL SIDE AND SAYING, “MR. POPHAM, I’M WILLING TO GIVE YOU A BREAK.” IF YOU DON’T WANT THE BREAK, YOU CAN JUST SAY, “I DON’T WANT THE BREAK.”

DO YOU WANT THE BREAK OR NOT?

Mr. Popham: I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR PARDON, SIR.

Court: YOU HAVE IT. SECONDLY, MR. POPHAM, I’VE GOT TO HAVE FROM YOU YOUR ASSURANCE NOW THAT -- APPARENTLY YOU’RE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED IN THIS. I’VE GOT TO HAVE YOUR ASSURANCE THAT YOU WILL NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE DO I HAVE THAT ASSURANCE?

Mr. Popham: ABSOLUTELY.

Court: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE SEATED. THERE WILL BE -- THERE IS NO CONTEMPT.

Mr. Popham: THANK YOU, SIR.

Court: COBB COUNTY HAS PLENTY OF MONEY ANYWAY.

NOW, MRS. PORTMAN, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS

THAT -- THE REASON THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE SO MUCH DISCUSSION, FOR INSTANCE, ABOUT JURY IS YOU DO NOT BELIEVE -- MAYBE YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU NEED TO GET IT ALL OUT, YOU HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL. I AM AS SURE AS ANYTHING IN THE LAW, JUST SO YOU’LL KNOW -- I’M AS SURE AS ANYTHING IN THE LAW THAT MY DENIAL OF YOUR JURY REQUEST IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I HAVE NO -- I WOULD BET THE MORTGAGE ON IT. HOWEVER, YOU HAVE MADE IN MY MIND A VALID REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL, IN FACT, I’LL JUST -- I’LL SAY ON THE RECORD THAT MRS. PORTMAN HAS ASKED ME FOR A JURY TRIAL, SHE DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL, SHE HAS NEVER WAVERED, SHE ASKS FOR ONE AT THIS VERY MINUTE AND I HAVE DENIED IT. I THINK THAT’S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IN YOUR PLEADINGS YOU KEEP REPEATING TO ME “I DON’T WAIVE ANYTHING” OR WHATEVER.

I WILL WAY -- MY JUDICIAL RULING -- AND I BELIEVE AS FAR AS I KNOW, YOU ARE WELL-PROTECTED. IF I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE AS FAR AS RULING FOR A JURY TRIAL, THEN YOU ARE PROTECTED. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

P: I DO UNDERSTAND.

C: AND THIS IS IMPORTANT. WE DON’T NEED TO HEAR ONE MORE WORD ABOUT IT. WE DON’T NEED TO GO ANY FURTHER ABOUT IT BECAUSE I’VE RULED ON IT AND I’M SURE OF IT. I’M ABSOLUTELY -- I’M SURE THAT I’M

CORRECT AND I’M NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME. WHEN I RULE ON SOMETHING, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW, YOU MUST GO ON.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENT THEIR CLIENTS AND PRO SE LITIGANTS ARE THIS: THE ATTORNEYS KNOW WHEN THE JUDGES RULE, EVEN THOUGH MANY TIMES THE ATTORNEYS DISAGREE WITH THE JUDGE BUT THEY HAVE TO ACCEPT IT AND THE WAY TO REMEDY THAT WOULD BE TO APPEAL AND TO REVERSE THE JUDGE AND THAT’S BASICALLY YOUR MESSAGE TO THE JUDGE THAT YOU WERE WRONG. I THINK YOU’RE AT A BIG DISADVANTAGE, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE WELL-EDUCATED, YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER AND YOU’RE AT A BIG DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT’S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME AND YOU’RE VERY EMOTIONAL ABOUT IT AND I AM NOT AND I’M SORT OF A MATTER OF FACT PERSON AND I’M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT’S IMPORTANT AND WHAT’S NOT IMPORTANT SO WHEN I RULE ON ONE OF THESE ISSUES, I HAVE NO PROBLEM, ONCE I HAVE RULED ON IT, IF YOU SAY TO ME “I EXCEPT TO THAT RULING” OR “I HUMBLY DISAGREE’ OR HOWEVER YOU WISH TO PUT IT ON THERE SO YOU’RE PROTECTED AND THEN WE NEED TO MOVE ON. OKAY?

NOW, AS TO -- THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE WE’RE GETTING INTO JUDGE -- AS YOU DID IN YOUR

PLEADINGS -- WE’RE GETTING INTO JUDGE ROBINSON AND JUDGE FLOURNOY AND ALL OF THAT AND THAT’S NOT -- AND YOU KNOW THIS -- THAT’S NOT AN ISSUE HERE. IT’S ONLY AN ISSUE HERE OF YOUR DEMANDS FOR JUDGE LARK INGRAM TO DO CERTAIN THINGS SO WHOEVER YOU HAD A PROBLEM WITH IN THE PAST AND WHETHER THEY DID SOMETHING RIGHT OR WRONG, I’M NOT GOING TO CONCERN MYSELF WITH. ALL RIGHT?

NOW, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR BASICALLY PRESENTATION.

Plaintiff Portman: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I RESUME I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, YES, I DO UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU MAKE A RULING I ACCEPT THAT AND I ACCEPT THAT I HAVE LEGAL PROCESS THAT I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.

I HAVE PREPARED MY COMMENTS TO THE COURT AND I HAVE PREPARED THEM TRYING TO SHOW TO --

Court: I THINK I’M GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR THEM.

MRS. PORTMAN, I THINK BASICALLY -- I THINK YOU HAVE WORN ME DOWN AND I THINK WHEN I WENT BACK THERE AND I JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, I’VE BEEN DEALING WITH -- I HAVE DEALT WITH EVERYTHING FROM PARKING TICKETS TO DEATH PENALTY CASES AND I JUST DECIDED I THINK I’M GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE TO HEAR MRS. PORTMAN. SHE IS HERE TO TELL ME AND SHE WANTS TO TELL ME IN HER OWN WAY AND I JUST DECIDED

EVEN -- EVEN WITH ALL THOSE ADMONITIONS, YOU’RE BASICALLY GOING TO DO WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO DO SO I’M GOING TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN AND IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT I THINK THAT IS OF LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT I NEED TO RULE ON OR WHATEVER, I’LL INTERRUPT YOU THEN AND WE’LL TALK TO YOU AND THEN WE’LL TALK TO MRS. ALLEN.

Plaintiff Portman: I UNDERSTAND. MY ONLY COMMENT WAS THAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO GIVE ME A WARNING TO REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING OF ANYTHING. THESE ARE ALREADY PREPARED COMMENTS AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY NEED TO BE HEARD IN CONTEXT AND I DID NOT --

Court: I’M GOING TO ALLOW IT -- I’M GOING TO ALLOW IT. I’M GOING TO ALLOW IT. GO AHEAD -- BY THE WAY, HOW MANY PAGES HAVE WE GOT PREPARED?

Plaintiff Portman: EIGHT PAGES.

Court: THAT’S FINE.

Plaintiff Portman: I’M ON PAGE THREE..

Court: EIGHT PAGES I CAN HANDLE THAT, OKAY.

Plaintiff Portman: I’M ON PAGE THREE.

Court: OKAY

Plaintiff Portman: BY THE VERY NATURE OF RECUSAL, DISQUALIFICATION, ANY ACTIONS FOLLOWING RECUSAL OR AFTER THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HERSELF ARE VOID. CASE LAW IS BUTLER V. BIVEN SOFTWARE, 1996, 222 GA. APP. 88, 473 S.E.2D 168, RECONSIDERATION DENIED JULY

5, 1996.

I DO KNOW THAT JUDGE FLOURNOY SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF BEFORE HEARING THE DIVORCE ACTION. HOWEVER, I WAS BARRED FROM SHOWING EVIDENCE OF THAT FACT, FOR I WAS BLATANTLY DENIED MY ENTITLED ORAL HEARING. THE ORDER WHICH DISQUALIFIED JUDGE FLOURNOY WAS, IN ITSELF A PERPETRATION OF FRAUD, FOR IT WAS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF GEORGIA LAW. THE CLEAR ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE TRIER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THE LAW, PARTICULARLY WHEN THAT TRIER DENIED BOTH A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND A REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION OF RULING UNDER O.C.G.A. 5-6-34 (B). I AM LEFT WITHOUT LEGAL REMEDY EXCEPT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

I HAVE A CLEAR AND LEGAL RIGHT TO THE ACTION SOUGHT FROM DEFENDANT, THAT BEING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, YET JUDGE INGRAM HAS REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO ACT. SHE HAS DIRECTED ME TO INITIATE ACTION BY PREPARING THE ORDER FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. EVEN WITH THE TRANSCRIPT, I WOULD BE TAKING LIBERTIES WITH THE COURT’S WORDS AND OPINION BY SUCH ACTION. I CHOOSE TO NOT BE THAT PRESUMPTUOUS, I MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN TOO PRESUMPTUOUS BY STATING THE DECLARATIONS WITHIN THE MOTION, RATHER THAN BY ASKING QUESTIONS. I AM CLEARLY A NOVICE WITH BOTH THE

INTRICACIES OF THE LAW AND CONCISE YET COMPLETE ARTICULATION.

FURTHER, THERE EXISTS RELIABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW WHICH INDICATES THAT ANY PREPARATION OF AN ORDER,M EVEN WHEN IDENTIFIED AS, QUOTE, ACCEPTED AS TO FORM ONLY, IS, BY THE SIGNATURE OF THE PARTY OR THE PARTY’S ATTORNEY, A WAIVER OF THE PARTY’S RIGHTS TO APPEAL. I HAVE ALREADY CLEARLY STATED MY POSITION CONCERNING WAIVING ANY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

ALTHOUGH THE VERY NATURE OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS TO SEEK THE COURT’S OPINION, THERE IS SOME CASE LAW TO IMPLY THAT A PECUNIARY INTEREST MUST EXIST FOR PLAINTIFF’S SUCCESSFUL PURSUIT OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS. THE UNDERLYING ISSUE OF CHILD CUSTODY CERTAINLY HOLDS A PECUNIARY INTEREST FOR ME AND FOR MY CHILDREN. FURTHER THE VERY VALIDITY OF THE DIVORCE DECREE CARRIES SIGNIFICANT PECUNIARY INTEREST. IN ADDITION THERE IS AN ATTORNEY’S LIEN IN EXCESS OF TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ON MY HOME, YET THAT LIEN IS ALSO VOID IF THE DIVORCE DECREE IS NOW VOID. BECAUSE OF THE SURREPTITIOUS HANDLING OF JUDGE FLOURNOY’S DISQUALIFICATION, I AM LEFT IN A QUANDARY OVER MY OWN MARITAL STATUS. THE FINANCIAL, RELIGIOUS, EMOTIONAL AND LEGAL ASPECT OF SUCH A STATE OF MIND ARE SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND

THE EXTRAORDINARY AID OF MANDAMUS EXISTS ONLY WHERE, ONE, THE APPLICANT HAS A CLEAR AND LEGAL RIGHT TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, AND, TWO, THERE IS NO OTHER ADEQUATE LEGAL REMEDY.

AS TO THE FIRST CONDITION, I HAVE A CLEAR LEGAL RIGHT TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT, PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. 15-6-21 (B) AND (C) AND SUPERIOR COURT RULE 6.3. I HAVE ESTABLISHED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT. I HAVE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT EXIST AND BY EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSCRIPT, I HAVE SHOWN THAT THE ORDER FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO GUIDE AND PROTECT ME FROM UNCERTAINTY AND INSECURITY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPRIETY OF SOME FUTURE ACT OR CONDUCT WHICH IS PROPERLY INCIDENT TO MY ALLEGED RIGHTS, AND WHICH FUTURE ACTION, WITHOUT SUCH DIRECTION, MIGHT REASONABLE JEOPARDIZE MY INTEREST. CASE LAW, COHEN V. REISMAN, 203 GA 684, 48 S.E.2D 113, 1948.

AS TO THE SECOND CONDITION, THE COURT DIRECTED ME TO PREPARE THE ORDER FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO RECEIVE THE ORDER OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. SUCH ACTION WOULD HAVE JEOPARDIZED MY RIGHT TO APPEAL. DIRECTION BY ANY COURT THAT A PLAINTIFF ACTING IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO INHERENTLY WAIVE PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE

PROCESS RIGHTS CONSTITUTES ABUSE OF DISCRETION. I RESPONDED --

Court: YOU UNDERSTAND -- SO YOU UNDERSTAND, THAT THAT IS A COMMON PROCEDURE, THE WINNING PARTY -- JUST LIKE I’M DOING HERE WHEN I LOOK TO MRS. ALLEN AND SAID “PREPARE THE ORDER”, THAT’S -- THAT IS SOMETHING THAT’S DONE EACH AND EVERY DAY MANY SCORES OF TIMES A DAY ON THIS FLOOR.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, MRS. PORTMAN?

Plaintiff Portman: I DO UNDERSTAND.

Court: YOU UNDERSTAND YOU WEREN’T BEING PICKED ON. THEY LOOK TO THE WINNING PARTY. THAT’S WHAT I SAID -- I KNEW THAT YOU MUST HAVE BEEN THE WINNING PARTY IF THEY LOOKED TO YOU AND SAID “PREPARE THE ORDER.” OW YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT BUT THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING TODAY. I’M LOOKING TO THE STATE’S ATTORNEY AND SAYING “DO IT”, SO YOU UNDERSTAND, AT LEAST YOU WEREN’T BEING PICKED ON?

Plaintiff Portman: THAT IS THE COURT’S PERCEPTION OF IT.

Court: WELL, I’M NOT -- I’M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT YOU WEREN’T BEING PICKED ON SO, YOU KNOW, SILLY ME.

IN OTHER WORDS, WERE YOU -- DID YOU WATCH ANY

OTHER HEARINGS THAT DAY AND DID YOU SAY HOW THE JUDGE DID IT? IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE, THE JUDGE DIDN’T GO BACK AND SAY “WELL, WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TO DO HERE. LET ME TAKE FIFTEEN TO TWENTY MINUTES AND GO AHEAD AND PREPARE MY OWN ORDER.” THEY LOOKED AT THE LITIGANTS IN A BUSY CIRCUIT LIKE THIS AND SAY “YOU DO THE ORDER ON THIS CASE” AND THEN THE NEXT CASE THAT CAME BEFORE YOU, “YOU DO THE ORDER”, AND WHEN IT CAME TO YOUR CASE, SHE SAID “YOU DO THE ORDER” --

Plaintiff Portman: I UNDERSTOOD.

Court: AND I SUSPECT THAT NO ONE HAS EVER TOLD HER -- I DON’T KNOW -- NO ONE HAS EVER TOLD HER, NO, THEY WEREN’T GOING TO DO THE ORDER. NO ATTORNEY WOULD NEVER DO THAT. I MEAN, I’VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT BEFORE. BUT ANYWAY, WE’RE OVER THAT. I’M GOING TO DO IT. I’M GOING TO TAKE MY TIME TO DO IT.

ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.

Plaintiff Portman: I RESPONDED BY AFFIDAVIT ON JULY 14, 1998, THAT I DID NOT CHOOSE TO WAIVE MY RIGHTS. HOWEVER, THE COURT REPEATEDLY DIRECTED ME TO ACT IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO DENY ME PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. THE COURT MADE NO ASSURANCES CONCERNING MY RIGHTS, ALTHOUGH TO DO SO WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDER COULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE COURT’S DIRECTION AND INTENT. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO OTHER ADEQUATE LEGAL

REMEDY THAN BY MANDAMUS BY WHICH TO OBTAIN THE ORDER FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.

DEFENDANT STATES AS A FIRST DEFENSE THAT MY PETITION FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM. I CLAIM MY RIGHT TO A CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE ANSWER AS TO MY LEGAL RIGHTS, STATUS AND OTHER RELATIONS. I HAVE A PECUNIARY INTEREST IN THE UNDERLYING CASE OF THE DIVORCE. I HAVE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THAT I NEED AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO A TIMELY ADJUDICATION OF MY MOTION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND ADHERENCE TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

DEFENDANT CLAIMS AS A SECOND DEFENSE THAT MANDAMUS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO CONTROL JUDICIAL ACTS, DEFENDANT FAILS TO CITE ANY CASE AUTHORITY FOR SUCH DEFENSE, HOWEVER, PLAINTIFF SUBMITS THAT MANDAMUS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY MEASURE AVAILABLE TO ENFORCE O.C.G.A. 15-6-21 (B) AND (C) AND SUPERIOR COURT RULE 6.3. SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ARE PUBLIC OFFICIALS ELECTED BY THE CITIZENRY AND AS SUCH ARE BOUND BY THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA AND BY THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE OF JUDICIAL DUTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY NEED FOR SUCH EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES. HOWEVER, MANDAMUS IN ITSELF IS A FINAL AND NECESSARY ACT WHEN A MEMBER OF THE ELECTED JUDICIARY -- I’M SO SORRY. PLEASE EXCUSE ME, YOUR

HONOR.

Court: THAT’S ALL RIGHT.

Plaintiff Portman: IS A FINAL AND NECESSARY ACT WHEN A MEMBER OF THE ELECTED JUDICIARY FAILS TO FAITHFULLY PERFORM HIS OR HER JUDICIAL DUTIES.

DEFENDANT CLAIMS AS A THIRD DEFENSE THAT MANDAMUS IS NOT AVAILABLE TO CONTROL THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION. I SEEK NOT TO CONTROL THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, BUT RATHER TO ENFORCE AN ABSENCE OF ABUSE OF DISCRETION. PURSUANT TO O.C.G.A. 15-6-21 (B) AND (C) AND SUPERIOR COURT RULE 6.3, I HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO AN ORDER AND AS REQUESTED, ALSO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. THE MANDAMUS DOES NOT SEEK TO LIMIT OR CONTROL THE LEVEL OR SCOPE OF THE COURT’S DISCRETION BEYOND THE ADJUDICATION OR BEYOND THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. I SEEK THAT THE OFFICIAL DUTY OF THE HONORABLE S. LARK INGRAM BE FAITHFULLY PERFORMED. PLAINTIFF FURTHER SEEKS ACTION BY THE HONORABLE S. LARK INGRAM WHICH IS FAITHFUL TO THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF ANALOGY, MY CAREER IS AS A TEACHER. UNDER SIMILAR PROFESSIONAL CODE, I AM DUTY BOUND TO REPORT ANY SUSPICION OF CHILD ABUSE. IT IS NOT WITHIN MY DISCRETIONARY RIGHTS, NOR MAY I EVEN

INVESTIGATE AN INSTANCE WHICH GIVES RISE TO THE SUSPICION. SUSPICION IS THE ACQUISITION OF EVEN CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I MUST SIMPLY REPORT THE SUSPICION TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT’S DUTY IS TO REPORT ANY SUSPICION OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT TO THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION, I HAVE SHOWN THE HONORABLE S, LARK INGRAM THAT STATUTORY LAW SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWS A RECUSAL ORDER SUCH AS THE ONE ENTERED BY THE HONORABLE DOROTHY ROBINSON AND I HAVE SHOWN THE HONORABLE S. LARK INGRAM THAT I HAVE BEEN PLACED IN SEVERE JEOPARDY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SAID RECUSAL ORDER AND SUBSEQUENT DENIAL OF MY MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF RULING UNDER O.C.G.A. 5-6-34 (B), FILED FEBRUARY 12, 1998. I AM BARRED FROM FURTHER REMEDY UNTIL FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE CIVIL ACTION, YET ANY FURTHER ACTION BY ME IS CERTAIN TO CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM.

DEFENDANT CLAIMS AS A FOURTH DEFENSE THAT THE PETITION IS NOW MOOT SINCE THE DEFENDANT HAS RECUSED HERSELF AS THE JUDGE IN THE UNDERLYING CASE. IF, IN FACT, AN ACTION TO RECUSE FROM THE UNDERLYING CASE PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE HAD SERVICE OF SUCH JUDICIAL ACT PRIOR TO RECEIVING SAID ANSWER. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT RECEIVED SERVICE OF JUDGE INGRAM’S RECUSAL FROM CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

96-1-2243-34 NOR IS SUCH A RECUSAL A PART OF THE FILE ON RECORD WITH THE CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT OF COBB COUNTY, THIS IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT.

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK DEFENDANT’S RECUSAL FROM THE UNDERLYING CASE. RATHER, PLAINTIFF SIMPLY SOUGHT TO ENFORCE BOTH DEFENDANT’S RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY TO RULE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. HOWEVER, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT AS A FOURTH DEFENSE IS CLEAR INDICATION THAT DEFENDANT IS NOW MAKING A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO USE JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO SUPERSEDE THE ISSUE OF A MANDAMUS ABSOLUTE. SUCH ACTION IS CLEARLY GROUNDS FOR SANCTIONS AND CONTEMPT OF COURT. CASE LAW, BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY V. CRAVEY, 209 GA. 407, 240 S.E.2D 659, (1952), AND BETTIS V. CITY OF ATLANTA CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, 249 GA. 398, 291 S.E.2D 507 (1982).

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE COMPLETED MY PREPARED STATEMENT.

Court: ANYTHING ELSE - ANYTHING ELSE YOU WISH TO SAY?

Court: I HAVE SUBPOENAED THE HONORABLE S. LARK INGRAM AND I DO HAVE ANOTHER SUBPOENA OUT ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR RULING THAT IT’S NOT ADMISSIBLE ON ANY ISSUE THAT WOULD REQUIRE HER TO INVESTIGATE OR REPORT A SUSPICION OF MISCONDUCT WITHIN

HER COURTROOM.

Court: NOW I -- I HAVEN’T INTERFERED WITH YOUR SUBPOENA PROCESS. YOU JUST MEAN BY MY RULINGS THAT ANY SUBPOENAS THAT YOU HAVE OUT ARE BASICALLY MOOT BECAUSE BASED ON MY RULINGS, THERE ARE -- NO LONGER ANY TESTIMONY IS NEEDED.

Plaintiff Portman: I DID NOT SAY THAT NO LONGER IS TESTIMONY NEEDED BUT I SAID THAT I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR RULING THAT YOU HAVE BARRED ANY PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE CONCERNING WHAT OCCURRED IN THE COURTROOM WHILE JUDGE INGRAM WAS OUT OF THE COURTROOM.

DID I MISUNDERSTAND YOUR RULING?

Court: NO. NO, YOU DIDN’T. NO -- AS FAR AS -- YOU WANTED -- IT WOULD BE INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO PROFFER, YOU COULD -- AT THIS TIME YOU COULD JUST BASICALLY TELL ME, FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE REMEMBER THERE WON’T BE ANYTHING ON THE RECORD. YOU CAN TELL ME AND WE WILL TRY TO HELP YOU IF I CAN. YOU CAN PROFFER AT THIS POINT WHAT YOU WANTED -- WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOUR WITNESSES WERE GOING TO SAY AND THAT WOULD BE A PROFFER AND YOU’RE BASICALLY JUST SAYING, “YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL WITNESS WOULD BE CALLED AND HE OR SHE WOULD SAY CERTAIN THINGS AND SOMEHOW THAT THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT.”

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD SAY?

BEING ADMITTEDLY INTENTIONAL.

Court: OKAY, I NOW UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. I DON’T SEE THAT THAT HAS ANY RELEVANCE OR MATERIALITY TO THIS CASE BUT AT LEAST I NOW UNDERSTAND.

ANYTHING FURTHER?

Plaintiff Portman: DO -- DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES?

Court: NO. THERE ARE NO ISSUES LEFT TO BE RESOLVED.

MS. ALLEN, ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY? FIRST OF ALL --

Counsel for Defendant: I DON’T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR.

Court: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU BELIEVE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST YOUR CLIENT -- ANY -- ANY RULINGS HERE THAT YOU THINK THAT I HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ON BECAUSE I WANT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND MRS. PORTMAN IS NOT BUT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, I WOULD EXPECT YOU -- IF I HAVE MADE ANY RULINGS THAT ARE NOT CORRECT, I WANT YOU TO TELL ME EVEN IF THAT HARMS YOUR CLIENT. HAVE I MADE ANY RULINGS THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ARE CORRECT TODAY PURSUANT TO GEORGIA AND FEDERAL LAW?

Counsel for Defendant: NO, SIR.

Court: ALL RIGHT, HERE’S WHAT I’M GOING TO DO. NOW, LET ME SAY -- LET ME SAY THIS. I SAID THAT

I’M GOING TO PREPARE THE ORDER AS A COURTESY BY FRIDAY, ASSUMING THAT I CAN GET MY HANDS ON THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT. I HAVE A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT BUT WE’LL DO THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT AND I THINK I CAN GET THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT TODAY. I’M GOING TO --

Counsel for Defendant: I HAVE IT FOR YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Court: YOU HAVE AN ORIGINAL?

Counsel for Defendant: I HAD IT CERTIFIED BY THE COURT REPORTER.

Court: OKAY.

Counsel for Defendant: IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH?

Court: YES.

Counsel for Defendant: I THINK SHE RAN OUT A NEW -- A NEW COPY.

Court: DO YOU MIND LETTING US HAVE THAT AND WE’LL SEND THAT BACK TO YOU AND MRS. PORTMAN, DO YOU WANT TO JUST SPEND A FEW MINUTES TO MAKE SURE THAT -- THAT EVERYTHING -- THAT ALL OF THE PAGES ARE CONTAINED THERE?

Plaintiff Portman: I’LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT, ALTHOUGH I TRUST THAT THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WILL --

Counsel for Defendant: I MEAN, I ASKED THE COURT REPORTER OR THE JUDGE ASKED THE COURT REPORTER FOR THE TRANSCRIPT

AND I ASKED THAT SHE CERTIFY IT AND SHE RAN IT OFF HER MACHINE AND WAS THERE ONLY ONE HEARING?

Plaintiff Portman: THERE WAS ONE HEARING AND THERE WAS ONE CLERICAL ERROR IN THE TRANSCRIPT AND I SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING THAT CLERICAL ERROR.

Court: OKAY, IF YOU WOULD DO THIS. THIS IS MRS. KIM JUSTICE, WHO I THINK YOU HAVE TALKED TO AND MRS. ALLEN MIGHT HAVE TALKED TO HER ALSO. IF YOU WILL GIVE HER -- ONCE YOU LOOK THROUGH THIS CERTIFIED COPY, MADE SURE THAT NO PAGES ARE MISSING BY MISTAKE OR WHATEVER, YOU GIVE THAT TO MRS. KIM JUSTICE. ALSO PLEASE GIVE A COPY OF YOUR AFFIDAVIT WHERE YOU SAY SOMETHING -- THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN SOMETHING THERE BECAUSE WE’LL NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. WE’LL NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND IF THAT’S MATERIAL, THEN WE -- THEN WE MAY HAVE AN ADDITIONAL PROBLEM. WE WILL THEN PREPARE THE ORDER -- WE’LL PREPARE THE PROPOSED ORDER BY FRIDAY AND GET IT TO JUDGE INGRAM.

I’M GOING TO ASK MRS. ALLEN, AS I’VE SAID, A WEEK FROM THIS MONDAY TO PREPARE MY LEGAL RULINGS IN THIS CASE AND SEND IT OUT TO ME. SHE’LL SEND YOU A COPY OF THAT. YOU WILL NOT BE ASKED TO SIGN ANYTHING AT ALL, THAT WILL BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT. VERY SHORTLY AFTER MRS. ALLEN SENDS IT OUT TO ME, I’LL LOOK AT IT AND REVIEW IT AND UNLESS I BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY

MISTAKES IN IT, I WILL SIGN IT.

AS A COURTESY, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO FAX YOU A COPY OF IT FILED ON THAT DATE BECAUSE YOUR TIME LIMIT BEGINS RUNNING AT THAT TIME. ALL RIGHT, SO WE’LL BE -- IF YOU’LL KEEP US UP TO DATE AS TO WHERE YOU ARE AND YOU KNOW, WE DON’T LIKE TO FAX LEGAL PROCEEDINGS WITH ANYBODY’S NAME ON IT UNLESS THEY GIVE US PERMISSION BUT IF YOU SAY, “YES, YOU CAN FAX IT RIGHT TO THE SCHOOL WITH THIS NUMBER,” WE’LL BE GLAD TO DO SO AND WE CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT DAY WE’RE GOING TO DO IT. WE’RE GOING TO DO IT, GOD WILLING, I’M GOING TO BE BACK ON THE 28TH AND VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, 28TH OR 29TH, I’M GOING TO SIGN IT, ASSUMING THAT EVERYTHING IS RIGHT. I’LL SIGN IT SO YOU KNOW YOUR DAYS ARE TO BEGIN -- START TO RUN AT THAT TIME. SO I THINK I -- LET’S MAKE SURE I HAVE TOLD YOU EVERYTHING SO PROCEDURALLY YOU’LL KNOW WHERE WE GO. I’M GOING TO DO THE PROPOSED ORDER, THE REMAINING -- THESE OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE, THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THOSE FOR THE REASONS ARTICULATED BY THE STATE IN THEIR ANSWER AND ALSO BY THE REASONING GIVEN TO ME TODAY AND I’M GOING TO HAVE THEM PREPARE THAT ORDER.

ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT I NEED TO DO?

Plaintiff Portman: YOUR HONOR, YES, I DO.

WHAT WAS YOUR SECOND QUESTION?

Plaintiff Portman: MY OTHER COMMENT IS IN REGARD TO THE TIMING THAT YOU’RE NOW SUGGESTING THAT YOU WILL SIGN THE ORDER ON SEPTEMBER 28.

Court: RIGHT.

Plaintiff Portman: IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

Court: YES, MA’AM.

Plaintiff Portman: I DID SEND YOU A LETTER AS OF SEPTEMBER 6 AND I COPIED IT TO THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE AND I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION OF THE

LAW. I UNDERSTAND BY CASE LAW THAT WHERE AT THE TIME AN APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS WAS HEARD BY THE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT THE TIME HAD PASSED WITHIN WHICH THE OFFICIAL DUTY, THE PERFORMANCE OF WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE COMPELLED, COULD BE PERFORMED, THE COURT PROPERLY DENIED A MANDAMUS ABSOLUTE AND THAT IS --

Court: LET ME JUST -- HOLD ON, MRS. ALLEN, I’M NOT GOING TO FORCE YOU TO DO THIS. CAN YOU DO THIS ORDER IN THE NEXT DAY OR TWO?

Counsel for Defendant: THIS PARTICULAR ORDER HERE?

Court: YES.

Counsel for Defendant: SURE.

Court: ALL RIGHT, WE’LL DO THIS. THIS WILL ALLAY YOUR FEARS ON THAT. I’M GOING TO BE HERE THROUGH FRIDAY AND I’M GOING TO ASK MRS. ALLEN -- I’M ASKING HER A LOT -- I’M ASKING HER A LOT MORE THAN I WOULD ASK ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE I TYPICALLY GIVE EVERYBODY TEN DAYS AND SOMETIMES WHEN THEY SAY TWENTY DAYS, I’LL DO THAT, BUT MRS. ALLEN SAID SHE CAN DO IT SO I’M GOING TO BIND HER TO IT. I’LL ASK HER TO HAVE IT OUT HERE BY 3:00 O’CLOCK ON FRIDAY. I WILL THEN SIGN IT ON FRIDAY. OKAY? SO THEN, FORGET THESE OTHER TIME LIMITS. ON FRIDAY I’M GOING TO SIGN IT AND THEN WE CAN -- I THINK -- IS SARA WORKING ON FRIDAY? AND MRS. OR MISS JUSTICE WILL BE HERE SO SHE CAN FAX YOU

THAT ORDER ON FRIDAY.

Counsel for Defendant: CAN I FAX YOU THE ORDER AND HAVE YOU COPY IT OVER?

Court: YES, THAT WOULD BE FINE AND WE’LL JUST SCAN IT.

Counsel for Defendant: I CAN DO THAT OR I COULD PROBABLY E-MAIL IT.

Court: FAX IT PLEASE. IF YOU FAX IT AND THEN IF WE -- WE CAN SCAN IT. WE MIGHT HAVE TO RETYPE IT BUT THAT WILL BE FINE. THAT WILL KEEP SOMEBODY -- THAT WILL KEEP SOME COURIER WE ARE ALL -- ALL OF US IN THIS ROOM ARE PAYING FOR FROM DOING THAT AND TWO DAYS IS SORT OF A FAST TIME, SO THAT WOULD BE GREAT AND THE QUICKER THE BETTER SO WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

Plaintiff Portman: YOUR HONOR, I HOPE I HAVEN’T MISLED THE COURT. I WAS REFERRING ACTUALLY TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT BEING HANDLED WITHIN THE NINETY DAYS ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL CODE OF GEORGIA AND THAT WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 22. I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT FOR MANDAMUS BUT THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. AM I CONFUSING YOU?

Court: LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU DON’T -- LET ME JUMP BACK TO THIS CASE. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM IF WE GO BACK THEN BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT -- YOU’RE NOT INSISTING THAT I SIGN THE ORDER BEFORE I

LEAVE FOR MY JUDICIAL CONFERENCE?

Plaintiff Portman: AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T JEOPARDIZE MY RIGHTS TO APPEAL OR PROCEED.

Court: MA’AM, I CAN’T GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE. IN MY OWN THINKING, IT DOES NOT BUT MISS ALLEN, ARE YOU AWARE -- HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF LAW?

Counsel for Defendant: TWENTY YEARS.

Court: ALL RIGHT, YOU OUGHT TO KNOW, TELL ME, THE FACT THAT I’M GOING TO -- WOULD SIGN IT ON MONDAY THE 28TH, DO YOU THINK THAT JEOPARDIZE ANY RIGHTS THAT SHE HAD?

Counsel for Defendant: TO APPEAL IT?

Court: YES.

Counsel for Defendant: I DON’T THINK SO. I THINK IT’S FROM THE DATE OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER, NOT EVEN WHEN YOU SIGN IT BUT WHEN IT’S ENTERED BY THE CLERK’S OFFICE AND YOU GET THIRTY DAYS FROM THAT DATE.

Plaintiff Portman: YOUR HONOR, I DO APOLOGIZE BUT I AM NOT ASKING FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND IN THAT CASE BECAUSE I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY, I WOULD PREFER TO STICK TO THE CALENDAR THAT YOU ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED --

Court: WHICH WAS THE 28TH?

Plaintiff Portman: NO, I’M SORRY, THE -- THAT YOU FAX IT TO ME.

NOW, YOU KNOW THIS, MRS. PORTMAN, I’M TELLING YOU TOO MUCH AND I DON’T -- I DON’T THINK YOU APPRECIATE IT BUT THAT’S ALL RIGHT TOO. IF YOU APPEAL THIS ORDER, YOU HAVE GOT -- I JUST UNDERSTAND JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE UNDERLYING CASE AND I TRIED NOT TO GET INTO THAT. YOU HAVE GOT A CHILD THAT IS CLOSE TO BEING 18, IS THAT RIGHT?

Plaintiff Portman: YES, SIR.

Court: SO I’M ASSUMING THAT -- AND YOU KNOW THIS, IF YOU APPEAL THIS ORDER, I THINK IT MIGHT BE MOOT BECAUSE WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR, YOU ARE LOOKING TO GET CUSTODY OF YOUR CHILD? AT ONE TIME YOU HAD CUSTODY. ARE YOU LOOKING TO GET CUSTODY?

Plaintiff Portman: WELL, THE ISSUE OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ALSO INDICATED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE JUDGE -- WHETHER JUDGE FLOURNOY IS RECUSED IN THE UNDERLYING DIVORCE CASE AND NOT JUST THE CUSTODY CASE BECAUSE I HAVE A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL -- MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE DIVORCE CASE.

Court: BUT IF I WAS ASKING YOU TODAY -- JUST BEFORE I RULE, IF I WAS ASKING YOU TODAY AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO STAY AWAY FROM AND I WAS STAYING AWAY FROM BECAUSE IT WAS REALLY NOT PERTINENT

TO ME BUT IF I WAS ASKING YOU FOR IT -- IF WE COULD WAVE A MAGIC WAND AND GIVE MRS. PORTMAN WHAT YOU WANT, BASICALLY WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT? IS IT A CUSTODY ISSUE THAT YOU ARE MOST CONCERNED WITH? I MEAN, WHAT -- WHAT ARE WE FIGHTING ABOUT?

Plaintiff Portman: I -- I WOULD LIKE -- I TRUST SUPERIOR COURT. I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT MY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT JUDGE FLOURNOY SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECUSED FROM THE UNDERLYING DIVORCE CASE. I CAN DO THAT BUT I WAS BARRED FROM THAT AND --

Court: I DON’T THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. IS IT CUSTODY, FINANCES? I MEAN, WHAT IS IT?

Plaintiff Portman: WELL -- I’M SORRY --

Court: WHAT -- I MEAN -- WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE THAT YOU -- WHAT’S THE BOTTOM LINE THAT YOU’RE UPSET ABOUT? WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE SOME OF THE FINANCES, CHANGE SOME OF THE CUSTODY OR I MEAN, WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS THE GENESIS?

Plaintiff Portman: I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU OBJECT TO THE LENGTH THAT I HAVE REQUIRED ALREADY THIS MORNING AND IF I WOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION , I’M AFRAID I WOULD KEEP YOU IN THE COURTROOM ALL AFTERNOON.

Court: YOU HAVE -- THAT HAS ANSWERED IT WELL ENOUGH FOR ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, WE’RE