Appellant, M. Portman:
This is a suit for a Writ of Mandamus, against a Superior Court Judge of Cobb County for not adhering to the Official Code of Georgia. But, this is not just any Superior Court judge. This is S. Lark Ingram, daughter of G. Conley Ingram, former Justice of this Supreme Court. Her reputation precedes her, as does her family heritage. She has, no doubt, earned the right to serve the citizens of Cobb County as a Superior Court Judge, on her own merit.
S. Lark Ingram has an exemplary and honorable record. That is precisely the reason she was assigned to the underlying case of custody modification. Sadly, her willful participation in this sordid miscarriage of justice has now put her in a position of jeopardy. I believe she was used by people she trusted.
As the plaintiff in this action, I did not, nor do I now, choose to attack the person of S. Lark Ingram. I have, however, leveled a procedurally correct attack on the Court’s actions; precisely, her refusal to act. This is a matter of Law, it is not an argument of personalities, reputations, or allegiances. I would do the same again, regardless of who is wearing the robes. The Law has no room for prejudice and bias. It has no room for favoritism and nepotism. I seek truth, according to the Law.
To do less than that would be a travesty of justice. THIS Court, because of the actions of the lower court, must now decide the matter, even though it involves the daughter of one of your colleagues. I did not ask for anyone’s recusal from this Court, including those of you who might reasonably be predisposed to rule in favor of Justice Ingram’s daughter. I do not seek favors, I seek justice, according to the Law of the State of Georgia and the Law of the United States.
Yet, the relationship of the people involved in this case does have great bearing on the matter here before you. I am not oblivious to the existence and power of the “Olde Guard” of Cobb County. I know some of the relationships, both personal and professional, between the court officers involved in the underlying cases. Granted, only one case is directly before this Court, but this instant case is here because of the gross injustices of the underlying cases.
You have a Motion before you, to fine me $1000 for Frivolous Appeal. That is a clear attempt to intimidate and frighten me. I have a legal right to appeal the Order from Superior Court of Cobb County and I claim that right. My complete argument on that issue is in my filed Response.
Please allow me to tell you why I pursue this action with such tenacity. I will then show you the relevance of the story.
About twelve years ago, I was fired from a position as a legal secretary, after 6 months of employment. My employer and I both knew the reason I was fired. I had intentionally ignored this attorney’s advances, for I needed the job. My husband had recently been laid off and we had two children, one just recently diagnosed with a chronic illness. I filed for unemployment but was denied benefits. My employer claimed to the Labor department that I didn’t have the skills necessary and couldn’t do the job as a legal secretary. The clerk at the Labor Department shared with me that this attorney’s unemployment record had reached the maximum for the time period. They would charge back future unemployment claims directly to him. Even after the appeal within the Labor Department, I was denied benefits. I was told I could take it to the Superior Court of my home county. At that point, I gave up because the employer who fired me had also made it very clear that he could control that court, through his father, the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr.
The Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. was then assigned to hear my divorce 10 years later. And therein lies the error and the beginning of a great cover up of judicial misconduct. The Code of Judicial Conduct, if followed, would have allowed Judge Flournoy the opportunity to voluntarily recuse himself. That Code also clarifies the responsibility of a judge to recuse himself, if in the eyes of a reasonable citizen, his impartiality is questionable. These arguments are all documented in pleadings in the underlying cases.
Taking names out, allow me to explain the circumstances of the last three years. Judge No. 1 was disqualified by Judge No. 3, on grounds that are specifically NOT permitted by Georgia Law. Judge No. 3 then barred me from interlocutory appeal of that Order. Judge No. 1 was replaced by Judge No. 4, who then refused to rule on my Motion for Declaratory Judgment. Judge No. 5 then heard my Petition for Mandamus against Judge No. 4 for refusing to provide judgment on a motion within the time prescribed by statutory law. Judge No. 2 barred me from State Bar fee arbitration and granted me a jury trial on the foreclosure of my home, yet then held ex-parte hearings and barred me from the granted jury trial, thereby denying me the ability to protect my home. The juvenile Court judge denied me the rights of a joint legal custodial parent, rights granted to me by the Superior Court in the Final Judgment and Decree from Judge No. 1.
Again, Judge No. 1 should have recused himself before hearing the divorce, for his impartiality was questionable. I have 16 witnesses under subpoena, with evidence to legally disqualify Judge No. 1, Judge Flournoy. When I served the subpoena to Judge Flournoy, he told me I could throw it on the floor, as far as he was concerned. When I subpoenaed his son, he and his wife followed me in their car. When I served my divorce attorney, he ran from me in the parking lot, ran into his office, and locked the door. Other instances are similar, concerning the remaining 13 subpoenas, and affidavits are on file in the Record. I have been barred from showing that evidence or questioning those witnesses.
The Honorable S. Lark Ingram is Judge No. 4 in this three year long legal struggle. Her refusal to abide by O.C.G.A. 15-6-21 is the only reason this matter is now before you. As much as I regret leveling this procedurally correct attack against any judge, the fact remains that it is my right and it is now my only legal remedy, to protect my home from foreclosure and my children from further jeopardy.
It is a principal of human nature that if you tell a lie, it will probably need another lie to cover up the first, and then another lie to yet cover up the next......leading to a whole string of lies. Before you know it, the unraveling of each lie becomes the most painful part, even more than correcting the original untruth.
That is exactly what has happened in this case. One lie on top of another. Each lie instigated by action of Superior Court officers. The original lie is the Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce, which I can now see is a legally VOID Order and should be declared so by this Court.
The underlying custody modification case was intended to “die on the vine.” If it did, I would have no legal remedy to my property right. The property right I speak of is the right of knowledge concerning my divorce.
Some people subscribe to the philosophy of “what you don’t know can’t hurt you.” I believe that knowledge is power. In fact, for seven years I’ve had a five foot sign above my office that proclaims just that. My chosen career is to teach our future generations that Knowledge is the path to their successes and to their survival.
I am here before you today to gain the knowledge which Superior Court of Cobb County has purposely and consciously kept hidden from me. It is the evidence and information from these last three years which have allowed me to put the pattern of deceit in focus. I now can see that the original Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce, filed by the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. is a VOID order. But I also now know that I must have that knowledge in a legally binding Court Order. I respectfully request that you declare the underlying Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce VOID.
In addition to the property right, I have an equity right which must be addressed. The equity claims are documented in the record, and I do not choose to be redundant at this point, nor to state figures which might appear to be stated here simply for the shock value.
And finally, the dilemma. If ruling by the Law, you MUST reverse the ruling of the lower court and either remand for a jury trial or issue a Writ of Mandamus. However, will that serve justice? Not now, for the time has passed for a valid Order on the Motion for Declaratory Judgment. The errors are directly attributable to the intentional delays and procedural tactics used by Cobb County Superior Court. That is what this Supreme Court must address.
This is a dilemma for Solomon. Although I recognize the difficult position you are now in, I believe in your office; and therefore, I must believe in your judgment. To take a lead from the esteemed Attorney General’s Senior Assistant and draw an analogy to a lesson from classical literature, Damocles sword is ever present for kings and judges.
The only solution which will both exonerate Judge Ingram and serve justice to me is for you to reach down into the lower court and examine the Record of the underlying cases. Please question the actions of the lower court in all of the cases, the divorce, the custody, the foreclosure, the juvenile court action, and the State Bar fee arbitration and grievance. Question the method of case assignments. Question the Clerk’s filing procedures. Question the time delays. Question the Orders. Question my pleadings. Investigate. Please, serve truth and justice.
Ms. Allen (Judge Ingram's counsel): Your Honors, may it please the Court, I am Kathryn Allen and I am here representing Judge Lark Ingram of the Cobb Superior Court. I ask the Court to focus on what is here before the Court and that is the appeal of the Mandamus action, in which Judge Ingram was the defendant. We are here on the appeal of that case, and we are not here on the appeal of ......Judge Flournoy, or any employment actions by Judge Flournoy's son. We're not here to discuss personalities.
One thing, one factual point that I heard Mrs. Portman address today that was involved in the case that we're here to hear was the...she said, Judge Ingram refused to rule on her declaratory action, judgment. That simply is not the truth.
Judge Ingram ruled on her declaratory judgment action....from the bench...at the hearing...months before the Mandamus action was filed. The Complaint that the Plaintiff had was that Judge Ingram asked Ms. Portman to prepare the Order. Ms. Portman did not want to prepare the Order, so she sued Judge Ingram to require her to prepare the Order for her.
In the Mandamus action, Ms. Portman asked in addition to preparing the Order, she asked Judge Ingram to investigate a conversation between a court clerk and a lawyer that happened in the courtroom while the judge was out of the courtroom. And this was..in the record...was a very ambiguous kind of thing, apparently Ms. Portman's mother overheard a lawyer and a court clerk discussing murder, he used the word "murdering his girlfriend," and it was interpreted by Ms. Portman's mother as some kind of threat.
She wanted Judge Ingram to abide by the Official Code of Conduct, particularly the code, the canon that dealt with financial involvment in a case before Court, which has nothing to do with this case.....
She wanted Judge Ingram to abide by the timelines in the Code. And that the other thing I heard Ms. Portman talk about today, Section 15-6-21. Now...And she wanted Judge Ingram to recuse herself from the Mandamus case, which was a given. If you sue the judge, in Mandamus and it gets assigned to that judge, that judge can't hear it. So, Judge Ingram did recuse herself from the Mandamus.
Now she mistakenly thought that she'd also recused herself from the divorce, modification, whatever case that gave rise to the Mandamus. Um. At the hearing it turned out that that was in error. And everybody agreed at that point that Judge Bodiford was hearing the Mandamus and not Judge Ingram. Judge Ingram had recused herself from the Mandamus. She had not recused herself from the underlying divorce case. Judge Bodiford proposed that he write the Order that Ms. Portman wanted Judge Ingram to write. The parties agreed to that.
Judge Bodiford wrote the Order, submitted it to Judge Ingram for Judge Ingram to sign it, a week later.
So that declaratory ruling happened; first, from the bench. Then, through writing, after the Mandamus hearing. There's nothing there for the Court to hear.
The main point that Ms. Portman makes in her brief is that she was (trying inaudible) for a jury trial on the issue of whether Judge Ingram had recused herself from the underlying case. Well, everybody agreed at the Mandamus hearing that Judge Ingram had NOT recused herself.
There was nothing for a jury to hear.
And on the other issues, there was no showing that they were relevant at all, that Judge Ingram should have Judge Bodiford point, you know, admonish her that she should abide by the Code of Judicial Conduct and that she should if she took on this underlying case, she should abide by the, uh, timeline. I mean, there was no violation at the time.
This is not a case where the time has expired and the judge refuses to act. Um, Judge Bodiford's decisions alone is correct and this is a frivolous appeal. We are asking the Court to use it's authority and fine the Appellant in this case, because she has gotten what she has asked for. And there's really nothing left at this time.
Justice Benham: Okay, anything further at this time from the Appellant?
Appellant: Yes, your Honor, I would like to point out that the Order which Judge Ingram signed was not within the 90 days. It is outside the law. It is not a valid Order, I would like to get it declared VOID. Therefore, I do not have an Order from the Declaratory Judgment. She did not sign it and file it within the 90 days, she did not do so. It is not a frivolous appeal. She refused to issue the Order, to file it, she continued to refuse, even after I filed the Mandamus, she could have filed the Order, but she didn't, she continued to refuse. Then when it went before Judge Bodiford and she was given the opportunity to recuse herself from the underlying issue, she said, No, she would do the Order and she would file it within the 90 days. And then she still refused.
Justice Fletcher: You now have an Order. (not completely audible on the recording)
Appellant: But it is beyond the 90 days.
Justice Fletcher: (not completely audible, therefore paraphrased) Do you not have an Order.
Appellant: There is a signed Order, but it is beyond the 90 days. The intent was to draw my whole custody modification out, so that my son would turn 18, so that nothing would come from it, nothing would be exposed from the underlying errors.
Justice Benham: (not completely audible, adjournment)