IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF GEORGIA MARQUITTA L. PORTMAN, * Appellant, * -VS- * CASE NO S99A0440 S. LARK INGRAM, * Appellee. *
COMES NOW, Marquitta L. Portman, Appellant in the above styled case and files this her Motion for Reconsideration and Declaratory Judgment and shows the Court the following:
Pursuant to Rule 26, Appellant seeks reconsideration, judgment, and opinion from this Court of the attached ruling, Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Rule 59, the evidence does not support the judgment, for the conditions for Mandamus were present and evident. In addition, it was evident from the record that the lower court had predetermined to deny a jury trial for the singular purpose of ensuring that judgment would result in favor of the Appellee.
Pursuant to Rule 59, the harmful error of law is conflict with precedential rulings by this same high court. As identified by case law cited in Appellant’s Brief, this high court has determined that Mandamus is the proper and only remedy for this particular set of circumstances. The arguments and citations of authority made by the Attorney General’s office in support of Appellee are inconsistent with this court’s previous rulings. The courts have the duty to rule in accordance with statutory law and to consider the intent of the legislature. Such intent, in the instant case, was to require a court’s ruling within a prescribed time period. Even under the threat of Mandamus, this Appellee refused to abide by the law, the intent of the legislature, and more importantly, the spirit of justice.
Pursuant to Rule 59, the harmful error of law is that said affirmation of the lower court’s ruling denies Applicant her property right to knowledge about the underlying Final Judgment and Decree. The record shows that Appellant has sought clarification of the status of said Final Judgment and Decree.
Pursuant to Rule 59, an opinion would have precedential value for all citizens. This high court is responsible for rulings and opinions which are inconsistent with their own previous rulings, particularly where there has been no intervening statutory law change. This particular ruling, to affirm the judgment of the lower court, is inconsistent with this Supreme Court’s previous rulings.
Appellant has acted pro se, out of necessity rather than choice, and understands that her position as a pro se litigant should neither give her special advantages, nor cast her in an unfavorable light before the triers. A litigant who is represented by counsel obviously benefits from the explanations of this high court’s ruling, through the experienced wisdom of a trained attorney. This pro se litigant is at the mercy of this court for opinion and explanation of a ruling.
This high court has affirmed the action of the lower court, Exhibit A, making the September 25, 1998 ORDER by the Honorable S. Lark Ingram binding. That ORDER moves the divorce action, Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22, to her Court. However, the Superior Court of Cobb County clearly identifies the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. as the current, and sole trier of Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22. Without opinion from this high court, ruling the September 25, 1998 ORDER as either VALID or VOID, this high court stands in conflict with the lower court as to which judge has jurisdiction.
Appellant has clearly put everything she has, everything she is, and everything she believes in to bring what has gradually become a gross abuse of discretion by the lower court to the attention of this high court. Appellant pleads with this high court to consider the possibility that a judge of a lower court can be infallible and that human error can leave a citizen is severe jeopardy. The record in this instant case is cause for investigation by this high court.
WHEREFORE, Appellant prays that this Court will reconsider and issue judgment with opinion, sufficient to answer the question for future litigation in the Cobb County Superior Court.
Respectfully submitted, this 22nd day of April, 1999.
Marquitta Portman
Appellant
address and phone