An actual and justiciable controversy exists. Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22 has been a Civil Action before Cobb County Superior Court since July 1994. The parties of Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22 are: Marquitta L. Portman, Plaintiff; and Gregory Russell Portman, Defendant. Said Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22 has resulted in subsequent litigation in various courts and tribunals: Superior Court Civil Action Files 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33, 99-1-0343-24, Juvenile Court File 76177-00, State Bar of Georgia Petition for Fee Arbitration and Grievance RE: Daryl Kidd, Court of Appeals Case No. A99I0090, and Georgia Supreme Court Case Nos. S99A0440 and S99C0504. All such actions are predicated on the Final Judgment and Decree from Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22. Exhibit A.
Judges: Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
Clerk: With regard to the allegations made in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant denies that any actual or justiciable controversy exists. For further answer, Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations made in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint, however, the records in the case numbers referred to in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint are assumably matters of official court record and speak for themselves. All remaining allegations made in paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Complaint are therefore denied.
Kidd: Kidd denies that an actual and justifiable controversy exists. As to the remaining allegations, Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants deny the allegations in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 1
2.
The Defendants in this current civil action at bar and their role in the underlying Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22 are:
Judges: Paragraph 2 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
Clerk: With regard to the allegations made in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant admits that George H. Kreeger, Robert E. Flournoy, Dorothy Robinson, S. Lark Ingram, James G. Bodiford, Michael Stoddard, Jay Stephenson, Larry W. Yarbrough, Daryl Kidd, Gregory Russell Portman, and R. Wynette Kennedy Portman have all been named as Defendants in the herein civil action; however, Defendant denies as alleged Plaintiff's allegation that he is responsible for the ministerial assignment of ALL litigation in Cobb County Superior Court, pursuant to Superior Court Rules. In further answer, Defendnat states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations made in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. However, Kidd admits that he was counsel to Plaintiff in Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants admit the allegations in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 2
The underlying Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22 was assigned to the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. at the time of the filing, July 1994. Said case was heard by bench trial October 2, 3, and 4, 1995 and Judge Flournoy filed with the Clerk of Cobb County Superior Court a nunc pro tunc Final Judgment, December 11, 1995. Civil Action File No. 96-1-2243-22, being a Modification of Child Custody, was then filed March 22, 1996 and by Superior Court Rule 3.2, was also assigned to the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. Upon the Disqualification of the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. by Order, January 9, 1998, of the Honorable Dorothy Robinson, said modification case was then assigned to the Honorable S. Lark Ingram.
Judges: Paragraph 3 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
Clerk: Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. However, Kidd admits the allegations contained in Sentence 2 of Paragraph 3.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants admit the allegations in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 3
4.
Judge Ingram twice refused to file a judgment on heard motion (June 24, 1998) and Plaintiff filed a Petition for Mandamus, to receive judgment by September 22, 1998, pursuant to O.C.G.A. Sec. 15-6-21 (b) & (c). Judge Ingram assured the Court (Judge Bodiford) that the sought Order would be complete by September 22, 1998. Consequently, Mandamus was denied by the Honorable James G. Bodiford. The sought Order, prepared by Judge Bodiford and filed by Judge Ingram, was filed September 25, 1998, and placed Jurisdiction of Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22 (the divorce action), in the Court of Judge Ingram. Judge Ingram’s subsequent Recusal Order of October 6, 1998 removed her from the modification action, but not from the divorce action. No Order exists to either recuse or disqualify Judge Ingram from the divorce action.
Judges: Paragraph 4 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
Clerk: Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants allege they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 4
5.
Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 3.3, "the judge to whom any action is assigned shall have the exclusive control of such action, except as provided in these rules, and no person shall change any assignment except by order of the judge affected and as provided in these rules. In this regard an assigned judge may transfer an assigned action to another judge with the latter’s consent in which event the latter becomes the assigned judge." Superior Court Rule 3.3 was apparently violated by both Judge Bodiford and Judge Ingram with the filing of the September 25, 1998 Order, for no Order exists releasing Civil Action File No. 96-1-2243-22 from the Court of Judge Flournoy.
Judges: Paragraph 5 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
Clerk: With regard to the allegations made in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant states that Superior Court Rule 3.3 speaks for itself. In further answer, Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations made in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5. Furthermore, the Superior Court Rule referenced in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Complaint is a document in writing, the terms of which speak for themselves; therefore, Kidd neither admits nor denies the allegations pertaining to the Superior Court Rule. However, to the extent the allegations are inconsistent with the actual terms of the Superior Court Rule, Kidd denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants allege they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 5
6.
Plaintiff was, by this time, thoroughly confused as to the Jurisdiction of the original divorce action, in which several motions were outstanding, including a Motion for New Trial and Post-Judgment Motion to Re-Open Discovery. Plaintiff appealed the denial of Mandamus (Civil Action File No. 98-1-6130-33) to the Georgia Supreme Court (Case No. S99A0440), and asked the high court to declare the September 25, 1998 Order VOID. Through oral argument and comment, the high court affirmed the ruling of the lower court and clearly acknowledged the Order of September 25, 1998. Acting in timely accordance with Superior Court Rule 25.1, and without clear knowledge of true jurisdiction of the divorce action, Plaintiff immediately filed a Motion to Disqualify the Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr., the Honorable Michael Stoddard, the Honorable Dorothy Robinson, the Honorable S. Lark Ingram, and the Honorable James G. Bodiford from Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22.
Judges: Paragraph 6 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
Clerk: Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants allege they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 6
7.
Said "Motion to Disqualify having been read and considered," by Order of June 7, 1999, the signature of the Honorable George H. Kreeger assigned Civil Action File No. 94-1-5243-22 to "the Honorable G. Conley Ingram, Assisting Judge in Cobb Superior Court." The Order of June 7, 1999 did not contain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and did therefore not identify the "jurisdiction," for it did not determine Disqualification of any of the five judges.
Judges: Paragraph 7 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
Clerk: Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: The Order of June 7, 1999 referenced in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint is a document in writing, the terms of which speak for themselves; therefore, Kidd neither admits nor denies the allegations pertaining to the Order of June 7, 1999. However, to the extent the allegations are inconsistent with the actual terms of the Order, Kidd denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants allege they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 7
8.
Said Order of June 7, 1999 has a handwritten notation, identifying Judge Kreeger as "Presiding" Judge. If Judge Kreeger was acting in the capacity as determined by Superior Court Rule 25.4, then there has been a judgment to Disqualify and said judgment is not on the Record.
Judges: Paragraph 8 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
Clerk: Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. Furthermore, the Order of June 7, 1999 referenced in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint is a document in writing, the terms of which speak for themselves; therefore, Kidd neither admits nor denies the allegations pertaining to the Order of June 7, 1999. However, to the extent the allegations are inconsistent with the actual terms of the Order, Kidd denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants deny the allegations in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 8
9.
If Judge Kreeger’s actions were pursuant to Superior Court Rule 25.4(C), (2), then the next hearing would necessarily have to be an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 25.6, concerning the Disqualification of any or all of the five judges. However, the Order did not indicate that the parties should be prepared for an evidentiary hearing; rather, it stated that the Honorable G. Conley Ingram was, "to rule on all issues outstanding."
Judges: Paragraph 9 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
Clerk: With regard to the allegations made in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant states that Superior Court Rule 25.4(c)(2) and 25.6 speak for themselves. In further answer, Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9. Furthermore, to the extent Paragraph 9 calls for a legal conclusion, no admission or denial is required. Moreover, the Order referenced in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint is a document in writing, the terms of which speak for themselves; therefore, Kidd neither admits nor denies the allegations pertaining to the Order. However, to the extent the allegations are inconsistent with the actual terms of the document, Kidd denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants deny the allegations in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 9
10.
Again, pursuant to Superior Court Rule 3.3, "the judge to whom any action is assigned shall have the exclusive control of such action, except as provided in these rules, and no person shall change any assignment except by order of the judge affected and as provided in these rules. In this regard an assigned judge may transfer an assigned action to another judge with the latter’s consent in which event the latter becomes the assigned judge." The record contains no Order, either transferring the jurisdiction, or relinquishing the jurisdiction. The record contains no motion for emergency action, requiring a presiding judge.
Judges: Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is denied to the extent it conflicts with the official records of Civil Action Numbers 94-1-5243-22; 96-1-0373-24, 96-1-2243-22, 98-1-6130-33 and 99-1-0343-24 in the Superior Court of Cobb County and the other official records referenced in paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
Clerk: Defendant states with regard to the allegations made in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint that Superior Court Rule 3.3 speaks for itself. In further answer, Defendant states that he is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations made in paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore said allegations stand as denied.
Kidd: Kidd is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable him to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. Furthermore, the Superior Court Rule referenced in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Complaint is a document in writing, the terms of which speak for themselves; therefore, Kidd neither admits nor denies the allegations pertaining to the Superior Court Rule. However, to the extent the allegations are inconsistent with the actual terms of the Superior Court Rule, Kidd denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10.
Yar Por & Por: Defendants deny the allegations in the following paragraphs of the complaint: 10