Murphy_Freeman_Court Reporting Fraud_First Amended Complaint w Atts
-
Upload
deb-beacham -
Category
Documents
-
view
42 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Murphy_Freeman_Court Reporting Fraud_First Amended Complaint w Atts
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TROUP COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA
Nancy Michelle Murphy, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action No. 15-CV0109 Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc., Defendants [Only two Defendants remaining after Fulton Superior Court transfer]
Demand for a Jury Trial by twelve persons.
First Amended Complaint
Nancy Michelle Murphy (or, “Michelle Murphy,”) after transfer of this case to
the Superior Court of Troup County, here amends her original Superior Court
of Fulton County filed action against Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting,
Inc. (or, collectively, “Nan Freeman,” “Nan” or “Nanny”).
There are issues embedded within each of the causes of action that affects the
damages that should be awarded against Nan Freeman. The embedded issues in
each cause of action are (1) the proportion of the tortious conduct by Nan Freeman
that can be attributed to her violation of the LAW* by intentionally participating
in the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin in order to deprive Michelle Murphy and
her children of their protections under the LAW* by Nan Freeman’s reckless and
wanton disregard of consequences that evinced an intention to inflict injury upon
Michelle Murphy --- (2) the proportion of Nan Freeman’s tortious conduct that
is attributed to her intent to obtain illegal financial and employment benefits for Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 1 of 55
herself --- (3) the proportion of Nan Freeman’s tortious wrongdoing that is
attributed to her fraud and negligent misrepresentation. --- (4) the damages caused
to Michelle Murphy as the result of Nan Freeman’s illegal and unethical conduct
that included Nan Freeman’s participation in attempting to secret and otherwise
participate in the illegal conduct and other violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.
Michelle Murphy seeks damages, including punitive damages and other relief
for Nan Freeman’s fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract,
conversion. unjust enrichment, negligence and inequitable conduct, including
intentional tortious conduct and for false, illegal certification of an official
transcript of a court proceeding by using authority bestowed upon Nan Freeman
by the State of Georgia and, Judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.
1. Introduction --- Summary of Illegal and Tortious, including the intentional tortious conduct and other actionable Conduct by Nan Freeman that has damaged Michelle Murphy.
1.1 Nan Freeman was designated by Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. as his
officially qualified State of Georgia Court Reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit
under authority provided to Judge Baldwin by OCGA §15-14-1 to both appoint
and vacate the appointment of an official court reporter, a position that Nan
Freeman held. The laws of Georgia, as the result of bestowing the authority of an
official court reporter upon Nan Freeman, restricted her conduct and regulated the
compensation that she could legally receive from individuals and government
entities.
1.1.1 Nan Freeman has engaged in two primary broad categories of illegal
and tortious conduct affecting and damaging Nancy Michelle Murphy (or,
“Michelle Murphy”) Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 2 of 55
1.1.2 The illegal and tortious conduct of Nan Freeman that necessitates the
causes of action brought in this case against Nan Freeman and Freeman
Reporting, Inc., her solely owned corporate entity, (or, “Nan Freeman”
collectively or separately) are summarily identified in this Amended
Complaint.
1.2 Each of the primary categories of illegal and tortious conduct by Nan
Freeman justify the relief sought in this Amended Complaint, including punitive
damages.
1.1.2 The conduct of Nan Freeman that primarily only affected Michelle
Murphy and her two children, J.M., age 16 and T. M., age 14, is one of the large
categories of the illegal and tortious, including intentional tortious conduct by
Nan Freeman that justified the relief sought.
1.2.2 The other primary category of illegal and tortious conduct by Nan
Freeman while substantially affecting Michelle Murphy and her two children,
J.M. and T. M., also sustainably affected, and remains to potentially affect all
persons in the State of Georgia and particularly persons in the Coweta Judicial
Circuit and State of Georgia who rely upon its court system and equitable
enforcement of the laws of Georgia. Nan Freeman has engaged in theft by
taking from Michelle Murphy and people in the Coweta Judicial Circuit and
State of Georgia.
1.3 This case against Nan Freeman is a civil action brought by an individual
litigant who was damaged by this official court reporter, Nan Freeman, whose
conduct should have been in part prevented by the Board of Court Reporting of
the Judicial Council of Georgia (or, “Board of Court Reporting”) and the Judicial
Qualifications Commission State of Georgia. (“JQC”). Both Nan Freeman and
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 3 of 55
Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. apparently were able to exert and obtain political
influence to evade effective regulatory action to timely correct the illegal conduct
of Nan Freeman and Judge Baldwin that require Michelle Murphy to bring this
action to recover her damages.
1.3.1 These are two regulatory agencies, the Board of Court Reporting and
the JQC that should have brought the conduct of Nan Freeman and
Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin within the bounds of the LAW* long before
the necessity of this case against Nan Freeman by Michelle Murphy.
1.3.2 If Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. had not been engaged in
conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the LAW* there
would have been no necessity for Nan Freeman to have failed to provide
sections of the record in the transcripts, for counsel of Michelle Murphy. It also
would not have been necessary for counsel for Michelle Murphy to have
requested that the calendar call be recorded and to have been refused
permission for Michelle Murphy to purchase copies of Nan Freeman’s audio
recordings of Judge Baldwin’s loud, provocative screaming that followed
Judge Baldwin being caught engaging in violations of protections provided to
litigants by the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Code the Uniform Superior Court
Rules, the Constitutional provisions of the United States and State of Georgia
equivalent, First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process
protections, statutes, decisional law, Georgia Code of Professional Conduct,
the Court Reporter Code of Professional Ethics (or, collectively, or separately,
“LAW*”.)
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 4 of 55
1.4 It was the effort of Nan Freeman and Judge Baldwin to defend their legally
indefensible, illegal and unethical conduct that necessitated this case against Nan
Freeman.
1.4.1 The Board of Court Reporting has two full time, State of Georgia paid
employees who should be accessible to persons having questions about the
regulations governing the propriety of the conduct of official court reporters,
as is Nan Freeman. There can be no check and balances of the authority
provided to these state actor official court reporters without access to Board of
Court Reporting employees excepting through written questions to a political
buffer.
1.4.1.1 These State of Georgia employees for the Board of Court
Reporting should not be shielded from providing information to persons
seeking information about official court reporters who are charging fees
regulated by the Board of Court Reporting.
1.4.1.2 There is something going wrong involving official court reporters
in Georgia, such as Nan Freeman, who is participating and being unjustly
enriched by engaging in criminal conduct in illegally charging for her work
product and failing to accurately record court proceedings.
1.4.1.3 Persons affected by the inability of the Board of Court Reporting
in the State of Georgia to regulate official court reporters without litigation
are entitled to investigate the need for changes at the Board of Court
Reporting. This need for the Board of Court Reporting to take action is being
shielded.
1.4.1.4 These Board of Court Reporting employees, for political reasons,
in violation of the LAW* are shielded by Cynthia Hinrichs Clanton, General
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 5 of 55
Counsel of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and as staff of the
Judicial Council of Georgia.
1.4.1.5 These Board of Court Reporting employees should freely and
openly discuss regulations relating to violations by official court reporters
without Cynthia Hinrichs Clanton requiring that she screen the written
subject content of the inquiry sought to be made of the State of Georgia
employee of the Board of Court Reporting.
1.4.1.5.1 Cynthia Hinrichs Clanton, in matters involving the Coweta
Judicial Circuit, required that each question to the Board of Court
Reporting’s employees be presented to her in writing before obtaining
responses at a later time from the employees.
1.4.1.5.2 Cynthia Clanton will not allow the employees to discuss
matters by telephone. or in person. This conduct by Cynthia Clanton
creates suspicion that the employees have information that should not be
disclosed to the public, or that the employees are just political appointees
who cannot fulfill their job requirements and their ineptness is being
concealed.
1.4.1.5.3 Nan Freeman testified at her deposition that she could never
get anyone at the Board of Court Reporting to talk with her on the
telephone. The accuracy of her testimony could be relevant to the amount
of punitive and other damages sought from her.
1.4.1.6 The shielding conduct of Cynthia Hinrichs Clanton is not isolated
to the conduct of Nan Freeman. In another case involving the illegal
collection of funds by a Judge who was ultimately disciplined and removed
as a judge, and a Clerk of Court. In that case, Cynthia Clanton refused to
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 6 of 55
allow discussion with employees of the State of Georgia about false
information provided to the public relating to the reimbursement of illegally
collected funds from the public.
1.4.1.6. The conduct of Cynthia Hinrichs Clanton could be interpreted as
conduct engaged in by Cynthia Clanton in furtherance of an elective position
that she seeks with other entities. (See, Cynthia Clanton’s “Candidate’s
Campaign Message,” State Bar of Georgia website,
http://www.gabar.org/newsandpublications/election/Clanton.cfm )
1.4.1.7 This type of shielding conduct relating to Nan Freeman by Cynthia
Hinrichs Clanton deterred earlier and more complete detailed disclosure of
Nan Freeman’s illegal conduct, that, in part, is interference by the Board of
Court Reporting in addressing unethical and illegal official court reporter
conduct, which is allowing government entities and litigants, as Michelle
Murphy to become victims of breach of contract, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and of the unjust enrichment of Nan Freeman through
secreting of her obligations to the public.
1.4.1.8 The conduct of the Board of Court Reporting that allowed Nan
Freeman to assist Judge Baldwin in violating the protections due Michelle
Murphy with violations of the LAW*, in particular, was the by-product of
the Coweta Judicial Circuit not having the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1
mandated case management plan that should have been corrected when first
noticed to the courts.
1.5 The Compensation that Nan Freeman is allowed to receive while serving as
an Official Court Reporter is designated by the Board of Court Reporting.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 7 of 55
1.5.1 The certificate that Nan Freeman affixes to the transcripts requires that
in all further proceedings, the courts must assume the transcript to be true,
complete and correct.
1.5.2 Litigants are required by the law of Georgia to pay Nan Freeman to
obtain her transcripts of court proceedings. Litigants have no choice as to the
official court reporter who litigants must employ.
1.5.3 The requirement of the certificate that Nan Freeman must attach to her
official transcripts is very easy to understand and would be very easy for the
Board to randomly audit, instead of employing persons who fail in their
regulatory obligations to the extent that the courts of the State of Georgia have
been infected with illegal conduct by court reporters such as Nan Freeman.
1.5.4 OCGA § 5-14-5 requires the following of Nan Freeman that the Board
of Court Reporting, the District Attorney of Coweta County and Judge Baldwin
failed to require of Nan Freeman before she was unjustly enriched for work that
did not comply with the laws of Georgia that affects the lives of numerous
people.
OCGA § 15-14-5. Duty to transcribe; certificate. It shall be the duty of each court reporter to transcribe the evidence and other proceedings of which he has taken notes as provided by law whenever requested so to do by counsel for any party to such case and upon being paid the legal fees for such transcripts. The reporter, upon delivering the transcript to such counsel, shall affix thereto a certificate signed by him reciting that the transcript is true, complete, and correct. Subject only to the right of the trial judge to change or require the correction of the transcript, the transcript so certified shall be presumed to be true, complete, and correct.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 8 of 55
1.5.5 Nan Freeman, as a part and parcel of her habitual violation of the laws
of Georgia, did not provide Michelle Murphy’s transcripts with an
OCGA § 5-14-5 required certificate containing the certification that the
transcript is “true, complete and correct. . ” as required by OCGA § 5-14-5. -
-- The transcript provided and paid for by Michelle Murphy was not true or
complete or correct. Nan Freeman has never provided to Michelle
Murphy, or other litigants, the required certificate that is an indication of
the pattern of her illegal conduct. 1.5.6 Michelle Murphy and her counsel
have been held in contempt of court based upon the transcripts of Nan Freeman.
1.5.7 The contempts rendered by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. have been
financially detrimental and created great emotional stress to Michelle Murphy.
1.5.8 Judge Baldwin has rendered Orders detrimental to Michelle Murphy and
her two children based upon the illegal transcripts of Nan Freeman.
1.5.8.1 Nan Freeman failed to provide the initial part of the court
proceedings on May 27, 2014, when Judge Baldwin committed to J. M. and
T. M., whose current and future wellbeing were at stake at that hearing, that
he would allow them to testify.
1.5.8.2 Instead of obtaining evidence as required by LAW*, Judge
Baldwin, after the May 27, 2014 hearing, was willing only to receive
information from Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the so designated guardian ad
litem, who is an individual who engaged in violations of the laws of Georgia
and was attempting to justify the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin.
1.5.8.3 Judge Baldwin after committing to counsel for Michelle Murphy that
there would be a hearing to determine the well documented abuse of the
children by John Harold Murphy that was acquiesced in and allowed by
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 9 of 55
Renee L. Haugerud making alcoholic drinks and tobacco products available
to the children.
1.5.8.3.1 Nan Freeman’s May 27, 2014 transcript does not reflect the
names or identifies of the people who had evidence and were waiting to
testify about the basis for the decision that Judge Baldwin was to make.
1.5.8.3.2 There is no question but that the illegally prepared transcript of
Nan Freeman conceals the illegal and Code of Judicial Conduct violations
by Judge Baldwin, with omissions from the transcript prepared and
illegally certified by Nan Freeman. The conduct of Nan Freeman
interferes with the protected liberty interest of Michelle Murphy and her
children that Judge Baldwin has breached, together with his other
violations of protections due Michelle Murphy by the LAW*.
1.5.8.3 The children being allowed to testify was critical for the hearing
to comply with the LAW*, as either the custody evaluator, Nancy McGarrah,
made a false statement, or John Harold Murphy had made a false statement
to Nancy McGarrah attesting to an accusation that he told Nancy McGarrah
that one of the children told him that one of the children had been fondled
by Michelle Murphy.
1.5.8.3.1 The substance of the false accusation as evidence was critical.
1.5.3.3.2 The commitment of Judge Baldwin at the beginning of the May
27, 2014 hearing to allow the children to testify, which Nan Freeman
failed to transcribe, was critical.
1.5.8.3.3 The fondling never occurred and was never alleged by the
children, as now acknowledged by John Harold Murphy. This fondling
accusation was a litigation tactic of the Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 10 of 55
LLP lawyer, William R. Poplin, Jr., and the Glover & Davis lawyer,
Taylor Drake.
1.5.8.3.4 John Harold Murphy knew the statement regarding fondling
made by Nancy McGarrah was untrue when he heard the statement of
Nancy McGarrah as she was testifying.
1.5.8.3.5 Even with John Harold Murphy knowing the fondling statement
was untrue, his Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lawyer, William R.
Poplin, Jr. continued to use the false statement in pleadings to the Court
of Appeals of Georgia in violation of the LAW*.
1.5.8.3.6 The absolutely untrue fondling accusation was used to the
Court of Appeals by William R. Poplin, Jr. as a justification for the illegal
conduct and violations of the LAW* by Judge Baldwin in not allowing
counsel for Michelle Murphy to present evidence.
1.5.8.3.7 Nan Freeman has never transcribed the broken commitment of
Judge Baldwin on May 26, 2014 to these children, Michelle Murphy and
to counsel. This omitted conduct by Judge Baldwin was just one instance
of Judge Baldwin’s broken commitments to Michelle Murphy and her
counsel that he would allow evidence at a later time. In making these, “I-
will-allow-your-evidence-later” commitments, Judge Baldwin never
allows the evidence in the most critical matters. On May 27, 2014, Nan
Freeman negligently or intentionally did not preserve the statement by
Judge Baldwin that became just one in a series of the broken commitments
by Judge Baldwin.
1.5.3.3.7 That information was both a commitment by Judge Baldwin to
allow the children to testify at the May 27, 2015 proceeding, and an Order
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 11 of 55
from Judge Baldwin to remove the children from the courtroom and to
place them in a witness room.
1.5.3.3.8 Nan Freeman deprived Michelle Murphy of a transcript of the
critical, broken commitment and Order that should have been available to
Michelle Murphy to present to the JQC and to the appellate courts, along
with Judge Baldwin’s failure to allow Michelle Murphy to present any
evidence, as he went into his monstrous temper tantrum that included four
transcript pages that Nan Freeman also failed to produce until after she
filed her defective certificate and subsequently received a Freedom of
Information Act Request to obtain an audio recording of the May 27, 2014
proceedings.
1.5.3.3.9 The omitted pages, now supported by the audio recording of the
Code of Judicial Conduct violations by Judge Baldwin, that subsequently
were provided in an “Addendum” transcript follows.
Transcript of Proceedings before
the Honorable A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Judge, at the Coweta County Courthouse
Newnan, Georgia on the day 27th of May, 2014
ADDENDUM [REPORTER’S NOTE: This addendum is being filed because this final objection, made after the judge’s ruling, although taken down at the time, was inadvertently omitted from the main transcript.]
MR. DRAKE: Thank you. MR. FARMER: Your Honor, may we have an
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 12 of 55
immediate review for -- THE COURT: No. MR, KING: May we go on the record, Your
Honor, and state that you have not allowed Ms. Murphy to present a defense to this contempt, that you have, as a sanction, transferred custody. In no case in the State of Georgia has a sanction ever transferred custody of the children.
MS. MURPHY: (Unintelligible.) MR. KING: And we want to put that on the
record as an objection to the conduct of the Court and the ruling of the Court that has just been made that we have been denied due process of law. We’ve been denied the opportunity to present witnesses to this Court about these children, and we sternly and strongly object.
THE COURT: Well, let me just tell you this,
both to you, and Mr. Farmer, and to Ms. Murphy: If y’all would do what you were supposed to do, you wouldn’t be having this problem so --
Wait just a minute. Blame yourself (indicating); blame
yourself (indicating); blame yourself (indicating).
That’s what we’re doing. I told her the last time --
MS. MURPHY: I haven’t -- THE COURT: Don’t -- be quiet, please,
ma’am.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 13 of 55
MS. MURPHY: (Unintelligible.) THE COURT: Be quiet. I told her -- If you speak up again, I’m going to put you
in jail. Do you understand me? I told her the last time to go see this --
see this doctor, and I told y’all then that if she didn’t do it, I was going to consider taking the children and putting them with her (sic). He (sic) hasn’t done it. I told you that the last time, and I’m tired of this stuff.
If y’all had done what you were supposed to
do, if y’all had done your job, if you had done your job, this thing would have been over two years ago. It wouldn’t have all the expense involved. And y’all haven’t been doing your job, and you need to be -- you need to be checking on that instead of checking on what I’m doing. Okay? You’re not doing your job.
All right. That’s it. MR. FARMER: May I respond? We have the children here to present
evidence. We wish to present evidence, and you’re preventing us from presenting evidence.
THE COURT: It’s over with. Stop taking
down. (Proceedings concluded.)
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 14 of 55
1.5.3.3.10 The Addendum did not contain a certificate or any type of oath as to completeness. 1.5.3.3.11 Before filing the Addendum, Nan Freeman provided the
following certificate with the transcript of the May 27, 2014 proceedings: STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF TROUP
I, Nan D. Freeman, being a Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Georgia at Large, certify that the foregoing transcript is a true record of the proceedings and exhibits in the case of John Harold Murphy v. Nancy Michelle Murphy, Case Number 2012-V-413 in the Superior Court of Coweta County; that I am neither a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties, nor a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, nor financially interested in the action. This certification is expressly withdrawn and denied upon disassembly, photocopying or duplication in any manner or upon certification of the foregoing transcript or any part thereof including exhibits, if any, by any person or entity other than by the undersigned official certified court reporter. This certification is further expressly withdrawn and denied absent the original signature and the original seal of the undersigned official court reporter, as set out below.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 15 of 55
1.5.3.3.12 The original certificate states only that the transcript is a
“true record” absent the required OCGA § 5-14-5 certification
that the transcript is signed, “reciting that the transcript is true, complete,
and correct.”
1.5.3.3.13 The certificate of Nan Freeman goes to great extent to state
that Nan Freeman is not a relative nor employee of any of the parties.
1.5.3.3.14 Nan Freeman’s conduct can be correctly perceived as
protection of the conduct of Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. The
violation of the law by Judge Baldwin is central in the litigation, as Chief
Judge Baldwin, since his first day in this case, has violated the law and the
Code of Judicial Conduct. It is Chief Judge Baldwin who Nan Freeman
wished to protect, as is now evident.
1.5.3.3.15 The transcript of the May 27, 2014 court proceedings, falsely
certified, was so crucial that during counsel for Michelle Murphy’s
over 40 years of representing clients throughout Georgia, and in more than
ten States before hundreds of judges, counsel has never observed any
judge engage in conduct equivalent to the conduct that Judge Baldwin
exhibited on May 27, 2014 in the Murphy v. Murphy case.
1.5.3.3.16 When Chief Judge Baldwin eventually recused himself from
the case, most likely due to the presentation of the audio recordings, Judge
Baldwin, with full knowledge of the illegal conduct of Nan Freeman,
obtained a position for her with the newly appointed judge in the Coweta
Judicial Circuit, Judge W. Travis Sakrison, while also obtaining a position
with Judge Sakrison for his judicial assistant, Julia Harris,
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 16 of 55
1.5.3.3.17 On a previous occasion when counsel for Michelle Murphy
requested that Nan Freeman takedown the call of the calendar by Judge
Baldwin, as potential evidence that Judge Baldwin was evading the
Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan, Nan
Freeman approached Judge Baldwin in chambers and informed him of the
request, that would have documented Judge Baldwin’s violations of
Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1.
1.5.3.3.18 On that occasion, Judge Baldwin, in a full courtroom of
litigants and counsel, yelled at and threatened to put counsel for Michelle
Murphy in jail for begging that the calendar call be recorded. The calendar
call was not recorded as the result of Nan Freeman’s ex parte, chamber
communication with Judge Baldwin. This conduct by Nan Freeman is just
one of the incidences in which she interfered with the constitutional
protections of Michelle Murphy. Provided a choice of official court
reporters, Michelle Murphy would never have engaged Nan Freeman after
she first discovered that she violated the law.
1.5.3.3.19 As the result of the extensive and expensive litigation efforts
of counsel for Michelle Murphy --- opposed and labeled “frivolous” by
Judge Baldwin and counsel for John Harold Murphy --- a case
management plan has now been enacted by the Coweta Judicial Circuit.
1.6 Individual litigants are required to use the Official Court Reporter for all
court proceedings and to pay the fees charged by the Court Reporter in order to
obtain a transcript of a proceeding.
1.6.1 Nan Freeman’s illegal use of her status as the Official Court Reporter
resulted in compensation for herself to the detriment of Michelle Murphy, the
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 17 of 55
counties in the Coweta Judicial Circuit and other litigants. Nan Freeman
engages in fraudulent conduct from which she derives financial benefits. Nan
Freeman engaged in some of her fraudulent behavior and interference with the
constitutional rights of Michelle Murphy to retain a favored status with Judge
Baldwin, the person on whom her status as an official court reporter depends.
1.6.1.1 Nan Freeman engages in this aspect of her fraudulent conduct by
using several deceptively fraudulent methods.
1.6.1.2 Nan Freeman knows that Chief Judge Baldwin signs without
reading, or, by designating his judicial assistant or law clerk, to audit Nan
Freeman’s request for payments to the counties and therefore she can and
has consistently included a request for funds in excess of those provided and
authorized for her to receive by law, as the counties pay the submissions
without auditing. In this aspect of Nan Freeman’s fraudulent conduct, Nan
Freeman, on a regular basis, has stolen money from governmental entities
for the entire time that she has been an official court reporter for the Coweta
Judicial Circuit.
1.6.1.2.1 The misconduct of Judge Baldwin is relevant to showing how
the habitual, fraudulent interference with the constitutional protections
conduct by Nan Freeman occurred.
1.6.1.3 Nan Freeman’s years of experience in the courtroom have taught
her that counsel for litigants who require transcripts for the protection of their
clients’ rights and litigants who have been sent to prison in criminal cases,
do not know of Nan Freeman’s violation of the law in charging more than
she is allowed by law, or omitting portions of transcripts. Nan Freeman sends
in the United States Mail, by electronic transmissions and otherwise, her
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 18 of 55
requests for payments, that are required to be paid in order for litigants to
obtain and use the transcripts and for takedown fees that she charges without
a description of the basis for the charge. By engaging in this deceptive,
fraudulent conduct, Nan Freeman engages in theft by taking of money from
all litigants who have paid for transcripts obtained from her during the time
that she has been an official court reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.
Nan Freeman’s requests for payment of takedowns also allows Nan Freeman
to deceptively, fraudulently and illegally take money from litigants as a part
of her fraudulent theft of funds relating to her position as an official court
reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.
1.6.1.4 Nan Freeman and other official court reporters in the State of
Georgia have been able to steal money from litigants and counties, as the
Board of Court Reporting has no effective auditing system, and, from all
appearances, the Board is essentially a political parking area for members
and employees who have not developed a system to prevent the detriment to
litigants that Nan Freeman and other official court reporters have used to
violate the laws of the State of Georgia. The people of Georgia should not
be required to pay for the political debts to the members of the Board of
Court Reporting through illegal payments to official court reporters.
1.6.1.5 Michelle Murphy should not have been required to suffer the
detriment of having her counsel being required to stand up to Judge Baldwin
by refusing not to bring an action against Nan Freeman.
1.6.1.6 It is of great political advantage for lawyers such as the Willis
McKenzie LLP lawyer, Mark Lawrence Degennaro, on behalf of Troup
County, to act as he did in this case in resisting providing the Freedom of
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 19 of 55
Information Request for the audio recordings of the May 27, 2014 hearing,
and,, as the Glover & Davis lawyer, Nathan Lee, lawyer for Coweta County
has done by not attempting to recover the illegal money stolen from Coweta
County by Nan Freeman. The Glover & Davis lawyers prefer to conceal the
illegalities of Judge Baldwin with illegal transcripts, as this would gain
benefit for the Glover & Davis lawyers litigating against Michelle Murphy.
1.6.1.7 In addition to the money that Nan Freeman obtains illegally that
she has been caught stealing, Nan Freeman received an annual payment from
the State of Georgia for performing as an official court reporter. Nan
Freeman has received this money from the State of Georgia that the Board
of Court Reporting has not sought to recover, or to monitor. Nan Freeman is
compensated by the State of Georgia to be an official court reporter who
follows the law, not a person who violates the law with each work product
that she produces by acts of fraudulent and illegal conduct that she uses for
her unjust enrichment.
1.6.1.7.1 Judge Baldwin engaged in a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct by referring Nan Freeman, as an official court reporter, to a
newly appointed judge in the Coweta Judicial Circuit at a time that Judge
Baldwin had information that the appointment would both eliminate that
judge as a potential judge in Michelle Murphy’s underlying case and
financially benefit Nan Freeman for engaging in illegal conduct in not
producing complete transcripts involving Judge Baldwin proceedings.
1.6.1.8 Nan Freeman also receives payments for her court appearances
based upon her attendance from the county in which she attended court ---
these fees must be approved by the Judge Baldwin and are authorized
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 20 of 55
without Judge Baldwin even knowing the amount that Nan Freeman is due
for the time for which Judge Baldwin was authorizing payment.
1.7 In evaluating the motive of Nan Freeman in not accurately and promptly
providing transcripts and audio recordings that depicted her illegal conduct, it is
relevant to identify the interest of Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., who was
also participating in violations of Code of Judicial Conduct and other illegal
conduct that was to be reported by Nan Freeman.
1.7.1 Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. was illegally selected by counsel
opposing Michelle Murphy to preside in a modification of child custody case
in the Superior Court of Coweta County. --- John Harold Murphy v. Michelle
Murphy, Civil Action No. 12V-413 (or, “Murphy v Murphy.”).
1.7.2 Counsel opposing Michelle Murphy was able to select Judge Baldwin
because the Glover & Davis lawyer, Taylor Drake, was able to make a false
assertion that Michelle Murphy was threatening to move to South Carolina with
the children, and in the absence of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case
management plan, selected Judge Baldwin to preside in the case on the morning
after Judge Baldwin had attended a political fundraiser sponsored by Taylor
Drake and Melissa Griffis, who Judge Baldwin appointed as the guardian ad
litem over strong objection by counsel for Michelle Murphy.
1.7.3 Michelle Murphy and her counsel, as all lawyers, are required to
exclusively rely upon the Official Court Reporter as their source of the official
transcripts to provide to the appellate courts.
1.7.4 Judge Baldwin and Nan Freeman most likely never thought that either
would be caught violating the LAW*. Judge Baldwin and, most likely, Nan
Freeman, expected the jail and contempt threats to Michelle Murphy and her
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 21 of 55
counsel would eventually protect them from their exposure of actionable
conduct for their illegal conduct. Never had Judge Baldwin encountered a
mother, as Michelle Murphy, with only the income of that of a hairstylist, who
was willing to drain her assets to withstand the million dollar legal effort by a
father and his new wife, Renee L. Haugerud to strip the mother of her now 14
and 16 year old children, whom the Michelle Murphy had physically cared for
since the children were toddlers.
1.7.5 The mother knew John Harold Murphy, his new spouse, Renee L.
Haugerud, a hedge fund operator, and the guardian ad litem, Elizabeth “Lisa”
F. Harwell, well enough to know that these individuals would not properly
protect the best interest of the children, as each had engaged in criminal conduct
in violation of the laws of Georgia.
1.7.6 Never did Michelle Murphy believe that this trio of persons to whom
Judge Baldwin entrusted the children would so abuse the children that they
would engage “Transporters” to snatch the two children from their beds in the
dark of the early morning hours and without any explanation, have the children
flown on two separate planes and taken to Utah and placed in Elevations, RTC,
a “residential treatment center,” separate from each other without even a phone
call to their mother.
1.7.6.1 This conduct may protect the best interest of the reputation of hedge
fund of Renee L. Haugerud, but it is a monument to the necessity of having
the conduct of persons engaging in the conduct of Nan Freeman and Judge
Baldwin addressed by an unbiased court.
1.7.5.2 According to other children who have had their parents treat them
in this manner, after the children return from such institutions, they live in
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 22 of 55
fear of being again treated in such a manner and are therefore taught to make
false statements both about the threats and about the conduct of their
caretakers.
1.7.5.3 Such treatment is most always a lifetime scarring upon the children.
2. Procedural Background Relevant to the Illegal Conduct of Nan Freeman
2.1 The Superior Court of Fulton County, upon motion of Nan Freeman, based
upon jurisdictional grounds, ordered the case against Nan Freeman transferred to
the Superior Court of Troup County after the persons affiliated with the Board of
Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia, the Fulton County
jurisdictional defendants, were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
2.1.1 The current style of this case used here now eliminates the dismissed
Fulton County jurisdictional defendants.
2.1.1.1 The case against Nan Freeman was initiated in the Superior Court
of Troup County on February 13, 2015.
2.1.2 During most of the time relevant to the causes of action in this
Complaint, Nan Freeman was an official court reporter serving the Coweta
Judicial Circuit. --- Nan Freeman, at times relevant to this Complaint, was
mostly the official court reporter for Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.---
Some of Nan Freeman’s illegal and other actionable conduct, as evidence of
her pattern of engaging in illegal conduct, includes the time that Nan Freeman
was the official court reporter for Judge Allen B. Keeble and other judges
serving in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.
2.1.2.1 On March 4, 2015, after Judge Baldwin refused to waive service
of a subpoena, counsel obtained subpoenas that were served upon Judge
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 23 of 55
Baldwin and his former Administrative Assistant, Julia Harris, for their
attendance at depositions noticed for March 14, 2015.
2.1.3 On March 12, 2015, Nan Freeman filed her First Amended Answer and
Affirmative Defenses raising new defenses --- this filing occurred after
Michelle Murphy noticed the depositions of Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin
Jr., recused from presiding over Murphy v. Murphy, and Julia Harris, Judge
Baldwin’s former judicial assistant.
2.1.3.1 These depositions were delayed by the Attorney General’s motion
for a protective order that was defective, as the motion of the AG, the lawyer
for the parties, did not contain an oath from the parties seeking the protective
order. Based upon the AG’s commitment to provide an affidavit from the
persons sought to be deposed, an informal agreement to delay the depositions
was reached. The affidavits have not been provided and therefore the issue
relating to the protective order has not been resolved.
2.1.3.2 There is an unanswered inquiry to the Attorney General, if the
Attorney General provided assistance to counsel for Nan Freeman and
thereby Nan Freeman in defending her illegal conduct that has deprived the
State of Georgia of money due to the State of Georgia for Nan Freeman not
performing under the requirements for an official court reporter as she is
compensated by the State of Georgia to perform under the supplementary
compensation provided to her by the State of Georgia..
2.1.3.3 The evidence sought from Judge Baldwin and Julia Harris relates
to the fraud, negligent misrepresentations, breach of contract, illegal
authorizations for compensation, theft by taking and conversion from the
State of Georgia by Nan Freeman that forms a pattern of such illegal conduct
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 24 of 55
by Nan Freeman that supports the damages including punitive damages
sought by Michelle Murphy and the recovery by the State of Georgia with a
potential RICO action’s five year statute of limitations.
2.1.3.4 The State of Georgia has paid Nan Freeman annual compensation
for years. The payment requires that she adhere to the standards of an official
court reporter, which she has breached. In addition to Nan Freeman being
unjustly enriched by violating the LAW,* the State of Georgia has a vested
interest in the Attorney General of Georgia maintaining the integrity of the
judicial proceedings by supporting full exploration of Judge Baldwin’s
authorization of payments of the illegally and fraudulently obtained
payments to Nan Freeman. The Attorney General should not be seeking a
protective order to prevent the evidence from Judge Baldwin and Julia
Harris, or in any manner assisting Nan Freeman in defense of her and Judge
Baldwin’s legal defense.
2.1.3.5 Counsel, on behalf of Michelle Murphy, contracted with Nan
Freeman to takedown and to thereafter transcribe the proceedings at each of
the hearings where Nan Freeman was the official court reporter in the
Murphy v. Murphy case. This contract provided specific compensation for
Nan Freeman and quality standards that were established by the State of
Georgia.
2.1.3.6 In accordance with the contract, Nan Freeman rendered invoices
to Michelle Murphy’s counsel, who, on her behalf, paid the amounts
requested by Nan Freeman on each of the occasions that Nan Freeman had a
contract to provide Michelle Murphy for takedown and transcription of the
court proceedings.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 25 of 55
2.1.3.7 The financial detriment to Michelle Murphy created by the illegal
conduct of Nan Freeman is far greater than the amount of the illegal charging
of Michelle Murphy and the cost of catching Nan Freeman engaging in fraud
and theft by taking.
2.1.3.8 Nan Freeman knew the necessity of providing Michelle Murphy
an accurate transcript, as she had observed the inequitable treatment that
Michelle Murphy and her counsel received from Judge Baldwin. It was this
intentional conduct by Nan Freeman that exposes her assistance to Judge
Baldwin in depriving Michelle Murphy and her children of their protections
under the LAW*.
2.1.3.9 After the action was brought against Nan Freeman by Michelle
Murphy, Judge Baldwin maintained that counsel for Michelle Murphy would
be required to obtain another court reporter, as Judge Baldwin could not
obtain a court reporter in matters involving Michelle Murphy. Nan
Freeman’s illegal conduct results in predictable and foreseeable, ancillary
detriment to Michelle Murphy and the best interest of her children. Nan
Freeman’s conduct in refusing to timely provide Michelle Murphy the audio
recording and the omitted portions of the transcript was an intentional act by
Nan Freeman designed to participate with Judge Baldwin in his violation of
the LAW*.
2.1.3.9.1 Nan Freeman’s conduct interfered with the constitutional
protections provided to Michelle Murphy.
2.1.3.10 Nan Freeman was selected, retained by, and served as the sole
discretion of Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., as an official court
reporter for Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., in all of the in-court
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 26 of 55
proceedings in Murphy v. Murphy until Chief Judge Baldwin recused
himself, excepting one, when she was absent and the proceed was reported
by another reporter until Judge Baldwin recessed the hearing during the
cross-examination of Dr. Patricia Jones Nice by counsel for Michelle
Murphy.
2.1.3.11 Judge Baldwin, after the exposure of the illegal conduct of Nan
Freeman, even recommended that Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge W.
Sakrison use Nan Freeman and Julia Harris in his newly established court
office. Nan Freeman intentionally agreed to take the position with Coweta
Judicial Circuit Judge W. Sakrison while knowing that this would both delay
the right to a hearing of Michelle Murphy and disqualify Coweta Judicial
Circuit Judge W. Sakrison, who did recuse himself.
2.1.3.12 Chief Judge Baldwin did not recuse himself until after Michelle
Murphy brought over twenty (20) motions for his disqualification in the
Superior Court of Coweta County, sought judicial regulatory actions against
Chief Judge Baldwin and tendered to the Clerk of the Superior Court of
Coweta County two comprehensive motions identifying the corruption of
Chief Judge Baldwin and some of those participating in his corruption,
including but not limited to the illegal and other intentional conduct of Nan
Freeman.
2.2 During the Murphy v. Murphy case in the Superior Court of Coweta County,
there were initially two systemic issues relating to the disqualification of Chief
Judge Baldwin to serve as the judge in the case --- each issue required accurate,
unbiased court reporting, which Nan Freeman did not provide, in order to reduce
the litigation expenses of Michelle Murphy to obtain the disqualification of Chief
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 27 of 55
Judge Baldwin, for preservation of a record and to diminish the prejudice to
Michelle Murphy and her counsel for addressing the illegal, systemic practices of
Judge Baldwin.
2.2.1 There was the primary “judge-shopping” systemic issue involving the
Judges of the Superior Court of Coweta County’s systemic, intentional
violations of the mandate of Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1. --- The Coweta
Judicial Circuit did not have a legally required, Uniform Superior Rule 3.1 case
management plan; therefore, Clerk of Superior Court of Coweta County, Cindy
Brown, did not randomly assign judges as would have been required by an
enacted Rule 3.1 case management plan.
2.2.1.1 The absence of the Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan
allowed Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis to select Chief Judge Baldwin as
the judge for the case and for Chief Judge Baldwin to accept his being hand-
picked as the judge, in furtherance of the fraudulent conduct of Taylor Drake
and Glover & Davis in which Judge Baldwin participated for the benefits
that the Glover & Davis lawyers politically provided to him.
2.2.1.2 The Glover & Davis law firm was able to engage in its habitually
illegal and unethical modus operandi of judge-shopping to obtain Judge
Baldwin when that conduct was financially beneficial to this law firm ---
such conduct by Glover & Davis was perceived to be in furtherance of its
business model of marketing political influence with Superior Court judges.
2.2.1.3 In the Murphy v Murphy case, the Glover & Davis lawyer did this
by feigning the need for an immediate hearing based upon the false
representation in the record of the case that Michelle Murphy was
threatening to take the children out of school and move to South Carolina. -
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 28 of 55
-- Any such out-of-state move by any domestic relations litigant was already
known to Chief Judge Baldwin to be prohibited by the Standing Order of the
Coweta Judicial Circuit. --- At the time that the Glover & Davis lawyers filed
the case for John Harold Murphy, he was living in Lookout Mountain,
Tennessee and currently has taken the children to St. Thomas, USVI where
this father can best secret his alcoholism and abuse of Michelle Murphy’s
children while obtaining substantial tax benefits for his current hedge fund
spouse, Renee L. Haugerud and her business entities, including Galtere, Ltd.
2.2.1.4 An aspect of the illegal judge-shopping by the Glover & Davis
lawyers was exposed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Mayor &
Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012), a case
originating in the Superior Court of Troup County.
2.2.1.5 The hand-selection of Judge Baldwin and his immediate
appointment of Melissa Griffis as the guardian ad litem, without an
evidentiary hearing, and over strong objection by counsel for Michelle
Murphy, occurred on the morning after the Glover & Davis lawyer and
Melissa Griffis co-sponsored a political judicial rally for Emory Palmer, a
candidate for a Coweta Judicial Circuit vacant judgeship. The political
gathering was attended and supported by Judge Baldwin, in an open seat
Superior Court Judge election.
2.2.1.6 Nan Freeman, the court reporter who covered the hearings in
Murphy v Murphy, knew of the strong priority of Chief Judge Baldwin to
continue presiding in that case and of the persistent efforts by the Glover &
Davis lawyer to retain Chief Judge Baldwin on the case, as he prohibited
counsel for Michelle Murphy from presenting evidence on such crucial
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 29 of 55
issues as his May 27, 2014 temporary change of custody. In presenting the
completed transcript of this May 27, 2014 hearing, Nan Freeman, with the
authority and rights vested in her by the State of Georgia to serve as an
Official Court Reporter, certified falsely that it was a true record of the
proceedings, when, in addition to not taking down Judge Baldwin’s
commitment to allow the children to testify, she had actually excluded four
(4) pages of the most relevant Code of Judicial Conduct and legal violating
conduct of Judge Baldwin. (Murphy v. Murphy, Tr. May 27, 2014, p. 42).
2.2.1.7 Nan Freeman knew so well that counsel for Michelle Murphy was
attempting to obtain a record to support the violation of the Rule 3.1
mandated case management plan, that on August 6, 2013, when Michelle
Murphy’s counsel requested that the call of the calendar be recorded,
Nan Freeman, in order to prevent the taking-down of the calendar call that
could have documented violations of the newly enacted case management
plan, intentionally went into chambers to inform Judge Baldwin that counsel
for Michelle Murphy had requested the recording of the calendar call. As the
result of that intentional, ex parte communication to Judge Baldwin by Nan
Freeman to intentionally omit a transcript which would reflect violations of
Rule 3.1, Judge Baldwin came into open court, yelled at Michelle Murphy’s
counsel and threatened to place Millard Farmer in jail for attempting to
explain the need for the record. (Murphy v. Murphy, Tr. Aug. 6, 2013, pp. 3-
5, that conduct is supported by an audio recording of Judge Baldwin’s
hollering. There was no transcript of the judge-selection of cases conduct on
that day and a transcript was never allowed of any future calendar calls.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 30 of 55
2.2.1.8 Nan Freeman’s conduct violated her obligation of equitable
conduct to both parties to the litigation, as the Glover & Davis lawyers and
their client, John Harold Murphy, wished to retain Judge Baldwin in the case
and thereby wished to conceal their and his method of judge-shopping by
lawyers and case-shopping by judges.
2.2.2 The other systemic issue involved the more than 20 motions on behalf
of Michelle Murphy to disqualify Judge Baldwin, beginning on May 1, 2012,
and the seeking of persistent regulatory actions, beginning on
November 25, 2013, to have Judge Baldwin disqualified --- the first of these
disqualifying motions occurred within five (5) days of the first chambers
conference after the Murphy v Murphy case was filed in the Superior Court of
Coweta County and continued until February 2, 2015, with the tendered
pleadings clearly identifying the fraudulent and false accusation used against
Michelle Murphy.
2.2.2.1 At the first hearing in Murphy v Murphy, a feigned emergency
hearing that was converted into a conference in chambers, Judge Baldwin
signed, without reading, an Order prepared by Taylor Drake, the Glover &
Davis lawyer appointing Melissa Griffis as the guardian ad litem with the
illegal authority to temporarily change custody of Michelle Murphy’s
children without judicial approval, or a hearing, and over strong objection
from counsel for Michelle Murphy.
2.2.2.2 The first in-chambers conference in Murphy v Murphy set the
agenda of the entirety of the proceedings that followed and resulted in the
case against Nan Freeman
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 31 of 55
2.2.2.3 It is highly relevant to identify that attorneys for clients who
litigate systemic issues involving judicial conduct that attempts to mask
judicial bias are often subjected to the type of treatment that Judge Baldwin
inflicted upon Michelle Murphy. It is the exception that the official court
reporter will intentionally engage in conduct that is supportive of the illegal
conduct of the judge, as did Nan Freeman in her actions that instituted this
litigation, that, as the litigation progressed, uncovered the longstanding,
illegal conduct of the court reporter that Judge Baldwin, his judicial assistant,
and his law clerk apparently supported, as the hostility of their exchanged
messages, that were eventually obtained from Nan Freeman, reflect. This
type of conduct is also reflected by no one in Judge Baldwin’s chambers
auditing the authorizations for compensation of Nan Freeman which were
submitted to counties for payment to Nan Freeman.
2.2.3 Incorporated Information The factual information contained in this
section and the following sections and the attachments is to be considered in each
of the causes of action, just as all information contained in this Complaint is to be
considered as part of each of the causes of action and relief requested in this
Complaint. It is only for the purpose of organization that the headings of the
various sections identify the information as associated with the causes of action
against Nan Freeman, the event, explanation or relief sought.
Informal and Administrative Attempts to resolve the Issues.
2.2.4 Michelle Murphy initially sought informal relief from Nan Freeman by
counsel for Michelle Murphy requesting to purchase a copy the audio recording
of the testimony that Nan Freeman would use to produce a transcript. Nan
Freeman refused this request on behalf of Michelle Murphy.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 32 of 55
2.2.4.1 Next, a Freedom of Information Act request was made to Troup
County for a copy of the audio recording. This request was denied. Then, a
request to the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia
was made. This request was denied. These informal and administrative
attempts left Michelle Murphy only the option for the relief sought with this
Court.
2.2.4.2 Nan Freeman was then advised that she would be sued if she
did not allow Michelle Murphy to purchase a copy of the audio recording
The Plaintiff
2.3. The plaintiff is Michelle Murphy, the mother of J. M. age 16 and T. M, age
14, and is the defendant in an underlying modification of child custody action
brought against her in the Superior Court of Coweta County.
2.3.1 The action was brought by one of the lawyers who was recommended
to the former husband of Michelle Murphy by Judge Louis Jack Kirby, also a
judge in the Coweta Judicial Circuit. Judge Louis Jack Kirby is the judge who
officiated at the wedding of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud with
an illegally obtained marriage license, and, who, while in private practice,
represented John Harold Murphy in his divorce from Michelle Murphy. John
Harold Murphy secreted $180,000 in stock options from Michelle Murphy until
a day after Michelle Murphy agreed to a settlement agreement before Judge
Baldwin. Michelle Murphy lost her marital share of these stock options.
2.3.2 Taylor Drake is the Glover & Davis suggested lawyer, who knew how
to select Judge A. Quillian Baldwin as the judge, because at the time of Judge
Baldwin's selection by Taylor Drake, the Coweta Judicial Circuit did not have
a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan and at that
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 33 of 55
time, the Glover & Davis lawyers had not been caught judge-shopping, as one
of their methods of judge shopping was revealed in Mayor & Aldermen of
Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012).
2.3.3 After divorcing Michelle Murphy, John Harold Murphy married a
wealthy hedge fund operator, Renee L. Haugerud, who has directly or indirectly
spent an approximate million dollars financing John Harold Murphy's attempt
to take over custody of the two children who have lived in the home with
Michelle Murphy, a hair stylist, since they were toddlers when John Harold
Murphy abandoned them for the life of a single person in New York City, where
he primarily lived until he located Renee L. Haugerud.
The Defendant
2.3.4 Nan Freeman is a court reporter, Certificate Number 1939, whose
conduct is governed by the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of
Georgia. Nan Freeman is a resident of Troup County Georgia and waived
service that is perfected with service upon her attorney.
2.3.5 Nan Freeman’s license to serve as an official court reporter is controlled
by the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia and her
employment in the Coweta Judicial Circuit was controlled in the case involving
Michelle Murphy, by Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr..
2.3.6 Freeman Reporting, Inc. is an exclusively owned corporation of Nan
Freeman, who is its registered agent for service at 106 Carter Street LaGrange,
GA 30240. Nan Freeman and her license as an official court reporter is
necessary to the only business functions of Freeman Reporting, Inc., that at
times includes it identity on bills for the services of Nan Freeman, as a licensed
court reporter. The license of Nan Freeman to serve as an official court reporter
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 34 of 55
is ultimately controlled by the Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council
of Georgia.
Jurisdiction and Venue
2.3.7 The Superior Court of Troup County has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this action.
2.3.8 Venue is proper in this Court.
Additional Factual Information Incorporated as an Integral Part of the Causes of Action in the Complaint 2.4 The Board of Court Reporting, as authorized by OCGA § 15-14-24, was
created by the Judicial Council of Georgia to define and regulate the practice of
court reporting in Georgia.
2.4.1 Nan Freeman, and other official court reporters, have learned how to
engage in illegal conduct against counties, the State of Georgia and individuals,
such as Michelle Murphy, as often it is in the best personal interest of the judge
who provides the court reporter the authority to become the official court
reporter, to obtain illegal concessions from the official court reporter.
2.4.2 It would have been extremely difficult to present to the regulatory
authorities the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin that followed his failure to
allow any evidence without the audio recordings that memorialized the pattern
of the yelling and refusal to allow the presentation of evidence on behalf of
Michelle Murphy, without all of the audio recordings that were expensive to
obtain through this litigation.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 35 of 55
2.4.3 Nan Freeman knew on several occasions that her violations of her legal
responsibilities to Michelle Murphy were not in the best interest of Judge
Baldwin’s attempts to conceal his violations of the LAW*.
2.4.4 On those occasions Nan Freeman willfully and intentionally or through
reckless and wanton conduct and with disregard of the consequences, violated
the rights of Michelle Murphy that caused Michelle Murphy to suffer great
mental pain and anguish together with other damages.
2.5 There was a particularized need for the audio recordings, as the trial judge,
with false statements in his Orders, attempted to justify his unjustifiable, unethical
screaming at Michelle Murphy and her counsel. This unethical conduct by the
trial judge is integrated into and is a part of the trial judge's illegal deprivation of
other statutory and constitutional rights of Nancy Michelle Murphy and her
children, ages 16 and 14. The conduct of this official court reporter deprived
Michelle Murphy of her right to counsel and Millard Farmer, of their statutory
and constitutional rights, as each have been held in criminal contempt, with a
record of the court proceedings that does not fully reflect the detrimental effect of
personal animosity of the trial judge against them for attempting to exercise their
constitutional protections.
2.5.1 As the result of the ex parte communication of Nan Freeman to prevent
the recording of the calendar call early in the litigation, the transcription of the
calendar call was prevented and counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy was
abusively treated by Judge Baldwin in open court.
2.5.2 Judge Baldwin came into the courtroom apparently mad about the
request to have the calendar call taken down, as he certainly believed that it
was in furtherance of a challenge to the biased judge selection conduct in
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 36 of 55
violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 and the connection between the
private cases of the guardian ad litem, Elizabeth "Lisa" F. Harwell, who was
caught converting trust funds by counsel for Michelle Murphy, and Judge Louis
Jack Kirby.
2.5.3 The transcript by Nan Freeman picks up at that point, as follows. This
transcript does not reveal Judge Baldwin hollering, “Do you understand me? Do
you understand me?” at Millard Farmer, who was standing at the bench, only a
foot or so away from Judge Baldwin, in a courtroom packed with people, where
Judge Baldwin was performing in order to deter other lawyers from bringing
actions exposing his illegal conduct.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 37 of 55
First Cause of Action
[By Michelle Murphy against Nan Freeman for fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation ]
2.6 As supported by information contained in this Amended Complaint and
information contained in this and each of the other following causes of action that
are incorporated as a part of this First Cause of Action, Michelle Murphy
summarily identifies the causes for fraud and/or alternatively negligent
misrepresentation by Nan Freeman for which Michelle Murphy seeks damages
from Nan Freeman as follows.
2.6.1 Nan Freeman, at all relevant times supporting this and other causes of
action in matters that first originated during Nan Freeman’s obligation as an
official court reporter, assigned and contracted to fulfill her obligations in John
Harold Murphy v. Nancy Michelle Murphy, in the Superior Court of Coweta
County, Civil Action No 12V-413, engaged in fraud and/or alternatively
negligent misrepresentation, damaging Michelle Murphy.
2.6.1.1 As a method of engaging in her pattern of fraud and/or
alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, Nan Freeman used the
authority of Superior Court Chief Judge Baldwin in attempts to intimidate
Michelle Murphy and her counsel from bringing an action against her that
would expose her fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation
conduct in order to recover for the damages inflicted upon Michelle Murphy
and her counsel.
2.6.1.2 Nan Freeman, as part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct, prejudiced the judicial assistant and law clerk of
Judge Baldwin, who advocated for Nan Freeman against Michelle Murphy
and her counsel. Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 39 of 55
2.6.1.3 Nan Freeman’s fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct was an active part of Nan Freeman’s conduct
throughout the proceedings for which Nan Freeman served as the official
court reporter.
2.6.1.4 Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation, made her requests for payment for official court reporting
work for Michelle Murphy with documents that did not identify the basis for
the charges that Michelle Murphy was required by law to pay if Michelle
Murphy was to pay for the takedown, and/or was to receive a transcript of a
proceeding.
2.6.1.4.1 These requests charged and collected fees from Michelle
Murphy that were illegal and not due, but the fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation of Nan Freeman could not be detected from
observing the documents supplied by Nan Freeman that were intended to
conceal the fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation
2.6.1.4.2 Nan Freeman was able, in part, to engage in her deceptive fraud
and negligent misrepresentation and other illegal actionable conduct by
failing to adhere to legal page margins and to include the required number
of characters allowed per line, and, the required number of qualifying lines
for compensation per page. This conduct was systematically
accomplished by the use of a template that was designed to produce a
transcript which did not qualify for the compensation which she claimed,
and which did not contain a certificate that complied with the laws of
Georgia.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 40 of 55
2.6.1.5 Nan Freeman’s fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation charged Michelle Murphy for transcripts accompanied by
certificates feigned to be as required by law, while the feigned certificates
include almost one page of information, for which Nan Freeman charges,
that is not required by law, or the legally required certificate. Michelle
Murphy relied upon the preservation of the court proceedings by the official
court reporter and could not determine from her location in the courtroom
when Nan Freeman was taking down the proceedings. This allowed Nan
Freeman to engage in her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation without being detected.
2.6.1.6 Nan Freeman’s fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct was reckless and with wanton disregard of
consequences and may evince an intention to inflict injury upon Michelle
Murphy and her two children.
2.6.1.7 Nan Freeman places her signature on an official appearing
certificate, omitting required information and including other information
that is not required, for which she apparently charges as part of the
compensation that she collects as a part of her unjust enrichment, fraud
and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct. At no time does
Nan Freeman provide the certificate required of an official court reporter by
the law of Georgia. The failure to provide the required certificate is a part of
the pattern of fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation by Nan
Freeman.
2.6.1.8 A part of the continuous fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct of Nan Freeman occurred surrounding Nan
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 41 of 55
Freeman’s obligation and conduct relating to a May 27, 2014 proceeding in
Murphy v. Murphy.
2.6.1.9 Nan Freeman used a deceptive physical appearance that gave the
appearance that she was fulfilling her legal obligations in the courtroom,
including being located at her reporting station with her equipment, that was
a scheme or an artifice to defraud Michelle Murphy and thereby her counsel
and the appellate courts and all other courts. On May 27, 2014, Nan Freeman
failed to take down and accurately and completely transcribe the orders,
assurance to Michelle Murphy, her children and her counsel that the children
would be allowed to testify at the May 27, 2014 proceeding and thereby
deceptively engaged in actionable fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct, creating damages sought here by Michelle
Murphy.
2.6.1.10 At the time of the May 27, 2014 proceeding, Nan Freeman was
a person known to Michelle Murphy and her counsel as the official court
reporter who was assigned to the case as the official reporter that Michelle
Murphy, through her counsel, contracted to report and transcribe the
proceeding on May 27, 2014.
2.6.1.11 Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation conduct, requested that Michelle Murphy make
payment to her for work which Nan Freeman deceptively failed to perform
while appearing to perform as required by the Board of Court Reporting
Rules and Regulations.
2.6.1.12 In addition to not recording and transcribing the first part of the
proceeding, while deceptively appearing to be recording the court
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 42 of 55
proceedings, Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation, provided Michelle Murphy, opposing counsel
and the Court a certificate stating that the transcript of the May 27, 2014
proceedings provided to the parties, which Nan Freeman was compensated
to produce, was a true record of the proceedings.
2.6.1.13 Nan Freeman, who personally transcribed the transcript from a
recording that she produced, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation conduct, omitted the four pages of Judge
Baldwin’s massive temper tantrum that no human in attendance could forget.
Nan Freeman engaged in fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct by attempting to have Judge Baldwin use his
authority as the presiding Judge to influence counsel for Michelle Murphy
not to bring an action against Nan Freeman that ultimately provided counsel
Murphy the information to learn of as substantial portion of the fraud and/or
alternatively negligent misrepresentation conduct of Nan Freeman, much of
which was verified during the deposition of Nan Freeman where she
continued to conceal her fraud and/or alternatively negligent
misrepresentation by first making false statements and frequently feigning
that she did not remember.
2.6.1.14 Nan Freeman, on another occasion, on August 6, 2013, in
furtherance of obtaining acceptance by Judge Baldwin for her illegal conduct
and as a part and parcel of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct involving Michelle Murphy, went secretly into
the chambers of Judge Baldwin to inform him that counsel for Michelle
Murphy wished for the calendar call to be taken down that could been used
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 43 of 55
to support the continuing violations of Judge Baldwin involving the newly
enacted case management plan.
2.6.1.15 Nan Freeman’s fraud and/or alternatively negligent
misrepresentation was intentional, and in reckless and wanton disregard of
consequences that evinced an intention to inflict injury on Michelle Murphy,
which were the consequences of her pattern of fraud and/or alternatively
negligent misrepresentation of Nan Freeman.
2.6.1.16 Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively
negligent misrepresentation conduct violated her contractual and other legal
obligations requiring that Nan Freeman take down the complete court
proceedings that included, but were not limited to, the courtroom orders and
directive of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Nan Freeman was a person known
to Michelle Murphy and her counsel as an official court reporter and upon
whom Michelle Murphy and her counsel had no legal option but to rely for
complete transcription of the courtroom proceedings.
2.6.1.17 After the May 27, 2014 proceeding that is described in more detail
earlier in this Amended Complaint, Nan Freeman’s fraud and/or
alternatively, negligent misrepresentation was used to obtain payment for a
transcription of that May 27, 2014 proceeding with a request for payment
document that did not identify the basis for the charges in a manner that it
could be determined that Nan Freeman was deceptively and fraudulently
seeking illegal compensation for her work and for the transcript that did not
contain the opening Order of Judge Baldwin to Michelle Murphy and her
children and Judge Baldwin’s representations to Michelle Murphy’s counsel
concerning the scope of evidence that would be allowed at the proceeding.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 44 of 55
2.6.1.18 Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation, also did not transcribe the last four pages of the
May 27, 2014 proceeding until she was caught by counsel for Michelle
Murphy in not including those pages in the transcript that she provided to the
Court and counsel with her certificate that the transcript was a “true record
of the proceedings.”
2.6.1.19 Nan Freeman omitted four (4) pages from the transcript, as a part
of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation and did not
include the objections on the record by counsel for Michelle Murphy, Judge
Baldwin’s uncontrolled hollering at Michelle Murphy and her counsel, and
counsel’s statement to Judge Baldwin that counsel had available ready
evidence to present on behalf of Michelle Murphy and that Michelle Murphy
had not even been provided an opportunity to testify on direct examination.
2.6.1.20 With the May 27, 2014 transcript, as with all of the transcripts of
previous proceedings in Murphy v. Murphy which Nan Freeman produced,
Nan Freeman did not provide Michelle Murphy a legal certificate even
though Nan Freeman deceptively charged Michelle Murphy an illegal
amount that Michelle Murphy paid, as she did not know that Nan Freeman
had engaged in her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation
and omitted the two most relevant parts of the proceeding and was illegally
charging Michelle Murphy, as Nan Freeman had illegally charged Michelle
Murphy for the transcripts of each of the hearings, as a part of the pattern of
illegal conduct of Nan Freeman since the time that she had been an official
court reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit that was continuously plagued
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 45 of 55
with the fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation of Nan
Freeman.
2.6.1.21 Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation, sought and obtained assistance from Judge Baldwin in
furtherance of secreting from Michelle Murphy that through her fraud and/or
alternatively, negligent misrepresentation, she collected money from
Michelle Murphy for work of an official court reporter that violated the laws
of Georgia, as identified to Nan Freeman by the Board of Court Reporting.
2.6.1.22 The refusal by counsel for Michelle Murphy to yield to the request
of Judge Baldwin not to seek action against Nan Freeman resulted in
prejudice to Michelle Murphy and her attempts to obtain recovery of her
children, as Judge Baldwin vindictively accelerated this illegal conduct
directed toward Michelle Murphy.
2.6.1.23 At all times that counsel for Michelle Murphy was requesting Nan
Freeman to allow Michelle Murphy to purchase the audio recording of the
court proceeding, Nan Freeman and Judge Baldwin were attempting to
muscle up on Michelle Murphy by first seeking to have Michelle Murphy
waive her protections under the LAW* --- when that failed, Judge Baldwin
began accelerating the consequences of Nan Freeman’s fraud and/or
alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct.
2.6.1.24 Nan Freeman apparently believes that her association with Judge
Baldwin justifies her illegal conduct, fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation that involved Nan Freeman’s illegally interfering with the
constitutional protections that the LAW* provided to Michelle Murphy in
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 46 of 55
her attempts to protect her children from the detriment that Judge Baldwin
has created in this family’s life.
2.6.1.25 At all times excepting August 13, 2013, when another reporter,
Alice Moore, was assigned to the case for that one hearing, Nan Freeman
engaged in the fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation
conduct as the official court reporter during the Murphy v. Murphy case.
2.6.1.26 Nan Freeman engaged in further fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation involving Michelle Murphy in the manner in
which she deceptively violated her contractual and legal obligation to
Michelle Murphy to accurately transcribe complete and accurate
documentation of the courtroom proceedings, by Nan Freeman placing in the
United States Mail requests for payment to counsel for Michelle Murphy that
indicated that she sought payment for fulfillment of the contractual and legal
obligation from Michelle Murphy for the work product of an official court
reporter who complied with the law.
2.6.1.27 Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation, did not itemize the financial obligation of Michelle
Murphy to Nan Freeman for her official court reporting work in a manner
that Michelle Murphy could determine whether or not the requested payment
was legal and in fulfillment of the legal obligation of Nan Freeman when the
documents purporting to be transcripts of proceedings transcribed by Nan
Freeman did not include the legally required certificate, and, more
detrimentally, did not include a complete transcription of the orders and
directives of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. in the courtroom
on May 27, 2014.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 47 of 55
2.6.1.28 Michelle Murphy made payment to Nan Freeman to transcribe and
provide to Michelle Murphy the entirety of the May 27, 2014 proceeding in
a format and with a certificate in accordance with the laws of Georgia; now
Michelle Murphy has information that Nan Freeman not only illegally
charged her and required her to engage in conduct detrimental to Michelle
Murphy in order to determine that Nan Freeman would never produce the
needed transcript. Judge Baldwin, as retaliation, has refused to allow
Michelle Murphy to contact her children since May 27, 2014. This conduct,
without a complete transcript, has created great mental anguish and suffering
by Michelle Murphy that is continuing.
2.6.1.29 Nan Freeman engaged in a long standing pattern of fraud and/or
alternatively, negligent misrepresentation in charging fees for her work as an
official court reporter that are illegal under the laws of Georgia.
2.6.2 Nan Freeman engaged in the actionable fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation conduct, as more specifically identified in this
Amended Complaint and its attachments. Each of the attachments to the
Amended Complaint are incorporated and made a part of this Cause of Action.
2.6.3 Nan Freeman engaged in her actionable fraudulent and illegal conduct
including the interference with the constitutional protections against Michelle
Murphy, numerous other persons and governmental entities that are presently
not each identifiable to Michelle Murphy and those who were victims of Nan
Freeman’s fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation, by illegally
overcharging with documents requiring payment from them that were
transferred in the United States Mail.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 48 of 55
2.6.4 Nan Freeman was able to engage in her fraud and/or alternatively,
negligent misrepresentation conduct, in part, as she was an Official Court
Reporter, with income supplemented by the State of Georgia, in the Coweta
Judicial Circuit of Georgia (or “Coweta Circuit”) that included the counties of
Coweta, Troup, Meriwether, Heard and Carroll ( or, “County Entities.”)
2.6.5 The nature of fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation,
illegal conduct of Nan Freeman is such that the extent of the fraudulent
violations of the LAW* by Nan Freeman and those participating with her has
yet to be discovered by Michelle Murphy, as Nan Freeman and those
participating with her are engaged in an ongoing attempt to secret their
violations of the Law* with others who were violating protections provided to
Michelle Murphy and her minor children as more specifically identified
throughout this Amended Complaint, in violation of the LAW*.
2.6.6 The unconstitutional fraud and/or alternatively, negligent
misrepresentation conduct initiated by Nan Freeman, one of the official court
reporters for the Coweta Judicial Circuit and her exclusively owned
corporation, Freeman Reporting, Inc., was at times perfected under color of law
by assistance of state actors includes, but is not limited to, secreting of audio
recordings of court proceedings that depict Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.’s
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct that the transcripts cannot
adequately depict. There is also a complete absence of recording in any manner
of the Order and oral commitments of Judge Baldwin during courtroom
proceedings on May 27, 2014 after Court was called to order and he arrived on
the bench.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 49 of 55
2.6.7 The e-mail of Judge Baldwin to counsel for Michelle Murphy, seeking
legal protection for Nan Freeman and the other e-mails exchanged by persons
working in the chambers of Judge Baldwin are included as Attachment 1. The
statement in the e-mail by Judge Baldwin that Nan Freeman cannot afford
counsel is a false representation made by Judge Baldwin, as an advocate for
Nan Freeman. --- It is the integrity of our judicial system that cannot afford the
conduct of Nan Freeman.
Second Cause of Action [By Michelle Murphy for the Breach of Contract by Nan Freeman]
2.7 Nan Freeman, as described in information in this Amended Complaint and
other Causes of Action that are incorporated and made a part of this Second Cause
of Action, had a contract with Michelle Murphy to take down and thereafter
transcribe the entirety of each of the courtroom proceedings in the Superior Court
of Coweta County case of John Harold Murphy v. Nancy Michelle Murphy Civil
Action No 12V-413, excepting an August 13, 2013, court proceeding when
another reporter, Alice Moore, was assigned to the case for only that one hearing.
2.7.1 Judge Baldwin made the selection of the official court reporter with
whom Michelle Murphy was required to enter into a contract, if Michelle
Murphy desired that the courtroom proceedings be taken down.
2.7.2 Even though Michelle Murphy had very limited resources, she and her
counsel felt that it was necessary that the official court reporter, Nan Freeman,
be employed for each of the courtroom proceedings.
2.7.3 As the case continued, it became even more imperative that Michelle
Murphy have a contract with the official court reporter, as she and her counsel,
very unjustifiably, were being held in criminal contempt of court.
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 50 of 55
2.7.4 The Board of Court Reporting of the Judicial Council of Georgia and
the laws of the State of Georgia establish the methods that the official court
reporter may use to take down proceedings and the requirements for the
transcript, the fees that the court reporter is allowed to charge for the court
reporter’s service and the certificate that must accompany the transcript, that
also determines the nature of the content of the information contained in the
transcript.
2.7.5 Both Nan Freeman and Michelle Murphy were contractually bound by
the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Court Reporting.
2.7.6 Nan Freeman charged Michelle Murphy on each occasion that she
produced a transcript for Michelle Murphy. The charges of Nan Freeman to
Michelle Murphy were in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Board
of Court Reporting, and, thereby, the contract that Nan Freeman had with
Michelle Murphy.
2.7.7 Michelle Murphy was damaged financially and otherwise on each of
the occasions that Nan Freeman was the official court reporter for a proceeding
involving Michelle Murphy, and, at other times, by the conduct of Nan
Freeman before or after courtroom proceedings.
2.7.8 The conduct of Nan Freeman in breaching the contractual relationship
that she had with Michelle Murphy was conduct that was reckless and in
wanton disregard of consequences that evinced an intention to inflict injury
upon Michelle Murphy and her counsel that affected the representation that
Michelle Murphy received.
2.7.9 Nan Freeman breached the contractual relationship that she had with
every litigant who contracted with her in cases in which Nan Freeman acted as
Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 51 of 55
the official court reporter during the entirety of the time that she was an Official
Court Reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit.
2.7.10 Nan Freeman’s conduct in breaching contracts affected the lives of
persons for a long number of years.
2.7.11 While Nan Freeman has offered a portion of the money that she
illegally took from Michelle Murphy, she has not shown remorse to Michelle
Murphy and her children or to the others from whom she has illegally taken
money.
2.7.12 Michelle Murphy seeks an accounting from Nan Freeman for the
amount of money that this reporter has taken from each litigant and
governmental entity in the Coweta Judicial Circuit on each occasion that other
persons obtained a transcripts from Nan Freeman. transcripts that were
produced while acting as an official court reporter.
Third Cause of Action.
[By Michelle Murphy against Nan Freeman for Conversion and Unjust Enrichment] 2.8 Nan Freeman, as described in information in this Amended Complaint and
other Causes of Action that are incorporated and made a part of this Third Cause
of Action, without consent or permission, illegally converted an unknown amount
of funds obtained through a process of law from Michelle Murphy and converted
these funds to her personal use and thereby Nan Freeman also became
unjustly enriched.
2.8.1 Nan Freeman secreted the amount of funds that she illegally took from
Michelle Murphy and other persons and entities until she was caught engaging
in this illegal conduct by counsel for Michelle Murphy. Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 52 of 55
2.8.2 Michelle Murphy is entitled to an accounting and for recovery of these
funds that were illegally taken from her.
2.8.3 The conduct of Nan Freeman in converting funds that Michelle Murphy
was illegally required to pay to Nan Freeman was in such reckless and wanton
disregard of consequences that evinced an intention to inflict injury upon
Michelle Murphy and her counsel that affected the representation that Michelle
Murphy received.
Fourth Cause of Action
[By Michelle Murphy for the negligence of Nan Freeman]
2.9 Nan Freeman, as described in information in this Amended Complaint and
other Causes of Action that are incorporated and made a part of this Fourth Cause
of Action maintains that she negligently took money belonging to Michelle
Murphy and retained the money.
2.9.1 Michelle Murphy seeks recovery for the portion of the money that the jury
determines was negligently taken from Michelle Murphy.
2.9.2 The conduct of Nan Freeman that the jury determines to be attributed
to negligence was taken in such reckless and wanton disregard of consequences
that evinced an intention to inflict injury upon Michelle Murphy and her
counsel that affected the representation that Michelle Murphy received.
Fifth Pled Right of Recovery from Nan Freeman 2.10 Michelle Murphy is entitled to be awarded punitive damages against Nan
Freeman as provided by OCGA §51-12-5.1, as her actions showed that she acted
with the entire want of care, which would raise the presumption of conscious
indifference to consequences. Michelle Murphy v. Nan Freeman Amended Complaint Page 53 of 55
Millard Farmer
Prom: Julia Harris [email protected]> on behalf of Quillian Baldwin<[email protected]>
Sent Thursday, June 191 2014 11:26AMTo: [email protected]: Robertson, Beth; [email protected]; Taylor Drake ([email protected]};
[email protected] Murphy y. Murphy 12-V-413; Coweta County Superior Court
Dear Millard:
Nan Freeman has discussed with me your latest emails back and forth and she is deeplyconcerned about having to deal with a law suit which she cannot afford.
I have told her since this has become so stressful for her, that we should turn over a copy ofher audio recording of the hearing you are concerned with. As far as I can tell, you are notlegally entitled to the audio recording. However, Nan is willing to turn a copy over of suchrecording by placing a sealed copy in the Murphy case, File No. 12-V-41 3, in the Clerk ofCourt's Office along with an unsealed copy to be a part of the public record of which you oranyone else can review the audio recording at your pleasure.
i will file an order instructing the Clerk that the sealed recording shall not be opened exceptin open court but that you may review the unsealed recording wherever you would like inthe courthouse. This should satisfy your request. However, you, Mr. King1 anyone on yourstaff or employed by you, may not download or copy said recording in any way whatsoever.
By having the copies in the file, the unsealed copy will be available for use in an appeal orany other proceeding along with the original. Despite what Nan is willing to do, if you file alaw suit against Ms. Freeman, she will not voluntarily give you directly or file with the clerk'soffice, copies of said audio recording. Of course, you already have a copy of the transcriptas legally required by law.
We look forward to your immediate response.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 1i