Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
STATE OF GEORGIA
COMES NOW, Gilbert Freeman, Jr., Respondent, Pro se, and files this
1.
presided by Judge Beavers, the judge exhibits a clear and persistent bias for
Petitioner. In a matter involving both parties in April of 2014, Case No. 14-CV-
1201-TB, based on her word alone absent any evidence (i.e. police reports, medical
reports or other evidence submitted) and against opposing evidence, affidavits and
witnesses available to both parties, the Petitioner was granted a Stalking Protective
2.
In her sworn statement the Petitioner stated that Sheriff’s deputies had been to
her residence several times to remove Respondent however, all available public
Sheriff’s Department and submitted before Judge Beavers, reflect that the only
complaints made to the Sheriff’s Department at any time were by Respondent against
3.
In bringing forth the previous Action seeking a protective order, the Petitioner
successfully sought the assistance of Judge Beavers to modify his own existing
order, Case No. 12-CV-1077-TB (at the time, under appeal), granting the
with the aid of Judge Beavers, denied Respondent’s parenting rights as provided by
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
2
Constitution. Thereby completely severing and completely obstructing any ties
between the Respondent, two older sisters, Victoria Stewart and Allegra Freeman,
and the parties’ youngest minor child, LF. This action extends cyclic emotional and
psychological parental alienation abuse of the minor child and adult children to the
next generation as it has in the current and previous maternal generations. The
mother having alienated the two oldest children, that the parties raised together, from
their biological father, Robert Walden Todd and the biological paternal family in
4.
submitted two affidavits each, signed on separate occasions, disputing claims made
by the Petitioner of any acts of domestic violence by the Respondent in both their
adulthood and in childhood (Exhibits R2.1-2.3). They also refuted any claims that
the Petitioner was in reasonable fear of the Respondent at any time. Both adult
3
5.
bi-racial woman, could not comprehend the proceedings, of case no. 14-CV-1201-
TB, when Judge Beavers asked Ms. Stewart, “MA' AM, DO YOU KNOW WHAT
MISS?” (T34, 35). According to the software application, Microsoft Word 2013,
Judge Beavers’ question to the witness scored a 6th grade Flesch-Kincaid Grade
6.
During examination of the April 30, 2014, hearing, Petitioner pleaded the 5th
herself, the petitioner would have to be found to be disingenuous at best if she was
from equitable relief as she would have again violated the “Unclean Hands Doctrine”
based on OCGA 23-1-10, which provides that "Who would have equity must do
4
equity.” Judge Beavers, having ignored this, presents another troubling example of
7.
Respondent has coached some 200 or more Paulding County girls in fastpitch
softball over more than five (5) years against teams that included the Paulding
respondent ever accused of aggression or mistreating the girls, ages six (6) to sixteen
(16). Consistent with racial stereotypes displayed by Judge Beavers, the Judge noted
seemingly as if Respondent fit the racial stereotype of an “angry blackman” and had
Beavers and obstructed from having a relationship with his own daughter, unjustly
for more than two (2) years, more than four (4) as of this filing.
for later reintroduction. The Petitioner discloses the communication in open court
but did not include it in the Temporary Order request when Petitioner states, “I DID
5
SUBMIT THIS TO YOU UPON REQUESTING THE T.P.O., AND YOU TOLD
(emphasis added).
This action denied the respondent due process in accordance with the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution. It also violates the Georgia Code of
Judicial Conduct:
(A) Judges shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s
lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Judges shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex
parte communications, or consider other communications made to them outside the presence of
the parties, or their lawyers, concerning a pending proceeding or impending matter, subject to
the following exceptions.
(1) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications are authorized for scheduling,
administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the
merits, provided that:
(a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or
tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and
(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex
parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond.
6
CONCLUSION
Without shame or concealment, this case is ripe for the protection that public
the issue. Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers has consistently failed his fiduciary
of Petitioner. Having left the minor child, LF, unshielded from emotional and
psychological abuse in the form of pathogenic parenting and thereby denying the
Respondent and the child of this protected rule, statutory and constitutional
protection.
Superior Court Rule 25.1 to bring this timely filed motion for the disqualification of
abridges the U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 and State of Georgia Constitution Bill of
7
Rights due process protection (Ga. Const. Art. I, § 1, ¶1) (or collectively, “Due
tendencies and human weakness,” to the extent that the interest of Chief Judge
Beavers “poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be
Given the numerous times over multiple proceedings that Chief Judge
Beavers’ confirmation bias has reared itself, only legal vernacular of scandalous
Judicial Conduct, the Uniform Superior Court Rules and other violations involving
conduct should at the very least, disqualify him from this case.
(A) Judges shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.
Judges shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently.
Commentary:
[1] In disposing of matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently, judges must demonstrate due
regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary
8
cost or delay. Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge,
skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge’s responsibilities
of judicial office.
[2] Containing costs while preserving fundamental rights of parties also protects the interests
of witnesses and the general public. Judges should monitor and supervise cases so as to reduce
or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays and unnecessary costs.
[3] Prompt disposition of the court’s business requires judges to devote adequate time to their
duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under
submission, and to insist that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the
courts to achieve that end.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or
prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment
based upon age, disability, ethnicity, gender or sex, marital status, national origin, political
affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. Judges shall not permit
court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
Commentary:
[1] Judges must refrain from speech, gestures, or other conduct that could reasonably
be perceived as prejudiced or biased or as harassment and must require the same standard
of conduct of others subject to their direction and control.
[2] Judges must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. Judges who manifest bias
on any basis in a proceeding impair the fairness of the proceeding and bring the judiciary
into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication,
can give to parties, lawyers, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of judicial bias.
Judges must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.
9
Rule 2.9 Assuring Fair Hearings and Averting Ex Parte Communications
(A) Judges shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s
lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Judges shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex
parte communications, or consider other communications made to them outside the presence of
the parties, or their lawyers, concerning a pending proceeding or impending matter, subject to
the following exceptions.
(1) Where circumstances require, ex parte communications are authorized for scheduling,
administrative purposes, or emergencies that do not deal with substantive matters or issues on the
merits, provided that:
(a) the judge reasonably believes that no party will gain a procedural, substantive, or
tactical advantage as a result of the ex parte communication; and
(b) the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of the substance of the ex
parte communication, and gives the parties an opportunity to respond.
(5) Judges may initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications when authorized by law
to do so, such as when issuing temporary protective orders, arrest warrants, or search warrants,
or when serving on therapeutic, problem-solving, or accountability courts, including drugs
courts, mental health courts, and veterans’ courts.
(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the
substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the
substance of the communication and provide the parties with a reasonable opportunity to
respond.
(C) Judges shall not investigate facts in a pending proceeding or impending matter
independently, and in making adjudicative decisions shall consider only the evidence presented
and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed. The facts a judge shall not investigate
include those derived from personal observations or media, including printed publications,
computer retrievable electronic data, or internet and social network communications.
(D) A judge shall make reasonable efforts, including providing appropriate supervision, to ensure
that this Rule is not violated by court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s
direction and control.
Commentary:
[1] Judges shall immediately stop any attempted improper ex parte communication. Rule 2.9
10
(B) does not excuse a judge from this ethical requirement.
[2] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice.
Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be
heard are observed.
(A) Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might
reasonably be questioned, or in which:
(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning an impending matter or a pending
proceeding.
Commentary:
[1] Under this Rule, judges are subject to disqualification whenever their impartiality might reasonably
be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific items in Rule 2.11 (A) apply. For example, if a
judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified
from any matters in which that firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after
Having timely filed this motion to disqualify within five (5) days of initial
service of the Petitioner’s complaint, Gilbert Freeman Jr., requests that his challenge
11
disqualified from serving as judge and presiding over this case.
Gilbert Freeman Jr., requests that Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers grant his plea
Gilbert Freeman Jr., requests that Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers be required
evidence in support of this motion and matters relating to the facts contained in this
_______________________
Gilbert Freeman Jr.
Pro se
12
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF PAULDING
VERIFICATION
Personally appeared before the undersigned officer duly authorized to administer oaths, Gilbert
Freeman, Jr., who after having been duly sworn, on oath deposed and stated that the facts
contained in the within and foregoing pleading, MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
BEAVERS, are true and correct.
__________________________
____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:
_____________________________
13
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PAULDING COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
This is to certify that I have this day served the MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
BEAVERS upon all parties in this matter, by Certified United States Mail, with
adequate postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
_______________________
Gilbert Freeman, Jr
Pro Se
14