IN

THE STATE COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

GEORGIA











DEZSO BENEDEK,







Plaintiff









VS.






MICHAEL ADAMS and

THE BOARD OF REGENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY

SYSTEM OF GEORGIA







Defendants

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

Civil Action 13-EV-106714

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs Objections to July 21, 2015 Order

Comes now Plaintiff Dezso Benedek, in response to the Courts ex parte
protective order quashing the subpoena on Defendant Michael Adams, and
shows the Court as follows:
1.
This action came back to Fulton State Court on remand from the Georgia
Court of Appeals because this Courts dismissal order blatantly disregarded
the lawin particular OCGA 9-11-15 that allows Plaintiff to amend his
complaint to add RICO claims as of right. The trial court barred Plaintiff

from bringing RICO claims and denied the amendments as of right in

defiance of the controlling statute enacted by the General Assembly.
2.
On remand from this order in violation of OCGA 9-11-15, two-and-a-half
years after the case was originally filed, Plaintiff properly noticed the
deposition of Defendant Michael Adams.
3.
It was announced in June of 2015, immediately prior to the Court of Appeals
order reversing the trial courts dismissal, that Adams was leaving the
employ of the University of Georgia and taking a position as Chancellor of
Pepperdine University in Malibu, on August 1.
4.
Therefore, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, Plaintiff noticed
Adams deposition under the statute governing this situation, OCGA 9-1130(b)(2), which allows notice of deposition at any time, without leave of
court.
5.
The Attorney General sought to postpone the deposition until after the Court
decided the purportedly pending Defendants Motion to Dismiss, including
the Supplemental Motion filed on January 6, 2014which does not even

address Plainitffs operative complaint, as found by the Court of Appeals,

that was filed on March 24, 2014.
6.
This January 6 motion was filed prior to Plaintiffs March 24, 2014
amendmentwhich, as the Court of Appeals noted, is the governing
complaint in this action. Defendants have never filed any motion addressing
the operative complaintand that was the principal reason for the reversal
and remand. Neither Defendants motion nor the trial courts order of
dismissal even addressed the operative complaint (composed of the March
24 amendments as of right which the trial court attempted to illegally
deny).
7.
Thus, there was no effective motion to dismiss in place with respect to the
operative complaint, according to the Court of Appeals, on which the
Attorney General could rely to stay discovery over two years after the action
was filed.
8.
Plaintiff has been prejudiced already by the two-and-a-half year period in
which discovery has been blocked, including the period of over a year
during which the trial courts patently illegal order was on appeal, and the

six months in which the trial court failed to act on Plaintiffs motion to add
parties (the trial court eventually denied that motion on an improper basis, as
well, according to the Court of Appeals, when it entered its dismissal order
two weeks prior to a scheduled hearing on the matter).
9.
Defendants proposal to possibly wait another two-and-a-half years for
motions and appeals, before conducting discovery, would even more
severely prejudice Plaintiff. That is especially true since the trial courts
May 2, 2014 dismissal order is rife with blatant errors of law the Court of
Appeals did not need to reach to reverse, including absurd statements that
whether Plaintiff can bring RICO claims does not depend on satisfying the
elements of the RICO statute as enacted by the Legislature, but on the
subjective intentions of counsel.
10.
In addition to the recognized prejudice from delaying discovery, from loss of
memory and so forth, it is firmly established in the record of the tenure
revocation action initiated against Plaintiff Benedek by Defendant Adams,
that Defendants have a very checkered history of disappearing documents. It
is documented and undisputed that Defendants failed to produce and denied
under oath the existence of the UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreementthat

contradicted the tenure revocation charges brought against Professor

Benedek, and was later independently recovered by Plaintiffs counsel
bearing the signature of Michael Adams. See attached Notice of Filing
Exhibits (pp 11-13) and Exhibits (Exhibits 10-12).
11.
Upon reversal of the trial courts dismissal order and remittitur from the
Court of Appeals, on July 13 Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Michael
Adams for July 23, 2015, and subpoenaed him to produce any relevant
documents in his possession.
12.
On the morning of July 21, the Attorney General filed a motion for a
protective order and to quash the subpoenas on Michael Adams.
13.
The Attorney General complained that the request to produce documents
was overly broad and oppressive. Of course this is the same Attorney
Generals office that recently in the Kalberman case failed to produce
specifically-requested correspondenceclaiming that because it was
included in a memo it did not meet the definition of correspondence. Based
on this record of hair-splitting, evasive discovery practices, the Attorney
General should not be heard to complain of overly broad discovery requests.

14.
The Attorney General also claimed, contrary to the Court of Appeals
determination, that there was a motion to dismiss still pending--with respect
to Plaintiffs amended claims--that barred discovery. This is in direct
conflict with the Court of Appeals finding that Plaintiffs amended claims
filed on March 24, 2014 had never been addressed in the proceedings below.
15.
On July 21, 2015, the same day the Attorney General filed the motion to
block the noticed and subpoenaed discovery, Plaintiffs counsel was in the
process of preparing a written response and requesting a hearing for the next
day, when the phone rang and Staff Attorney Michael DAntignac informed
Plaintiffs counsel that he had the Attorney General and the judge on the
line.
16.
Counsel informed the trial courts staff attorney that counsel was in the
process of preparing and about to file his written response to the Attorney
Generals motion filed that morning. The staff attorney advised that would
not be necessary as he had the judge and Attorney General on the line.
17.

Plaintiffs counsel accepted the call believing it would lead to a discussion

of when to hold a hearing on the Attorney Generals motion. However, after
hearing from the Attorney General at length and admonishing Plaintiffs
counsel for noticing the deposition without consulting the Attorney General,
the trial judge declared her ruling that the deposition of Michael Adams
would be barred.
18.
It was only after the judge already declared her ruling that Plaintiffs counsel
had an opportunity to respond to the Attorney Generals written motion and
brief and argument over the phone.
19.
The only statement Plaintiffs counsel had an opportunity to make is that
Adams was about to leave UGA to go across the country and start a new
position at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California, and that Adams had
a documented history of material evidence disappearing. That is, in large
part, the substance of the underlying RICO claims against Adams. See
Notice of Filing Exhibits and Exhibits.
20.
Plaintiffs counsel never had an opportunity, either before or after the judge
declared her ruling, to raise other issues in Plaintiffs Response to the

Motion to Quashwhich Plaintiff never had an opportunity to file prior to

entry of an order denying Plaintiffs noticed and subpoenaed discovery.
21.
According to the phone records, the call to Plaintiffs counsel from the
judges chambers was placed at 4:28 pm. The call concluded at 4:43 pm. At
4:54 pm the Clerk of the Fulton State Court file-stamped an order denying
Plaintiffs noticed discovery.
22.
Since the court ruled in an unrecorded and un-noticed proceeding, upon the
Attorney Generals written motion filed the same day, after foreclosing
Plaintiffs written response and after hearing only from the Attorney
General, this was effectively an ex parte order.
23.
Plaintiff attaches as an exhibit the written Response to Defendants Motion
that Plaintiffs counsel prepared but was never allowed to file prior to the
trial courts ruling barring Plaintiffs discovery.
24.
The trial court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law, but
merely stamped GRANTED on a copy of Defendants motion. Thus the trial
court relied on the Attorney Generals incorrect statements of factto which

Plaintiff was not allowed any opportunity to respond. These include the
spurious claim that the Attorney General had a pending motion to dismiss
directed at Plaintiffs March 24 amended complaintin direct conflict with
the reversal and remand order of the Court of Appeals. The trial court also
relied on the Attorney Generals off-point authority, and did not even
address any of Plaintiffs positions, either as stated in the unrecorded phone
conference or in Plaintiffs Response that was Plaintiff was not allowed to
file before the trial court ruled against Plaintiff.
25.
In the same un-noticed and unrecorded phone conference in which the trial
court issued the ex parte order barring Plaintiffs discovery, the trial judge
indicated an intention to rule on the sovereign immunity issues before the
court without any further delay, claiming the issues were already fully
briefed by the parties.
26.
At that time, the trial judge stated that Plaintiffs counsel should expect an
order sooner rather than later addressing sovereign immunity for Plaintiffs
claims.
27.

Plaintiffs counsel objected, pointing out that Plaintiff intended to file an

additional amendment, and that the existing briefing did not address the
amendments already filed on March 24, 2014. Thus it was stated very
plainly that the issues of sovereign immunity remanded to the trial court had
not been briefed, consistent with the Court of Appeals order, and contrary
to the trial courts representation over the phone.
28.
Plaintiffs counsel also reminded the trial judge that the Court of Appeals
had also reversed and remanded on the issue of adding parties, which needed
to be addressed.
29.
In addition, Plaintiff stated that, contrary to the trial courts ruling-- prior to
hearing from Plaintiffs counsel--that discovery was barred, discovery of
Adams was warranted because it was related to the Attorney Generals
claims that there was no evidence supporting the allegations, and that the
discovery would be relevant to the additional amended claims Plaintiffs
counsel was in the process of preparing for filing. In part, the discovery of
Adams is relevant to claims that Adams committed criminal predicate acts
against the Plaintiff with actual malice and intent to cause harm that are not

10

governed by the Georgia Tort Claims Act previously relied on by the

Attorney General and the trial court.
30.
The trial court staff attorney, Michael DAntignac, exclaimed in disbelief,
asking if he had heard correctly that Plaintiff was filing another amendment,
in addition to the 120-page complaint we already have.
31.
The Assistant Attorney General Mac Sitton asked what kind of amendment
Plaintiff could possibly file, and Plaintiffs counsel responded that, among
other additional claims accrued since the May 2, 2014 dismissal, Attorney
General Sam Olens had committed additional RICO predicate acts in
violation of OCGA 16-10-20 by making knowingly false statements to
obstruct and independent investigation. See attached requests to Governor
Nathan Deal to appoint a special investigator and the Attorney Generals
response in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Knowingly false statements by
the Attorney General, for purposes of obstructing an independent criminal
investigation,1 include false statements that there is no evidence to support
Plaintiffs allegations of criminal evidence tampering (contrary to the

1 Even if Defendants had sovereign immunity form a civil RICO action based on their
criminal predicate acts, as the attorney General has claimed, there is undisputedly
no such sovereign immunity to shield them from a criminal RICO prosectution based
on the same criminal predicate acts required to state a claim under the Georgia RICO
Act.

11

attached exhibits) and thus no need to investigate the frivolous and

nonsensical allegations, and false statements that a complete investigation
has already been conducted. These self-contradictory statements have the
same purposeto prevent an investigation of documented wrongdoing in
the Attorney Generals own office, as well as at UGA and the Board of
Regents.
32.
Plaintiff is entitled to file these amended claims under OCGA 9-11-15, and
the claims are entitled to their own separate review for questions of
sovereign immunity and dismissal, as the Court of Appeals just pointed out
to the trial court.
33.
The trial judge asked Plaintiffs counsel how long it would take to file the
amendment, to which counsel responded it would be filed within a week and
to which the trial judge verbally agreed, further advising counsel to register
in the new e-filling system.
34.
Meanwhile, according to the trial judge, there would be no discovery of any
kind, cutting off Plaintiffs efforts to adduce evidence in support of the
noticed amendments to the complaint, and in support of Plaintiffs legal

12

arguments that Defendants criminal acts were not governed by the Georgia
Tort Claims Act or shielded by sovereign immunity.
35.
This was eerily similar to the trial courts improper conduct prior to the May
2, 2014 dismissal order.
36.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to add parties in December of 2013, upon remand
from federal court and prior to the commencement of discovery. By April of
2014, the Court still had not ruled on that motion, which prevented Plaintiff
from serving added parties with the Complaint. Also in April of 2014,
Plaintiff discovered that two of the proposed defendants were leaving their
employment at UGA and moving out of state. Proposed defendant Kasee
Laster denied under oath the existence of a key document, the UGA-ELTE
Cooperative Agreement--that was later discovered bearing the signatures of
Defendant Michael Adams and proposed defendant Jane Gatewood. See
Notice of Filing of Exhibits and Exhibits (Exhs. 10-12).
37.
Upon this discovery that Laster and Gatewood were imminently leaving
Georgia, Plaintiff filed a motion to advise the trial court of the urgency of a
ruling so that these parties could be served without chasing them down out

13

of state. Furthermore, there was no legal ground for denying the addition of
parties under the governing statute, OCGA 9-11-21, allowing addition of
parties at any stage of an action as long as it does not work an injustice (case
law urged by the Attorney General requiring an excuse for not adding parties
earlierwhich is limited to fact situations in which discovery has already
closed--is inapposite to this case in which discovery has never begun, as
highlighted by the trial courts very July 21 order, to which Plaintiff
objectsit is not supported by fact or law, which is the very reason ex parte
orders are prohibited except in limited, situations specified by statute).
38.
Plaintiff advised the trial court that Laster and Gatewood were expected to
depart the state by May 9, and that the trial court should go ahead and grant
to motion to add parties that had been pending for six monthssince the
statute of limitations had not expired and Plaintiff clearly had the right, in
the alternative, to merely dismiss the action and re-file it with all the parties
Plaintiff wished to add.
39.
Initially, the trial court set a phone conference to address this matter (similar
to the phone conference of July 21, 2015, except that there was prior notice
of the conference regarding the proposed parties). However, when a CBS

14

reporter requested access to the scheduled phone conference on Laster and

Gatewood, the trial court abruptly cancelled it.
40.
Instead, the trial court set a hearing in chambers for May 15, a week after the
proposed defendants were due to leave the state, with their departure making
service uncertain, more difficult, and more expensiveand beginning a long
line of clearly prejudicial actions by the trial court against Plaintiff.
41.
Then, on May 2, 2014, as Plaintiffs counsel was preparing for the scheduled
May 15 hearing, the trial court entered the infamous order denying
Plaintiffs amendments in violation of OCGA 9-11-15 and dismissing
Plaintiffs entire action. Even though the Court of Appeals eventually
reversed that order for not following the governing statutes, the trial courts
dismissal prevented Plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing and re-filing in a
forum where Plaintiffs claims could receive fair treatment. It also allowed
Jane Gatewood to leave the state and escape service.
42.
Accordingly, Plaintiff objects to the un-noticed proceeding on July 21, 2015,
to the repeated use of phone calls to foreclose any record of the proceedings,

15

and to the ex parte order that is not based on accurate facts or valid law
similar to the dismissal order reversed by the Court of Appeals.
43.

Plaintiff also objects to the plain and manifest appearance of bias and
disregard for the governing law that has demonstrably pervaded the trial
courts actions to date.

Wherefore, premises considered, the trial court should vacate its order of
July 21, 2015.

Respectfully submitted this 24th day of July, 2015.

STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C.
/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys
___________________________
STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS
Georgia Bar No. 378099

P.O. Box 192

Athens, GA 30603
1671 Meriweather Drive
Bogart, GA 30622
(706) 543-7777 p
(706) 543-1844 f
(706) 207-6982 m

16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that Defendants counsel in this action

have been served this Objection via US Mail, and by electronic mail at
msitton@law.gov.us, solens @law.gov.us., this 24th day of July, 2015, as
follows:

Samuel S. Olens
Dennis R. Dunn
Kathleen M. Pacious
Annette M. Cowart
Loretta L. Pinkston
Christopher A. McGraw
C. McLaurin Sitton
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300

STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C.

/s/ Stephen F. Humphreys
___________________________
STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS
Georgia Bar No. 378099

P.O. Box 192

Athens, GA 30603
1671 Meriweather Drive
Bogart, GA 30622
(706) 543-7777 p
(706) 543-1844 f
(706) 207-6982 m

17