Violation #1 – Professional Misconduct of Attorneys – Ex Parte Communications

The following information is taken from a sworn affidavit that I filed with the courts as part of complaints about the professional misconduct of the attorneys involved:

1.   I submit that it is possible that Judge Orinda D. Evans and/or a clerk for Judge Evans may have been improperly influenced in this case.  I believe it is possible that improper influence could be a criminal violation, though I have no proof.  This is only a suspicion of a possibility, and I have this suspicion because the behavior of Judge Orinda D. Evans in this matter makes no logical sense to me.

2.   The Time Slips of Maid’s Attorneys show that there was extensive ex parte communication between Maid’s Attorneys and Judge Orinda D. Evans and her staff.  While some of this may be permissible, the volume of ex parte contact certainly indicates that there were plenty of opportunities for Judge Orinda D. Evans to be improperly influenced.  There were conversations and communications between Judge Orinda D. Evans and Maid’s Attorneys that Judge Evans did not reveal to Alcatraz and me. (Exhibit #1 to Dec #23 — Evans Docket #406.)  [Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10.]  (Exhibit #967 to Dec #25.)  (I submit that this is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  I submit that this is a violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.)

3.   VIOLATIONS BY HAWKINS & PARNELL — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

4.    VIOLATIONS BY CARL HUGO ANDERSON — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

5.    VIOLATIONS BY BRETT MENDELL — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

6.    VIOLATIONS BY SARAH L. BRIGHT — I submit that this ex parte communication is a violation of Rule 3.4 and 8.4 of the GCPC and Local Rule 83.1C.  (Proof is provided in Evans Docket #253-8, 253-15, 253-10; Dec #25, Exhibit #967.)

 

I have filed a Verified Complaint of Professional Misconduct against Carl Hugo Anderson, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young, Sarah Bright, Brett Mendell, Phillips Lytle, Marc Brown, and Arthur P. Russ.  I have also filed a lawsuit against most of these attorneys for fraud upon the courts, RICO violations, and other violations in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia – Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-02027-WSD.  I am filing a complaint with the State Bar of Georgia and the New York State Bar Association.

---