IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF UNION COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

DAVID J. FARNHAM,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION

Vs. FILE NO. 16-CV-400-MM

DENISE RENEE SALERNO,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND DEFENSES TO PETITION

FOR EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW DENISE RENEE SALERNO, Defendant herein, and files her Answer and
Defenses to Petition for Emergency Order and shows the following:

First Defense

Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff’s Petition for Emergency Protective Order, including each Count thereof, fails to
state a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted in that Plaintiff, an attorney of
law and officer of the court, brings his Petition for Emergency Protective Order pursuant to the
O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91; however, Defendant is not now, nor has she ever been “in violation of a bond
to keep the peace posted pursuant to Code Section 17-6-110, temporary restraining order,
temporary protective order, permanent restraining order, permanent protective order, preliminary
injunction, good behavior bond, or permanent injunction or condition of pretrial release, condition
of probation, or condition of parole…” Therefore, Defendant cannot possibly be found to have
committed the criminal act of Aggravated Stalking as defined by the O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91, a copy
of said code section is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Accordingly, Defendant further shows that
since Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to show the court, by a preponderance of evidence, that

Farnham v. Salerno
Defendant’s Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Temporary Protective Order
Page 1 of 7
Defendant has committed any act of aggravated stalking, he has no grounds for the relief he is
seeking in his frivolous and baseless petition, and his petition, therefore, must be dismissed.

Second Defense

Judge/Venue Shopping

Defendant shows that on November 21, 2016, she filed the matter of Denise R. Salerno v.
Appalachian Accident Injury Lawyers LLC, The Farnham Law Firm, David J. Farnham, Karen
Brouse, Crystal Chancey, and Jane Doe, aka Kristin, Civil Action File Number 2016-V-522-MC,
Superior Court of Fannin County. All party defendants in said action were served on December
01, 2016. A Joint Order of Voluntary Recusal was executed by Hon. Brenda S. Weaver, Chief
Judge, Appalachian Judicial Circuit, Hon. John E. Worcester, Judge, Appalachian Judicial Circuit,
and Hon. Mary Elizabeth Priest, Judge, Appalachian Judicial Circuit on the 7th day of December,
2016, and filed of record on the 19th day of December, 2016, as evidenced by a copy of same
attached hereto as Exhibit “B”. The Hon. Martha Christian, Senior Judge, was appointed to preside
on December 27, 2016, as evidenced by a copy of the appointment attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”

Plaintiff herein and Defendant herein are parties in Salerno v. Appalachian Accident Injury
Lawyers LLC, et al.

Defendant shows that a substantial number issues alleged CAFN 2016-V-522-MC,

Superior Court of Fannin County, and that of CAFN 2016-CV-400-MM, Superior Court of Union
County, are significantly similar.

Defendant further shows that Plaintiff herein has an adequate alternative remedy available
to him in the form of a counterclaim that he can file in Fannin County Superior Court case.

Defendant shows that the interests of judicial economy are best served if all allegations are
heard in the locale of origin, the Appalachian Judicial Circuit.

Farnham v. Salerno
Defendant’s Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Temporary Protective Order
Page 2 of 7
 Considering the above-referenced facts, Defendant shows that Plaintiff has filed his
baseless, frivolous petition in a blatant effort at judge and venue shopping, and therefore his
petition must be dismissed in its entirety.

Third Defense
Harassment

Plaintiff has been licensed to practice law in Georgia since June 19, 1986, and has
continuously practiced law for twenty-nine (29) years since then, except for the three (03) months
period when the State Bar of Georgia suspended his license to practice. Plaintiff publicly and
vociferously extols his self-proclaimed litigation expertise. As such, Defendant shows that Plaintiff
made no innocent error in his salacious endeavor to color Defendant a felon in his petition for a
protective order. Plaintiff possesses sufficient knowledge, and is perfectly able to file a proper and
truthful petition, yet, in this case, he chooses not to do so. The fact that Petitioner failed to act in
accord with his education, experience and professional station in this instant action further
demonstrates his bad faith, sharp practices, and his obvious disregard for the Court.

Plaintiff is intentionally attempting to mislead this Court in a bad faith attempt to vilify
Defendant, and to ascribe to her negative intent where none existed nor now exists.

Plaintiff’s obvious harassment of Defendant must not be awarded, rather, his entire petition
should be dismissed with all costs cast upon Plaintiff.

Fourth Defense
Subject to, and without waiving the above defenses, Defendant answers the allegations of
Plaintiff’s Petition as follows:
1.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff is a resident of Walton County, Georgia, as alleged in

paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Petition, and shows that Plaintiff has repeatedly confessed to Defendant
that he fictitiously maintains residence in Walton County, Georgia to make it more difficult for his

Farnham v. Salerno
Defendant’s Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Temporary Protective Order
Page 3 of 7
local clients and debtors to sue him. Plaintiff co-owns real property in Walton County, Georgia
with his former spouse, but very sporadically is present there. Plaintiff’s Firm is based in Fannin
County, his client base is in the Appalachian Judicial Circuit (primarily Fannin County), and his
fiancé resides in Fannin County.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff has been a resident of the State of Georgia for a period of
no less than six (06) months prior to the filing of his silly petition as alleged in paragraph 1 of
Plaintiff’s Petition.

2.

Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

3.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff is currently a licensed attorney in the State of Georgia.

4.

Defendant denies that Plaintiff “contracted paralegal work from Defendant…” as alleged
in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition and as evidenced by the official findings of the Georgia
Department of Labor, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”

Defendant denies that she began employment with Plaintiff June 30, 2015, as alleged in
paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

5.

Defendant denies that she was terminated on September 10, 2016, as alleged in paragraph
5 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

6.

Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6(a) through 6(i) of Plaintiff’s
Petition. It is of particular note that Plaintiff deliberately fails to mention that his own daughter,

Farnham v. Salerno
Defendant’s Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Temporary Protective Order
Page 4 of 7
and the rest of the wait-staff of the Blue Ridge Marina Restaurant, applauded Defendant when she
clearly stated to Plaintiff that she quit her job and fired Plaintiff as attorney of record in connection
with an unrelated matter.

Defendant takes particular issue with the allegations contained in paragraph 6(e) wherein
Plaintiff knowingly and falsely alleges to this Court that Defendant “…does not have any business
in Fannin County, Georgia, that Plaintiff is aware of…” and shows that, despite being Defendant’s
attorney of record in a pending, unrelated matter in the Probate Court of Fannin County (until
September 10, 2016) Plaintiff filed an action against Defendant in said Court. Defendant further
shows that Plaintiff again lies to this Court in his ongoing campaign to vilify Defendant.

Defendant admits that Plaintiff was served with process of service on December 01, 2016,
as alleged in paragraph 6(i).

7.
Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Petition.

8.
Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Petition, and further shows
that no adult member of Plaintiff’s family and/or staff member has complained that Defendant has
committed any act(s) of aggravated stalking.

9.
Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief as asked by Petitioner/Plaintiff (said
identification is inexplicably interchanged throughout the whole of Plaintiff’s Petition) in his
“Therefore” clause. Specifically, Defendant shows that in section (b) of Petitioner’s “Therefore”
clause, Plaintiff “asks” that “Defendant be served with a copy of this Complaint and Ex Parte
Protective Order as required by law” whereas Plaintiff has never obtained an Ex Parte Order
against Defendant.

Farnham v. Salerno
Defendant’s Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Temporary Protective Order
Page 5 of 7
 Plaintiff further “asks” that his place of residence be kept secret from Defendant, but only
after he states that he lives in Walton County, Georgia.

10.
Each, every, and any other allegation of Plaintiff’s Petition not specifically admitted herein
is expressly denied.

WHEREFORE, having answered Plaintiff’s baseless Petition for Emergency Protective

Order, and there being no grounds for the relief he seeks, Defendant prays that Plaintiff’s Petition
for Emergency Protective Order be dismissed in its entirety with all costs cast upon Plaintiff; and
that Defendant be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deem just and appropriate.

This 4th day of January, 2017.

DENISE R. SALERNO
Defendant, pro se

184 Nichols Circle

Blairsville, GA 30512
(706) 455-4460

Farnham v. Salerno
Defendant’s Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Temporary Protective Order
Page 6 of 7
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF UNION COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

DAVID J. FARNHAM,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION

Vs. FILE NO. 16-CV-400-MM

DENISE RENEE SALERNO,

Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Defendant hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant’s
Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Protective Order by delivery to:

David J. Farnham

This 4th day of January, 2017.

DENISE R. SALERNO
Defendant, pro se

184 Nichols Circle

Blairsville, GA 30512
(706) 455-4460

Farnham v. Salerno
Defendant’s Answer and Defenses to Petition for Emergency Temporary Protective Order
Page 7 of 7