IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PAULDING COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

JODY EBRIGHT TODD, )

)
PETITIONER )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 16-CV-2117-P1
)
GILBERT FREEMAN, JR.,
)
RESPONDENT )
)

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE BEAVERS

COMES NOW, Gilbert Freeman, Jr., Respondent, Pro se, and files this

Motion to Disqualify Judge Beavers and Brief as follows:

1.

In a previous matter, as well as other matters, involving the parties and

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

Order by this Court on April 30, 2014.

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

record documents (reports) received by Respondent from the Paulding County

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

Petitioner after Respondent requested law enforcement presence (Exhibits R1.1-1.6)

. Respondent had never necessitated his removal from Petitioner’s residence.

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

Respondent parenting time. In gaining a Stalking Protective Order, the Petitioner

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

similar fashion for two decades.

4.

Two adult children, Victoria C. Stewart, and Allegra W. Freeman previously

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

children were present at the time of Trial to be cross-examined. Victoria C. Stewart

was called to and did testify contrary to the Petitioner’s claims.

3
 5.

In a bias manner, in support of the Petitioner, Judge Beavers appeared to

deliberately undermine the testimony of then 22 year old Victoria C. Stewart, an

adult with college experience, by stereotypically suggesting Ms. Stewart, a young

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

A PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT ARE, OR WHO THEY MIGHT BE?

MISS?” (T34, 35). According to the software application, Microsoft Word 2013,

Judge Beavers’ question to the witness scored a 6th grade Flesch-Kincaid Grade

Level Readability Score (Exhibit R3).

6.

During examination of the April 30, 2014, hearing, Petitioner pleaded the 5th

Amendment (T14). It is unclear to Respondent how Petitioner would incriminate

herself by answering questions in testimony. Even if she would not incriminate

herself, the petitioner would have to be found to be disingenuous at best if she was

purposefully avoiding legitimate questions. Further, Petitioner disqualified herself

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

confirmation bias for Petitioner.

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

County Sheriff as a fellow Softball Advisory Committee member. At no time was

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

and translated Respondent’s assertiveness with having an aggressive personality

seemingly as if Respondent fit the racial stereotype of an “angry blackman” and had

no right to feel disappointment with continually being treated unfairly by Judge

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.

Judge Beavers granted a procedural and tactical advantage by allowing the

Petitioner to exclude portions of the communication for ex parte Temporary Order

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

ME TO REMIND YOU OF THESE FACEBOOK POSTINGS WHEN I

CAME TO COURT AND MAKE SURE THAT I HAD COPIES” (T-59)

(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:

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.

6
 CONCLUSION

Without shame or concealment, this case is ripe for the protection that public

exposure provides to wrongdoers when persons’ other constitutional protections fail.

Uniform Superior Court 25, et seq. provides a litigant bringing a motion to

disqualify a judge an opportunity for a hearing before an impartial judge to determine

the issue. Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers has consistently failed his fiduciary

obligation to investigate the Respondent’s claims of pathogenic parenting on the part

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.

Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including United States Due

Process abuses fulfills the substantive and procedural requirements of Uniform

Superior Court Rule 25.1 to bring this timely filed motion for the disqualification of

Judge Tonny S. Beavers.

Chief Judge Beavers’ most charitable defense to his conduct is that he

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

Process”) protections of Respondent “under a realistic appraisal of psychological

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

forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.” Withrow

v. Larkin, 421 U.S, 35, 47 (1975).

Given the numerous times over multiple proceedings that Chief Judge

Beavers’ confirmation bias has reared itself, only legal vernacular of scandalous

proportions would speak to urge the Withrow doctrine as a defense.

The conduct of Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers in violation of the Code of

Judicial Conduct, the Uniform Superior Court Rules and other violations involving

conduct should at the very least, disqualify him from this case.

Rule 1.2 Promoting Public Confidence in the Judiciary

(A) Judges shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.

Rule 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness

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.

Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

(A) Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice.

(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.

Rule 2.11 Disqualification and Recusal

(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

disclosure by the judge.

Request for Relief

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

to the constitutionality of Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 be granted and that he be

allowed to present evidence in support of this request.

Gilbert Freeman Jr., requests that Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers be

11
disqualified from serving as judge and presiding over this case.

Gilbert Freeman Jr., requests that Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers grant his plea

to the personal jurisdiction in this case.

Gilbert Freeman Jr., requests that Chief Judge Tonny S. Beavers be required

to submit to questions under oath relating to case no. 14-CV-1201-TB.

Gilbert Freeman Jr, requests that he or future counsel be permitted to present

evidence in support of this motion and matters relating to the facts contained in this

motion before an independent jurist.

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of September, 2016.

_______________________
Gilbert Freeman Jr.
Pro se

5465 Zachary Drive

Stone Mountain GA 30083
(770) 485-6741

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.

__________________________

Gilbert Freeman, Jr.

Sworn to and subscribed before me

this ____ day of September, 2016.

____________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC

My commission expires:

_____________________________

13
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PAULDING COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

JODY EBRIGHT TODD, )

)
PETITIONER ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
vs. ) 16-CV-2117-P1
)
GILBERT FREEMAN JR., )
)
RESPONDENT )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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:

Jody Ebright Todd

173 Gatlin Ridge Run
Dallas GA 30157

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of September, 2016.

_______________________
Gilbert Freeman, Jr
Pro Se

5465 Zachary Drive

Stone Mountain GA 30083

14