Retaliation for speaking the truth.

November 26, 2006

By Andy Rice (View author info)

The following submission represents my personal opinion!

Most of this article was previously posted as Comment #6 to Taffy Rice's article SLAPP Subpoena

Speaking of personal accountability..where's yours, Mr. or Ms. Username withheld, Marietta, Georgia? Anyone who sees fit to write anonymously, obviously has none. As for me and my wife, we always stand by our words and deeds. We do not fear the truth, rather we welcome it. Unfortunately, it has been my experience in Judge Grubbs' courtroom, determining the truth has not been one of her goals. She and her associates routinely attempt to hide the truth and punish those who speak it.

In your previous posting you wrote:

"Ms. Rice has made the Wright's business her business, put her dog in their fight and is now called to Court explain her actions."

The SLAPP subpoena, which was the subject of my wife's article, does not indicate my wife is being called to court to "explain her actions." Your comment seems to imply my wife is a party to that action or is defending herself from something. According to court records, which I personally viewed, the hearing on November 27, 2006 is to be a Compliance Hearing. Apparently, the purpose of the hearing is so Judge Grubbs can determine whether or not her previous order in Ailion v. Ailion has been followed. This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with my wife.

Although I can't prove who you are, due to your hiding behind a cloak of secrecy, I have a pretty good idea who you are. Clearly, you have a detailed familiarity with Ailion v. Ailion and a familiarity with the law. Certainly you know that a witness in a matter such as this is not being called to explain her own actions. A non-party witness is necessarily being called to give testimony that may be relevant to the actions of the parties. If my wife is ever called to explain her own actions, she has the right to defend herself to the fullest extent of the law. If that is what is intended, then the November 27th Compliance Hearing is the wrong forum for such an effort by Judge Grubbs and Bruce Ailion.

In your latest posting, you are presumably responding to the writer from Texas, but you actually seem to direct your comments toward my wife. In this latest posting, you wrote:

I can only presume you are addressing CAN 02-1-04560-42, LMHA, Inc and the ACC of LMTHA v. Rice. Rest assured, it is not our "conduct" which brought the wrath of Judge Grubbs upon us. Perhaps the following undeniable facts will correct your misperception.

1. LMHA, a non-profit corporation, was dissolved the year before CAN 02-1-04560-42 was filed against us.
2. Under Georgia law, a dissolved (or deceased) corporation can only sue to recover or dispose of assets.
3. The suit against us was an injunctive relief suit, which is not allowed under the law.
4. We have never conducted any business or contracted with LMHA.
5. Richard Calhoun, an attorney with the firm Brock and Clay, presented a pleading admitting he sued under the wrong name, which was ignored by Judge Grubbs. This admission voids the entire lawsuit under Georgia law.
6. Our deed is not subject to any covenants and restrictions.
7. The second Plaintiff, LMTHA, is a profit corporation created by me and my wife approximately 19 months prior to CAN 02-1-04560-42's filing.
8. We are the sole incorporators, founders, shareholders, officers, and owners of LMTHA, a fact Judge Grubbs acknowledged in her void Final Order against us, dated April 15, 2003.
9. Ronald L. Cannon illegally obtained an insurance policy in the name of LMTHA, using our corporate name with his home address. He knowingly used our corporation's identity in order to obtain thousands of dollars of legal fees from Nationwide.
10. Nationwide has been made aware of the insurance fraud depicted above, but has refused to respond to our inquiries.
11. Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine refused to take any action regarding the insurance fraud against our corporation.
12. Shortly before our trial, Judge Grubbs willingly participated in illegal ex parte communications at a Cobb Chamber of Commerce breakfast, with two men claiming to be members of LMHA.
13. One of these men admitted he participated in the conversation about our lawsuit with his friend Judge Grubbs.
14. District Attorney Pat Head witnessed this conversation.
15. This ex parte communication violates Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and strips Judge Grubbs of further jurisdiction in the case.
16. Judge Grubbs refused to recuse herself, while not denying the conversation occurred.
17. Judge Grubbs denied us a jury trial.
18. Judge Grubbs denied our right to fully present our improper party plaintiff defense, violating due process.
19. Richard Calhoun testified in open court his submitted billing records were true and correct.
20. Each and every page of the aforementioned billing records identified LMTHA as the client.
21. No page of the billing records identified LMHA as the client.
22. Despite her acknowledgement that we own LMTHA, Judge Grubbs, awarded attorneys' fees (now amounting to over $47,000) against us, to be paid to our own corporation.
23. At no time did LMTHA hire any attorney for any purpose.
24. At no time did LMTHA sue us.
25. The court record contains a Legal Notice, filed and sworn by the true officers of LMTHA, indicating the corporation did not sue us.
26. LMTHA's Legal Notice indicates any alleged debt, owed to the corporation by me or my wife, has been fully satisfied and is absolved.
27. This year, Richard Calhoun has filed two false sworn affidavits in support of garnishment actions against us. In his false affidavits, he intentionally identified LMTA as a party.
28. LMTA has never sued us and does not hold a judgment for attorneys' fees against us.
29. Judge Pamela South, of the State Court of Gwinnett County, knowingly violated the law in awarded a garnishment of my salary in the name of LMTA, although she was well aware LMTA did not hold a judgment against us. Delta Air Lines, Inc., my employer, knowingly sent the requested funds, despite its possession of the conflicting pleadings submitted by Calhoun and the order signed by Judge Grubbs.
30. Judge Grubbs, through Clerk of Court Jay Stephenson, knowingly ordered a garnishment of our bank account, in the name of LMTA, although she was intimately familiar with the true names of the parties noted on her void Final Order. BB & T knowingly sent the requested funds, despite its possession of the conflicting pleadings submitted by Calhoun and the order signed by Judge Grubbs.
31. The two garnishment orders noted above constitute an illegal taking of thousands of dollars from our assets.
32. In CAN 04-1-00020-33, Rice v. Cannon Chief Judge James Bodiford improperly transferred the case to Judge Grubbs, wrongly stating that the case was between the same parties and contained the same allegations as LMHA and ACC of LMTHA v. Rice. Not one of our counts against Cannon was adjudicated in that case. Cannon was not a party to that case.
33. We filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition against Judge Grubbs. In that case, she allowed her prejudicial view of our case against Cannon be published in a pleading and repeated in open court.
34. The Attorney General of Georgia wrote, on Judge Grubbs' behalf, the Cannon case is frivolous. Her prejudicial statement was published in the court record prior to any pleading or hearing on the merits. This constitutes an prejudicial public comment about a case pending in her court. This is yet another violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct which strips her of jurisdiction.
35. On November 7, 2006 we appeared before the Georgia Supreme Court in the Prohibition matter because it was illegally dismissed by Judge Arthur Fudger in the absence of all jurisdiction. This hearing can be viewed at Judicial Corruption

No, it was not OUR conduct that placed us in our current legal situation. The truth and the law are on our side. It is the ministers of the law whose conduct has violated every tenet of rights and freedoms upon which this country is supposed to be based.

I welcome your comments, Mr. or Ms. username withheld, Marietta, Georgia. However, in the future please do as we do and identify yourself. If you had any semblance of honor and integrity you would do so. Although I do not purport to give anyone legal advice, I am hereby requesting you cease and desist your actions of what I term cyber stalking my wife. Your recent actions bear varying aliases and occasionally a notation of username withheld, like in this occurrence. However, it is obvious, even to the casual observer, that your frequent comments bear a similar writing style, regardless of the alias used or if your name is withheld. Your hiding behind aliases and username withheld does not shield you from the ramifications of your actions.

One final point, I know plenty of victims of Judicial Misconduct who do not feel our legal system is the "envy of the world." The actions described in the enumerated section above, in my opinion, constitute fraud, constructive fraud, insurance fraud, corporate fraud, corporate identity theft, theft by deception, perjury, and RICO, by various persons.

Ephesians 6:12

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."


"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

Andy Rice
Lieutenant Colonel, USMC, retired
A Constitutional Natural Person
Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207