IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

DEZSO BENEDEK,
Petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE SUSAN E. EDLEIN,
Respondent.

)
) CIVIL ACTION FILE
) NO. 2015-CV-2646754
)
)
)
)
)
)

************
Proceeding in the above-entitled and numbered cause,
heard before The Honorable Grant Brantley, Fulton County
County, at 136 Pryor Street, Courtroom 9J, Atlanta,
Georgia, on May 23, 2016, at 10:10 a.m.
************

JACQUELINE A. WASHINGTON, CCR-B-2190

Certified Court Reporter
454 Smyrna-Powder Springs Road
Smyrna, Georgia 30082
(678) 362-1569

2
1

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

On behalf of the Petitioner:

STEPHEN HUMPHREYS, ESQ.

The Law Office of Stephen Humphreys

P.O. Box 192

Athens, Georgia

(706) 207-6982

athenslaw@gmail.com

On behalf of the Respondent:

30603

10

KRISTEN B. WILLIAMS, ATTORNEY AT LAW

11

PAULA RAFFERTY, ATTORNEY AT LAW

12

Fulton County Office of the County Attorney

13

141 Pryor Street, SW

14

Suite 4038

15

Atlanta, Georgia

16

(404) 612-0270

17

kristen.williams@fultoncountyga.gov

18

paula.rafferty@fultoncountyga.gov

30303

19
20

- - THE COURT:

This is Dezso Benedek,

21

the Petitioner, versus Judge Susan E.

22

Edlein.

23

That's the only one I've got.

Is everybody here for that one?

24

MS. WILLIAMS:

25

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

And you are Mr.

3
1

Humphreys?

MR. HUMPHREYS:

THE COURT:

MS. WILLIAMS:

THE COURT:

MS. WILLIAMS:

THE COURT:

8
9

Yes, sir.

And you are?

Kristen Williams.

Williams?
Yes, Your Honor.

And you are new to the

case?
MS. WILLIAMS:

Yes.

Ms. Bray was

10

previously with the Fulton County Attorney's

11

Office, and she recently left our office.

12

have filed an entry in this case.

13
14

THE COURT:

And you're ready to go

forward?

15

MS. WILLIAMS:

16

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

It says here that you're

17

the defendant, but I don't believe it.

18

That's what the sign says.

19

MS. RAFFERTY:

20
21

I hope not.

Paula

Rafferty, for the County Attorney's Office.

THE COURT:

Okay.

I guess there are

22

a number of things pending.

But it seems

23

like the Motion to Dismiss would be the

24

obvious first thing to get to.

25

disagree with that?

Does anybody

And, if so, why?

4
1

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Well, Your Honor,

we've taken the position that our discovery

will bear on some issues in the Motion to

Dismiss; in particular, whether the actions

that were taken by Judge Edlein apart from

her actions in her own court regarding her

representations to the Fulton Superior Court

to Judge Esmond-Adams.

at issue now.

10

THE COURT:

That's really what's

Wait a minute.

11

Representations Judge Edlein made to

12

Superior Court?

13

MR. HUMPHREYS:

14

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

Help me understand what

15

you're talking about.

16

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Well, when we were

17

having difficulty getting Judge Edlein to

18

follow the law and follow the court of

19

appeals mandate, we filed a mandamus

20

petition in Fulton Superior Court.

21
22

THE COURT:

That's what is assigned

to me, right?

23

MR. HUMPHREYS:

24

THE COURT:

25

me now.

Eventually.

That's what's assigned to

5
1

MR. HUMPHREYS:

That's right.

But

the answer was to Judge Esmond-Adams when

she was presiding on the case.

4
5

That is largely what's at issue now,

the representations to the Court to --

THE COURT:

What was it?

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Well, they dealt with

-- one of the highly irregularly actions we

alleged Judge Edlein took was, for example,

10

to dismiss our case with an amendment

11

pending.

12

We had a phone conference.

13

discussed that we were going to amend our

14

complaint.

15

We

In particular, we were going to amend

16

our complaint to add additional wrongdoing

17

by the attorney general's office.

18

We set a date for filing that

19

amendment.

20

Edlein dismissed our entire case.

21

Before that date occurred, Judge

In her answer to the Fulton Superior

22

Court mandamus petition, she said that, when

23

she dismissed our case for the second time

24

to bar an amendment against Attorney General

25

Olens -- of course, we alleged that, after

6
1

we found out that she had extensive

connections to Attorney General Olens, she

probably shouldn't have been hearing the

case.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

THE COURT:

That would lend itself to

a Recusal Motion, wouldn't it?

MR. HUMPHREYS:

We filed a Recusal

Motion, and that's another -THE COURT:

There's no Recusal Motion

for me to hear, right?

MR. HUMPHREYS:

No.

What happened

12

with the -- we filed a Recusal Motion to

13

Judge Edlein herself, which she denied

14

claiming that we had not filed the affidavit

15

that the superior court rules would require

16

us to file with a Recusal Motion, which we

17

did file.

18

That's in the public records.

That's part of, like I said, the

19

highly irregular actions that we experienced

20

from Judge Edlein.

21

When she answered our mandamus

22

petition, she denied all those things.

So

23

our discovery directly relates to that issue

24

of what she knew when she made those

25

representations to Fulton Superior Court

7
1

and, ultimately, to yourself in response to

the mandamus petition.

THE COURT:

Kind of what I'm hearing

you say today is I shouldn't do anything but

reopen discovery.

6
7

MR. HUMPHREYS:

discovery really should be open.

8
9

That is -- well,

THE COURT:

Is that not what I'm

hearing?

10

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Well, that is

11

correct, Your Honor.

12

of discovery which long since expired.

13

We served written discovery on Judge

14

Edlein.

15

away.

16

the Court.

17

There's a 90-day stay

We didn't try to depose her right

We tried to have a little respect for

But that discovery should have been

18

answered long ago.

19

There hasn't really been any reason to

20

extend it.

21

The 90-day stay expired.

There is pending discovery that

22

actually Judge Edlein agreed to.

Then,

23

after we tried to depose the other

24

people who were privy to some of the

25

communications which bear on the alleged

8
1

misrepresentation -- I'm sorry that this is

sort of hard to follow.

THE COURT:

They sent me the file.

I've got the file right here.

MR. HUMPHREYS:

we tried to --

7
8

Well, it's only after

THE COURT:

I spent yesterday

charging the taxpayers to read it.

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Well, part of the

10

disputed communications is that there were

11

other people involved in the communications.

12

We subpoenaed them to get their

13

testimony that bears directly on Judge

14

Edlein's answers as to whether her

15

representations are knowingly truthful or

16

false.

17

It was only after that that Judge

18

Edlein objected to the discovery.

19

position is discovery should be proceeding

20

normally after the expiration of the 90-day

21

stay.

22

So our

They should have long since answered

23

our written discovery.

We haven't filed a

24

Motion to Compel because we were trying to

25

save the taxpayers and Your Honor some time.

9
1

But, since they filed a Motion for a

Protective Order, if we can deal with the

protective order, then that will answer our

Motion to Compel that we should be filing

because they should have long since answered

the discovery.

THE COURT:

Anything else?

MR. HUMPHREYS:

MS. WILLIAMS:

That's it.
Your Honor, the

10

petitioner throughout this litigation has

11

failed to articulate the reasons why this

12

action is appropriate for a mandamus relief.

13

In the original petition, it's clear

14

that the petitioner realized they could

15

appeal Judge Edlein's ruling and, instead,

16

has filed this mandamus action.

17

In particular, they said that they

18

just do not believe that they should have to

19

take the time or the cost to go back to the

20

court of appeals.

21

But this case is not appropriate for

22

mandamus relief.

So to go through discovery

23

on a case where relief sought is just not

24

appropriate under mandamus would be a waste

25

of the taxpayers' dollars, as well as the

10
1

Court's time.

Not only that, the most important

thing with this whole case is that Judge

Edlein, after receiving the petitions,

stayed the time for the petitioner to file

an appeal, as well as gives an order

vacating in part and allowing the petitioner

to amend the complaint of the underlying

action.

10
11

THE COURT:

You're saying she

complied with --

12

MS. WILLIAMS:

13

THE COURT:

14
15

With the request.

-- the appellant

decision?
MS. WILLIAMS:

Instead of actually

16

amending the complaint, the petitioner

17

voluntarily dismissed the underlying action.

18

So there is no longer an underlying

19

action for Judge Edlein to act on.

20

discovery on issues, again, in that

21

underlying action is completely irrelevant

22

to whether or not mandamus is appropriate.

23

THE COURT:

Seeking

You're telling me that

24

the underlying action in which he wants me

25

to order her to act is no longer --

11
1

MS. WILLIAMS:

THE COURT:

3
4
5
6

Yes, Your Honor.

Have you got a copy of

the dismissal?
MS. WILLIAMS:

Yes, Your Honor.

It

is attached to -MR. HUMPHREYS:

Your Honor, I hate to

interrupt another counsel's presentation,

but the mandamus is no longer an issue.

All of this talk about mandamus has

10

nothing to do with the case that's before

11

the Court today.

12

The case that's before the Court

13

today is on the claims of bad faith,

14

misrepresentation by Judge Edlein, and

15

partly in bringing claims against us for

16

filing the mandamus; and partly for making

17

misrepresentations to the Fulton Superior

18

Court concerning the mandamus.

19
20
21

THE COURT:

You've not filed a

dismissal of the mandamus, have you?

MR. HUMPHREYS:

No.

We've have

22

amended it.

23

mandamus is no longer an issue.

24
25

So we've agreed that the

It's not a question for you to order

Judge Edlein to do anything.

We voluntarily

12
1

dismissed that case because Judge Edlein had

taken such prejudicial action towards us

that was not authorized by law that we felt

that we could no longer keep the case in

front of her.

So we voluntarily dismissed it to

refile in another court.

with you.

We could refile it

But, based on our experience with

10

Judge Edlein, I could not risk more

11

prejudice to our client with orders that

12

were clearly --

13

THE COURT:

Okay.

I don't want you

14

to argue.

15

he's conceding that he's abandoned that.

16

I got it; okay.

MS. WILLIAMS:

The mandamus,

Yes, Your Honor.

17

However, all of the discovery, all of the

18

allegations in the amended complaints will

19

simply speak to Judge Edlein being required

20

to take action in the underlying case.

21

THE COURT:

I understand.

I will

22

hear you in a moment.

23

other counsel, if she has anything that she

24

wants to add.

25

MS. WILLIAMS:

Let me hear from

No, Your Honor.

She's

13
1

just observing.

2
3

THE COURT:

I'm not sure she's

observing.

MS. RAFFERTY:

I just registered.

No, I'm not adding anything.

THE COURT:

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Your Honor, can I

respond just briefly.

Our discovery has

nothing to do with the mandamus anymore.

10

All right.

Our discovery has to do with the bad

11

faith claim and misrepresentation, the

12

obstruction --

13

THE COURT:

Well, it has to do with

14

the claims you were making that she did or

15

did not act appropriately that leads to

16

mandamus; does it not?

17

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Our claim

18

specifically targets her actions outside of

19

her courtroom in the representation she made

20

to Fulton Superior Court in response to the

21

mandamus.

22

THE COURT:

All right; come to the

23

podium and argue your case, and I'll hear

24

it.

25

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Okay; thank you, Your

14
1

Honor.

clarify.

It's very simple.

I hope I can

Our claims that are pending against

Judge Edlein today -- we did originally file

the mandamus petition against her because

she was blatantly not following statutes,

procedural statutes, in which she had no

discretion.

They were ministerial actions.

For

10

example, we were filing amendments to our

11

complaint which we're allowed under O.C.G.A.

12

9-11-15(a) to file an amendment to our

13

complaint any time up until the entry of a

14

pre-trial discovery order.

15

Judge Edlein was entering orders

16

denying our amendments, which she can't do.

17

That's one reason we filed the mandamus.

18

We did file a Recusal Motion.

We

19

filed with that Motion the supporting

20

affidavit required.

21

Recusal Motion saying that we had not filed

22

the affidavit.

23

Judge Edlein denied our

It's a matter of public record that

24

we did file the affidavit.

I do want to

25

reassure you that we are not lightly filing

15
1

any kind of claim against a judge.

We suffered extreme prejudice from

extreme actions that really have no

explanation how a judge could rule that

you're denied because you didn't file the

affidavit when the public record shows that

we filed the affidavit.

the mandamus petition to begin with.

That's why we filed

We are also alleging that Judge

10

Edlein was taking those actions to protect

11

her friend, political ally, financial

12

benefactor who happens to be the Attorney

13

General of Georgia, Sam Olens.

14

When we discovered that late in the

15

process, some of these actions by Judge

16

Edlein were so -- I hate to say it --

17

bizarre.

18

We just couldn't understand.

So we looked into it and found out

19

that she had extensive connections to

20

Attorney General Olens.

21

We did file a Motion to Recuse.

The

22

response was this order denying it saying

23

that we didn't file our affidavit, which we

24

did.

25

So that was the situation that we

16
1

were in.

dismissal of the original action because I

would just fear what other order would come

next.

That's why we filed the voluntary

But the claims that are before you

today center on her actions in response to

the mandamus petition.

8
9

She went outside of her courtroom,

came into Fulton Superior Court and, first

10

of all, filed claims against my client which

11

we say are in total bad faith.

12

She filed claims against my client

13

under O.C.G.A. 9-15-15 which specifically

14

prohibits her bringing an action against my

15

client in the case of the mandamus petition.

16

So, again, another bizarre thing that

17

we really cannot understand a judge doing.

18

Also, she, in responding --

19
20
21

THE COURT:

Did she file those claims

in this case?
MR. HUMPHREYS:

Yes, in this case.

22

They said they wanted it dismissed, but they

23

have claims against me.

24
25

They want to dismiss my case, but

they have claims against me.

They don't

17
1

want to do discovery, but they have claims

against me.

But, really, the most essential part

of our claims today is only confusing to try

to walk back -- I did want you to

understand, though, the context of the case.

Right now, it's only confusing to

walk back and talk about the mandamus.

mandamus, there's no mandamus before you.

10
11

The

You can be sure of that.

But the issues that are before you

12

are the claims based on Judge Edlein's

13

misrepresentation to the Fulton County

14

Superior Court concerning the actions that

15

she took in bad faith to protect Attorney

16

General Olens.

17

All of her actions that she took

18

barred us from bringing claims against

19

Attorney General Olens.

20

None of her actions were supported by

21

any law.

22

interpret the statute.

23

It's not a question of how do you

There are things that are not subject

24

to any kind of interpretation; like, the

25

right to amend your complaint.

18
1

She has no discretion to deny our

amendment of complaint.

discretion to deny our Motion to Recuse

saying that we didn't file the affidavit.

She has no

So she's taking these actions to

protect Attorney General Olens.

answered to the Fulton Superior Court, she

misrepresented all of those actions to this

Court.

10

When she

That is the basis of what the claim

is today.

11

THE COURT:

Okay.

12

MS. WILLIAMS:

Your Honor, the

13

underlying case went out to the court of

14

appeals previously and came back down and

15

Judge Edlein ruled again in that case.

16

The plaintiff for the petitioner,

17

instead of appealing all of these alleged

18

violations of the law, misinterpretations of

19

the law because the petitioner disagrees

20

with the way that the Court ruled on the

21

law, instead of filing an appeal in that

22

action, the petitioner filed a mandamus

23

action.

24

The judge then responded to the

25

mandamus action without having to articulate

19
1

the reasons -- the Court is obviously

entitled to judicial immunity, and the Court

does not have to disclose its mental

process.

It's clearly discretionary.

So, yes, Judge Edlein did file an

answer in response to the mandamus action.

Now, we're alleging that we no longer care

about the mandamus action, but we are using

-- the actions that we're taking in response

10

to the complaint to articulate a completely

11

new complaint.

12

All of this is related to the

13

underlying action that is now dismissed in

14

which Judge Edlein issued an order in which

15

the petitioner disagreed with.

16

The petitioner had the right to

17

appeal that case.

18

simply because they did not want to waste

19

the time and money.

20

They chose not to do so

However, that does not mean that the

21

petitioner gets to drag Judge Edlein through

22

another case when they had the right to

23

appeal.

24
25

You don't have to voluntarily dismiss

because you are afraid of what Judge Edlein

20
1

might continue to do.

the court of appeals.

You can take it to

The court of appeals previously rules

in the petitioner's favor in the underlying

action.

If they were that concerned, they

could have gone right back to the court of

appeals.

But, now, there's an attempt to

10

question the judge's reasoning, question the

11

judge's rulings, and that simply is not

12

appropriate in this case.

13

The allegations of bad faith and

14

misrepresentation to the Court are simply

15

inaccurate.

16

The protective order that was -- the

17

Motion for a Protective Order that was filed

18

in this case was because the petitioner is

19

trying to take the deposition of Judge

20

Edlein's staff attorney, simply to ask the

21

staff attorney why Judge Edlein made those

22

decisions.

23

Again, that's not appropriate.

That

24

should not be allowed in any court for a

25

judge's actions to be questioned in a

21
1
2

deposition.
Any question that would be asked

during the deposition would be confidential.

Again, the petitioner could have and still

does have the ability to file an appeal in

that underlying action.

But these new allegations should not

be used in an effort to get around the fact

that the petitioner simply did not like the

10
11

ruling in the underlying case.

THE COURT:

What about his statement

12

that the judge has filed claims against his

13

client in this case?

14

MS. WILLIAMS:

Your Honor, that is --

15

we do not have any cross-claims against the

16

petitioner.

17

There was an answer filed in the

18

normal way of filing.

19

litigation is frivolous absolutely.

20

However, we don't have any cross-claims.

21
22

THE COURT:

I do believe the

You're not seeking

anything from them?

23

MS. WILLIAMS:

24

THE COURT:

25

MS. WILLIAMS:

No, Your Honor.

Anything else?
No, Your Honor.

We

22
1

simply believe that this case is an abuse of

the judicial system.

This is not the way that you

challenge a judge's order.

The way to

challenge a judge's order is to go to the

court of appeals.

The petitioner was previously

successful before the court of appeals, and

they should have to go back to the court of

10

appeals; not take Judge Edlein through

11

litigation to question her reasoning.

12

not appropriate.

13

THE COURT:

All right.

It's

Does your

14

colleague have anything that she'd like to

15

add?

16

MS. RAFFERTY:

17

THE COURT:

18

No, Judge.

I want you to pop her on

the head every time it's her turn.

19

MS. WILLIAMS:

I'll do that.

20

MS. RAFFERTY:

I've never been called

21
22

upon while I was acting as second chair.

THE COURT:

All right.

Well, you've

23

got to make sure she's doing it right.

24

then, you may close this hearing.

25

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Okay.

Sir,

Your Honor,

23
1

let me just respond briefly to some of the

things counsel said.

She's talking about things that are

not relevant to what's going on in this

court today.

She talks about our right to appeal.

Let me just address that briefly.

Edlein did deny our amendments.

We have a

right to amend our complaints.

She denied

10
11

Judge

our amendments.
We appealed at the court of appeals.

12

The court of appeals had a very easy

13

decision to say, Judge Edlein, you cannot

14

deny a plaintiff's amendments to his

15

complaint.

16

Judge Edlein's response to that was

17

to then enter a second dismissal again

18

denying our amendment to our complaint.

19

So what counsel is saying is that we

20

can go on a perpetual treadmill to the court

21

of appeals; that the court of appeals can

22

rule in our favor and can come back, and

23

Judge Edlein can make the same error -- if

24

you want to call it an error -- and we can

25

appeal the same error to the court of

24
1

appeals again and have them rule in our

favor; and then we can come back to Judge

Edlein, and then she can do the same thing

again.

We allege that she is doing all of

this in bad faith and prejudice.

all of these rulings protecting Sam Olens

from having claims brought against him.

She has

She has very close connections to Sam

10

Olens.

11

Sam Olens, and she did that with judicial

12

pretext.

13

She had prejudice.

She protected

That is really not why we're here,

14

though.

15

petition -- this is the first time I've

16

heard today that they have no claims

17

asserted against us.

18

We're here because, in the mandamus

When they responded initially, they

19

tried to justify the claims they brought

20

against us.

21

no claims against us.

22

But, today, they said they have

That's news to me.

But, be that as it may, they brought

23

those claims against my client in order to

24

harass and intimidate him.

25

They brought those claims under a

25
1

statute that specifically prohibits them

from doing so.

So I'm not really sure that it gets

them off the hook to now say, Well, we

really didn't mean to bring these claims to

harass and intimidate your client and to

cause your client to spend money and time to

respond to them, which we have had to do.

Again, the focus for our claims today

10

are Judge Edlein's misrepresentations to

11

this Court.

12

did in her court.

13

I'm not talking about what she

Also, just let me briefly address

14

something inaccurate.

15

we want to depose people.

16

us why we want to depose people.

17

We keep hearing why

They keep telling

We Noticed a deposition of Michael

18

Dentonac [sic] who was the former staff

19

attorney for Judge Edlein because he was

20

party to communications between the judge

21

and the other counsel which are not

22

privileged and they're not immunized in any

23

way.

24
25

The communications back and forth

between Mr. Dentonac and myself and the

26
1

attorney general's office, that is what we

want to depose him about because those

communications directly contradict the

representations that Judge Edlein made to

the Fulton Superior Court when she filed the

answer to her mandamus petition.

That is what we are focused on today;

not whether we had a mandamus action in the

past.

10

We did voluntarily dismiss to get out

of Judge Edlein's courtroom.

11

But she took those actions to bar

12

claims being brought against the attorney

13

general.

14

bias.

15

She did that with prejudice and

She actually exercised her bias in

16

that case.

Now, she's come to the Fulton

17

County Superior Court and denied all of

18

that.

19

We believe we have a right to prove

20

that her representations to this Court are

21

false, and they're knowingly false.

22

We can do that through discovery.

23

Honestly, Your Honor, we did not do

24

discovery.

25

today.

We have ample evidence of that

27
1

I don't want to convert this to a

Summary Judgment Motion, but I do want to

assure you that we don't make these

assumptions lightly in any way; thank you.

THE COURT:

I am not persuaded.

Let

the record reflect that the clerk provided

me with a complete copy of the filing.

I've reviewed that, as well as the

argument here today.

10

relief you request.

11

order.

12

I'm going to deny the

Prepare me a proposed

I want you to tell the story of this

13

case so that anybody looking at it can see

14

the whole story.

15

MS. WILLIAMS:

16

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

The simple fact is the

17

mandamus has been abandoned.

18

MR. HUMPHREYS:

19
20
21

interject here?

We've --

THE COURT:

I'm ruling, sir.

MR. HUMPHREYS:

23

THE COURT:

25

don't --

22

24

Your Honor, may I

Well --

You be quiet when I'm

talking.
MR. HUMPHREYS:

All right.

28
1

THE COURT:

I invite no dialogue when

I'm making my ruling.

will invite dialogue but not in the middle

of it.

When I'm finished, I

Be sure you show that underlying case

as being dismissed by the petitioner, and

recite that the defendant is not seeking any

relief of any sort upon the petitioner other

than the dismissal -- no counterclaim, no

10

cross-claim.

11

I think "counterclaim" is the right

12

word.

13

beginning.

14

but an overview.

15

Just tell the story from the

I don't mean in minute details
All right, Mr. Humphreys?

MR. HUMPHREYS:

I apologize for

16

interrupting Your Honor, but the reason I

17

interjected is that we have additional

18

claims.

19

We have an amended complaint that we

20

filed last week that has never been briefed

21

by anybody.

22
23
24
25

So I'm not sure how it can be ruled

on today with an order granting a -THE COURT:

You didn't tell me that

earlier, so my ruling stands.

29
1

MR. HUMPHREYS:

Well, Your Honor,

that's filed in the public record in your

case.

Those issues in that amended

complaint have never been addressed by

anybody at any time.

THE COURT:

Have a good day, sir.

That's my ruling.

You may e-mail me the

proposed order.

10

Copy him at the same time

you send it to me.

11

If y'all have dialogue back and forth

12

about this order, do not copy me with it.

13

Okay?

14

MS. WILLIAMS:

15

THE COURT:

Yes.

I do not need to see

16

y'all fussing and fighting.

17

things to do; and it messes up my e-mail.

18

I've got other

I'm hearing cases in about 42

19

counties now.

So I've got enough business

20

without having to read something that I

21

can't do anything about.

22

you.

All right; thank

23

MS. WILLIAMS:

24

(Proceeding concluded at 10:52 a.m.)

25

Thank you, Your Honor.

30
1

C E R T I F I C A T E

2
3

STATE OF GEORGIA:

COUNTY OF COBB:

5
6

I hereby certify the foregoing proceeding

was taken down, as stated in the caption, and reduced to

typewriting under my direction; and that the foregoing

pages 1 through 29 represent a true, correct, and

10

complete transcript of said proceeding.

11
12

This, the 11th day of August, 2016.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

____________________________________

21

JACQUELINE A. WASHINGTON, CCR-B-2190

22
23
24
25