You are on page 1of 2

STEPHEN

F. HUMPHREYS, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box 192
Athens, Georgia 30603
athenslaw@gmail.com
(706) 207 6982

August 19, 2016



Deborah Nolan Gore, Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334


Dear Deborah:

When you first took over the Benedek litigation we established a positive, mutually-
responsive working relationship that was a great improvement over the previous
situation. However, over the past couple of weeks I tried to contact you concerning
the motions before the court and had no response to any of my calls. Of course I was
also surprised to read the motions themselves and find that--contrary to our
seemingly cordial relationship, and based on some rather glaring mis-statements of
factthe Attorney General was once again attacking me, personally, seeking to
actually have me barred from the courts for supposed abuse of the legal process.

First, I attempted to call you because I wanted to make sure you had seen the August
15 Rule 11 notice letter before our deadline to file responses to your motions to
dismiss and stay on August 11, 2016. This was a rather serious matter since the calls
for my effective disbarment were based on the extreme misperception that the
instant federal action was the third of three identical suits, two of which had been
dismissed in state court.

We were trying to give you some benefit of the doubt, as an attorney newly-assigned
to the long-running and rather complex litigation. It should be quite clear, by this
point, that Benedek I and Benedek v. Edlein were voluntarily dismissed and re-filed
together in the instant federal suit pursuant to OCGA 9-11-41. The Attorney General
removed Benedek I to federal court, waiving any Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The two dismissal orders entered in Benedek I were both vacated. The improper
dismissal order that was attempted in Benedek v. Edlein was never filed with the
clerk. Thus Benedek v. Adams, 16CV1803, is properly filed in federal court, free from
any final state court adjudication and following the proper rules of procedure. The
Attorney General now has seven days to retract any claims to the contrary, along

with the unfounded call to bar us from the courts of Georgia for bringing claims for
wrongdoing that is documented in the public record.

Secondly, I call this misunderstanding of the procedural posture to your attention
for a more practical reason. The motion to dismiss notes that Defendant Adams has
not been served with the federal complaint. You will recall that I previously asked
you about acknowledging service for Adams, who has been a defendant represented
by the Attorney General in this litigation since February of 2013. To be on the safe
side, we went ahead and served the defendants Judge Edlein attempted to bar us
from adding and serving in Benedek I, though they were served in Benedek II. As you
noted, we have had some logistical problems serving Michael Adams, which would
be allayed by the Attorney General acknowledging service of the complaint on this
defendant the Attorney General has represented throughout this continuous
litigation.

In our prior conversation you declined to do that. Now, after receiving the Rule 11
letter and the responses to the motions, with a proper understanding that this is not
a separate lawsuit being filed against Adams, but a continuation of Benedek I, in
which Defendant Adams has already been properly served and represented by the
Attorney General for more than three years now, we hope that you will reconsider
your position, acknowledge and waive any objections to service, and save us the
trouble and expense of tracking him down between Athens and Malibu.

I will look forward to your earliest reply. Thank you for your time and attention to
this important matter.