"INTHE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY GEORGIA DEZSO BENEDEK, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2014-CV-246185 VS. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SAM OLENS the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, JANE GATEWOOD SHAW; KASEE LASTER, and NOEL FALLOWS Defendants. NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS Comes now Plaintiff Dezso Benedek, files exhibits in support of the Amended Motion For Sanctions against the Attorney General, verified by the Second Affidavit of Stephen F. Humphreys, and shows the Court as follows: 1. The Attorney General of Georgia prosecuted an attempted tenure revocation action against Plaintiff Professor Dezso Benedek. That tenure revocation action failed when the Hearing Committee found there was “no uncontradicted evidence” to support any of the five conflict of interest charges brought against Benedek by the Attorney General. Thatis because, as these exhibits demonstrate, the evidence offered by the Attorney General in support of revoking Plaintiff's tenure was knowingly manufactured and perjured, while the Attorney General attempted to conceal and deny evidence disproving the charges. 2. Plaintiff produced in the hearing extensive documentation, through State records authenticated at the hearing, showing that Defendants in this instant action in Fulton Superior Court,! under the supervision of the Attorney General of Georgia, engaged in extensive evidence tampering. This evidence tampering consisted both of (1) manufacturing false evidence of knowingly false charges and (2) concealing and denying the existence of probative evidence disproving the charges. As documented in Defendants’ own records, evidence was manufactured by way of impersonating UGA students and sending out 1 This action, or the instant action, refers to this Georgia RICO action filed here in Fulton Superior Court, also referred to as Benedek II, against the Georgia RICO parties: the Attorney General and UGA officials Noel Fallows, Judith Shaw, Kasee Laster, and Jane Gatewood. This is distinguished from Benedek I, the initial Section 1983 action filed against the Board of Regents and Michael in Fulton State Court. ‘The Fulton State Court barred amendment to add the Georgia RICO claims and parties. After that denial, the instant action was filed bringing the Georgia RICO claims and naming the Georgia RICO parties in this Court,false correspondence in their names, containing their private information including Social Security numbers, and logging onto computer databases in the students’ names, without their knowledge or consent, in violation of federal student privacy law and criminal identity fraud, evidence tampering, false identification, mail fraud, wire fraud, and computer fraud statutes. 4, Defendants also gave sworn testimony at the hearing that further supports the allegations the Defendants in the instant action, including the Attorney General, engaged in these forms of evidence tampering, improper influencing of witnesses, perjury, and subornation of perjury. 5, The attached exhibits are verified and authenticated as forming part of the tenure proceedings by the affidavit of Benedek’s counsel. See Second Affidavit of Stephen Humphreys. The exhibits are as follows: 6. The Jilin memo memorializing Defendant Shaw’s decision to terminate the UGA study abroad program at Jilin. Exhibit 1. The Jilin Memo, concealed in discovery by the Attorney General, totally disproves the tenure revocation charge that Plaintiff destroyed UGA'sprogram at Jilin—which was actually terminated at the insistence of Defendant Judith Shaw. The Jilin memo so clearly contradicted the tenure revocation charge brought by the Attorney General concerning Jilin that the Attorney General attempted to get away with not producing the document, though it was clearly covered by the discovery rules governing the tenure proceeding to turn over all documents related to the charges. That gamble did not pay off, as Plaintiff's counsel independently recovered the document. The fact that the Attorney General also had the exculpatory document and attempted to conceal it demonstrates that the Attorney General knew the charges were false before the hearing even took place—and proffered knowingly perjured testimony to bolster the knowingly false charges. Amended Motion for Sanctions Against the Attorney General (Motion for Sanctions), {]21- 24, a The sworn testimony of Jane Gatewood (the named defendant the Attorney General abetted in evading service) that Defendants reviewed the Jilin memo—critical evidence the Attorney General did not produce in discovery—in preparation for their perjured testimony at the hearing. Exhibit 2. At the hearing,Defendants contradicted the undisclosed Jilin Memo, committing perjury by claiming Plaintiff destroyed the Jilin program though they knew and had written corroboration in their possession that the charge was false. When shown the Jilin Memo, under cross examination at the hearing, Gatewood indicated in her sworn testimony that she was shown the Jilin Memo a week before the hearing (transcript p. 201, lines 10-11), and the Attorney General interrupted Gatewood’s testimony (page 201, line 14) to emphasize the source from which the Attorney General procured the document (though the point of that outburst is not clear since the Attorney General never produced the document to opposing counsel, regardless of the source, contrary to the rules governing the proceedings). See Motion for Sanctions, 125. The Attorney General subsequently abetted Gatewood in evading service on the grounds that she was not a party in Benedek |, then claimed she was a party to Benedek I for purposes of urging dismissal of Benedek II. As a result of the Attorney General's self-interested actions, a witness who clearly has information on evidence tampering, influencing witnesses, and subornation of perjury by the Attorney General, is absent from this litigation. See Motion for Sanctions, 4, 8-9, 15-16, 32-33.8. The sworn testimony of Judith Shaw admitting that she would not have accused Benedek if she had known he was in possession of the Jilin memo. Exhibit 3, Transcript page 456, lines 1-2. The charges that Benedek destroyed programs at Jilin were completely contradicted by the Jilin memo. Shaw claimed not to remember the Jilin memo, on which Shaw was copied, memorializing Shaw’s decision to terminate the Jilin program (Exh. 3, p. 455: 10-12) at the time she accused Benedek of terminating the UGA program at Jilin. But Shaw also ssion of the Attorney verified that the Jilin memo was in the poss General, who reviewed it with Shaw prior to the hearing—though the Attorney General withheld the memo contrary to the discovery rules governing the tenure proceeding. Exh. 3, p. 454: lines 7-9. See Motion for Sanctions, 126 9. Correspondence in which Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest (ELTE) verified that the transcripts UGA later alleged to be falsified by Plaintiff were in fact valid transcripts issued by ELTE for a legitimate study abroad program operated under the UGA- ELTE Cooperative Agreement. Exhibit 4. This verification of theauthenticity of the transcripts by the issuing institution occurred before Defendants embarked on a scheme to produce fake evidence that the transcripts were themselves fake, and before the Attorney General brought the knowingly false charges that Benedek falsified transcripts for a supposedly fake program—a program UGA students had attended and received credit for during the previous ten years. This correspondence in Exhibit 4, like the Jilin Memo, was not produced by the Attorney General in the tenure revocation proceeding, 10. Correspondence from a UGA student to then-President Michael Adams complaining about UGA’s use of his name, Social Security number, and transcripts in a scheme to manufacture evidence against Benedek impugning the authenticity of the ELTE transcripts already verified by ELTE. Exhibit 5. This scheme, using illegal means to fabricate evidence that the ELTE transcripts were fake, was concocted after ELTE had already confirmed the authenticity of the transcripts in question. The Attorney General withheld the evidence received from ELTE that the transcripts were authentic and relied instead on the fabricated evidence to bring tenure revocation charges. The UGA student’s complaint to President Adams includes part of thecorrespondence Defendants sent out in the name of the student, under false pretexts, without the students’ knowledge or consent, in an attempt to fabricate false evidence. 11. UGA student's Open Records request seeking the documents in Exhibit 5 and UGA’s denial that these same documents existed. Exhibit 6. Before writing to President Adams, the UGA student made an Open Records request for the correspondence sent out in his name, without his knowledge, and UGA denied the existence of any such documents. Obviously, UGA's denial of the existence of the documents requested is contradicted by the very documents subsequently sent to President Adams as part of Exhibit 5, showing that the UGA student's name, transcript, and personal information including his Social Security number were sent to third parties without his knowledge or consent in an attempt to manufacture evidence against Benedek impugning the authenticity of the ELTE transcripts already verified by ELTE. It is worth noting that UGA’s response to the Open Records request--denying the existence of these documents, that clearly did exist--nonetheless solicited the student to consult Dean Noel Fallows, the same UGA official who conducted the illegal scheme to fabricate evidence impugning thetranscripts. Clearly, knowledge of the scheme both to fabricate false evidence and conceal exculpatory evidence, along with malice in the attempt to destroy Professor Benedek’s career on knowingly false grounds, may be inferred from this duplicitous response. 12. Letter from Dean Noel Fallows, transmitting private student information to third parties and instructing the recipient to keep it secret from the students. Exhibit 7. This represents additional correspondence requested under the Open Records Act and denied by Defendants in the instant action. Again, it seeks to fabricate evidence to contradict ELTE's verification of its own transcripts. The author is the same person referenced in UGA's false denial, in response to Open Records requests, that the documents existed. The letter from Dean Fallows instructs the recipient to keep the scheme strictly secret from the students whose identities were being misappropriated—from which malice and knowledge of its illegality may be inferred. 13. Correspondence sent on the false pretext that the UGA student whose identity was being misappropriated was applying to graduate school—when, in fact, the student was not applying tograduate school and had no knowledge of the correspondence in her name. Exhibit 8. This represents additional correspondence of the same type requested under the Open Records Act and denied by Defendants. Again, this correspondence sent in the name of a UGA student under a false pretense seeks to fabricate evidence to contradict ELTE?’s verification of its own transcripts. Not only was it kept secret from the student, it concocted a cover story of false information about the student, 14. Correspondence from another UGA student complaining to Michael Adams about UGA officials impersonating her, sending and receiving correspondence in her name, and creating accounts and logging on to computer databases in her name. Exhibit 9. This complaint was based on additional fake correspondence in the name of UGA students—the existence of which UGA denied in response to Open Records requests. Again, this illegal scheme was conducted in an attempt to manufacture evidence against Benedek impugning the authenticity of the ELTE transcripts already verified by ELTE. This letter, Exhibit 9, details for President Adams the illegal scheme by which UGA students were impersonated to create a false paper trail on which 10to base the tenure revocation charge. As part of this scheme to fabricate evidence contradicting ELTE’s validation of its own transcripts, fake computer accounts were created and phony correspondence was sent and received in the names of the UGA students. Prior to the tenure revocation hearing, UGA students provided documentation of this criminal evidence tampering scheme to President Adams, who never responded. 15. The UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement further contradicting the Attorney General's charges. Exhibit 10. Like the Jilin memo, the Attorney General withheld this exculpatory document establishing the framework for ELTE to issue transfer credit transcripts for UGA. curriculum in a study abroad program. Unlike the Jilin memo, Defendants denied under oath the existence of this document that further disproved the charge that Plaintiff falsified transfer credit transcripts for a supposedly fake program at ELTE. See Motion for Sanctions, 28. This document, denied by Defendants acting under the authority of President Adams in the tenure proceedings, was later discovered in departmental files bearing the signature of Michael Adams. See Motion for Sanctions, ]31. When the document denied by qt.Defendants was discovered, the hearing was already over but the Tenure Committee had not yet issued its decision. The Attorney General and UGA Office of Legal Affairs successfully opposed bringing the UGA- ELTE Cooperative Agreement, and other exculpatory documents that surfaced after the hearing, to the attention of the Hearing Committee. 16. Transmittal letter for the UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement signed by Jane Gatewood. Exhibit 11. Jane Gatewood was purportedly involved in the search for this UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement—the existence of which Defendants denied under oath, as it contradicted their tenure revocation charge related to the ELTE study- abroad program. That denial under oath is obviously called into serious question by Gatewood’s reference in Exhibit 11 to the same agreement, Exhibit 10, attached to a letter bearing her signature. Jane Gatewood evaded service in this action, abetted by the Attorney General, as described in the Motion for Sanctions Against the Attorney General. This, of course, makes her unavailable to explain this glaring discrepancy that, like the attempted concealment of the Jilin Memo, represents serious misconduct by the Attorney General's office. See Motion for Sanctions, 30. 1217. The sworn testimony of Kasee Laster denying the existence of the UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement. Exhibit 12. In her sworn testimony, Laster denied the existence of this exculpatory document, claiming that Laster and Gatewood had searched everywhere and could not find any evidence the cooperative agreement, clearing Benedek of the tenure revocation charges brought by the Attorney General, existed. See Motion for Sanctions, 29. Jane Gatewood, whose signature was later found on a transmittal letter for the cooperative agreement, was present at the hearing when Laster gave this sworn testimony that the agreement did not exist. Laster and Gatewood worked together in the UGA Office of International Education. 18. Correspondence in which the Attorney General obstructed service of Jane Gatewood. Exhibit 13, The Attorney General refused all cooperation when Plaintiff's counsel attempted to ascertain whether it was true that Gatewood was leaving the state before she could be served with process in the original Fulton State Court action, Benedek I. Gatewood did evade service, behind the Attorney General's stonewalling, and then did, in fact, leave the state, as Plaintiff advised 13the court in Benedek I. The Attorney General abetted her in this evasion on the grounds that Gatewood, whose testimony concerning concealment of documents would be devastating to the Attorney General, was not a party to Benedek I. The Attorney General then sought dismissal of Benedek II on the grounds that Gatewood was a party to Benedek I. 19. Due Diligence Affidavit for Gatewood. Exhibit 14. As described in the affidavit of the process server, Gatewood evaded service both at home and at work during the period in which the Attorney General abetted this evasion as described in Exhibit 13. Gatewood subsequently left the state and her current whereabouts are unknown. By refusing to cooperate, the Attorney General procured the absence of a witness with devastating testimony regarding the Attorney General's concealment of two separate documents showing that the Attorney General brought knowingly false charges based on manufactured evidence and perjured testimony, the Jilin Memo and the UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement. Attorney General Sam Olens remains adamant, however, in his refusal to investigate these matters, despite the documented evidence of ethical violations and criminal wrongdoing. 1420. Atlanta Journal-Constitution article on the request to appoint a Special Attorney General, Exhibit 15. This article was written in response to a request to the Governor to appoint a special investigator in light of Attorney General Sam Olen’s public refusal to investigate. It represents one of many examples of the Attorney General claiming, notwithstanding these exhibits documenting the criminal RICO predicate acts, that the allegations against Defendants are “frivolous” and “nonsensical” and do not merit investigation by the Attorney General's Office. See Motion for Sanctions, 136. Attorney General Sam Olens appears oblivious to the glaring conflict of interest involved in dismissing as frivolous authenticated documentation of wrongdoing by his own office, for which he is responsible. 21. ‘These exhibits represent severe and extensive fraud by the Attorney General's office in the conduct of the tenure revocation proceedings against Plaintiff—and refusal to investigate the wrongdoing in the aftermath. In fact, the frauds rise to the level of criminal RICO predicate acts, as alleged in the Complaint. In defending its own misconduct in this ongoing litigation, the Attorney General’s 15Office is compounding fraud upon fraud, defending fraud by fraud. A perfect example of this Catch-22 conflict of interest is the Attorney General obstructing service on named defendant Jane Gatewood, a witness with testimony that is devastating in terms of exposing wrongdoing by the Attorney General's Office and confirming criminal RICO predicate acts alleged in this action. As stated in the Motion for Sanctions supported by these exhibits, the Attorney General, knowing that Gatewood’s testimony would be devastating in light of these exhibits, abetted Jane Gatewood in leaving the state and evading service under the pretext she was not a party to the action filed in Fulton State Court. Then, for purposes of dismissing the instant suit, the Attorney General claimed she was a party to Benedek I, the State Court action. That is, as stated in the Rule 60 motion, a duplicitous statement interposed to shield the Attorney General from accountability for his own wrongdoing, It should not be tolerated by the courts of this State. Respectfully submitted this 24th day of February, 2015. STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C.STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS Georgia Bar No. 378099 P.O. Box 192 Athens, GA 30603 1671 Meriweather Drive Bogart, GA 30622 (706) 543-7777 p (706) 543-1844 f (706) 207-6982 m 17CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all Defendants have been served this Notice of Filing Exhibits via US mail, this 24th day of February, 2015, as follows: Samuel S. Olens Kathleen M. Pacious Loretta L. Pinkston McLaurin Sitton Office of the Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS, P.C. /s/ Stephen F. Humphreys STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS. Georgia Bar No. 378099 P.O. Box 192 Athens, GA 30603 1671 Meriweather Drive Bogart, GA 30622 (706) 543-7777 p (706) 543-1844 f (706) 207-6982 m 18