IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY GEORGIA DEZSO BENEDEK, p ) Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) 2014-CV-246185 vs. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) SAM OLENS the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF |) GEORGIA, JANE GATEWOOD; JUDITH ) SHAW; KASEE LASTER, and NOEL ) FALLOWS ) Defendants. SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN F. HUMPHREYS I, Stephen F. Humphreys, duly sworn before the below-named officer authorized to administer oaths, do hereby attest as follows: 1 Iam over the age of 18 and am not suffering from any mental or physical disability that would impair or prevent me from testifying under oath. | attest to the truth of the facts stated herein from my own personal knowledge. 2. Iam an attorney licensed to practice in the state of Georgia, where I graduated summa cum laude, First Honor Graduate, from theUniversity of Georgia School of Law. In addition to the private practice of law, | performed public service as a legislative aide in the United States Senate, as Special Assistant to the President of the American Bar Association, as U.S. representative to the Barreaux de Paris, Bruxelles, Lausanne, et Montréal, as law clerk to U.S. District Judge Sam Pointer, as Special Counsel to the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and as U.S State Department special envoy to both Cuba and Iraq, 3. lalso performed a public service in defending the Plaintiff, UGA Professor Dezso Benedek, an outspoken critic of then-UGA President Michael Adams, in an attempted tenure revocation action prosecuted by the Attorney General of Georgia at the behest of President Adams, for which well over half a million dollars in legal services ended up being performed without payment up to the point that the effort to revoke his tenure failed because the charges were unfounded. 4, As part of that lengthy representation, | defended Professor Benedek at a three-day evidentiary hearing on his tenure revocation at UGA in July of 2010, at which Benedek’s accusers—the Defendants in the instant action filed in Fulton Superior Court--gave sworn testimonythat support Benedek’s claims in this lawsuit that Defendants manufactured false evidence to support knowingly false charges against Benedek in an intentional and malicious effort to ruin his career. In addition, documents disproving the charges against Benedek from Defendants’ own records were produced and authenticated—including highly relevant documents, the existence of which the Attorney General attempted to deny and conceal, as | witnessed first-hand. 5. The attempted tenure revocation proceedings were governed by a broad discovery agreement in which all documents relevant to the charges brought by the Attorney General were supposed to be produced to each opposing counsel. Yet a large volume of exculpatory documents were not produced by the Attorney General, including correspondence between UGA and Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest (ELTE) that proved the tenure revocation charges related to ELTE were false, and additional UGA documents disproving the ELTE charges that were also concealed by Benedek’s accusers, as well as a UGA document generated by Defendant Judith Shaw proving that the tenure revocation charges against Professor Benedek with respect to the UGA program at Jilin University in China were also false. Since these documents were in thepossession of the Attorney General prior to the hearing, and the Attorney General tried to conceal their existence, they also prove that the Defendants in the instant action, including the Attorney General, knew beforehand that the charges were false and acted with malice against Professor Benedek. 6. Accordingly, the attempt to revoke Professor Benedek's tenure failed when it was proven at the evidentiary hearing, upon sworn testimony and authenticated records of Benedek’s accusers, that the charges against Benedek were false, that Benedek’s accusers knew the charges were false before they were brought, that false evidence was manufactured to support the knowingly false charges, with the knowledge of President Adams and the Attorney General, and that the Attorney General withheld exculpatory documents in discovery and otherwise concealed documents damaging to the Attorney General's case, and denied their existence through a series of perjuries and subornation of perjury. The exhibits detailed in this affidavit represent some, but not all of the evidence instrumental in proving that the charges against Benedekwere both knowingly false and fraudulently concocted, in violation of the Georgia RICO Act and enumerated provisions of the Georgia Criminal Code. 8. The exhibits verified in this affidavit include a true and correct copy of a UGA document authenticated at the tenure revocation hearing related to the charges against Benedek for the Jilin program—namely a memo from Dean Kavita Pandit and OIE Director Judith Shaw ordering termination of the Jilin program. The Attorney General did not produce this Jilin memo in discovery, but attempted to conceal it, as it contradicted the tenure revocation charge brought by the Attorney General that Benedek destroyed the Jilin program. 9. The exhibits verified in this affidavit include true and correct copies of sworn testimony related to the Jilin program, duly recorded by a court reporter, from the official transcript of the tenure revocation hearing, as follows: -Jane Gatewood (whose evasion of service and absence from this litigation was abetted by the actions of the Attorney General) admittingthe Attorney General had possession, prior to the evidentiary hearing, of the Jilin memo the Attorney General attempted to conceal -Judith Shaw (who ordered the termination of the Jilin program Benedek was accused of destroying) admitting that she would not have accused Benedek of destroying the Jilin program if she had known he was in possession of the Jilin memo in which she ordered termination of the Jilin program -Kasee Laster denying the existence of the UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement (asserted by Benedek in defense of the charges related to ELTE), and claiming she and her Office of International Education colleagues, including Jane Gatewood, had searched everywhere for such an agreement and been unable to locate it (it was later discovered with a transmittal letter signed by Gatewood, who evaded service and is absent from this litigation). 10. The exhibits verified by this affidavit also include UGA documents authenticated at the tenure revocation hearing related to the charges against Benedek for the Eovos Lorand University in Budapest (ELTE) study abroad program. aaThe exhibits include correspondence between UGA and ELTE in which ELTE verified that that ELTE transfer credit transcripts the Attorney General accused Benedek of falsifying were, in fact, authentic ELTE transcripts, refuting the charges the Attorney General brought anyway (while attempting to conceal this exculpatory correspondence). 12. The exhibits also include a true and correct copy of an Open Records request to UGA by a UGA student I represent, seeking all correspondence by UGA using the student’s name and Social Security number, and sending out his ELTE transcript without his knowledge or consent, in an attempt to create evidence the ELTE transfer credit transcripts had been falsified (after ELTE had verified that they were authentic transcripts issued by ELTE). 13. This portion of the exhibits also includes a true and correct copy of the response the student received from UGA denying that any responsive documents existed—though the correspondence related to the unauthorized and illegal use of this student's transcript was later found to exist and produced at the hearing, as well as transmitteddirectly to then-UGA President Michael Adams in complaints about these illegal actions. 14, The exhibits verified by this affidavit include a true and correct copy of the follow-up letter from the UGA student--after UGA denied the existence of the documents, and then the same documents were procured from recipients of the correspondence UGA denied. This follow-up letter, including copies of the correspondence previously denied by UGA, advised President Adams of the scheme, denied by UGA, to send out protected student information on false pretexts without their knowledge or consent (committing identity fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and computer fraud by which this UGA student's identity was illegally misappropriated in order to manufacture false evidence of charges that were known to be false). 15, The exhibits verified by this affidavit include true and correct copies of attachments to the follow-up letter notice to Adams, correspondence sent by UGA in the student's name, as well as UGA’s response to the student's Open Records request falsely denying theexistence of those same attachments (procured from recipients after UGA falsely denied their existence). 16. The exhibits verified by this affidavit include true and correct copies of UGA documents authenticated at the tenure revocation hearing, in the form of further examples of the correspondence requested in the Open Records request, by which Defendants impersonated UGA students in an attempt to create a false paper trail, the existence of which was denied in response to the Open Records request. These include a letter from UGA Dean Noel Fallows illegally sending out student transcripts to be reviewed under false pretenses, specifically warning the recipient that this activity be kept secret from the students whose identities were being thus misappropriated, They also include correspondence falsely claiming a UGA student was requesting evaluation of her ELTE transcript because she was applying to graduate school—when the student in question was not applying to grad school and had no knowledge of this correspondence initiated in her name, using her name and Social Security number, the existence of which was denied in response to the Open Records request. 17.Defendants denied under oath the existence of the UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement. Yet the exhibits include a true and correct copy of the agreement I located in files of the UGA Department of Comparative Literature. The agreement itself is signed by President Adams, responsible under Regent's policy for every facet of the tenure revocation proceedings. The Agreement, the existence of which Defendants denied under oath, was accompanied by a transmittal letter signed by UGA official Jane Gatewood, who was called by the Attorney General to testify against Benedek at the hearing. 18. Gatewood is also a named defendant in the instant Fulton Superior Court action. Gatewood would provide critical evidence in this action with respect to the Attorney General's deliberate concealment of the Jilin memo, as well as Defendants’ perjured testimony on the knowingly false Jilin charges and the false denials under oath concerning the existence of the exculpatory UGA-ELTE Cooperative Agreement. However, Gatewood evaded service and left Georgia. Her current whereabouts is unknown and Plaintiff has not been able to make her an official party to this action. A true and correct copy of theaffidavit of due diligence restating the unsuccessful efforts to serve her, including repeated attempts at her job at UGA, before she left the state, is included as an exhibit 19. ‘The Attorney General of Georgia, representing Gatewood at the time and with notice of her intended departure from the state, refused all cooperation in ascertaining the timing of her known departure and effecting service on her. A true and correct copy of the email correspondence I sent to and received from the Attorney General in this regard is included as an exhibit. 20. Notwithstanding the exhibits supporting the Motion for Sanctions Against the Attorney General documenting the commission of criminal RICO predicate acts ranging from violations of OCGA 16-10-20 and evidence tampering to perjury and subornation of perjury, the affiant has been subjected to a barrage of disparaging comments from Attorney General Sam Olens, both within the court proceedings and in public statements to the media, dismissing the extensively-documented allegations of the Complaint as “wild charges,” “attention-seeking gimmicks,” frivolous,” “nonsensical,” and “outlandish conspiracy qttheories” that “do not merit investigation” and on which the Attorney General “will not waste any more time.” I consider these statements defamatory as they are knowingly and demonstrably false, given the exhibits and other extensive documentation of the allegations, and injurious to my professional reputation in falsely claiming I brought a frivolous action. A true and correct copy of one Atlanta Journal- Constitution article, documenting the Attorney General's dismissal of the documentation and refusal to investigate, is included as an exhibit downloaded from the publication's website. Sworn and subscribed before fne this _U+- day of February, 2015. Notary Public OF My commission expires: G- 3 0/7 12