Go To Photographic Evidence
To put this case all on the Record, all Discovery, both Requests and Responses were filed with the Clerk of the Court by the Defendant Pro Se, not just the Certificates of Service.
CURRENT CASE DOCKET -  CONTRACT LAWSUIT                    Next Document       Previous Document

Plaintiff,                                                   )            
                                                               )            Civil Action File No.:  
v.                                                             )                       05A06942-9
RON MCKINNEY,                                     )
Defendant.                                                )


COMES NOW DEFENDANT, Ron McKinney, by and throughhimself and in support of his Response to Plaintiff's Motion forProtection and Sanctions and Defendant's Motion for Severe Sanctions,supplements his original brief and states as follows: In Defendant'soriginal brief on pages 4 and 5, the following paragraphs are stated andherewith quoted: "It isinformative to point out to the court that Mrs. Tabor, in her haste to present"evidence" of Defendant's wrong doing inadvertently reveals herhusband's, John Tabor's, probable wrongdoing. The email she places inevidence is actually an email from Mr. Scott Berlyoung (scott@champia.com)to John J. Tabor (johnjtabor@hotmail.com). Itwas sent July 10, 2006 at 10:47 PM. It has a pdf file (Adobe Document file)attached entitled "10489-tabor-070506.pdf. The size of file isapproximately 270,000 bytes. It is probably Mr. Berlyoung's inspection reportfor the McKinney residence. (S. Berlyoung Aff. Exh. "A") Yet, on July,13, 2006 Plaintiff, by and through its counsel, Mrs. Tabor, issued a verified"Plaintiff's Second Amendment to Defendant's First ContinuingInterrogatories" a copy of which is attached to Ron McKinney'sAffidavit as Exhibit "G." Under oath Mr. Tabor, in theAmended Paragraph 7, states in pertinent part, "Mr. Berlyoung has notissued a report at this time."  It appears to Defendant that thereport was sent to John Tabor on July 10, 2006, 3 days prior to Mr. Tabor'sassertion and unless Plaintiff can produce"10489-tabor-070506.pdf" verified by Mr. Berlyoung, demonstratingthat it is not the inspection report for the McKinney residence then JohnTabor has lied under oath. Defendant has demanded this report but as ofthis writing he has not received it. (Ron McKinney Aff. Exh."G")" On August 30,2006, Defendant received from Plaintiff, Plaintiff Insulated Wall Systems,Inc. Supplemental Response to Defendant's First Request For Production OfDocuments To Plaintiff which had attached a copy of the inspection reportfrom Scott Berlyoung. The words"probably" and "probable" can now be removed from the abovequote and Defendant can state unequivocally that the PDF file entitled"10489-tabor-070506.pdf" is, in fact, the inspection report from Mr.Berlyoung. A copy of that report has been filed separately by Defendant with aNotice of Filing of Original Discovery and the report number is"10489;" the client name is "John Tabor" and the date ofthe inspection is "070506." Clearly Mr. Tabor has committed perjuryin an obvious attempt to keep hidden the ridiculously superficial ASHI reportprovided by Mr. Berlyoung. (In contrast to the Macon Gooch, III Building Consultants,PE Inspection Report and the House Smart Inspection Report prepared by KeithCook, both of which have been filed in the record by Defendant with a Notice ofFiling Discovery respectively dated January 6, 2006 and August 2, 2006.) Defendant wouldalso like to point out that the report provided by Plaintiff appears to be madeup of 9 pages, however, it lacks pages 5, 6, and 7. Defendant can onlyspeculate what those missing pages contain. Of course, Defendant recognizesthere could just be an incorrect numbering of the pages. Mrs. Tabor makesthe claim in her brief that “this lawsuit is serious business” and Defendantagrees. Defendant also believes that perjury concerning a material fact havingto do with discoverable information is serious business as well and Defendanturges this court to appropriately punish Plaintiff and Mr. Tabor for perjuryand punish Mrs. Tabor for her participation in that perjury. Respectfully submitted this______day of August, 2006.

_____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039    770-972-2576

Mrs. Jana Tabor, Attorney forPlaintiff 450 Arborshade Trace, Duluth, GA  30097 770-814-8134 F. ScottYoung, Attorney for Plaintiff Barrickman, Allred & Young,LLC, 5775 Glenridge Drive, Building A Suite 100 Atlanta, GA  30328   404-252-2230


DEFENDANT'SSUPPLEMENTAL TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S RESPONSETO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVEORDER AND SANCTIONS AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SEVERE SANCTIONS was provided to PlaintiffsAttorney at the address listed below by depositing the same in the UnitedStates Mails, with sufficient postage thereon

this______ day of August 2006.

_____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039 770-972-2576

Sent to: Mrs. Jana Tabor, Attorney forPlaintiff 450 Arborshade Trace, Duluth, GA  30097 770-814-8134 F. ScottYoung, Attorney for Plaintiff Barrickman, Allred & Young,LLC, 5775 Glenridge Drive, Building A Suite 100 Atlanta, GA  30328   404-252-2230     


COMES NOW, the Defendant, Ron McKinney, and in support of his motion and as a response to Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition states as follows: Justice requires truth, not subterfuge. Plaintiff is doing everything it can to avoid focusing on the issues in this case and Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s Second Motion for Sanctions is just more proof. The laws regarding evidence are outlined in Title 24 and O.C.G.A.24-1-2 states in part: “The object of all legal investigation is the discovery of truth.” O.C.G.A 24-2-1 states that: “Evidence must relate to the questions being tried by the jury and bear upon them either directly or indirectly. Irrelevant matter should be excluded. And further O.C.G.A 24-2-2 states that: “The general character of the parties and especially their conduct in other transactions are irrelevant matter unless the nature of the action involves such character and renders necessary or proper the investigation of such conduct.” (Emphasis added by Defendant) The Defendant’s character is not at issue in this case. Defense objects to opposing counsel’s attempt to place the Defendant’s character in issue and further to prejudice this court by presenting material that is irrelevant, outside of the pleadings, of a privileged nature and obtained unlawfully. Political, spiritual, and religious beliefs and opinions are protected by the Constitution regardless of whether or not they may or may not have been expressed by the Defendant in any writings.  Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” and “E” of Plaintiff’s Response show content that is of a privileged nature, with no relationship to the issues, the parties, or the transaction involved in this case, or to any issue or question to be tried by the jury or this Court. The matter is therefore irrelevant, immaterial and completely inadmissible. Since any writings of the Defendant’s would have contained a copyright notice, and Defendant did not grant Plaintiff’s counsel permission, counsel for Plaintiff has violated the copyright notice. The Defense does not admit the authenticity of the material as presented. The Defense objects to the presentation of material obtained unlawfully, without permission and in trespass of common law copyrights. Counsel presents no evidence that the Defendant is the author of any content in Exhibit “E” of Plaintiff’s Response.  The content is inadmissible, it lacks a proper foundation, it is hearsay and any reference to it should be stricken. Plaintiff’s counsel’s suggestion of authenticity without being properly sworn under oath must be ignored. The notations at the top and bottom of the paper identified as Exhibit “E” shows:“file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/jana/Desktop/volu
me8.htm” indicating the origin of the matter is from the Desktop of
Jana’s computer and it was printed on 9/27/2006 at 8:44 AM. Plaintiff’s counsel presents no evidence that permission from the copyright holder was obtained to download files or use copyright protected information. The downloading and use of a copyrighted material without permission is a violation of the law. What has been presented is evidence of a crime committed by counsel for Plaintiff. Considering this matter was presented in a retaliatory response by a party’s counsel and a party already caught committing a fraud and in a lie under oath in this case the authenticity of any matter presented should be highly questionable and highly suspect. There is no justifiable excuse for this act done to prejudice this Court. It represents nothing but a desperate, malicious, and reckless attempt to take the Court’s focus off of the issue of counsel’s actions and those of Plaintiff's Corporate Officers when called to the Court’s attention in both of Defendant’s Motions for Sanctions. This act should be more than telling to the Court about Mrs. Tabor’s motives, intentions and her ethics. Incidentally, Mrs. Tabor incriminates herself in two ways with this statement,   "These documents were all downloaded from the internet. The Court is invited to review the following websites and their related materials:members.aol.com/rmckin6412/liberty; members.aol.com/taxmdry." Not only does she confess to downloading copyrighted material with this statement, but also Mrs.Tabor makes an inappropriate suggestion to the Court. Defense respectfully reminds the Court that the commentary section of Section B-7 of Canon 3 of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct clearly states that "Judges must not independently investigate facts in a case and must consider only the evidence presented." It would appear that Mrs. Tabor wishes not only that the court condone her reckless acts of unethical, unprofessional and unlawful behavior but to also join her in this misadventure and Mrs. Tabor should be severely reprimanded for this. Furthermore, Mrs. Tabor's stunt is proof positive that some attorneys have no lower bound to which they will not stoop in their attempt to ring up brownie points for their client. Mrs. Tabor is well aware that Defendant's daughter died in 1993 and that Jillian’s death devastated his life.  Mrs. Tabor maliciously is hoping to present a false notion to this Court regarding Defendant’s character, and her behavior is outrageous! What is true is that Mrs. Tabor will never be accused of letting the facts or truth stand in her way. To make a long sad story short, sometime during the first week of July 1993 Defendant's daughter, who was in the custody of her mother and her mother's new husband contracted bacterial meningitis. On July 5, 1993 Jillian Ashley McKinney was removed from life support and pronounced dead, at age eleven. After evidence became obvious that demonstrated to Defendant that Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton were severely negligent in their care of Defendant’s daughter Jill, Defendant became increasingly emotionally distressed. His emotional distress and grief stricken state ultimately resulted in the loss of his job. To put to rest Mrs. Tabor’s character assassination attempt, the fact is Defendant has never been forced to pay child support. Attached and marked as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of the settlement which acquitted the Defendant from any and all claims. Incidentally, the notary Robbye McKinney is no relationship to Defendant. At this point in time, it should be noted that Plaintiff selected the date for the home inspection to occur on July 5, 2006. The date coincided with the anniversary date of the death of Defendant’s daughter. The Defendant agreed to the date for inspection in order not to be accused of being uncooperative, but only under the condition and understanding that he would not be available for the Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s counsel to interrogate, and Plaintiff’s counsel did not object. Clearly the Defendant was not behaving “cowardly” as Plaintiff’s counsel has characterized. When Defendant stayed away he was exercising his better judgment for his own protection while in a state of grieving, which was something he had the complete right to do! WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this Court to find that a reprimand of Plaintiff and its counsel is needed for the improper and inappropriate attempt to prejudice this Court with inadmissible evidence in violation of evidence rules O.C.G.A 24-2-1 and O.C.G.A. 24-2-2et. seq. The Defendant moves this Court for an Order directing Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to delete immediately any and all copies of files downloaded without permission. For this trespass and violation of the copyright protection laws, Defendant moves this Court to order that all printed copies of this prohibited material in Plaintiff’s possession be destroyed immediately. Additionally, Defendant moves this Court to order stricken from the record any reference to such prohibited material submitted by Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant further moves this Court for an immediate Order directing Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel to cease and desist in any attempt whatsoever to mention, question or inquire into any and all irrelevant matter that is not at issue in this case. WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Court for an immediate Order removing Mrs. Jana Tabor as counsel for the Plaintiff as her personal interest has affected her professional judgment and caused her to cross the line into incivility. The unprofessional, and unethical behavior demonstrated by her reckless disregard for the facts, her willful blindness to the consequences of malicious and unlawful behavior now warrants her removal from this case as she will be required to take the stand and testify in this case. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant respectfully requests that the Motions requested herein be GRANTED. The Defendant hereby respectfully reserves the right to supplement this reply at the time for oral argument and hearing on Defendant’s Second Motion For Sanctions and all other pending motions. Respectfully submitted this  ______ day of November 2006.

_____________________________ Ron McKinney, Defendant 4083 Red Laurel Way Snellville, GA  30039 770-972-2576


Plaintiff,                                                         )
                                                                     )    Civil Action File No.:  
v.                                                                   )     05A06942-9
RON MCKINNEY,                                           )
Defendant.                                                     )


COMES NOW PLAINTIFF Insulated Wall Systems and states as follows:

Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Should Be Granted as Defendant's Excuse for Contact with Experts is that his "Agent" Wife Initiated Contact, Not Him Personally.

The Defendant cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he claims that undersigned counsel is not forced to deal with Mrs. McKinney in the context of this litigation. On the other, he freely admits and revels in the fact that things done on his behalf in the context of this lawsuit are done by Mrs. McKinney. He admits she readily acts as his agent. OCGA 10-6-51 Johnson v. Dallas Glass Co.

Therefore, his excuse of lack of personal responsibility for undisputable and admitted acts does not negate the request for protective order. In fact, it gives more justification. Defendant must be clearly instructed to refrain from actions that ethical attorneys would not conduct nor condone including suggesting to an expert's employer that he is less than professional. As such, Plaintiff respectfully requests that its motion be granted.

Defendant Should be Subjected to Sanctions regarding Mrs. McKinney's Actions on His Behalf as She Engages in Activities Which Should Only be within the Purview of Counsel for the Defendant.

It is not undersigned counsel's obligation to police the activities of the defense. Nonetheless, after almost eighteen months of litigation in a case Plaintiff is still unable to file summary motions in, time and time again the actions and words of the Defendant and his agent Wife are so far outside the norm and acceptable professional standards of licensed and ethical attorneys that Plaintiff's only recourse is to ask this Court for assistance.  The Defense waxes long about how no case law supports Plaintiff's position. In reality, such practices of litigation are rarely seen and if they are, they are dealt with at the trial court level and if the Defendant understood the case reporting system, he would know that such decisions are not recorded. The actions which directly led to the filing of this motion were (1) the Defendant's failure to be at the home inspection while hiding in an out building watching it and (2) the direct contacting of expert witnesses (or their superior's) within hours of the home inspection and suggesting that, in one case that individual was anything less than professional. That's witness tampering. Mrs. McKinney denies that undersigned counsel told her at the inspection that the two men would be the Plaintiff's experts in direct contradiction to what undersigned counsel testified to. The Court will be the arbiter of that conflict. In any event, those events have taken place. Plaintiff asks the Court for future assistance to the extent that past actions most assuredly foreshadow coming events. *1 This request is within the sole discretion of this Court. Plaintiff respectfully requests that its motion be GRANTED.

*1  In fact, while this motion is pending, the Defendant and his Wife have been dealing in a less than professional manner with the court reporter as is reflected in Exhibit "A" attached hereto.

Defendant's Motion for "Severe" Sanction must be Denied as it is not Supported by Factual Evidence or Legal Basis.

There is no evidence that undersigned counsel has "attempt[ed] to bring ,,, dishonesty and deceit to the Court." (Brief in support, p. 16).

The only legal basis asserted justifying "severe sanctions" is an alleged breach of professional conduct to which Defendant has no private right of action. Davis v. Findley

Seen for what it is, this is Defendant's attempt to create confusion in the mind of the Court as to who the offending party is.

Defendant subscribes to the theory that if you say something often enough and loud enough eventually people will believe it, regardless of the fact it is not true.

There being a complete lack of evidence and law to support Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff respectfully requests that it be DENIED.

dated September 21, 2006

Exhibit "A" Letter to Jackie Gunther dated September 14, 2006



page created with Easy Designer