TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface......... 1

The Issues Raised in This Response Are as Follows..... 3

Factual Background.. 6

The Charges by J. Allen Grimsley Against John Cole Vodicka

and Tim Mellen..... 6

The Complaint of John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen to the State Bar of

Georgia about J. Allen Grimsley is as follows 7

The Affidavits of Tim Mellen and John Cole Vodicka are Attachments 1 and 2

     To this Response and are as follows................... 12

Is there a Sampling of the Available Documentary Evidence that Supports the

Allegations of John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen about J. Allen Grimsley?.... 17

Argument and Citation of Authority in Support of Each Issue

in this Response.... 19

A General Statement about the Law of Contempt and Selective Prosecution. 19

Yick Wo v. Hopkins...... 20

Issue I

The Motion to Dismiss should be granted for the reasons stated in

the dismissal motion, and, particularly for the reason that the

J. Allen Grimsley Motion for Contempt does not have an affidavit

in support of his allegations.............. 21

Issue Two

The Supreme Court of Georgia is without jurisdiction in this case............. 22

Issue Three

The Supreme Court of Georgia was without authority to enact Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221, as O.C.G.A. §15-19-31 does not authorize the Supreme Court of Georgia the power to enact rules and regulations over persons who are not attempting to practice law in the State of Georgia, and the Supreme Court of Georgia, as a branch of the judiciary, is not otherwise authorized to enact such a rule and regulation.  In fact, the legislature is constitutionally prohibited from delegating the authority that it attempted to delegate to the Supreme Court of Georgia in O.C.G.A. §15-19-31.  The Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221 as applies to persons who are not attempting to practice law within the State of Georgia violates the Georgia Constitution Article I, Section I, Paragraph 3 (Separation of Powers)  and Article  III  Section  I  (Legislative

Powers). 24

Issue Four

Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221 is an unconstitutional restraint upon politically protected free speech and the right of a citizen to seek redress from the government as protected by the Georgia Constitution Article I, Section I, Paragraph II (equal protection Paragraph V, (free speech) Paragraph IX (redress) and. Paragraph XXVIII (inherent rights hitherto enjoyed), together with the United States Constitution First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and Redress and  Fourteenth  Amendment Right to  Equal

Protection.............. 26

 Issue Five

Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221 (3) is so vague that it does not place persons who have filed a complaint with the Bar on notice that they are subject to the confidentiality provision, if, in fact, the rule is intended for that use, as J. Allen Grimsley maintains.  This vague provision of Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221 violates the Fourteenth Amendment right of persons to be placed on notice for conduct that they may be held in criminal contempt for

committing.............. 34

A fair reading of Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221 does not prohibit a complaining person from revealing the content of a complaint nor does it prohibit a person from revealing the fact that a complaint

is filed... 39

Issue Seven

John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen sought the right of allocution in this matter (oral argument) and this was denied, with the comment that “Argument is not ordinarily heard in bar disciplinary cases”.  This policy cannot abridge these litigants’ right to both allocution and the right to present evidence in their defense as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution............. 39

Issue Eight

John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen are being selectively prosecuted in this matter because of their political views and attempts to correct the system of indigent defense in southwest

Georgia. 39

Issue Nine

John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen, subject to a disposition of their challenges to the constitutionality of the rule and a determination on their motion to dismiss, stand ready for trial and plead not guilty.  John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen request the right to present evidence to this Court.  John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen invoke all of their United States and Georgia

Constitutional protections.............. 40

Issue Ten

John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen are habitual, politically protected, free speech offenders.  There is substantial similar circumstance evidence to support the fact that both John Cole Vodicka and Tim Mellen often seek redress from their government.  The Court should resolve the constitutionality of Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221 while these two people are under accusation for these charges by J. Allen Grimsley and are within the custody of this Court.  Due to the fact that J. Allen Grimsley is a municipal judge, this Court should also address this same restriction on speech restricted by the Judicial Qualifications Commission.  Undoubted, there will be more charges against these two people for… “CENSORED.”  Further comment is restricted by the Judicial Qualifications Commission Rule 20, if

this Court Holds that Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221 is constitutional.......... 40

J. Allen Grimsley Seeks the Sanction of Contempt Against John Cole Vodicka

And Tim Mellen.  J. Allen Grimsley Also Seeks Costs for Bringing the

Contempt Action......... 54

Those Who Seek Sanctions Must Be Willing to Accept Sanctions.... 54

Conclusion.. 56

ATTACHMENT 1, Affidavit of Tim Mellen............... END

ATTACHMENT 2, Affidavit of John Cole Vodicka.. END

ATTACHMENT 3, “Information About Grievance Procedures

     And Discipline of Lawyers” END

ATTACHMENT 4, Sample Pleadings Filed by J. Allen Grimsley

     In Indigent Cases in the Superior Court of Sumter County.... END

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases    Pages

John Doe v. the Supreme Court of Florida, 734 F.Supp. 981

     (S.D.Fla. 1990)..... 27,44

Landmark Communications Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829,

     56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978)..... 43

Phillips, et al. v. City of Atlanta, et al.,  210 Ga. 72, 

     77 S.E.2d 723 (1953). 24

Timothy Sambor v. John P. Kelley, S99A0170,

     1999 Ga. LEXIS 365 (May 3, 1999)................... 21

Statesboro Publishing Company, Inc. v. City of Sylvania,

1999 Ga. Lexis 421............. 26

United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, ___ U.S. ___,

     129 L. Ed. 2d 642, 114 S.Ct. 2252 (1994) 2,19,20

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)... 20,40

Constitutional Amendments

First Amendment...... 4,26,33,56

Sixth Amendment................ 4,39

Fourteenth Amendment...... 4,26,34,39

Other Authority

O.C.G.A. §15-19-31. 3,24,25

Georgia State Bar Rule 4-221............ passim