IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COWETA COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

(1)

October 7, 2014 Amendment to Emergency Hearing Motion, et al.

With Plea to Jurisdiction, etc.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF COWETA COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

John Harold Murphy, Plaintiff

vs. Civil Action No. 12V-413 Nancy Michelle Murphy,

Defendant

October 7, 2014 Amendment to

October 6, 2014 Motion Seeking Emergency Relief

1. Michelle Murphy amends her October 6, 2014 to provide the Court with information unavailable to Michelle Murphy and her counsel when the October 6, 2014 Motion was filed.

I.1 Jack and Thomas are in Utah at a RTC, according to the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

1.1.1 Island View Residential Treatment Center is a residential treatment facility in Utah that changed its name to Elevations RTC when it came under new ownership in May, 2014. Its logo and current branding follow.

1.1.2 Jack and Thomas are illegally institutionalized in Utah.

2. Michelle Murphy received communications from the classmates at the school in St. Thomas who knew Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy.

(2)

Page 2 of 8 October 7, 2014 Amendment to Emergency Hearing Motion, et al.

With Plea to Jurisdiction, etc.

2.1 These communications inform the world that Jack and Thomas did not need to be institutionalized and that the contribution to the delinquency of these minors was a ploy of John and Renee to use the institutionalizing of Jack and Thomas in order to again begin medicating these children.

2.1.1 It is not Jack and Thomas who need institutionalizing, but as one of their classmates in St. Thomas wrote, it is John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud who need treatment for their illness.

2.1.2 The Court should talk to these children and learn about the scam of the Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers and these hedge fund operators.

2.2 Michelle Murphy also received a communication from the Department of Children’s Services in Tennessee relating to John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud contributing to the delinquency of Jack Murphy, age 15 and Thomas Murphy, age 13.

3. A pending modification of custody case does not exempt John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud from a separate civil action cognizable, as a diversity of jurisdiction action in federal court with their joint tortfeasors of Elevations RTC and its culpable entities and parties.

4. The Taylor Drake/Glover & Davis lawyers on October 7, 2014 sent another of their letter motions, as a directive to Judge Baldwin for him to further delay the freeing of Jack Murphy and Thomas Murphy from their now 140 days abusive treatment.

4.1 At some point in time Judge Baldwin will recognize the directive letter motions to him are either an insult, or an acknowledgment of his judicial unfairness.

(3)

5. Counsel for Michelle Murphy today had lengthy discussions with counsel who has litigated against the people who operate the Utah Elevations RTC facility.

5.1 These very different types of communications, one from the classmates and the other from counsel bringing actions against the Utah institution, accelerated the attempts to locate legal assistance in Utah relating to litigation with Elevations RTC that was rebranded from one of its former brands, Island View RTC (or, “Island View.”)

5.2 Counsel for Michelle Murphy also attempted to identify and talk with current counsel for the current brand, Elevations RTC. The facility would not identify its counsel and counsel for its former brand stated that he had not been employed by the current brand of the entity, Elevations RTC.

5.3. Utah counsel who have brought actions against the institution, discussed the danger of children being abused at Island View or its subsequent brand, Elevations RTC. That counsel was particularly alarmed, and receptive to assisting Jack and Thomas when counsel learned that a thirteen year old child had been placed in the facility, and counsel warned that time was of the essence in getting the children away from this institution.

6. Utah counsel for the plaintiffs in litigation against Island View informed counsel for Michelle Murphy that the facts in the following Complaint that he filed are adequately supported.

(4)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

Case: 1:14cv00015 BEN HINMAN, individually

Plaintiff, vs.

Island View Academy; Provo Canyon School Defendants

COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY Come now the plaintiff, Ben Hinman who alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Compounds like Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School fraudulently market themselves as boarding schools, academies, therapeutic treatment centers, ranches, or wilderness programs. Their advertised purpose is behavior modification treatment for troubled teens. The credentials are minimal while their fees are extravagant.

2. Ben Hinman was thrust into Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School by his family without the slightest understanding of what he was getting into, and had no choice in the matter.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Articles 1 and 7 to the Utah Constitution. This court has jurisdiction of this cause under and by virtue of Title 28 of the United States Code Section 1331, diversity of citizenship.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Ben Hinmen is a citizen of the State of California.

5. Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School are citizens of Utah.

6. Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School are Utah licensed residential treatment centers enabled under laws that are unconstitutional and accompanying

(5)

regulations to lock up minors at the behest of whoever can demonstrate custody or control over them so as to keep them for indefinite lengths of time at their discretion without oversight, investigation, monitoring, evaluation, or any meaningful regulation so long as the fees are paid and the state of Utah derives large tax revenues from the licensees.

FACTS

7. Island View Academy and Canyon View School putting Ben Hinman into private prisons violated his constitutional rights to privacy, due process, both procedural and substantive, equal protection, free speech, false imprisonment, right to a speedy trial, freedom from seizure, involuntary servitude, and cruel and unusual punishment, and yet the Defendants and its agents are deliberately indifferent to the illegality of their conduct.

CLAIM ONE (Negligence)

8. Defendants individually had a duty to not imprison a minor without his consent and their locking him up and physically, mentally, and abusing him by keeping him isolated and taking the time off his life that he could of used gaining an education and enjoying the freedom of life without justification was thus negligent.

9. Defendants' individual conduct caused plaintiff severe mental and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE plaintiff is entitled general and punitive damages. CLAIM TWO

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

10. Defendants individually had a fiduciary duty to keep plaintiff safe and to use every effort to assure fair, just, humane, kind, equitable-treatment and to act in his best interest.

11. Defendants individually breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and caused severe mental and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: A. Special damages according to proof.

B. General damages according to proof. C. Punitive damages according to proof. D. The costs of suit.

E. Such other relief as is warranted. Dated: February 15, 2014

(6)

7. Communications from the classmates of Jack and Thomas at the Antilles School in St. Thomas, USVI inform us that Jack and Thomas tried to tell anyone who would listen, that they wanted to be home and away from the abuse inflicted upon them by their father and stepmother.

(7)

(8)

(9)

Thomas M. Burton (USB 00518) (CSB035856) P. 0. Box 1619

Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 (801) 918-1656

thomasburtonlaw@aol.com

f\LED,

U.S. D\S1R\C1 cOURT

lU\~

fEB \ S c::> '2!

~

2

0\SiR\Ci OF UiAH

BY;Dt.PU1Y

CLEM-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

BEN HINMAN, individually Plaintiff,

vs.

} COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE AND BREACH OF FUDUCIARY } DUTY

} _{Case: 1:14cv00015}

Island View Academy; Provo Canyon School } Assigned To : • Nu~~er nav~M .L.&. , ~ ..r.'\.4

Ass1gn. Date : 2/18/2014

Defendants } Academy et al Description: Hinman v Island View

Come now the plaintiff, Ben Hinman who alleges as follows:

1

Case 1:14-cv-00015-DN Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 4

(10)

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Compounds like Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School fraudulently market themselves as boarding schools, academies, therapeutic treatment centers, ranches, or wilderness programs. Their advertised purpose is behavior modification treatment for troubled teens. The credentials are minimal while their fees are extravagant.

2. Ben Hinman was thrust into Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School by his family without the slightest understanding of what he was getting into, and had no choice in the matter.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Articles 1 and 7 to the Utah Constitution. This court has jurisdiction ofthis cause under and by virtue ofTitle 28 ofthe United States Code Section 1331, diversity of citizenship.

PARTIES

4. PlaintiffBen Hinmen is a citizen ofthe State of California.

5. Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School are citizens ofUtah.

6. Island View Academy and Provo Canyon School are Utah licensed residential treatment centers enabled under laws that are unconstitutional and accompanying regulations to lock up minors at the behest of whoever can demonstrate custody or

2

(11)

control over them so as to keep them for indefinite lengths of time at their discretion without oversight, investigation, monitoring, evaluation, or any meaningful regulation

so long as the fees are paid and the state of Utah derives large tax revenues from the licensees.

FACTS

7. Island View Academy and Canyon View School putting Ben Hinman into private prisons violated his constitutional rights to privacy, due process, both procedural and substantive, equal protection, free speech, false imprisonment, right to a speedy trial, freedom from seizure, involuntary servitude, and cruel and unusual punishment, and yet the Defendants and its agents are deliberately indifferent to the illegality of their conduct.

CLAIM ONE

(Negligence)

8. Defendants individually had a duty to not imprison a minor without his consent and their locking him up and physically, mentally, and abusing him by keeping him isolated and taking the time offhis life that he could of used gaining an education and enjoying the freedom of life without justification was thus negligent.

9. Defendants' individual conduct caused plaintiff severe mental and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE plaintiff is entitled general and punitive damages.

3

(12)

CLAIM TWO

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)

10. Defendants individually had a fiduciary duty to keep plaintiff safe and to use every effort to assure fair, just, humane, kind, equitable-treatment and to act in his best interest.

11. Defendants individually breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff and caused severe mental and emotional distress.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

A. Special damages according to proof. B. General damages according to proof. C. Punitive damages according to proof. D. The costs of suit.

E. Such other relief as is warranted.

Dated: February 15, 2014

Thomas M. Burton

4

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)