What the Federal Court Found: The Full Public Record

It Started with an Estate Dispute — and a Court Order Farmer Chose to Ignore

The federal lawsuit grew out of a probate case in Oconee County, Georgia — a dispute over an estate involving property, equipment, and competing claims among family members.

During that probate case, Probate Judge Mike Hunsinger entered a Consent Protective Order governing how disputed estate property would be preserved and used while the superior court worked out who owned what. Farmer's own attorney agreed to and signed that order.

Then Farmer chose to ignore it.

The probate court held him in contempt and warned him of the consequences. Farmer ignored the order anyway. As a direct result, he was jailed for four days.

The federal court later summarized it plainly:

"When Plaintiff willfully and intentionally disobeyed the consent protective order, he suffered the natural consequence of that action, just as Judge Hunsinger told him he would: he went to jail for four days."

His Own Attorney Told Him to Ignore the Order

One of the most striking facts to emerge at the July 23, 2026 federal hearing: Farmer's own attorney candidly admitted to the court that he had advised Farmer to ignore Judge Hunsinger's order.

Rather than comply with the order and appeal through proper legal channels, Farmer took his attorney's advice, defied the court, went to jail, and then sued everyone involved.

He Dropped His Legitimate Appeal — Then Filed a Federal Lawsuit Instead

Under well-established law, when a party disagrees with a court order, the proper path is to comply with the order and appeal it. The United States Supreme Court and the Georgia Supreme Court have both made this clear.

Farmer initially did file an appeal of Judge Hunsinger's order in the Georgia Court of Appeals — the legitimate way to challenge it. But during the federal litigation, Farmer dismissed that appeal.

At the same time, he filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit on October 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, claiming that Judge Hunsinger and others had conspired to violate his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The federal court did not mince words about this choice:

"Plaintiff blatantly and unapologetically disregarded clear precedent about what to do when you disagree with a judge's order and then, he sued the judge, seeking to take his personal assets."

What the Federal Lawsuit Claimed

Farmer's complaint laid out a theory that went roughly like this:

1. Judge Hunsinger had no jurisdiction to enter the consent protective order
2. Without jurisdiction, the order was void
3. Because it was void, Farmer had no obligation to follow it
4. Because he was jailed for violating a "void" order, the judge violated his constitutional rights
5. Other defendants — including attorneys in the case — conspired with the judge to deny his rights
6. Therefore, he could sue the judge personally and take his assets

The federal court's response to this reasoning was direct:

"Plaintiff's position is the epitome of a frivolous and groundless argument. Such a contention simply cannot be true. If it were, any litigant who unilaterally decides a judge issued an order in error need not follow that order and appeal; no, he can just ignore it and not only escape any consequences but potentially reap a financial windfall by taking the judge's personal assets via a § 1983 suit. Plaintiff's breathtaking contentions would not only undermine centuries of precedent, but they would also inject pure, unadulterated chaos into the legal system."

The Federal Court Dismissed Every Claim

Defendants filed motions to dismiss. Two days before the February 11, 2026 hearing on those motions, Farmer filed an emergency motion to postpone — which the court denied. The day before the hearing, he attempted to file an amended complaint without permission — also denied.

After the hearing, the court denied Farmer's motion to amend and dismissed his original complaint in its entirety. Final judgment was entered on May 15, 2026.

Every claim failed for the same fundamental reasons:

Judicial immunity. A judge cannot be sued personally for acts taken in his judicial role. This is a cornerstone of the American legal system — it exists so judges can make decisions without fear that a losing party will retaliate by targeting their home and personal savings. The court found Judge Hunsinger was fully protected by judicial immunity.

No state actor. A § 1983 civil-rights claim requires a state actor — a government official acting under color of law. The private defendants (including attorneys) could only qualify if they had conspired with Judge Hunsinger. Farmer's complaint had no adequate conspiracy allegations, only conclusory statements.

No viable conspiracy. Farmer's allegations were bare conclusions, not facts. The court found they were legally insufficient to state a claim.

The court also confirmed what should have been obvious from the start: the probate court had the authority to hold Farmer in contempt. Georgia probate courts routinely issue contempt orders, both civil and criminal. The entire jurisdictional theory on which Farmer's lawsuit rested was not a close question — it had already been decided against his position by existing case law before he ever filed his complaint.

He Asked the Court to Reconsider — and Filed a New Lawsuit the Night Before the Hearing

After losing, Farmer filed two more motions: a Motion to Alter Judgment (asking the court to undo the dismissal) and a Motion for Recusal (asking the judge to step aside). The court scheduled a hearing for July 23, 2026.

The night before that hearing, Farmer filed yet another lawsuit in Georgia state court against the same defendants on many of the same claims.

The court noted this at the hearing as evidence of what it called Farmer's "pattern of unrelenting litigation."

At the July 23 hearing, the court gave Farmer the opportunity to argue both pending motions. The court then:

• Denied the Motion for Recusal (July 28, 2026)
• Denied the Motion to Alter Judgment (August 12, 2026)

The court's assessment of the reconsideration motion:

"Ultimately, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment lacks any substance and is nothing more than Plaintiff taking the chance to lecture the Court on how it could have done better."

The Recusal Attempt: A "Secret Society"

Farmer's Motion for Recusal claimed the judge should step aside because of an "undisclosed, decades-long secret society bond" linking him to one of the defense attorneys through an organization called the Gridiron Secret Society.

The court addressed this head-on: the judge stated he had no ongoing relationship with the attorney Farmer named and did not know the defendants. The court called Farmer's arguments "speculative and stretching" and noted pointedly that the recusal motion was filed only after Farmer had already lost the case.

Ordered to Pay $9,398.05 in Attorney's Fees

Federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1988) allows a court to order a plaintiff to pay a defendant's attorney's fees when the plaintiff's lawsuit was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." This is a high bar — simply losing a case is not enough. The court applied a four-factor analysis and concluded that every factor supported a fee award.

In its August 12, 2026 order, the court made its finding explicit:

"No matter how passionately Plaintiff may have disagreed with Judge Hunsinger's order, he was bound to follow it and then properly appeal it. He did neither. Instead, he chose to sue everyone involved in the case. The Court finds his complaint to be 'frivolous, unreasonable, [and] without foundation....'"

The court ordered Farmer to pay $9,398.05 in attorney's fees to Defendant Mills. The fee calculation was based on 43.7 total hours of attorney time at a rate of $205–$215 per hour — an amount Farmer did not contest as unreasonable.

The Timeline

The Court's Own Words

U.S. District Judge Tilman E. Self, III used language that is unusual even by the standards of written judicial opinions. Taken together, these quotes from his orders give a clear picture of what the court found: