Below are links to documents from GDOT: 


http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/GDOT-files-opposition-briefs.pdf
Wherein GDOT presents -
- DEFENDANTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY A TWELVE (12) PERSON JURY ON ANY ISSUE OF FACT NOT CAPABLE OF RESOLUTION AS A MATTER OF LAW.
- DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL APPEARANCE VERIFIED ANSWER - lists their 11 point defense strategy.
- DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL APPEARANCE MOTION TO DISMISS


GDOT's Motion to Dismiss the suit:
http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/GDOT-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf
Wherein GDOT presents -
- DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE MOTION TO DISMISS
- FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
   (however, they admit that their immunity fails in the case of arbitrary and capricious actions.  We can also demonstrate with video where some DOT reps have acted in bad faith at 3 different meetings)
- DEFENDANT CLINTON FORD MUST BE DISMISSED  (but they do not suggest any individual to put in his place. Is no one responsible as they imply?)
- PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS THAT THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN  VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW MUST BE, DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION
- THE COMPLAINT AGAINST GDOT SHOULD BE DISMISSED DUE TO FAILURE OF PROCESS,IMPROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS, OR INSUFFICIENCY OF SERVICE OF PROCESS. (GDOT was warned months ago they would be sued if they let this contract. This should be a sufficient process of service)


http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/GDOT-opposes-Complaint-TRO.pdf
Wherein GDOT presents -
- DEFENDANTS' SPECIAL APPEARANCE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
- STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS AND INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS
- A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IS IMPROPER WHERE THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS.
- BECAUSE GDOT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED PURSUANT TO __ _  THIS COURT DOES NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER GDOT.
- THE COURT MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH OR SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR GDOT'S JUDGMENT ON WHETHER TO USE THE CURRENT PROJECT PLANS OR Plaintiff'S ALTERNATIVE PLANS.
- SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BARS AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STATE WHERE GDOT HAS NOT ACTED OUTSIDE OF ITS  DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY.
- PLAINTIFF'S'S CLAIMS THAT THE PROJECT WILL RESULT IN  VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL  LAW  ARE NOT RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION.
- A TRO OR INJUNCTION WOULD BE OPPRESSIVE TO GDOT'S AND MACON-BIBB COUNTY'S RIGHTS TO IMPROVE THE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.


http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/GDOT-Answer-Thomas-Howell.pdf
Wherein GDOT's witness (Thomas Howell, GDOT District #3 Engineer) explains why he believes the Project Engineer should not have been listed in the suit:
 - AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS HOWELL
Typical "Gang of Bullies defense" wherein each bully individually claims to not have the kid's stolen ball.  Each bully claims that he is not responsible, because he had only a tiny part in the robbery.

http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/GDOT-Affidavit-of-Van-Etheridge.pdf
Wherein GDOT's sub-contractor  MAAI's Program Manager, Van Etheridge spins their version of the FHR project: 
 - AFFIDAVIT OF VAN ETHERIDGE