The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part X - the fight against access to the tampered court audio file in the Louisiana doppleganger case

In my previous blog, the Part IX of the #JudgeBrendaWeaver series, I published a comparative table with a Louisiana case where an attorney was punished for PROVING that court audio records were tampered with - in order to protect a judge who failed to disclose her own financial interest in the real estate company who she assigned to deal with equitable distribution of a couple's real estate in a divorce proceedings.

Here is that story in documents.  I publish these documents as a cautionary tale of what Brenda Weaver and her crew of accomplices may be up to next, following the example of Louisiana Judge Phyllis Keaty and her crew of accomplices.

Here is the first request, a peaceful request by an attorney to a court reporter to prepare a transcript of a certain hearing in a divorce case.

Here is attorney Christine Mire's 

request to court reporter Kathy Mathews:

The stenographer responds as peacefully and gives the attorney a cost quote for the transcript.

The attorney obviously paid for the transcript, received it, reviewed it - and found it troubling, because it contains something that she did not hear happening in the proceeding where she was present.
  She asks either for a copy of an audio, or, to accommodate the stenographer and save time for everybody involved - simply to come and listen to the audio at the stenographer's office.

Well, that's what Mark Thomason in Georgia had to sue for - simply to listen to the audio of a public court proceeding that was reportedly made public (only not to him) to the Sheriff's department to listen to and laugh, around a water cooler.

Here is what attorney Christine Mire in the doppleganger case in Louisiana asked the stenographer to do:

And here is what the stenographer did - asked for a delay of disclosure, and got on the defensive claiming that she values her professional integrity and considers such a request a challenge to that integrity.

After several delays were given to the stenographer, and she was nowhere near complying and providing access to the audio file, attorney Mire moved for a deposition of the stenographer - and that was all done as a due diligence process in preparation of a motion to recuse the presiding judge Phyllis Keaty.  Since attorneys are severely punished for making "unfounded false accusations" against judges, attorney Mire had more than enough reasons to establish any discrepancy or irregularity (or criminal conduct, as in tampering with court records), through documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses.

So, attorney Mire, asked court reporter Kathy Mathews to come and be deposed under oath regarding the audio file.

The stenographer asked for yet another delay - now for a delay of the date of the deposition:

Attorney Mire agrees to change the date.

Moreover, attorney Mire accommodated the stenographer even further - she offered to release her from the duty to testify on a subpoena if she simply provides a certified copy of the audio.

In answer to that reasonable offer, the stenographer sues Christine Mires client to block him from access to the audio file, and, for that she hires Susan Theall,

who:

• represented the opponent of Christine Mire's client in a divorce proceedings under a very interesting circumstance: she actually employed the presiding judge's law clerk as her secretary!;
• represented Christine Mire herself in the past as Christine Mire's divorce attorney;
• employed Christine Mire; and
• was her close friend

Here are interesting details about Susan Theall revealed in testimony of Christine Mire in Christine Mire's attorney disciplinary proceedings (where Susan Theall, Christine Mire's former own attorney, employer and friend, testified already as a judge who replaced Phyllis Keaty on the bench - while Phyllis Keaty moved to greener pastures, to an appellate court):

First of all, why would a law clerk of a judge not be FULLY employed by a judge.

Why would it be even allowed for a law clerk of a judge to be employed in any other capacity by anybody else.

Why would a law clerk of a judge be allowed to be hired AS A SECRETARY - and by whom? - by an attorney appearing in front of that same judge in court?

Knowing that law clerks do research and advise the presiding judge on how to decide a case, it is completely inappropriate to have that same law clerk PAID by an attorney for one of the parties - and that is exactly what was happening in this case.

For that alone, Susan Theall was supposed to be DISCIPLINED as an attorney and, likely, disbarred - instead of being elevated as a judge herself.

But - the testimony was happening after Susan Theall actually became a judge

- as Mary Priest became in the Georgia case, as an obvious payoff for her frivolous behavior helping to cover up of tampering with court audio by judge Brenda Weaver.

By the way, Susan Theall is now running for the appellate court - the same court where her friend and co-conspirator Judge Phyllis Keaty is seating, and shamelessly panders to the public her supposedly high ethics and integrity:

So, after Susan Theall was caught in paying off the law clerk of the presiding judge through an additional "employment" as a "secretary" and got off the case, Susan Theall was hired by the court stenographer to represent that court stenographer in a case that the stenographer brought against Christine Mire's client, to block him from access to the audio file - which obviously could not show any disclosure of the conflict of interest by Judge Keaty, for the simple reason that such a disclosure never happened.

It did not work though.

A subpoena duces tecum was issued against the stenographer, signed by Deputy Clerk of the Court.

In an email to Kathy Mathews attorney Mire explains that it is her duty to her client to prudently discover information pertaining to recusal of a judge in the pending divorce proceedings.



Susan Theall immediately moves to recuse the presiding judge in the related access to audio action that the stenographer filed (Mathews v Hunter) claiming that Theall represents yet another judge, Judge Mary Broussard, presiding over the access to audio action: 

#SusanTheall also files on behalf of the court stenographer Kathy Mathews a motion for an order of protection and restriction of access against attorney Mire's client:

In that motion, attorney Susan Theall cites to a multitude of reasons why the equipment of Kathy Mathews should not be provided for the deposition - after Christine Mire clearly advised Kathy Mathews that she will release her from the necessity for any subpoenas if she, very simply, provides a CERTIFIED copy of an audio instead of coming and being deposed.

Such a motion was obviously frivolous.  But, since Susan Theall was a friend of judge Phyllis Keaty, employing the judge's law clerk - and in the not-so-distant future, in 2010, Theall showed herself publicly as being "member of online community" supporting Keaty's election campaign -





Susan Theall was never disciplined for her frivolous motion.


Attorney Mire responded to the motion for an order of protection and restriction of discovery and access to the court audio files and cross-moved for sanctions.

In the motion for sanctions, Christine Mire very clearly explained why restriction of access to the audio file was not warranted.


Meanwhile, an additional attorney, Anthony Fontana, joins representation of the court reporter:

Anthony Fontana represents everything, from wills and trusts to sexual abuse to maritime law to felony defense.

Here are two masterpieces that this male attorney has sent to his female attorney colleague, Christine Mire, copy to Judge Phyllis Keaty.

I specifically draw your attention to the language that attorney Fontana

an elderly white guy, uses against his female colleague, a dark-skinned young woman:

Attorney Fontana makes a direct threat against attorney Mire, who was a witness of what Judge Keaty did or did not disclose in court proceedings, and thus did not need an audio to testify about it herself - "These allegations [that Kathy Mathews made "additions" to and/or "alterations" to the trial Court's statements in the official transcripts of the Hunter proceedings] made in public records without you having listened to the tapes first are being taken very seriously by my client.  These allegations are serious and damaging to my client's position as an officer of the Court, to her reputation and business as a Court reporter.  She intends to hold both you and your client accountable for the damages".

First of all, when making such a threat, attorney Fontana knows that his threats are frivolous and inappropriate - because attorney Mire is fully covered by litigation immunity against any claims of defamation against the court reporter.

Moreover, as a witness to what Judge Keaty said in court, she can very well herself testify that "additions and alterations" were made to the transcript, without listening to the tape, and she can use her own personal knowledge as a witness to seek the audio, because the transcript reflects what was not said in court, and that is an "addition or alteration" all right.

On top of that, Attorney Fontana allows himself a completely uncivilized behavior with a younger colleague, a minority woman, calling her letter "pure garbage", specifically because she dared to suggest what was screaming into everybody's face - that Attorney Fontana's client cooked the transcript, and refuses to give access to the audio because it will be clear from the audio.

In two months after the first threat, attorney Fontana escalated the threat and now threatened a criminal action against Christine Mire AND her client - same as it was actually done in Georgia to Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey.

In his letter, attorney Fontana continues to engage in uncivilized language and to call attorney Mire's legal writing "rantings"

Well, Christine Mire actually WON access to the audio, against tremendous odds, and at a tremendous personal risk to herself, doing her due diligence in preparation of a motion to recuse.

And, she had a technical expert testify under oath as to the actual tampering of the court audio file to put into it a separately recorded audio file where Judge Phyllis Keaty purports to disclose the conflict of interest that she never actually disclosed.

In respect to providing to the public the actual PROOF that:

• court audio files CAN BE tampered with technically, and that
• they ARE ACTUALLY tampered with;

attorney Christine Mire went, to my knowledge, further than anybody else in this country.

And paid for it with a 1-year suspension of her law license.

Christine Mire received only a lukewarm support from her law professor who, while acknowledging that Christine Mire's discipline was caused not by her own actions, but by an existing institutional taboo to never call a corrupt judge a corrupt judge, nevertheless ASSUMED that the majority of judges are honest.

Of course, such an assumption makes no sense whatsoever, at least because judges gave themselves a gift of immunity specifically for their CORRUPT acts on the bench, despite their oaths of office to honestly enforce and uphold U.S. and state Constitutions and laws.


Moreover, judges did not stop at giving themselves the gift of immunity for corrupt behavior, but corrupted their personnel by giving THEM the gift of immunity for THEIR corrupt behavior.

Of course, nothing so persuades one in the integrity of a person as that person's gift of immunity for corrupt behavior to himself and to his close circle of friends and accomplices.  

For the publication of the testimony of the technical expert as to how the court audio file was "spliced"/tampered with in the Louisiana case, the doppleganger of the Georgia #JudgeBrendaWeaver case - which tampering could not possibly be done without participation of the court reporter in whose possession the audio was,

Stay tuned.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part IX - how to tamper with court audio recordings, get away with it and quash members of the public who want to expose that criminal behavior. A comparative table with a doppleganger case from Louisiana.

This is my 9th blog in the new series of blogs about misconduct of State of Georgia Judge Brenda Weaver who sought to retaliate against and quash people who wanted to expose her tampering with court records by any means, pulling all of her powerful connections, through egregious abuse of power and paying off co-conspirators with money or lucrative promotions.

You can see blogs, Part I through VIII, on the right of this blog in the list of articles.

I also wrote on this blog before the Georgia case even happened, about a similar case in Louisiana, when an attorney was suspended for a year for providing hard proof (testimony of a technician who verified that tampering of a court audio file did occur) that a court audio was tampered with - and the way it was tampered with and who was trying to block the attorney's access to that audio and was paid off for doing that, and who benefited from such tampering, clearly pointed at the judge whose misconduct was the basis of the attorney's actions - discovery as part of due diligence in preparation to a motion to recuse the judge.

When comparing these two cases, one cannot help thinking that Judge Brenda Weaver from Georgia received training from Judge Phyllis Keaty from Louisiana as to how to tamper with court audio files and quash those who want to access that tampered record and prove that it is tampered.

So far, I created a comparative table of these two cases, and am going to publish documents from both cases showing how exactly the tampering - and cover up - occurred.

	Louisiana	Georgia
Why court audio was tampered with	A judge (Phyllis Keaty) failed to disclose a disqualifying financial conflict of interest in a divorce proceeding, namely, that the judge held a financial interest in the real estate company the judge appointed to sell the property of spouses as part of equitable distribution	A judge (Richard Bradley), a sheriff and a sheriff’s investigator repeatedly used a racial slur about an African American witness, laughing and joking about it, during an open court criminal proceeding
The essence of tampering with court audio	The judge’s disclosure was separately recorded and added to the court audio, and the transcript was changed to match the changed by the court stenographer to match court audio	The use by the judge and the police officers of the racial slur was erased from the court audio, and the transcript was changed by the court stenographer to match the changed court audio
Name of the judge or judges involved	Phyllis Keaty, Susan Theall	Roger Bradley, Brenda Weaver, Mary Beth Priest, John Worcester, Alan Wigington
Connections between judges involved and roles of judges in the access to records case	Susan Theall reportedly represented attorney Christine Mire in her own divorce proceedings, as well as was Christine Mire’s former employer and close friend, and thus knew a lot of privileged information about Christine Mire. Susan Theall replaced Judge Keaty on the bench when Keaty was promoted to appellate court, after Susan Theall: ·         Represented the opponent of Christine Mire’s client in front of Judge Keaty, while ·         Employing Judge Keaty’s law clerk as a secretary; ·         Refused to disqualify herself from the case (same as the judge) claiming the judge’s law clerk will be barred from access to the divorce file as a secretary for Susan Theall; ·         Disqualified herself from the divorce case of Christine Mire’s cleint only after Judge Keaty’s law clerk/secretary actually authored a letter to Christine Mire as secretary of Susan Theall, confirming that the law clerk of judge Keaty was not barred from handling the case as a secretary to a party’s attorney, on top of handling the same as a law clerk for the presiding judge; ·         Then, Theall represented the court stenographer opposing Christine Mire’s and her client’s access to the audio of proceedings when the transcript did not match their recollection of what occurred in court; ·         Actively supported Keaty in her election campaign to become an appellate judge, being publicly part of Keaty’s “online community” in her election campaign; ·         One year after her support of Keaty in Keaty’s election campaign, Theall took Keaty’s seat on the bench; ·         Despite the fact that Theall, as Christine Mire’s own attorney in her own divorce action, was barred by attorney-client privilege from disclosing any information regarding Christine Mire’s supposed psychological conditions, Theall testified against Mire in her disciplinary proceeding brought based on Keaty’s complaint and claimed that Mire has psychological problems and draws out litigation for frivolous reasons.	Judge Roger Bradley was the main culprit, uttering racial slurs against the African American witness Allen DeRae Green Judge Brenda Weaver ordered stenographer Rhonda Stubblefield (according to the stenographer’s statement to journalist Mark Thomason) to erase the racial slurs from the transcript and the audio. Judge Brenda Weaver used Judge Bradley’s “slush account” funded by the three local counties to pay off Rhonda Stubblefield’s attorney Mary Beth Priest, $17,000, for defense against the open records petition by Mark Thomason and for counterclaim against Mark Thomason; and nominated Mary Priest during those proceedings to become a judge in the place of Roger Bradley. Judge Priest currently employs Roger Bradley’s secretary Wilma Housley who is reportedly and likely privy to how the money was paid by Judge Weaver out of Housley’s former employer’s slush account to Housley’s new employer Mary Priest. Judge John Worcester was at the same time the judge who signed Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey’s arrest warrant and was listed as a witness for the prosecution in the criminal proceeding commenced by Judge Weaver’s former law clerk and employee of Judge Weaver’s husband Alison Sosebee. Judge/magistrate Alan Wigington, who urgently came to jail to force pre-trial conditions on Mark Thomason and his attorney (who was on the brink of a diabetic coma), in order to take care of the fallout in the media when arrest of Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey became known to the press, was an employee of Brenda Weaver in one of her “accountability courts”, and who she supported for a magistrate position with a statement that he supposedly be the only person who would do things the way she would want them done
Who raised the issue and how	A client in a divorce proceeding and his attorney (Mire), through discovery efforts in preparation of a motion to recuse a judge, through a lawsuit seeking access to records, and in a disciplinary proceeding against the attorney, brought by the judge	A journalist (Thomason) and his attorney (Stookey), through Open Records Requests, an access-to-records petition to the court, and a subpoena upon a bank to access a public record, a court operating account (after that account was used by the interfering judge to pay off the attorney for the stenographer)
Names of stenographers who prepared the transcripts and the audio	Kathy Mathews	Rhonda Stubblefield
Actions of stenographers when requests were made for audio to verify court transcripts	Became defensive in an e-mail to the attorney requesting access to the audio, claimed that such a request is a challenge to her professional integrity, then hired an attorney close to the judge involved, then hired an attorney who also represented the judge’s law clerk, moved for a protective order and sanctions against the party and attorney requesting access to the audio	Counter-sued for defamation
Consequences for people who made the request to access the records	Christine Mire lost her law license for a year	Mark Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey were arrested, thrown in jail, starved, humiliated, mistreated, deprived of medical treatment and reasonable accommodations for disabilities (Stookey). Now that the disciplinary action against Judge Weaver is dismissed by a “friendly” Judicial Qualifications Commission where members of the Commission were either representing Weaver in a related proceeding, employed her daughter, were appointed by her former boyfriend, or whose livelihoods were “regulated”/controlled by Judge Weaver through their law licenses – it is likely that the State Bar of the State of Georgia, using the language of the dismissal bashing the journalist and his attorney for supposedly making false allegations against a good and honest judge for personal reasons, will proceed against attorney Russell Stookey. Mark Thomason lost his publishing business since, reportedly, Judge Weaver’s and the Fannin County Sheriff’s friends visited advertisers with his publishing business and threatened consequences if they continue to buy advertisement with Mark Thomason.
Was tampering with court audio proven and how?	Yes, through testimony of a technician who confirmed that the audio was “spliced” and the disclosure of Judge Keaty’s disqualifying conflict of interest added to it.	No, Judge Christian handling the Open Records Petition of Mark Thomason, dismissed the petition after claiming that, since the transcript matches the audio, the petition became pointless. The audio which contained, according to Mark Thomason who heard it, conspicuous pauses where the racial slurs, according to witnesses in open court proceedings before Judge Bradley, were supposed to appear, was not released to Mark Thomason or the public. Judge Christian ·         never ordered sequestration of Rhonda Stubblefield’s equipment during the proceedings, ·         improperly allowed Rhonda Stubblefield to be the person showing the audio during the court proceedings and operating the equipment,   ·         scolded and stifled Mark Thomason’s remarks that the pauses on the audio demonstrate that the audio was tampered with and ·         never ordered technical expertise of authenticity of the audio, therefore acting as an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT in tampering with the court audio.
Was the tampered audio made public?	No	No
Were people responsible for tampering with court records punished or disciplined in any way?	No	No
Did people who brought tampering with the court audio to public attention suffer any retaliation?	Yes, loss of livelihood	Yes, arrest, criminal charges and loss of livelihood.
Were people who helped judges keep tampering of the court audio under wrap receive any kind of benefit from the judiciary system?	Yes Attorney #SusanTheall got help to become a judge in Judge Keaty’s place, for her “loyalty”; Stenographer #KathyMathews retained her business with the courts for her “loyalty”	Yes Judge Weaver’s former law clerk Alison Sosebee was re-elected as the DA, and sworn in for her 2nd term in December, 2016.  There are rumors that Judge Weaver prepares her as her own successor in the judicial position.  Attorney Mary Beth Priest who represented the stenographer against an access to audio request and was paid off by Judge Weaver ($17,000 from Judge Roger Bradley’s slush fund account financed by three counties, Fannin, Pickens and Gilmer) – same as attorney Susan Theall in Lousiana – was nominated by Weaver and appointed a judge, for the vacancy after Judge Roger Bradley’s resignation. John Worcester was nominated and appointed to the judicial position at the same time as Mary Priest, and paid off the debt of loyalty by signing the arrest warrant against Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey, while appearing as a witness in the same criminal proceeding. Alan Wigington remains a magistrate, after paying off his debt of loyalty to Brenda Weaver, imposing humiliating pre-trial conditions on Mark Thomason (a healthy man in his prime) and his attorney Russell Stookey (a disabled diabetic veteran in his 70s), while Russell Stookey was not given food for a long time and was likely incompetent to sign such documents.  Both documents were signed without an attorney present.  Russell Stookey whose state of mind because of low blood sugar from starvation, was not qualified to act as Mark Thomason’s attorney, and, to my knowledge, was not hired as such and certainly could not be appointed as such since he was also arrested and in jail. Stenographer #RhondaStubblefield retained her business with the court, in return for her “loyalty” to judge Weaver

You can see from the table that, in both cases:

• court stenographers were obviously complicit with judges in tampering with the audio court recordings and transcripts - all the way while claiming in writing how proud they are of their professional integrity and how eager they are to maintain it, see, for example, how Kathy Mathews expressed it in her first defensive e-mail to attorney Christine Mire:

Without complicity of court stenographers, there is no way that the audio that is in exclusive control of court stenographers, on their own equipment, would become altered.

• Judges in both states universally jumped to protect one another and "save face" instead of making judicial misconduct known, despite a disciplinary rule requiring attorneys and judges to report judicial misconduct;
• Attorneys in both states were rewarded - by money and/or judicial positions - for helping judges and stenographers to cover up criminal misconduct;
• The culprits who tampered with court records or ordered such tampering were not punished, but
• Those members of the public who tried to do the right thing, get access to the altered audio and prove that it was altered through a technical expertise, were severely punished by loss of their livelihood (Mire, Thomason).

What is a remedy for that?

Remedies are easily ascertainable and are easy to accomplish.

• Cameras in the courtroom - if the public was allowed to independently videotape what was happening in Judge Bradley's courtroom and in Judge Christian's courtroom, there would be no question as to what occurred when and no possibility to cook the transcript and the audio file;
• An effective, citizen-operated system of discipline of judges - the "new and improved" Judicial Qualifications Commission in the State of Georgia where investigators and prosecutors represent judges, employ judge's relatives, are appointed by judge's former boyfriends, and have their own licenses and livelihoods regulated by the very judges they supposedly investigate and prosecute, is obviously a sham.  Public citizen panels, picked the same way as a jury is picked, must preside, publicly, over complaints against judges. 
• Complaints against judges must be handled by grand juries, and citizens must have direct access to grand juries, without the barrier of prosecutors, "legal advisers" of the grand juries.  Not only it is inappropriate to allow a PARTY in the proceeding to be the legal advisor of a supposedly neutral court-like entity, but, prosecutors have their own licenses regulated by judges and would not allow judges to be prosecuted for that reason alone, without even speaking about egregious personal conflicts of interest like the ones existing in the Weaver-Sosebee's relationship;
• Removal of attorney regulation from the hands of the judiciary that controls attorney independence (and ability to properly represent their clients) in situations of judicial misconduct, and abolition of attorney regulation by the government, since attorneys (especially civil rights attorneys) must SUE the government on behalf of their clients, and thus their livelihoods and independence of judgment and work cannot be CONTROLLED by the same government that they are suing on behalf of their clients.  Then, the government will not be able to use attorney regulation like it was used against attorney Mire, like it can now be used against attorney Stookey - as a sword of the corrupt judiciary instead of a shield for consumers of legal services.

I will continue to report on the Brenda Weaver and the Phyllis Keaty's cases of court audio tampering (in Georgia and Louisiana, respectively), with publication of documents.

Stay tuned.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part VIII - another quick forgery, now to whitewash DA Sosebee and save her from liability in a civil rights lawsuit?

Two days ago I ran a blog No. 7 in my new series of blog articles about misconduct of the corrupt judge of the State of Georgia Brenda Weaver, see these articles here:

• Part I;
• Part II;
• Part III;
• Part IV;
• Part V;
• Part VI; and
• Part VII.

In Part VII I explained why I consider the indictment against journalist Mark Thomason legally void - because the "true bill"/indictment served upon Mark Thomason was signed by the prosecutor and not by the grand jury's Foreperson, is as required by law.

Guess what - the next day I received a document that pretends to correct that error!

I am certainly publishing this piece of art, but I have no basis whatsoever to believe in its authenticity - or that it somehow corrects the fact that the initial indictment was legally void and subjects DA Sosebee to civil rights liability without immunity.

There are several reasons for that.

1.  The service

This "document" was NEVER served upon Mark Thomason when the indictment/alleged "true bill" was:

• brought, 
• prosecuted, or even dismissed.

2. The timing

This document miraculously emerged the very next day though after I published a blog where I clearly, in so many words, in black and white, claimed that the indictment against Mark Thomason was legally void AND that in that situation Alison Sosebee may be liable in a civil rights action for fabrication of a criminal proceeding without the benefit of prosecutorial immunity - because to usurp the functions of the Grand Jury foreman is nowhere near her prosecutorial duties.

3. The two-document indictment

For some interesting reason, an indictment of the grand jury in the State of Georgia consists of TWO documents - one that is served upon the criminal defendant, and the other that is kept back wherever this one was kept back, without service upon the criminal defendant.

It does not work that way.

An indictment is a document that must be complete on its face, without any additions or supplements.

4. The foreman's name is not stated

The "indictment" includes a "foreman" and a purported signature of that "foreman", but does not state the Foreman's name.

That is not how documents of this importance are to be drafted.

The Foreman's name should have been stated in print, otherwise we do not really know who has signed this document AS "foreman".

5.  The purported document did not originate from a court

The document came from a person claiming to have gotten it reportedly from DA Sosebee.

I have no reason whatsoever to trust that person's integrity, or to believe that that person does not work in concert with DA Sosebee to protect her from a civil rights lawsuit.

Therefore, there is no assurance that this document was ever filed with the court, and we already know that it was never served upon the defendants.

Since DA Sosebee and her surroundings have a material financial interest to forge a document like that after my publication in Part VII about what I believed and still believe to be a fabricated indictment that Sosebee has signed, any document supposedly coming from her office must be checked and double-checked, for authenticity.

And, that is especially so that in the course of this particular story, transcripts were cooked, audios of court proceedings were cooked (and, as I promised before, I will dedicate a separate blog to showing how easily it can be done, on an identical case from another state), court security tapes that were duplicating transcripts and the audio, reportedly disappeared because of suddenly "malfunctioning" equipment -

I know very well that particular trick, the New York State Court administration used it upon me EVERY single time when I asked for court security tapes to verify acts of judicial misconduct, without fail - see, for example, my blog of 3 years ago on the topic, and since then I received multiple tips from other people who received the same claim from court administrations of various states as soon as they would ask for court security tapes that are supposed to show anything "controversial" happening in the courtroom.

So, it appears to be a universal POLICY of court systems across the country that, rather to forge or destroy evidence than let people receive proof of judicial (and prosecutorial) misconduct.

Since court records very definitely were tampered with in this story

- there are witnesses whose accounts of what happened in court regarding the "racial slur" independently verify one another, without witnesses knowing one another, while the statements containing that racial slur were erased from the audio and did not find their way into the court transcript -

it was a piece of cake to forge an addition to an indictment, and especially under the circumstances when a legal blogger clearly pointed out what kind of trouble Sosebee and crew may find themselves in for fabricating the indictment against Thomason and Stookey.

6.  The purported document bears no actual signs it has been filed in court

As it was explained to me by witnesses who did file documents with the courts in the Appalachian Circuit, the court has a filing system as if electronics simply do not exist.

And that is with all the millions of dollars provided for it in the State budget, and with all the hundreds of thousands of dollars (illegally, I believe) provided for the state courts in the County budgets of local counties (not to count the illegal "slush funds" where somehow Judge Weaver's personal Social Security # was involved - it is part of criminal charges that Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey allegedly wanted to access Judge Weaver's PERSONAL information) - 

The court filing system in this large circuit of the State of Georgia, reportedly, is no more than a "manila folder filing system" - documents brought to be filed with the court are, reportedly, "filed" into manila folders and so kept by the court.

There is, upon information and belief, no system in place where

• any document filed with the court is also
• assigned a bar code showing the exact time - date, hour, minute and second - when it was ENTERED into the court's computer system, with
• bar code paper labels printed out and attached to the original and copies of documents that the filer takes back with him; and
• with the filed document with bar code labels attached then SCANNED into the system, for all visitors into the courthouse to view on a public computer.

This easy system that can be set up by a high schooler and which does not really cost that much - somehow, as I understand, eluded the Appalachian Circuit courts.

Instead, what we have is this 

Again, I do not know whether this "document" has ever seen the insides of a court file, but what I do NOT see is ANY court stamp - electronic, bar-coding or ink stamp - that would show that this document has been, indeed, filed with the court on June 24, 2016, as it purports to say.

Because of that, and knowing abilities of the Sosebee/Weaver crew to cook court records  (Weaver), or protect those who did it instead of investigating them (Sosebee), one cannot say that this "document" was, indeed, signed on June 24, 2016 - and not yesterday, after reading my blog, Part VII.

In view of the above, I continue to believe that the indictment against Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey was legally void - and that's only based on formal grounds.

There are also a lot of problems with the contents of the indictment - how it purported to charge what was not a crime.

About that - in one of my next blogs in #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga series.

Stay tuned.