"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

#TheThiefJudgeBrendaWeaver, the Chief Judge of the Appalachian Circuit, State of Georgia and the Chair of Georgia State Judicial Qualifications Commission asserts her exclusive right to steal public funds from court accounts

I wrote on this blog about the outrageous case of arresting, jailing and charging with three felonies of a publisher and an attorney in Georgia for seeking open public records, through an open records request and through a subpoena, see my blogs here, here, here, and here. 
The charges were recently dropped upon a letter of the alleged "victim", the Chief Judge of the Appalachian Circuit Brenda Weaver.
This letter:

I provided the letter in full above, and now will provide the same with some comments, paragraph by paragraph.

This letter:

Note the date of the letter, July 6, 2016.

Note that the previous day, July 5, 2016, media groups called for dropping criminal charges.

If the criminal charges were right, lawful and constitutional, no amount of media pressure would have caused dropping of the charges.

Instead, the judge would have claimed undue pressure on the court, refused to dismiss the charges, and the case would proceed.

Charges were only dropped - and the alleged victim Brenda Weaver asked for it in her letter on the official letterhead - because Judge Weaver, the prosecutor and the presiding judge knew the charges were wrong, unconstitutional and corrupt.

The charges were brought under the pressure from a judge, and the charges were dropped under the pressure of the Chief Administrative Judge of a Circuit and the Chair of the Judicial Qualifications Commission - an authority in the State of Georgia who can take off the bench any judge who would disobey her, and she has just demonstrated the power of her wrath by having the "offenders" who called into question Judge Weaver's blatantly criminal, thieving, behavior, arrested, thrown in jail, released on humiliating conditions of bail including random drug tests, and having them charged with felonies, which would have led, if convicted, to disbarment of attorney Russel Stookey.

All for seeking the public records proving that Judge Brenda Weaver is a thief - which she already freely admitted:

  • by writing a letter to county commissioners where she reportedly admitted her intent to use the taxpayer-funded court account to pay out $17,000 to private attorneys for a private libel counterclaim of a stenographer, and
  • by admitting that the payment was made after Chief Cuirct Judge Brenda Weaver consulted with "other judges".

In the above piece of her letter Judge Weaver is also extremely patronizing to her former law clerk, and now prosecutor Alison Sosebee - she practically dictates to the District Attorney, an elected public official, which cases are worthy to pursue and which are not, thus interfering with the DA's exclusive power to choose which criminal cases to pursue and which not to pursue.

Judge Weaver continues to claim that she was hurt as a victim of a crime - but that there are victims that a hurt "more" and are more entitled to attention of prosecutor Alison Sosebee.

I would agree with Judge Weaver on that one point - there ARE victims who were hurt "more" and are more entitled to attention of an HONEST prosecutor, and one prominent victim is the People and taxpayers of the State of Georgia from whom Judge Weaver stole $17,000 from the court account to give away to a private party for personal reasons.  Judge Weaver stole more than money, she stole public trust in the integrity of the judiciary - if any shred of it still remained.

As to Alison Sosebee's immediate reaction to judge Weaver's request to drop charges with a motion to withdraw - normally, prosecutors are not that deferential to a witness, and even if a witness wants charges dropped, such wishes do not create any obligation upon the prosecutor to actually drop the charges - unless, of course, the alleged victim is your former boss, the regulator of your law license, and the current boss of all judges you appear in front of.

It is prominent that the alleged victim of a criminal case Chief Circuit Judge Brenda Weaver wrote not a supporting affidavit for her former law clerk's Alison Sosebee's motion - which is the norm in litigation, but a "letter", and a letter on the official letterhead of the court.
Let's remember that Judge Weaver is the administrative supervisor of the judge the motion is addressed to, the judge's boss, so the use of the letterhead is like a directive of the alleged victim in a criminal proceeding telling the criminal court judge what to do.
In this case, it was the right thing to drop unconstitutional charges against the publisher and his attorney.
Yet, the idea of a witness who is a boss of a judge directing a criminal court judge what to do is absolutely outrageous - the judge should have recused and transferred the case to another court before ruling on this "letter", even in order to drop the charges.
That did not  happen.
So, we have Judge Brenda Weaver shamelessly using her administrative position as a Chief Circuit judge to, first, bring the unconstitutional charges and then, when that resulted in a media outrage, drop them.
Judge Weaver is cryptic as to who she "conferred with".  Apparently, in view of Judge Weaver's clear propensity to retaliate against those lower than herself in their official status, she would not take an advice about her duty with any degree of deference if people she "conferred with" were not higher than her in status.
There are few people higher than her in status in the State of Georgia. 
Another group of people Judge Weaver could confer with is her accomplices in the scheme to steal $17,000 from taxpayers of the State of Georgia, out of the taxpayer-funded account entrusted to Judge Weaver's handling, in order to pay legal fees in a private, and already withdrawn, counterclaim of a stenographer alleging that an access-to-records lawsuit "impugns her integrity".
Judge Weaver confirmed that not only she authorized such payment, but that she did that in agreement with other - unnamed - judges.
Judge Weaver said it was "fair" to give the stenographer a gift of $17,000 of public money.  Judge Weaver never explained why she did not give $17,000 of her own money to fund the private counterclaim, but preferred to give away taxpayers' money, without any authority or legal basis to do that.
In other words - if you steal 5 cents worth from a supermarket, you will be prosecuted for larceny and have a criminal record for the rest of your life, but if you are a judge and, in agreement with other judges, you can steal, let's call a spade a spade, $17,000 of public funds, give it away to private parties, publicly admit that - and remain free and occupying your high position, even though, through admission to commission of a felony, Judge Weaver should have been by now:
  1. indicted for a felony,
  2. disbarred and
  3. taken off the bench
Yet, to be indicted for a felony, you need an honest prosecutor, and the prosecutor handling the investigation was Judge Weaver's own former law clerk Alison Sosebee who helped Brenda Weaver escape liability, allowed Brenda Weaver to interfere with criminal investigation and tamper with witnesses and evidence, see the portions of the letter and arguments below, and was instead the legal advisor of the grand jury that charged people seeking to expose criminal conduct of the theiving judge Brenda Weaver.
In the paragraph of Brenda Weaver's letter I am commenting here, Brenda Weaver mentions, in a non-specific, conclusory fashion, some "blatant false allegations". 
Yet, there are no "blatant false allegations" - Brenda Weaver publicly acknowledge paying $17,000 out of the court account to the private attorneys of the stenographer counter-claiming for defamation against a person who is simply seeking disclosure of an audio file that, according to witnesses, does not match the court transcript, because it left out the racial slur of another judge - calling a witness "N-word Last name" - that already caused the judge to resign from the bench.

So, while asking to withdraw the case, Brenda Weaver continues to attack Mark Thomason and attorney Russel Stookey.

Yet, Judge Weaver's intent to violate the 1st Amendment and due process rights of Mark Thomason and Attorney Russel Stookey is readily apparent from Judge Weaver's actions in having them arrested and charged with a felony for their legal actions seeking to expose her own criminal conduct - and in using her considerable power as the Chief Circuit Judge, the former boss of the prosecutor, the regulator of the legal profession and the Chaif of the State Judicial Qualifications Commission in tampering with witnesses and evidence, and having her former law clerk and her own subordinates handle the criminal case.

Judge Weaver does not even try to conceal her threat against "particulalry [Mr. Thomason's] attorney" whose offense, in Judge Weaver's opinion, was an "attempt to obtain office banking records without providing the required notice to [Judge Weaver] as a non-party in a separate civil case".

Once again: Judge Weaver considers her a victim of a crime because of an attempt of two individuals, one a non-attorney, one an attorney, regulated by the judiciary to which Judge Weaver belongs:

1) failed to provide a notice
2) of a subpoena for public records
3) to her as a non-party in a "separate civil case".

We have a presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who, with all her White House, Senator and Secretary of State training as to classified records, committed what the FBI director Mr. Comey considered an "extreme negligence" - but not a crime - in exposing classified materials of this country to hackers of her personal server in the basement of her residence.

And that was an extreme negligence - but not a crime.

Yet, in Mr. Thomason's and attorney Stookey's case, somehow it was a crime simply not to give notice of a subpoena upon a bank for public records to Judge Weaver as the presumed custodian of that bank account.

Mr. Thomason (but not his attorney) has allegedly posted, as Judge Weaver says in her UNSWORN letter, a copy of the subpoena showing a bank routing number on the internet.

Judge Weaver was concerned that somebody other than her will steal from that bank account when the copy of the routing number was allegedly published by Mr. Thomason.

Brenda Weaver's stealing of $17,000 in public funds and giving a stenographer a gift of $17,000 in legal fees for advancing a private libel counter-claim was ok.

The threat against both Mr. Thomason and attorney Russel Stookey continues when Judge Weaver asks "based on the above analysis", to dismiss charges against Mr. Thomason and Russel Stookey "at this time".

Not "for good" - "at this time".

Meaning that, when media frenzy subsides, Brenda Weaver will have the charges be brought back?

Look what was going on.

A criminal investigation, a grand jury investigation was pending.

A grand jury, theoretically, could indict any witness testifying in front of it - including Judge Weaver who admitted in the same letter to testifying in the grand jury.

Judge Weaver admitted in the letter to yet another set of crimes:

  1. tampering with witnesses of a criminal investigation, and
  2. tampering with evidence of a criminal investigation.
When there is a pending criminal, grand jury investigation of whether Mr. Thomason and attorney Stookey committed crimes in seeking access to open court records of the court's bank account, claiming that the funds from those accounts were "cashed illegally" - in other words, that there was a THEFT of public funds and a theft authorized by Brenda Weaver, Brenda Weaver was a potential SUSPECT in that investigation.

Yet, Brenda Weaver, according to her own admission in her letter, was allowed by her former law clerk, prosecutor Alison Sosebee, who was also the legal advisor of the investigating grand jury, to:

  1. conduct her own "due diligence investigation as a Chief Judge" - investigation of her own theft, grand larceny, a felony, that she already publicly admitted;
  2.  coaching the witnesses before the DA's investigators spoke to them - which, Judge Weaver acknowledges, "caused much confusion".
With her own former law clerk as a legal advisor of the grand jury, Judge Weaver safely testified without fear that she will be instead charged by that same grand jury for grand larceny and for tampering with witnesses and evidence of the criminal investigation.

Look at the scope of Judge Weaver's tampering with evidence and witnesses!

Judge Weaver "interviewed" Financial Officers of "each county", bank employees, conducted "a review of documentation from all relevant banks, and the banking records of each Superior Court Judge in the circuit".

Obviously, Judge Weaver's "due diligence" concern went far beyond the concern for the improper payout of $17,000 to private attorneys of a stenographer which involved only one bank, one transaction and one county.

Yet, Judge Weaver used her time, funded by taxpayers for her to be an honest and impartial judge, to interfere and stonewall a criminal prosecution into court activities.

Since Judge Weaver went on such an all-out attack on Mr. Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey for seeking just one record, and in response to that request, engaged in a comprehensive witness and evidence-tampering investigation, running ahead of the prosecutor and coaching witnesses before the prosecutor got to them (which brings up a question if Judge Weaver and prosecutor Alison Sosebee, Judge Weaver's former clerk were in agreement that Judge Weaver goes first and coaches witnesses before Alison Sosebee's investigators reach them), it is reasonable for taxpayers for the State of Georgia to now require a comprehensive audit of all accounts that Judge Weaver handled and for an independent prosecutor to re-trace her steps, interviews with witnesses and review of documents.

If Judge Weaver had been an average Jane or Joe from the street who would be running ahead of the prosecution coaching witnesses of a criminal investigation, she will be in jail by now for tampering.

Yet, Judge Weaver - remember - had a tremendouos leverage over both Alison Sosebee (as the regulator of the legal profession) and over judges before whom Alison Sosebee appeared (as the Chair of the Judicial Qualifications Commission).

 Judge Weaver, a confirmed and self-admitted thief of public funds, should have yet another go at her newly acquired respect to the grand jury proceedings - both state and federal -

  • for grand larceny of public funds,
  • for conspiring in that grand larceny with other judges, as Judge Weaver admitted;
  • for theft of honest services of other judges with whom she conferred to steal public funds out of the court account, and
  • for the theft of honest services of prosecutor Alison Sosebee
  • for the theft of honest services of the presiding judge who issued the initial arrest warrant on a completely, blatantly illegal and unconstitutional charges, to favor the judge's boss Judge Weaver;
  • for tampering with witnesses and evidence of a criminal investigation;
  • for lying to the grand jury.

Judge Brenda Weaver, and other judges, should be sent a powerful message, through criminal charges, that court accounts are not THEIR PERSONAL accounts to give money away to PRIVATE individuals who judges favor, and that it is NOT OK to corrupt county commissioners, court employees and public prosecutors and subvert criminal process for their personal vendettas against those seeking to expose their misconduct.

At this time, after charges were dropped, Judge Weaver is under renewed scrutiny by the media.

We'll see if the thieving judge will actually be charged for her crimes, or whether authorities will be afraid to touch the powerful Chief Circuit Judge and the Chair of the Judicial Qualifications Commissions - even if she is an admitted thief of $17,000 in public funds and admitted to tamper with witnesses and corrupt criminal, including grand jury, proceedings.

Before I conclude this post, I would like to summarize what reportedly happened in  this case in a timeline:

  1. A white judge uttered a racial slur regarding a participants in criminal proceedings, in open court;
  2. That racial slur was not reflected in the court transcript, but proceedings were audio-recorded;
  3. Publisher Mark Thomason sought the audio recording as an open court record;
  4. The request was denied;
  5. Publisher Mark Thomason sued the court system to produce the audio recording;
  6. The judge who uttered the racial slur resigned from the bench;
  7. The stenographer whose transcript did not reflect the racial slur, opposed the lawsuit for the audio file with a counter-claim for libel;
  8. The lawsuit was denied by a judge who was Judge Weaver's subordinate because there was allegedly not enough grounds to release the audio file;
  9. The stenographer voluntarily withdrew the counter-claim for libel;
  10. Despite withdrawal of her counter-claim for libel, the stenographer sought from the court to slap Mr. Thomason with $17,000 in attorney fees;
  11. Mr. Thomason, through his attorney Russel Stookey, sought records of the court operating account showing that the fees in question were already paid by the generous, though illegal, gift of Judge Brenda Weaver;
  12. Judge Weaver did not deny the gift - she acknowledged it in a letter to county commissioners and in her oral statement at a Tea Party gathering;
  13. Since Mr. Thomason asked to review ALL records of checks cashed out of the court accounts illegally, Judge Weaver conducted her own "investigation" of all accounts in the Circuit, of all courts, not just the account and the transaction to gift the stenographer with $17,000 in public money;
  14. Judge Weaver acknowledged coaching the witnesses ahead of the DA's investigators in a letter of July 6, 2016;
  15. Judge Weaver acknowledged testifying in the grand jury where her law clerk Alison Sosebee was the presenting prosecutor and the legal advisor of the grand jury, protecting Judge Weaver from charges of lying to the grand jury, tampering with witnesses and grand larceny of $17,000 (or more - depending of what an investigation into the court accounts would uncover);
  16. Judge Weaver requested to drop charges against Mr. Thomason and attorney Stookey "at this time", only after a media group publicly asked to:
    1. drop the criminal charges against Mr. Thomason and attorney Stookey;
    2. discipline Judge Weaver, and
    3. take her off the Judicial Qualifications Committee;
  17. Judge Weaver made a request to drop criminal charges in the form of a letter, not an affidavit, as normally is required by law for a motion practice (unsworn letters being hearsay),
  18. Judge Weaver submitted her unsworn hearsay letter requesting to drop the criminal charges "at this time" on the letterhead of her office, which consituted a directive to the judge presiding over the criminal case, since Judge Weaver was the judge's boss;
  19. Dropping the charges "at this time" left the door open to bring those charges back when the media "dust" settled;
  20. The letter contained continued claims:
    1. that Judge Weaver is allegedly still a victim of a crime committed by Mr. Thomason and attorney Stookey, but there are other victims who are hurt "more" and are more entitled "at this time" to the attention of the criminal investigators - and that statement was made after some lip service to not wanting to violate anybody's 1st Amendment rights;
    2. that Mr. Thomason and attorney Stookey allegedly lied about a judge - for attorney Stookey that can still mean a suspension or disbarment, based on what is happening to attorneys throughout this country for criticizing judges for misconduct;
    3. that behavior of Mr. Thomason and particularly of his attorney (an unveiled threat) is troubling - a signal to disciplinary authorities to investigate and prosecute attorney Russel Stookey.

Judge Weaver already admitted to crimes of grand larceny of $17,000 and tampering with witnesses, enough to disbar her, take her off the bench and put her away into state or federal prison for years.

The T(C)hief Judge of the Appalachian Circuit Court of the State of Georgia and the Chair of the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission Brenda Weaver is very obviously a criminal, a thief of public funds and a very apparent leader of a RICO (racketeering and corruption) ring.

It is, as I said in my previous blog, not surprising that a person given absolute immunity to commit crimes, committed crimes.

Still, crimes were admittedly committed by #JudgeBrendaWeaver - and must be addressed by criminal authorities, those who are not former employees of Judge Weaver or her current subordinates, or attorneys or judges whose livelihood she can control as a regulator of law licensing, and as a Chair of Georgia State Judicial Qualifications Commission.

I am wondering when - and if - #TheThiefJudgeBrendaWeaver's current high position in the government will protect her from those charges.

I will continue to report on this case.

Stay tuned.


  1. Thanks for this very detailed and accurate account of the entire situation.
    I would be happy to answer any questions you may have as unfortunately
    there are lots more behind the scenes details now surfacing on how my
    attorney and myself were arrested.

    Mark Thomason, Publisher
    Fannin Focus

    1. Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Thomason. I admire your own and your attorney's courage.

    2. Thanks again! Previously the case file had a two page witness list as reported by all media sources. However after checking the case file Friday in the clerk of courts office we discovered there is actually a 3rd page of witnesses in my case! Beyond that new surprise a witness on the newly discovered page is Judge John Worchester, the judge who SIGNED MY ARREST WARRANT! It just so happens that he is one of Judge Brenda Weavers largest campaign donors throughout her election history as well and as of about a month ago was appointed to be a Superior Court Judge along side Weaver in the same circuit. Also email communication has surfaced of ex parts communication between Judge Weaver and District Attorney Alison Sosebee after I was arrested thru open records request filed by the Atlanta Journal Constitution on the PAC of Georgia which host a main server that collects emails from Georgia's district attorneys.

    3. You are lucky you could get those records - I am judging by experiences in the State of New York where the judiciary is exempted by statute from the reach of the Freedom of Information Law, and the DA regularly claims exemption from FOIL on the basis of "interference with pending criminal investigation". So, you are saying that the court added a new page to the list of witnesses to your criminal case after it was dropped?

    4. Yes...a cmpletely new witness page has now appeared!

  2. Would it be possible to reprint this article of yours in this weeks Fannin Focus newspaper? I would of course give you credit and also include a link to your blog site.

    Thanks again,

    Mark Thomason

  3. If you will email me your mailing address at

    I will gladly mail out a copy of this weeks paper where we run your article.

    Thanks again

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.