The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part IV - with Brenda Weaver and her cronies, what is public and what is private is a blur

I have posted so far 3 blogs explaining impropriety of dismissal of disciplinary charges against Judge Brenda Weaver of the State of Georgia, see Part I, Part II and Part III posted on this blog today and yesterday.

In this blog I wanted to show how court reporter's attorney (and now judge) Mary Beth Priest defrauded the court, Judge Martha Christian, in her defamation counter-claim, when she asserted on behalf of the court reporter Rhonda Stubblefield, that the defamation lawsuit was private.

Look how Rhonda Stubblefield (and her attorney, now judge Mary Beth Priest) and Judge Brenda Weaver flickered their claims of public or private status in connection with the open records request and/or criminal prosecution of Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey, to derive the most personal benefit from such claims.

	Private	Public
Judge Brenda Weaver	Audit of the “court operating account” illegally funded by counties Bringing criminal charges for “illegal access to personal information” as a “victim”, personally, of the alleged crimes of Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey – the “crimes” being trying to get access to PUBLIC RECORDS, transactions in the court operating account (JQC dismissal claims that Brenda Weaver’s “concern” was for supposed potential for theft of her Social Security number on “her” account – yet, her personal Social Security number can only appear on that account if it is a private personal bank account, not an account of a public entity, the court)	Giving money to a court stenographer out of that same “court operating account” to pay for attorney fees in her private lawsuit Denying access to a reporter, Mark Thomason, to that same account because now it is part of "judicial records" - which it was not, as it was an administrative record and not record of judicial proceedings
Court reporter Rhonda Stubblefield	Initially, court reporter Stubblefield denied access to the audio of court proceedings claiming she is a private person and a private entity, not a public official. Stubblefield brought a Counter-claim for defamation against Thomason and Stookey was brought by Stubblefield as a private party – had she sued as a public official, the lawsuit would have been frivolous out of hand, because she could not prove that the request to access records and the claim that there was a racial slur was not only false (it was not even that), but also malicious	Brenda Weaver paid $17,000 out of a “court operating account” to Stubblefield’s attorney claiming that Stubblefield “prevailed” (I guess, by withdrawing her counterclaim and agreeing to its voluntary dismissal) in her official capacity as a court reporter; The Judicial Qualifications Commission claimed that “Stubblefield had been sued solely because of her status as official court reporter.  After notifying the Pickens, Fannin, and Gilmer County Commissions and receiving their approval, Judge Weaver had Stubblefield’s attorney’s fees and expenses paid from Judge Bradley’s operating account.  The counties fund such accounts for each of the judges in the Circuit.

So, Stubblefield claimed to the court - to escape out of hand dismissal of her defamation lawsuit, with sanctions and attorney fees awarded AGAINST her and in favor of Thomason - that her defamation lawsuit was brought by her as a private party.

On the same grounds she initially denied access to the audio of court proceedings.

But, that did not prevent Stubblefield, or her attorney Mary Beth Priest, from accepting $17,000 of attorney fees for her attorney paid out under the theory that, on the opposite, she was sued, and filed a counter-claim in defamation, in her official capacity as a court reporter.

I guess, money does not smell.

Similarly, Brenda Weaver, knowing that a court operating account MUST be audited by the State financial services, upon information and belief, did not submit it to audit claiming that it is not subject to audit, because it's "hers".  Apparently, when you consider yourself as the same as THE government, and public pocket as her own - such a "confusion" can happen.

But then, after asserting that "her" account is not subject to state audit because it's "hers", Weaver turned around and told Mark Thomason that he does not get to get access to that same account because it is now "public" and not subject to an Open Records Request because it the Open Records Act supposedly "does not apply to the judicial branch" - but it DOES, to its administrative records, and financial records are definitely administrative records.

Then, Weaver turned around and claimed, again, that the account is "hers" to prosecutor Alison Sosebee, her own former law clerk, to be positioned as a "victim" in a criminal proceeding who had "concerns" that access by a journalist to a PUBLIC RECORD may actually result in the theft of her PRIVATE Social Security Number.

Then, again, Weaver turned around for yet another time and claimed that the bribery fund is once again now an official "court operating account" to whitewash herself before the "friendly" Judicial Qualifications Commission - there, by the way, there was a problem, even though the JQC swallowed her explanation whole.

The explanation of the JQC that:

• Brenda Weaver, a public official,
• paid a court reporter, supposedly a public official (not true, but at least an attempt can be made to stretch the truth that far) 
• on approval of Fannin, Pickens and Gilmer County Commissioners who regularly finance operating accounts of ALL circuit judges -

fails miserably in step No. 3.

Because here is the admission that the account was NOT a public account, but was a bribery account illegally financed by counties, while the state court system must be financed only and entirely from the state budget to ensure independence of the state judiciary.

That's exactly how Los Angeles County was caught regularly bribing California state judges in the very same criminal scheme.

As to the frantic efforts of Brenda Weaver, court reporter Rhonda Stubblefield and the crew to create the "make believe" that the same proceedings and the same actions and the same accounts are "now private" and "now public", I guess, when you are stupid and arrogant, once in a while, no matter how hard you try to appear smart, you just ... slip ... and fall right on your face.

Hard.