"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.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

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:

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment