When a judge is given by law a right to officiate at weddings, does he have an obligation to officiate at secular weddings?

First, we had a County Clerk in the State of Kentucky who refused to officiate a same sex marriage.

The County Clerk, Kim Davis, was held in contempt of federal court, and the contempt was recently upheld on appeal.

Now yet another public official from the State of Kentucky, Judge Hollis Alexander, who refused to officiate a wedding, now of a straight couple - because the couple wanted a secular, not religious, wedding.
http://lawnewz.com/important/freedom-from-religion-foundation-criticizes-judge-for-refusing-to-officiate-secular-wedding/

While the press dubbed the couple who judge Hollis Alexander refused to marry as "atheists", a couple who simply does not want a religious wedding, is not necessarily an "atheist" couple.

And, a judge who refuses to marry a couple who refuses to include "God" into their vows, very apparently means a specific "God".

Apparently, the judge will similarly refuse to marry people whose faith is non-Christian.

Yet, when judges are given by law a right to officiate at weddings, that right comes with an obligation not to discriminate.  A judge is officiating as a public official, with an implication that, since a judge is chosen to officiate and not a religious minister, the ceremony is meant to be secular.

Therefore, in my opinion, a judge who is called upon, through a filing in a public courthouse, to officiate at a wedding, has no right to refuse to do so because the wedding is meant to be secular.

I agree with the couple's attorney that Judge Alexander has violated Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In his campaign to become a judge (judge Alexander was appointed by Kentucky governor in 2013), Judge Alexander did not conceal that his views are "Christian".

Yet, in that same campaign, Judge Alexander claimed he wants to provide a "continued, proven, and professional leadership", and has a "heartfelt desire to serve Trigg County".

That service to Trigg County is a service to all residents of the County, in all capacities that the law bestowed on the judge - and that includes officiating at weddings, and there is no point for a judge to officiate at a wedding unless the wedding is secular.

If a wedding is religious, people choose religious ministers to officiate.

I wonder if Judge Alexander will now be taken off the bench for his refusal to serve Trigg County residents the way he is supposed to and for imposing not just any religion, but his own religion as a pre-condition to marry by a judge in Trigg County.

And, in refusing to serve the couple by officiating at a secular wedding, the judge seemed to have overlooked that marriage in this country, and in the state of Kentucky, is not legal unless approved by the state by issuing a state license - which means that the pre-requisite for a marriage in the State of Kentucky is a secular, state license.

This is just one other example of judges refusing to be faithful to their constitutional oath of office - which entitled them to wield judicial power and enjoy the benefits, including the financial benefits, of their position - when it clashes with their personal "beliefs".

Of course, Judge Alexander is not the first of U.S. politicians who insisted that Americans "need God" and jamming God down their throats in government affairs - Constitution or no Constitution.

Yet, since our public officials can only serve while they are faithful to their constitutional oath of office, their public opinions about their official duties contradicting their oath, and especially acting on such opinions, should result in immediate impeachment and removal from office, and Judge Alexander is not an exception.

And, Judge Alexander was allowed by law to express his religious views, under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, on one condition - to resign first, and, if not resigning, not to infuse his religious beliefs into his official duties as a SECULAR government official.

I will follow this story and report on it.

Stay tuned.

A year after the audit by the New York State Comptroller, the Delaware County admits in writing that its #TreasurerBeverlyShields is a thief, along with her subordinates

More than a year have passed after the audit of the Delaware County, New York, by the New York State Comptroller, and audit release of which "coincidentally" happened one day after Delaware County Judge Carl F. Becker announced his "early retirement".

Carl Becker was the last of the 3 Mohicans to resign.

Becker's buddy County Attorney (and profanity-spewing alcoholic with shaking hands) Richard Spinney "retired with honors" at the end of 2012 - see a "plaque of honor" being handed to spinney by Delaware County Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Jim Eisel, Spinney's partner in crime who authorized all those multi-million no-public-bidding contracts to friends and relatives - for years, with Carl Becker as an Assistant County Attorney in tow, and Bill Moon and his satellite non-profits as beneficiaries of their shady deals:

 Social Services Commissioner Bill Moon retired at the end of 2014, but was since in the middle of controversy, civil and criminal proceedings - against Moon's apparent accomplice Carolyn Massey, who allegedly "got a poor advice from a fellow employee" (Moon?).  Moon, of course, was not prosecuted.

Carl "Fritz" Becker, Bill Moon and Dick Spinney were the trio of bosom friends and colleagues of nearly 30 years engaged in fixing social services cases and, as the audit revealed, finicking with County finances for all the time they were in office, preventing multi-million contracts of Delaware County from being publicly bid, as required by law, and spawning satellite non-profit corporation sucking taxpayer money from the County.

None of the trio were criminally prosecuted because Carl Becker's former law partner John Hubbard - now Acting Delaware County District Attorney running for the District Attorney's seat in November this year - was "prudently" installed into the District Attorney's office to block any efforts to criminally prosecute them, a job which #JohnHubbard fulfilled admirably.

The audit of the New York State Comptroller of 2014-2015 revealed that:

1) contracts of the county were not submitted to public bidding - and they are not submitted now either;

2) the use of cars bought with public money is not monitored, such cars are unnecessarily assigned to County employees, and some good cars were sold as scrap to county insiders and then flipped for profit as perfectly good cars;

3) there were multiple conflicts of interest in how funds were handled by the county.

Since the audit, I have made numerous FOIL requests regarding the contracts, the use of public funds on the newly acquired German shepherd, the "K-9 unit" Ozzie (nee Neron), contracts submitted to public bidding, use of cell phones by the county. 

This blog is word-searchable, so you can find those numerous blogs by putting "FOIL", "K-9", "Ozzie", "bidding" into the search window on the right.

The county universally stonewalled by FOIL requests.

From reluctant admissions and predominant denials of my FOIL requests this year, the following picture appeared:

1) the county does not have a system of public bidding on contracts - so multimillion contracts each year may still be awarded to insiders, which means that the price may be not competitive, and the taxes claimed by the County to cover their "services" and those contract, are not justified, and the tax foreclosures on Delaware County homes are not justified either;

2) some private individuals are corrupting the local police by paying for the upkeep of the police dog, while the County released to me the alleged numbers as to funds used for upkeep - but not the names of individual "donors";

3) the County's cell phone bill for 1 month is on 321 pages (!), indicating how many county employees enjoy cell phone service at taxpayers' expense.

Now, as to the 321-page cell phone bill, the County refused to provide to me a scanned copy of the bill, claiming from me to pay for the copies of those cell phone bill at 25 cents a page.

In response to that request, I made yet another FOIL request, asking for the inventory of copying, printing and scanning equipment, and print-to-pdf software, becuase the law requires the County to provide to me electronic copies of public records - free of charge - if the County has a means to turn a paper bill into a scanned format as easily as to copy it.

By the way, I doubt that the County gets its telephone bill in paper format and not by e-mail, and a phone bill obtained by e-mail can be easily forwarded in answer to a FOIL request, the effort requires just a couple of clicks on the mouse.

Here is what I received from the Delaware County's Clerk of the Board of Supervisor Ms. Christa Schafer in response to my FOIL request for the inventory of the printing, copying and scanning equipment, so that the County would prove to me that their claim of money for paper copies of the bill is justified and is not simply a way to make my FOIL request more expensive than the law requiers it to be:

What I've learnt in dealing with Delaware County officials over the years - you sometimes just give the idiots enough rope to hang themselves and then sit back and watch it happen.   

I was asking for the INVENTORY OF EQUIPMENT bought with taxpayer money - including my husband's and mine.

The County tells me that they DO NOT HAVE THE INVENTORY.

That means that the Treasure of the County is a CRIMINAL, because she does not create an inventory of what the county purchased and has at this time.

That means that any property that the County has is unaccountable as to how it was purchased, where it is and when, to whom, how and for what amount it was sold - goes to competence and integrity of the Treasurer (Carl Becker's likely girlfriend, judging from her statements in Carl Becker's 2012 election campaign - she revealed interesting knowledge of Becker's activities "after hours" and on weekends, while appearing in front of him as a party litigant; note Shields also lovingly calling Judge Becker as "Fritz"):

That means that whenever the Treasurer purchases new printing/scanning/copying/computer equipment or software, the Delaware County Treasurer Beverly Shields (the remaining link for the resigned trio of Becker-Moon-Spinney) does it illegally, because Shields does not have the inventory to prove that she does not ALREADY have such equipment, but sold it to some of the multiple relatives teeming in the employment of the County, "the land of kissing cousins", or their friends.

Imagine - the county does not even have records reflecting whether they bought expensive printers or scanners, repaired them, sold them or not!

As an attorney, I attended meetings in the backrooms of the County buildings at 111 Main street.

Believe me, there was A LOT of printing/scanning equipment, expensive combined printers/scanners, sitting on tables there.

All of those are unaccounted for.

All of those can be picked up and taken home by anybody at any time.

That's YOUR money, Delaware County taxpayers, going down the drain - or, rather, being stolen from you by the Treasurer and her accomplices.

So, on July 5, 2016, the Delaware County, New York, which is being funded by taxpayer money, including my husband's money and my own, voluntarily admitted to me, IN WRITING, that its Treasurer and whoever else is responsible in maintaining the County accounts, purchases, repairs and inventories - are criminals.

Well, thank you, Christa Schafer and Delaware County, for this rare 4th of July revelation, I will pursue this information further, with appropriate authorities.

#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.

Surprise! Judges who give themselves impunity for violation of their oath of office, right to strip his own criminal prosecutors' livelihood and presumption of integrity, actually commit crimes. Who would predict that?

Judges in this country give a constitutional oath of office.

In other words, they pledge to be loyal to the U.S. Constitution as a condition of taking the bench and receiving their substantial salaries - some of them, for life.

At the same time, as soon as a judge takes that oath of office and gets on the bench to get that salary, the judge can break that oath of office, and a citizen may not sue the judge for violation of his oath of office and for hurting that citizen.

Why?

Because the judiciary gave itself "immunity" from lawsuits by private citizens for malicious and corrupt acts on the bench.

So, a judge who pledged loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, may violate that U.S. Constitution the moment he pronounces that pledge, and a private citizen has no direct recourse about it.

Of course, a private citizen can complain about a judge - and 99% or more of such complaints are tossed without investigations, while many complaints result in futher retaliation by the judge against the complainant.

Of course, a private citizen may try to sue on the theory that acts in breach of constitutional oath of office are not judicial acts and must not be covered by immunity - good luck with that, most likely, the lawsuit will be dismissed, often with sanctions and attorney fees of the perpetrator of the constitutional violation to be paid by the victim.

Of course, a private citizen may try to turn the judge in for criminal prosecution.  Unless there is a real media frenzy and a real public outrage displayed in the media, nothing will be done by prosecutors either - because judges have a firm grip upon prosecutor's own livelihood through attorney regulation.  See, for example, what happened in Pennsyvlania to the state Attorney General Kathleen Kane who dared to investigate judges - those same judges suspended her law license.

After giving themselves a gift of absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for malicious and corrupt acts, and a gift of regulating livelihood of their own prosecutors if they dare to commence a criminal investigation and prosecution, judges also gave themselves a gift of presumption of integrity.

Think about it.

At the same time:

1) immunity for malicious and CORRUPT acts in office - from civil lawsuits of victims;
2) ability to strip the livelihood of criminal prosecutors who would dare to investigate and prosecute the judges in criminal courts, where the immunity does not reach;
3) and, with all that, a presumption of honor.

If someone is given an absolute power to be corrupt, that someone, most likely, will be corrupt.

With that in mind, what is surprising is that judges are prosecuted at all.

For example, in Georgia, a former judge, #BryantCochran (who was allowed to resign) was convicted - surprise! - of conspiring to plant methamphetamine upon a woman who accused the judge for propositioning her in chambers, sex crimes and corruption, in federal court. 

Cochran was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Why not in state court?

But you know the answer - because a state prosecutor will be deathly afraid to investigate and prosecute a judge, because the prosecutor's own law license and livelihood is in the hands of the state judiciary.  To prosecute a state judge for corruption?  No, only the feds can do that.

Dishonorable behavior by a judge who is allowed to engage in dishonorable behavior with impunity, take away the livelihood of those who seek to prosecute him as their jobs, and claim that he is presumed honorable?

Surprise!  People allowed to commit crimes with impunity, commit crimes.  Who would imagine such a thing?

As to the next surprise - how the other Georgia "presumed-honorable-but-immune-from-lawsuits-for-corrupt-conduct", the current Chief Judge of Appalachian Circuit Court Brenda Weaver conspired:

• with other judges and county commissioners to use public money in order to fund a private counterclaim against a lawsuit seeking public court records;
• with her own former law clerk, district attorney Alison Sosebee, to undermine a criminal investigation into her own, and her personnel's likely misconduct, how she tampered with witnesses and evidence of criminal investigation, in collusion with her law-clerk-turned-DA -

stay tuned.

I wonder whether the feds' assistance will be required again - like in Bryant Cochran's case to charge Judge Weaver and judges she conspired with to release $17,000 to fund a private lawsuit, County Commissioners who allowed that, the DA/law clerk of Judge Weaver who allowed Judge Weaver to tamper with criminal investigation and have those who seek public records thrown in jail and charged with felonies.

On #RuthGinsburg's dreams about cases and expected departure to New Zealand

The U.S. Supreme Court justices are the last resort in resolution of many cases.

And, the U.S. Supreme Court saddled this country with president George W. Bush when there was every reason to believe that it was Al Gore who won the presidential elections, and when the case was rife with conflicts of interest of not just one, but several justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the case - in other words, there is a clear implication that the Gore v Bush case was fixed.

Now we have yet another presidential election where a Gore v Bush scenario is likely, and passions and stakes are even higher than in Gore v Bush.

In Gore v Bush, at the very least, Bush was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican.

In Trump v Clinton case, Trump is not acknowledged as a true Republican by many in the Republican party, and both Trump and Clinton have legal troubles during their campaigns - where Trump gets a beating in federal court by a clearly biased judge, and Clinton gets a pardon from criminal prosecution from her own private attorney Loretta Lynch, after a private meeting with Bill Clinton, through a highly irregular FBI investigation where no transcripts are made, no records are kept, Director of the FBI did not conduct her interview, did not speak to those who did, and did not turn the case into the grand jury before claiming that there is nothing to prosecute.

So, the government is clearly slanted towards Hillary Clinton, that is clear.

Yet, when a U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsurg joins the fray and starts making comments that she needs to disappear to New Zealand if Trump is elected, that Trump is a fake, and an inconsistent and implicitly stupid blabber-er - you can have a sneak preview that, if these presidential elections end up in a tie, a case-fixing will happen again, and Ruth Ginsburg already announced how she will judge the case.  She already pre-judged it.

Ruth Ginsurg MUST know that the case may end up like Gore v Bush.

If that happens, now that she made her position clear as to one of potential future litigants, what will she do?  Disqualify herself?  Or, knowing that there is no judicial power in the United States higher than her court, remain and impose her personal prejudices as to the candidates upon the country?

While there is no prohibitions on public statements for judges and justices of any level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, judges are bound not to engage in conduct that may result in a conflict of interest, and Ruth Ginsburg is engaging in such a conduct, knowing that current presidential elections may end up in a tie and a court case in front of her.

Ruth Ginsburg's inappropriate statements about Trump are not her only inappropriate comments about cases she may be called to decide in the future.

Ruth Ginsburg also recently disclosed her "dream" to overturn "Citizens United".

When a judge has a strong feeling about a case that did not come in front of her yet for reversal, she just announced that she will grab the opportunity to pre-judge that case based on her dream.

Isn't it time to retire for Judge Ginsburg?  Not waiting for impeachment proceedings?

A warning to authors - your word that you did NOT author a creative work is not the end of story nowadays. You can be sued to say that you did.

A very interesting lawsuit is reported from Chicago, Illinois.

A well-known artist is sued to have him admit that he is the author of a painting - which he denies.

Crazy?

Maybe, but when big money is involved, I guess, anything goes.

Some expert advised the owner that a painting he bought years ago for $100 is now worth millions of dollars because of the suspected authorship of the painting.

The painting was sent to the suspected author for expertise, he said that he was not the author.

And now he is being sued.

Imagine the implications of the lawsuit.

You rise from obscurity and become a famous artist.

Your paintings start to sell for a good amount of money.

As a hypothetical, somebody claims that he or she has a painting that looks like it follows your style - and has a signature that looks like yours.

You know it is not yours - and say so.

And you are sued?

And are forced to admit the painting is yours - or that you do not recall painting it because you were in a LCD-induced delirium?

In order for the owner to be able to sell it for millions of dollars using your fame and reputation?

And you will have to pay heavily to get out of that lawsuit?

Think how many people will drum up look-alike copies and file lawsuits against famous artists for "authentication-through-litigation" if this lawsuit is allowed to continue.

I hope that the lawsuit ends in a summary judgment for the artist - with award of attorney fees against the plaintiff.  Because, if the alleged author says the painting is not his, it should be the end of story.

I will follow this fascinating display of greed and report on it on this blog.

Stay tuned.

The reality of attorney regulation: when a judge violates your constitutional rights, apologize - or else

I wrote on this blog about #JudgeDanPolster of an Ohio federal court who ordered a New Jersey attorney, who was not a party or attorney in an action and who was not admitted to practice law in Ohio, without serving the order upon him, to personally appear in contempt proceedings the next day after the date of the order, see my blogs here, here and here.

When the attorney did not appear and claimed - correctly - that Judge Polster has no jurisdiction over him, Judge Polster held him in contempt, issued an arrest bench warrant and then changed the warrant to $500/a day sanctions against attorney John McDermott.

Reportedly, the situation changed once again recently when:

1) Judge Polster once again changed his contempt order, now "only" requiring attorney John McDermott - who is still not a party or attorney of record in the proceeding - to pay costs and attorney fees to the opponent of John McDermott's brother, and

2) attorney John McDermott apologized to the court in a letter indicating that he never meant disrespect to the judge or any other court.

Once again - it is the Judge Dan Polster who violated John McDermott constitutional rights to due process of law by holding him in contempt without serving upon an order to appear, and without having any authority to claim his appearance.

It is Judge Dan Polster who harassed attorney John McDermott, even though, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision as of June 9, 2016 a judge may not be an accuser in the same action - thus invalidating sua sponte contempt proceedings presided over by the judges who brought them, and that was exactly the situation of Judge Dan Polster.

It is Judge Dan Polster who compounded his due process violations against John McDermott by insisting on sanctions and attorney fees upon him, while having no jurisdiction over him and while being disqualified from imposing any sanctions, after Judge Dan Polster stepped into the case as an accuser in the sua sponte contempt proceedings he illegally brought against John McDermott.

But, it is John McDermott who now feels compelled to apologize to his abuser, to a judge committing egregious misconduct against him and who is violating his constitutional rights - because attorney McDermott, likely, feels that Judge Polster can deprive John McDermott of his livelihood.

I wonder if Judge Polster turned John McDermott into the disciplinary investigation in New Jersey which triggered the apologetic letter to the judge who is committing misconduct.

This is the reality of attorney regulation in this country: when a judge violates your constitutional rights - apologize, or be stripped of your right to earn a living.