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.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part VII - The Fraudulent Indictment - Alison Sosebee may have waived absolute prosecutorial immunity for purposes of a civil rights lawsuit

I am continuing to comment on the corrupt actions of Georgia State Judge Brenda Weaver who engaged in vicious persecution of a journalist and an attorney for using the State of Georgia Open Records law and trying to get access to:

• audio recordings of a certain court proceeding; and
• bank records about certain "court operating accounts".

For exercising their right to know, as members of the public, Judge Brenda Weaver, wife of a material witness to the court proceeding that triggered journalistic investigation by Mark Thomason, have had Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey

• sued for defamation, without lawful basis;
• illegally arrested,
• illegally thrown in jail, where they were subjected to humiliating, inhumane and degrading treatment,
• illegally coerced into no less illegal bond conditions, and
• illegally indicted for non-existing felonies that they did not commit.

This is Part VII of the series of blogs about corrupt behavior of Judge Brenda Weaver. 

You can read Parts I through VI following the list of blog articles on the right.

I will take the bull by the horns and will go directly into analysis of the indictment against Mark Thomason and why it was unlawful.

Here is the indictment:

The only positive thing that I see there does not relate to the contents of the indictment, but to the laws of the State of Georgia.

As compared to the laws of the State of Georgia, under the laws of the State of New York, where I worked in a criminal defense office for 16 years, identities of grand jurors, with the exception of the foreperson who signs the indictment, are not known to the defendant or his/her attorney.

And, that's a shame - because:

1. criminal proceedings must be public, every stage of such proceedings, and because
2. the identity of who brings criminal charges against a person must be known, too - to verify whether conflicts of interest and other disqualifying factors were excluded when the grand jury panel was picked.

There is no reason to fear influence upon or retaliation against the grand jurors any more than against the petite (trial) jurors, and identities of petite jurors are always known.

Moreover, after the grand jury is complete AND the defendant arrested or arraigned, the last reason for making the grand jury INVESTIGATION secret - trying to do it secretly so that the defendant does not flee the jurisdiction - disappears, too.

Additionally, in New York, in many cases, grand jury proceedings are held after the criminal case has already started in a local court, and the defendant, under such circumstances, has a right to a NOTICE from the prosecutor of the pending grand jury proceedings, to be able to appear and testify in front of the grand jury.

If the defendant is to appear and testify and SEE the grand jurors, there is no reason to make their identities secret.

Here, the identity of grand jurors was disclosed to Mark Thomason right in the indictment ("true bill").

1. Christopher Adam Payne, Foreperson
2. Alan Morris
3. Marcus Jesse Walker
4. Cheryl Ann Carmody
5. Danny Lee Crulkshank
6. james Cody McFarland
7. Martha Ann Baldwin
8. June Elizabeth Ash
9. Lisa Lowery Duckett
10. Heidi Marie Smith
11. Audrey Jewell Blaine
12. Jason Timothy Berneth
13. Stuart Anthony Martin
14. Candy Chism DiPrima
15. Vanessa Kaitlin Stancil
16. David Paul Croft

Before I go into analyzing potential conflicts of interest among the grand jurors, let me point out right away the main reason why the indictment against Mark Thomason was not valid - a nullity, which, I believe, subjects DA Alison Sosebee to criminal liability and to civil rights liability outside of prosecutorial immunity.

The problem with the indictment, rendering it a nullity, is right here:

The indictment was signed by the prosecuting attorney, not by the foreperson Christopher Adam Payne.

Yet, in Georgia, same as in New York, the indictment was supposed to be signed by the Foreperson of the Grand Jury, not by a prosecutor.

First, if prosecutors could issue indictments, they would not have had the need for grand jury proceedings.

Second, the 5th Amendment requires prosecution of heinous and infamous crimes (like felony fraud that Mark Thomason was charged with) only based on an indictment by a Grand Jury - not by a prosecutor.

So, this indictment, ladies and gentlemen, is FRAUDULENT.

And, for trying to prosecute upon this indictment, it is Alison Sosebee and not Mark Thomason who should be - not only prosecuted, but disbarred.

Third, the signature of the prosecutor may verify reports about the grand jury proceedings from people with knowledge indicating that the grand jury refused to indict - three times, reportedly - causing, again reportedly, Brenda Weaver to come into the hallway, and into the grand jury room, screaming, insulting Alison Sosebee, insulting grand jurors, reminding grand jurors of favors she provided to them in the past and demanding that they return a "true bill".

And still - the indictment presented to Mark was not a valid indictment, unless there is another document signed by the Foreman of the Grand Jury, Christopher Adam Payne.

Do you think Sosebee did not know she had no right to sign indictments?

Think again.

Here is an excerpt from a Prosecutor's Council's Grand Jury Manual for District Attorneys of the State of Georgia, as well as the link to the entire Manual:

That manual, in black on white, states that it is the foreperson of the Grand Jury, as the presiding officer of the Grand Jury, who signs all indictments and presentments.

Not the prosecuting attorney.

So - the indictment, copy of which was given to Mark Thomason, and upon which he was prosecuted, was a nullity.

And, Alison Sosebee, possibly trying hard to earn Brenda Weaver's "trust" for her own judicial rumored judicial nomination, has exposed herself - badly - to a civil rights lawsuit by signing an indictment INSTEAD OF the grand jury Foreperson.

Alison Sosebee was only entitled to PROSECUTORIAL immunity, for PROSECUTORIAL functions.

Usurping the authority of the Presiding Officer of the Grand Jury was certainly not a prosecutorial function, and, in my opinion, does not entitle Sosebee to prosecutorial immunity.

So, from the indictment that Mark Thomason was given, it is clear that the Grand Jury DID NOT indict Mark Thomason - Alison Sosebee fraudulently pretended that the grand jury did indict, for which she should be DISBARRED and criminally prosecuted.

For further analysis of the indictment - why it was defective not only because of who signed it, but by its contents, too, and for analysis of potential conflicts of interest in the composition of the grand jury - 

Stay tuned.

Update as of October 11, 2017.  There has been a development after I published this blog - there emerged a document that purports to be another part of the indictment that supposedly have been signed by the grand jury foreman, but was somehow never served upon Mark Thomason.

Why I still continue to believe that this indictment has been fabricated, and to see that "document", read Part VIII of #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga here.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part VI - The Weaver-Ralston pact: Brenda Weaver learnt how to fix judicial appointments (including her own) from the best

This is my 6th blog in the new series of articles following the dismissal of disciplinary charges against the Georgia State Judge Brenda Weaver, a licensed attorney "in good standing" - in a very good standing, indeed -

for organizing persecution if a journalist and his attorney (complete with harassment, intimidation, illegal arrest and detention in two jails without proper clothes, food, hydration, medical attention or accommodation required by the Americans with Disabilities Act for the disabled attorney and veteran, complete with illegal grand jury indictment).

See Parts 1 through V on the right in the list of blogs for this month.

When you review stories, witness accounts, public records CLEARLY pointing at public corruption of a high-ranking public official, and especially a judge, a person who has been chosen by her people to actually ENSURE justice instead of corrupting it - I always have a question to corrupt judges, even after years of reporting on the issue of judicial corruption - WHY?

Why are you doing it?

What drives you?

You do not have enough money?  But you do.

You do not have enough power? But you do, too.

Why do you want, into the bargain, to break your constitutional oath of loyalty to the law and steal, break the law and abuse your power to destroy the law and people's trust in integrity of our court system?

Why, Judge Brenda Weaver?

Of course, part of the answer lies in the fact that judges gave themselves an absolute immunity for malicious and CORRUPT acts on the bench - and expanded that illegal court decision to cover everything and anything, in and out of court, including actions of non-judicial personnel of courts.

And, of course, another part of the answer lies in the fact that judges regulate attorneys, and, thus, block any hope for independent advocacy and challenge of judicial corruption in court.  Try being brave and raising judicial corruption when the very person you are challenging have your own livelihood in his hands.

There are such kamikazes still, and things do not end well for them, believe me, I am collecting statistics of judicial retaliation from across the country for several years now.

But, another BIG part of the problem is that - despite all declarations that judges are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and that in that U.S. Constitution there is a clause prohibiting establishment by the government of titles of nobility - the judiciary IS that nobility.

A self-appointed one, and in more senses than one.

First, judges wear robes, sit on the high bench, demand to call them "Honorable" as part of their job title (even if they are clearly dishonorable, like Brenda Weaver), and, even though they give THEMSELVES the gift of immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts, they also demand that their INTEGRITY is PRESUMED - and devise disciplinary rules for attorneys gagging attorneys from criticizing judges or even candidates for judicial offices - and that means blocking information to voters about judges from the most informed source on the subject of judicial misconduct, integrity and qualifications.

Second, judicial candidates usually do not come "from nowhere".  They are usually sons and daughters, or friends, or spouses or partners, or significant others of other influential public officials.

Read biographies of our public officials, and especially of judges - you will most likely find a familial link to some high-ranking personnel.

And, any reasonable person knows that running for a judicial position in elections costs A LOT of money - even comedians picked that up.

So, it was not by chance that Brenda Weaver was "suddenly appointed" to the position of a Superior Court Judge in 1996, and then promoted to the position of the Chief Judge of the Appalachian Circuit, the Chairwoman of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (from which position she did not immediately resign even when she was exposed for her corrupt bribery scheme and illegal prosecution of a journalist and an attorney, and when complaints were filed to that same Commission to impose discipline on her for that).

Because Brenda Weaver's initial appointment, quick and high promotion and blatantly arrogant behavior speaks of entitlement, I started to look, who in Brenda Weaver's pedigree could propel her to judgeship, promote her and keep her afloat no matter what crimes she would commit.

But, as a first question - who promoted her appointment to the Superior Court judgeship? Who was that kind person who saddled the people of the Appalachian Judicial Circuit with this ... good woman?

And, believe it or not, I found that person.

That was the father of her former boyfriend David Ralston (now the Speaker of the Georgia Legislature), the now-deceased David Willard Ralston, the former Court Clerk of Gilmer County Court from 1969 to 1996.

David Willard Ralston was - SUPRISE! - also A WEAVER!!!

According to the Speaker's father's obituary:

Speaker David Ralston's grandmother's name was, according to the obituary, Donzie WEAVER Ralston.

According to my information from local sources, Brenda Weaver, before her marriage to George Weaver, dated David Ralston. 

She then, apparently, chose for marriage another member of the family, but, you know, blood is thicker than water and once sweethearts - always sweethearts, right?

Or, it may be my bad, and it is a mere coincidence that Brenda Weaver - and David Ralston, grandson of Donzie Weaver, ended up in high-ranking public jobs and are helping each other.

Brenda Weaver, as a judge, has a say in regulating David Ralston's law license and may be the reason why he was not disbarred when he was subjected recently to a disciplinary prosecution.

David Ralston, not to be outdone, has a say in appointment of members to the Judicial Qualifications Commission which controls whether Brenda Weaver will keep her sorry corrupt butt on her lucrative judicial seat or not.

It is a big happy family, right?

Well, according to my information, David Ralston's father, the clerk of the court, was a close friend to the Governor Zell Miller at the time of Brenda Weaver's nomination.

And, coincidentally, at about the same time as Brenda Weaver was appointed by the Georgia State Governor Zell Miller for the position of a Superior Court Judge in 1996, Speaker Ralston's late father David Willard Ralston resigned/"retired" from his position as Gilmer County Court Clerk - also in 1996.

Actually, some people indicate that the coincidence was not, as they call it, "incidental".

And that, in fact, nomination of Brenda Weaver in 1996 by Governor Zell Miller to the position of a Superior Court Judge is reportedly the result of a backroom family agreement and resolution of a very private family feud between the fathers of Speaker Ralston and of Brenda Weaver's husband George Weaver.

According to some people, the deal between the fathers was that:

• David Willard Ralston resigns from the position of the Gilmer County Court Clerk - I do not know what kind of dirt the Weaver father had on him to force that;
• the litigation or threatened litigation about property between the families (or, rather, within the family) is dropped; and
• David Willard Ralston uses his connections to have Brenda Weaver appointed as a Superior Court Judge.

And, reportedly, the family feud was so-settled "amicably", and Brenda Weaver - TADA! - was launched into the position of a Superior Court judge, and now has access to multiple "operating account", and serves, and serves, and serves - in so many roles, committees, on boards and other little cliques striving for "excellency of the judicial and legal profession".

I do not know whether Brenda Weaver consciously participated in the corrupt scheme, or just accepted the benefit given to her by the two relatives of her husband - the father of her former boyfriend and the father of her present husband.

I would tend to disbelieve that Brenda Weaver would NOT know about such deals though.  It was a family affair, after all.

And, having learnt from the very best at the very early steps of her judicial career, what is what in judicial appointments and nominations, Judge Brenda Weaver continued to "serve" the same way she was reportedly appointed - corruptly.

Only over the time of Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey's ordeal, Brenda Weaver corrupted:

• public officials in three counties regularly sending her bribes, for years;
• a District Attorney;
• the Chairman of the new-and-improved Judicial Qualifications Commission who Weaver hired to represent her in the related FBI investigation;
• Commission members who, despite OBVIOUS evidence of a criminal scheme to bribe a judge and quash those who revealed improper financial transactions of the judge, decided that that evidence is worth nothing and that the good sitting judge is the victim of a vendetta, based on personal dislike, by two people - an attorney who allegedly is intentionally spreading false claims about the judge, and a "so-called journalist";
• attorney Mary Beth Priest - with $17,000 out of her bribery account and by a judicial nomination, TOGETHER with the $17,000, right then and there, during the court proceedings during which Mary Beth Priest WAS paid off by Brenda Weaver;
• judge Joseph Worcester who was appointed on the same day as Mary Beth Priest - and, in return for the kind nomination by Weaver, "served" as a judge who signed the illegal arrest warrant of Thomason and Stookey AND as a witness for the prosecution;
• The judge who handled the secret arraignment of Thomason and Stookey in jail and, knowing that proceedings against Thomason and Stookey were illegal, coerced people who were not given proper food, clothes, sleeping arrangements, into a "choice" - sign pre-trial "bond conditions", agreeing to warrantless searches and drug pee tests and an order of protection blocking them from further investigating public corruption, or continue to stay in jail where they will be further denied food, water, clean underwear - or any underwear for that matter, or medical attention, and where they will be CRIPPLED sleeping in freezing cells upon metal benches without mattresses, pillows, blankets, any bed sheets, or on a cement floor, in the company of convicted criminals.  

And, that is not to mention that Brenda Weaver obviously corrupted the Judge's own husband George Weaver who, reportedly, was PRESENT in court when the "racial slur" (which Weaver reportedly ordered erased from the transcript and the audio file) was uttered, and repeated, and who TRIGGERED the whole controversy by advising the African American witness in a criminal proceeding, Allen DeRay Green, who was called, laughingly, "Nigger Ray" by the Sheriff, the Sheriff's investigator, and by the presiding judge - to sue the county.

All that George Weaver's wife was doing was justify bribes the county was paying her and trying, on her own side to ERASE THE EVIDENCE against the county that could be used in a lawsuit that Brenda Weaver's own husband George Weaver advised Allen DeRay Green to file.

And, victims of Brenda Weaver's corruption reported to me that they received calls from people in town telling them that George Weaver was taking bets, $1000 a pop, that Thomason and Stookey will be arrested by a certain deadline, a week ahead of the deadline, because, reportedly, George Weaver was pissed that Thomason and Stookey made his wife look like a fool.

It is interesting to mention that the timing of Thomason's and Stookey's arrests reportedly fit the timing of the deadline George Weaver reportedly set for his bets.  

I disagree with George Weaver's assessment of the situation - Thomason and Stookey did not have to MAKE Brenda Weaver LOOK like a fool.  She did it for them, together with her husband.

But, what also boggles my mind - why George Weaver, a licensed attorney sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution, who was a MATERIAL WITNESS from the very beginning, because:

• he was present in court, as an attorney of record for a party, at he time the slurs was mentioned;
• he HIMSELF made statements, according to witnesses, objecting to the slur;
• he HIMSELF then gave the African American witness legal advice to sue the county - 

why then George Weaver refused to be deposed about that, and

why then George Weaver was present in the courtroom when Judge Christian heard, and dismissed, the motion against Thomason and Stookey for attorney fees (that his wife already paid off from her bribery account) - while the whole proceedings was to seek access to the audio from which George Weaver's wife ordered to erase her own husband's statements, as well as statements of the judge and the police officers?

Why be so blatant?

Why not even to hide that he was upset that Thomason and Stookey were NOT slapped with attorney fees?

Why, as I was told, slam his briefcase on the table and then leave and slam the door in anger?

Who is the fool in this situation?

But - you know the new local rumor?

A new judgeship is being prepared for the much-enduring residents of the Appalachian circuit.

Alison Sosebee would be offered in the place of Brenda Weaver who, as I was told, is contemplating to not try to stay on the bench any more.

I guess, the Weaver-Ralston-WhoKnowsWhoElse pact approved Sosebee for a judgeship.

She earned it.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part V - what is the State Attorney General waiting for?

This is my 5th blog in the series about corrupt State of Georgia Judge Brenda Weaver - by the way, it is a mystery for me why she is still on the bench since her term was supposed to expire in 2016.

My previous blogs, Parts I through IV - are available on the right in the list of blog articles.

My question to the State Attorney General, the Chief State Officer charged with prosecuting crimes within the state is - what are you waiting for, Mr. Christopher Carr?

You have TWO public documents CONFIRMING in black and white that three counties of the State of Georgia - Fannin, Pickens and Gilmer - openly BRIBE ALL CIRCUIT judges in the Appallachian Judicial Circuit.  All of them.

Why didn't you arrest everybody who:

1. gave these bribes;
2. received these bribes,
3. benefited from these bribes and
4. engaged in an elaborate scheme to quash and run out of business and out of town anybody who tried to get access to records of this criminal scheme or to make that criminal scheme known to the public.

Here are the PUBLIC admissions in documents, about that criminal scheme, Mr. Carr, for your convenience.

First, the State Judicial Qualifications Commission issued a decision just one week ago confirming that criminal scheme, but, due to the fact that the Commission may be well paid out of the bribery accounts of the circuit judges - well, at least Judge Weaver hired the Chairman of JQC to represent her in a related FBI investigation, and I doubt that the Chairman did that for Brenda Weaver's beautiful eyes.

Here is the decision, Mr. Carr.

Look what it says.

You have a ready admission, Mr. Carr, of the State Judicial Qualifications Commission, based on their investigation, that counties - and, very possibly, more than just Fannin, Pickens and Gilmer counties - fund "operating accounts" of "each of the judges" in the Appallachian Circuit.

It is a crime, Mr. Carr, don't you know?

I understand that your position as the ATTORNEY FOR JUDGE WEAVER - in case she is sued for violation of Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey's civil rights, as you always do - will prevent you from prosecuting Judge Weaver, your own client.

But - have some decency, really, have somebody neutral appointed for an investigation of this criminal scheme.

Because - it has been established already in California, for example, in a completely identical case, that for counties (parties in lawsuits appearing in front of STATE judges) to GIVE STATE JUDGES MONEY, in addition to what they get from state budget financing - is A CRIME of BRIBERY.

That's why the corrupt California Legislature, permeated by licensed attorneys whose law licenses are in the hands of those same judges, gave California judges involved in the bribery scheme retroactive CRIMINAL immunity, Mr. Carr.

And here is the second document for your attention, a letter to Judge Brenda Weaver on the official letterhead of the Gilmer County Board of Commissioners, signed by a public official, Sandi Holden, a Finance Officer of the Gilmer County Board of Commissioners.

In that letter the Gilmer County Finance Officer Holden acknowledges that not only the County has been bribing a State Court judge, but that it has been doing that for at least three years.  Finance Officer Holden talks about cancelled checks deposited into the Appalachian Judicial Circuit Account.

JQC decision speaks about SEVERAL such accounts, one per each judge.

So, Mr. Carr - you have a CONFIRMED criminal bribery scheme, KNOWN participants, CONFIRMED existence of documents.  

And that confirmed bribery scheme is only the tip of the iceberg of what ELSE Judge Brenda Weaver and her crew did and has been doing, obviously, for years, in her stables.

What are you waiting for now?

Maybe, you need to look for another job if you cannot do your own - prosecute CRIMES?

And yes, I have a right to ask that question - because the State of Georgia uses federal funds, and my own tax money, too, to pay YOUR salary, Mr. Carr.  

So, do your job, please.

Or - leave and let somebody else do it.

On the benefits of secret arraignments in New York - Part III. The program has no legitimacy under the current New York State law - and confirmed its secrecy and thus unconstitutionality by not inviting journalists to the ACTUAL arraignments

In my first two blogs on this topic - see Part I and Part II I pointed out that the new little arrangement of the New York State Court Administration, a "pilot program" in response to a settlement in a lawsuit charging that New York State, for 54 freaking years did not comply with the 6th Amendment right to counsel for criminal defendants at arraignments, contrary to the 6th Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court precedent confirming it - Gideon v Wainright, 332 U.S. 375 (1963).

The "pilot program" was announced, with much fanfare, through a press-release from the New York State Court Administration, and a combined press-conference of the Broome County Sheriff and the Chief Administrative Judge of the 6th Judicial District Molly Fitzgerald.

The problem with this "program" is - that it ENTIRELY lacks legitimacy under the current New York law.


1.  Criminal procedure is bound to statutory and constitutional law, not "arrangements" by court administrations

An arraignment in a criminal proceeding is a creature of statute in New York.  How arraignments are to be held is determined not by courts, but by an entirely different branch of the government - the State Legislature.

And, even though the press release of the New York State Court Administration did feebly mention some "state law" that supports the "pilot program", the "state legislation" in question is no more than a budgetary provision given to the New York State Court Administration to implement measures to satisfy a SETTLEMENT IN A LAWSUIT for violation of indigent defendants' right to counsel.

That is not the same as giving the Judiciary Branch a sudden right to legislate and change Criminal Procedure law, the statutory law of the State of New York, as to when, where and how arraignments in criminal proceedings are to be held.

Illustrative in this respect is the opinion of Judge Veronica Gordon, a Town of Union judge who is not an attorney:

Press & Sun Bulletin out of Binghamton, NY cited the opinion of this clueless judge who hailed arraignments in jail and claimed that it is ok to do arraignments for ALL municipalities within the 6th Judicial District for arrests that happened over the weekends or at night (and you bet, once you heard about the "convenience" and "cost savings", the police will make sure, more, if not all arrests, will be happening this way) - because after that arraignment the cases will be supposedly FARMED OUT (her words, not mine) to the appropriate courts where defendants should have been arraigned in the first place.

In fact, the arraignment cannot happen FIRST some place out of court, right after an arrest of a criminal defendant by the police and THEN "farmed out" to the court of appropriate jurisdiction.

A criminal case in New York, under Article 170 of New York Criminal Procedure Law, in fact has to START in a court of appropriate jurisdiction by FILING in that court of a jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument.

Only then an arrest warrant may be issued BY THAT COURT, and only then the criminal defendant must be brought to an arraignment TO THAT COURT.

Of course, there are exceptions to the warrant rule, when the police arrests a person without a warrant, but exceptions to the warrant rule are rare and allow the police a warrantless arrest only if the police actually apprehends a person in the commission of a crime.

In ANY event there is no arraignment without filing of an accusatory instrument.

And, the accusatory instrument is not valid if it is not filed in the appropriate court, not in some jail room.  And, Criminal Procedure Law does not allow arraignments in jail - period.  Does not.  And no judge is allowed to change that - only the Legislature, which did not change Criminal Procedure Law as of yet.

So, this little program is clearly unlawful under the statutory law of the state of New York.

2.  Arraignments must be PUBLIC as a matter of constitutional due process rights of criminal defendants

Criminal proceedings anywhere in the United States, as a matter of due process, must be public.  There is no such thing in this country as "Star Chamber" criminal proceedings in private - even if some judges and some courts attempt to seal some proceedings and some records of such criminal proceedings.

And, it is very obvious why arraignments in jail are not public and will not be public.

First, in Part I of this blog series, I provided an entire table explaining constitutional problems with this little "arrangement".

As part of that table, I pointed out that jail security rules will create multiple restrictions on the public which will prevent such proceedings from being public proceedings.

And, lo and behold, my theories were confirmed in the flesh, through the reporting of the actual "professional" journalists, on permission from the police and the Court Administration.

Because usually, when an arraignment is happening in a courthouse, journalists come TO THE ACTUAL ARRAIGNMENT.

In this situation, a journalist:

• showed an empty "courtroom" in the Broome County Jail; at the same time claiming that
• it is a new program, but that
• 14 arraignments already happened in that program.

And, the question is - why, if this is a "friendly" journalists allowed into the heart of hearts of the Broome County Jail and who is invited to do the honor of conducting a press conference of Judge Fitzgerald and Sheriff Smolinsky about the event, didn't these nice people allow that same journalist to actually SEE AT LEAST ONE DAMNED ARRAIGNMENT?

How it is actually happening in jail?

How the jail actually accommodates the public to attend that arraignment?

Why-why-why it did not happen?

But - you know the answer, why.

Because these arraignments are MEANT to be secret, in violation of criminal defendants'

constitutional right to PUBLIC criminal proceedings, and of every stage of those criminal proceedings.

They are MEANT not only as a measure of convenience for the police, judges and prosecutors - but, they are meant, for example:

• for the public not to see that the criminal defendant was beaten up during the arrest (happens ALL the time, especially to minority defendants); or tortured with too-tight plastic handcuffs eating into his/her wrists, or mistreated in any other way (starved, brought through frosty weather in inadequate clothes, barefoot etc.) - and cameras will not be allowed into jail to document the defendant's injuries, as it can be done outside a courtroom;
• for indigent bail bond witnesses not to be able to appear at the "centralized" location in the jail; 
• for prosecutors to be able to obtain from the bought wholesale (one-for-all-defendants) assigned counsel (which may raise MAJOR conflict of interest problems, by the way):
• waiver of defendants' right for a felony hearing - or a immediate free release from jail without bail or bond;
• waiver of defendants' speedy trial rights; and
• presence of defendants' "counsel" at the time the prosecutor announces readiness for trial - which will later prevent the defendant from claiming such readiness was never properly announced (which would have happened if the defendant does not have counsel, and a one-for-all counsel is as good as have NO COUNSEL, or worse, a counsel who will surely sell you out for the personal benefit of being assigned to that "graveyard shift").

You know, sometimes I just desperately WANT TO BE WRONG.  Really, really, really.

I put out a legal theory, a legal analysis, because, based on the facts and applicable law, it APPEARS to be bad, but, in my heart of hearts, I hope against hope that it is not THAT BAD.

And I thought - maybe, just maybe, they WILL allow members of the public into those arraignments, conducted at the office of prosecution's witnesses - which is BAD, BAD, BAD already.

But they did not.

Not even journalists.

They only allowed - even journalists - to see only an empty room.

Without the judge, without prosecutors, without defense attorneys, without defendants - and certainly without the public.

Only an empty JAIL room, with a locking door.  Positioned as a "courtroom" of an unknown jurisdiction.

So - it IS bad.

Because - if the so-called "free press", the TV station that was allowed to handle the press-conference of the judge and the Sheriff about the "pilot program" was just fed information that, ALLEGEDLY, 14 arraignments were already had under the program, but was not allowed to be actually present at a single one of these arraignments, you can see what chance a garden variety average citizen from the street can have to be present at those arraignments - absolutely none.

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.