The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part III - that racial slur that had to be erased

I had to start a new series of blogs about the atrocious behavior of Georgia State Judge Brenda Weaver, see Part I and Part II here - and the crew helping her in persecuting a journalist and an attorney, to the point of

• financing a lawsuit against them out of her own "slush" account through which three counties, obviously appearing in front of "her" court as parties in litigation, regularly "financed" her "supplemental expenses" - in other words, regularly bribed her, as it happened also in Los Angeles County recently, where an identical scheme was exposed by attorney Dr. Richard Fine, PhD,
• nominating to a judicial position the unscrupulous attorney, Mary Beth Priest, who agreed to counter-sue the journalist in an obviously frivolous defamation counterclaim for defamation of the court reporter; the judicial vacancy in question appeared when judge ran from the bench because of the racial slur that Mary Beth Priest helped keep out of the audio, transcript and public domain;  Mary Beth Priest was bought/bribed by Brenda Weaver not only with a judicial position, but also with plain old money, $17,000 out of her fund that was, according to witnesses, financed with bribes from 3 counties; 

• nominating judge John Worcester to another Superior Court position at the same time with Mary Beth Priest, while John Worcester then inexplicably emerges as the judge signing the arrest warrant of Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey AND on the witness list in the same criminal proceeding - which was an absolute disqualification for Judge Worcester to sign the arrest warrant;
• having Judge Widington who Brenda Weaver recommended to fill the vacancy of a magistrate because he will "do the job the way [she] would want it done" to handle the fallout in the criminal case after journalists picked up on the arrest of Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey (planned and boasted ahead of time by George Weaver, Brenda Weaver's husband, at the marina where they keep their boat and jet skis) - it was Judge Widington who quickly appeared in jail, and quickly coerced Thomason and Stookey, who was on the verge of a diabetic coma from starvation, to sign pre-trial "bond conditions" demanding both Thomason and Stookey to agree to warrantless searches, pee drug tests and to a stop of further journalistic investigation, agree to an order of protection which would functionally shut down Mark Thomason's newspaper by demanding them to keep away from the very public officials they usually investigated and wrote about;

• having her own former law clerk Alison Sosebee who Brenda Weaver's husband George Weaver financially supported in her election campaign and who supported Brenda Weaver in her election campaign, charging the journalist and his attorney with felonies; 
• having them arrested, harassed in two jails over the period of two days, starving them, while one of them was an elderly diabetic (there will be a separate blog about jail conditions and procedures in Fannin and Pickens County of the State of Georgia),
• putting them into grand jury proceedings,
• influencing that grand jury proceeding that, according to witnesses, initially did not want to return "a true bill"/indict (there will be a separate blog about that) and
• backing off from criminal charges only after a public outcry.

By the way, there is a story to be told how Brenda Weaver herself obtained her own first judicial nomination - but that story is for another blog article.

The need for a new series of blogs about this dirty story arose because Brenda Weaver did not stop when she "agreed" to the dismissal of the charges against Mark Thomason and attorney Russel Stookey under pressure from the public and the journalistic community of the State of Georgia.

Instead, she pulled on the political connections she could pull to create a document that she could further use to discredit and destroy both Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey.

Let's remember that her connections were enough to thwart an FBI investigation (well, we know that FBI investigations can be easily thwarted nowadays, remember the little meeting in the airport between Loretty Lynch and Bill Clinton?), to thwart a disciplinary investigation despite TONS of documentary evidence reportedly submitted to JQC and despite MULTIPLE witnesses who were ready to come forward, but who JQC never bothered to interview.

Let's remember that her connections included the Governor who appointed TWO judges on her nominations EXACTLY at the time she wanted them to be nominated, and, as I am told by people with knowledge, her connections with Governors of the State of Georgia go all the way to her own initial nomination, as part of yet another "round table back room deal".

Let's remember that her connections included her former boyfriend the Speaker of the State of Georgia Legislature David Ralston, an attorney himself and an extremely "ethical" guy who, right before the jail ordeal with Mark Thomason and Russell Stookey happened, was found in an ethical violation as an attorney - and reacted by immediately appointing two of his own defense attorneys you know where - to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, bypassing the suggested recommendations by the State Bar of Georgia.

Sure, the Speaker may make such appointments independently.  And, sure that there is a conflict of interest in having the bar recommending attorneys (regulated by the judiciary) to regulate the judiciary. 

But, since in other circumstances the same Speaker usually followed recommendations of the Bar in appointing of attorneys to the JQC, here the Speaker surely created quite a different conflict of interest - preserving the "goodwill" of the judiciary to himself as a licensed attorney whose license was regulated by the judiciary. 

It is apparent how these things go - you appoint your defense attorney to "regulate" judges, so that you have a say which judge is to be regulated how, and the so-"regulated" judges will take it easy on regulating your own law license.

With the Speaker of the Legislature on her side, the Chairman of the JQC representing her in an FBI investigation - which, according to witnesses, was going full speed into a federal criminal indictment of Brenda Weaver, had an approval of a federal judge, and then quickly folded for an unknown reason with insider sources quoting political connections being used to influence the U.S. Attorneys' Office - Brenda Weaver obtained a dismissal of iron-clad complaints against her for her atrocious CRIMINAL misconduct.

I will separately run a blog summarizing conflicts of interest and providing a whole list of people who should have recused from this case for absolute disqualification - but didn't.

Here is what was reported by several witnesses who did not know one another and did not have a reason to lie, to Mark Thomason as a journalist, as to what happened in court before Judge Bradley.

A gentleman by the name of Robert Vivian, who is white, charged with arson, was out on bond.

The prosecution was alleging that the defendant was trying to intimidate a witness - and that was a bond violation.

The prosecution asserted that Robert Vivian went to a female witness's house and intimidated her at a certain day at a certain time.

Robert Vivian, the defendant, hired Judge Brenda Weaver's husband, George Weaver, to defend him in that proceeding - which should have sent Brenda Weaver far away from being even remotely associated with anything related to this proceeding based on her husband's status as a witness and his personal interest in the case.

George Weaver was present in court that day as Robert Vivian's lawyer.

Well, George Weaver presented to the court an exculpatory security video from a local Ace Hardware store, purchasing lumber and building materials at the very same time as he was accused being in another location, at the female witness's house, allegedly intimidating her.

One of Robert Vivian's helpers was African American by the name of Allan Green who built houses.

The parties were prepared to call witnesses, and the Judge, Judge Roger Bradley, reportedly said - "Who is our next witness? I do not have the name here". 

And that's when the Sheriff spoke up and said: "Oh, it's old Nigger Ray outside".

The judge then said: "I am sorry?"

Then the prosecutor, the Assistant DA Morris Martin said - "All we have is a nickname, I believe", and the Sheriff's Investigator Justin Turner said: "That's right, it's Nigger Ray!". 

And, at that point the investigator and the Sheriff, according to witnesses, elbowed each other in the belly and laughed.

At that point Judge Roger Bradley reportedly said: "Nigger Ray?  That's funny.  You know, there used to be a guy named Nigger Bob who lived behind the courthouse here, and everybody knew that he was a bootlegger. So, Nigger Bob would make his moonshine all through the week and sell it to everybody in the Blue Ridge.  As a matter of fact, I think I might have bought some moonshine from Nigger Bob before. So, considering the fact that our next witness is Nigger Ray, does anybody know if Nigger Ray is related to Nigger Bob?"

According to witnesses, during all of this being said, Brenda Weaver's husband George Weaver, defense attorney for defendant Robert Vivian, was interrupting the judge, and, as soon as the judge finished his statement, George Weaver immediately called for a recess.

Since the proceeding was not recorded by the stenographer, but was audio recorded, too, there should have been George Weaver's statements on the court recording interrupting Judge Bradley in his racist reminiscences.

In fact, witnesses recall George Weaver saying on record, interrupting Judge Bradley - "No, no, no, his name is NOT Nigger Ray.  His name is Allen DeRay Green, and I ask if this court can take a recess".

According to witnesses, George Weaver then comes out of the courtroom, where Mr. Green is standing in the corridor, looks right at Mr. Green and says: "Ray, you won't believe what they've called you in there.  You need to hire an attorney, you are gonna own this county." 

Then, George Weaver began to explain what happened in the courtroom to Allen Green.

Several witnesses interviewed by Mark Thomason about what happened who did not know each other (names of witnesses are known, but I will not publish them here as yet) confirmed the story independently of one another.

So - that was the story why Judge Bradley resigned from the bench, why the transcript and the audio, as the Judicial Qualifications Commission confirmed in its order of dismissal of FOUR disciplinary complaints against Judge Brenda Weaver, who was the wife of a WITNESS in the proceeding where the sensitive information about the judge's, the sheriff's, the sheriff's investigator's and her own husband's statements disappeared without a trace from the transcript AND from the official court audio recording, did not have that story recorded and reflected in the official court record.

Here is what JQC "found" in the order of dismissal:

Yet, the Brenda Weaver-bought Judicial Qualifications Commission had to know, based on evidence provided to them, that Senior Judge Martha Christian DID have much more than "innuendo" or "speculation" to keep the case going and grant an investigation of the CRIMINAL TAMPERING OF THE COURT AUDIO AND TRANSCRIPT - but for some inexplicable reason did not do that.  It had affidavits of witnesses as to what was said that day in the courtroom - but chose not to interview them.

And, according to Mark Thomason who was allowed (not the first time, though, the first time Judge Christian allowed only attorneys to hear the tape) to hear the audio - and only in chambers of the judge. 

The hearing in chambers was with a court reporter, but somehow Mark Thomason has a hard time obtaining the transcript of that particular proceeding, that includes, according to Mark Thomason, arguments with Judge Christian that whenever the offensive racist language was supposed to be on the audio, there was a conspicuous long pause clearly indicating that the audio was "cleaned up". 

Moreover, the judge allowed the stenographer, the Defendant in the civil action for access to record, to CONTROL THE EVIDENCE and to show the actual audio tape - thus enabling her to stop it and start it and skip whatever portions she did not want to be heard.  In fact, this is NOT how evidence is to be shown in court, especially in such a contested matter, and the experienced Senior Judge Martha Christian cannot pretend she did not know it.

Rhonda Stubblefield's equipment containing the audio HAD to be SEIZED, submitted to a neutral court expert investigator to be SEQUESTERED in court and reviewed only with the help of a neutral court operator to show the evidence, and the Defendant should not have been allowed to handle the disputed evidence herself.

Moreover, in view of accusations of tampering with the records, the case should have been immediately transferred out of the court which was accused of tampering with the court records, to a completely different area where people who could be witnesses or perpetrators in such tampering would not have access to the evidence.

But that would have been done if proceedings were to be handled honestly.

What happened in these proceedings is:

• Judge Martha Christian removed the hearing of the audio tape from the public courtroom in camera;
• ordered it heard in camera first only by herself and attorneys - even though that audio WAS MADE PUBLIC because the Sheriff acknowledged to Mark Thomason later that he and his buddies were allowed to hear the same audio tape that was held in such secrecy by the court in an informal setting "around the water cooler";
• then allowed the tape to be heard with participation of the parties - Mark Thomason and Rhonda Stubblefield, but allowed Rhonda Stubblefield to handle the equipment - raising the question why Rhonda Stubblefield was needed for that since she was needed for the initial review of the same audio tape by the judge and attorneys only;
• allowed the equipment to be handled during review by the Defendant;
• never ordered sequestration of the equipment and of the audio - ENABLING further tampering;
• scolded the petitioner for raising the obvious issues of tampering with the court records, when he heard the conspicuous pauses in the audio that did not match SWORN witness accounts as to what happened; and
• dismissed the proceedings quickly - because the obviously cooked transcript matched the obviously cooked audio of the court records.

Moreover, after the judge dismissed the petition for open records AND the respondent withdrew and agreed to dismissal of her defamation counterclaim, the judge somehow accepted a motion in a now dismissed proceeding where the judge already LOST JURISDICTION for attorney fees - because, as Brenda Weaver claimed in her letter to Mark Thomason, Brenda Weaver considered that the court reporter "prevailed".

Only after Stubblefield's new attorney Mr. Herman, Mary Beth Priest's 80-year-old law partner who stepped into the case after Mary Beth Priest was safely bought off by Brenda Weaver out of her bribe account AND by nomination to the "friendly" Governor for a judicial position made a faux pas, a slip of the tongue, demanding that the COUNTY taxpayers not suffer more than they already did, having to pay for Ms. Stubblefield's expenses - which was a CONFIRMATION OF DOUBLE BRIBERY - by the County to Brenda Weaver and by Brenda Weaver to Mary Priest and Rhonda Stubblefield - that Judge Christian summoned the remaining dregs of decency and dismissed the motion for attorney fees against Mark Thomason AND attorney Russell Stookey, the motion that she should never have considered in the first place.

Yet, even such an admission did not cause Judge Christian to reopen the case of access to records and court records tampering.  After all, she had her own judicial position to worry about.

By no stretch of imagination can SUCH proceedings be called "honest".

So, contrary to what the Judicial Qualifications Commission concluded, the fact that the (cooked) transcript matched the (cooked) audio was not the END, but was supposed to be the BEGINNING of an honest disciplinary AND CRIMINAL investigation against Judge Brenda Weaver, the court reporter Rhonda Stubblefield, and her attorney (now judge) Mary Beth Priest, and especially so because, according to Mark Thomason, court reporter Rhonda Stubblefield called him on the phone returning his calls for the audio (before the lawsuit) and, while being on speakerphone, in the presence of another witness, admitted that she was TOLD by Judge Weaver to not show in the transcript or audio anything that "you guys in the media are seeking".

But, the question now is - who is going to conduct that criminal investigation?

The Sheriff's office that is INVOLVED in the case as a co-conspirator and witness?

The District Attorney's office that is involved in the case as a co-conspirator and witness?

The FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office that is involved in the case as a co-conspirator after the fact and witness of Brenda Weaver pulling on her political strings and thwarting the FBI investigation, as well as the JQC disciplinary investigation?

How about honestly appointing a special investigator to investigate this DIRTY MESS?

Where an independent journalist and an independent attorney investigating public corruption of a judicial officer are cruelly prosecuted - and now defamed - by the same judicial officer?

The officer whose HUSBAND, for God's sake, was a WITNESS in the initial proceeding and who should not have been near the case?

As to how exactly courts cook transcripts and audios, the techniques that could have been used by stenographer Rhonda Stubblefield and Judge Brenda Weaver -

and I have a personal experience with such a thing, and will tell you about

• an unsuccessful attempt to prosecute me for exposing that cooking in a criminal proceeding, about
• a successful attempt to prosecute me in a disciplinary proceeding for that, and
• about a successful attempt to prosecute another attorney, in another state, in a disciplinary proceeding, but for the same thing - for PROVING, through hard irrefutable evidence that courts cook their own records - 

Stay tuned.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga - Part II. What's not to like in #JudgeBrendaWeaver's "slush fund"/"court operating account"?

In my today's blog I published the dismissal of ethics complaints against Georgia Judge Brenda Weaver (here she is, on the left, receiving a "Citizen of the Year 2015" award):

- made by a team where the "impartial" investigators and adjudicators:

• were her former colleagues and subordinates of many years;
• one was her own attorney in an FBI investigation - Edward Tolley (he recused);
• the Executive Director was the employer of her own daughter (requiring the recusal of the entire panel, but that did not happen);
• and many were appointed by the person who was, reportedly, her former sweetheart (David Ralston).

By the way, Ralston is himself an attorney, was himself accused two years ago, in a formal disciplinary proceeding, of violating 9 state bar rules.

And, there is an interesting coincidence - things happen to people who investigate and prosecute these two former sweethearts, Ralston and Judge Weaver.

The two people who were investigating Judge Weaver:

For Thomason - Weaver's and sheriff's friends reportedly talked advertisers not to support Thomason's newspaper, effectively shutting down his business;

For Thomason and his attorney Stookey - they were harassed, intimidated, sued, an attempt was made to slap both of them with $17,000 of attorney fees from an already dismissed action, then they were arrested, stripped naked, put in jail cell with convicted criminals, starved (for Stookey, who is over 70 and is a diabetic, it could end up in coma and death), and then harassed some more.

Now, the dismissal of their ethical complaint against Brenda Weaver who orchestrated all of the above against a journalist and his attorney, simply for doing asking for access to public records, sounds like a slap in the face - because in that dismissal, Brenda Weaver's friends and appointees of her sweetheart 

• deny that there was evidence - while it was provided to them;
• ignore witnesses who were willing to testify, moreover, there were miles of depositions, with transcripts ready from Mark Thomason's petition for the audio; and
• accuse the victims of Brenda Weaver's misconduct of falsely blemishing the pristine name of a "sitting judge" because of their "personal dislike".

The only word combination that I personally like in the phrase about the "sitting judge" is just that, the "sitting judge".

Because Brenda Weaver, for all that she has "weaved", should be a sitting - albeit former - judge.   And she should sit exactly where she was trying to put Thomason and Stookey, in jail.

Now, as to investigators and prosecutors of her protector and former sweetheart Speaker Ralston, things happened to them, too, not as drastic, but things did happen.

In 2015, attorney Mark Dehler resigned from David Ralston's state bar disciplinary case - and went on to head the Georgia State Judicial Qualifications Commission, to replace the then JQC Chairman, attorney Lester Tate who resigned from JQC claiming that "outside political forces were trying to undermine the agency’s independence."

Gee, who would do that?

Then in August of 2016, when complaints were filed against David Ralston's former sweetheart Judge Brenda Weaver, Mark Dehler resigned from the JQC, too - and you know who replaced him as the Director of the Commission?

But, you know who was the Chair of the JQC after Mark Dehler resigned?

Please, don't cry.

It was Brenda Weaver herself.

She resigned from that position 10 days after Mark Dehler resigned, and only under public pressure, because of her persecution of a journalist and his attorney.

After that, the Commission was in limbo - and a former judge who has run from the bench TO the legislature, where Judge Brenda Weaver's former sweetheart was Speaker (do you follow the connections?  It is easy to get lost in this quagmire), spearheaded, with good intentions, of course, the drive to "reform" the Judicial Qualifications Commission - through a referendum.

And, there was a referendum - where voters were not explained what exactly the Commission is, the reform is going to be, and it was just too short a time to explain to the voters that what was offered was yet another sham, because when the MAJORITY of members and staff of the Commission are attorneys or judges, and when judges regulate attorneys' livelihoods, there is no possibility that this crew will be impartial and will consider public interest first and their own personal interests second.

And now, the "new and improved", "neutral" team of (corrupt) investigators and adjudicators from the Judicial Qualifications Commission, irreversibly tainted by ties to Brenda Weaver either through representation, or through employment of her child, or through appointment by her sweetheart, or through prior work on the commission or in courts, made, among other things, the following findings:

And here comes a problem with ... how to put it mildly and politely ... let's say, semantics.

Because the so-called "operating account" of Judge Brenda Weaver is not really an official account.

Because, from what Mark Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey found out, there was NEVER - NEVER an audit of that account.

Because, from what Mark Thomason and his attorney Russel Stookey found out, that account is replenished, every three months, not out of the State of Georgia's budget - as a state court must be funded - but by three local counties, the Fannin County, the Pickens County where, coincidentally, Mark Thomason and Russel Stookey were arrested, starved and abused in the respective county jails, and the Gilmer County.

Moreover, these counties do not even try to conceal that they do give Judge Weaver, a judge of a state court financed from state funds - money, while the County very obviously has to appear in front of that court in multiple proceedings.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is criminal, and that is not just my theories, and the only reason why the FBI did not yet pick Brenda Weaver and locked her up is because of her connections and the astounding audacity (or greed, or both) of public officials backing her up.

It actually happened - a similar scheme was actually exposed, in another state, the blessed State of California,

and the attorney who exposed that scheme was disbarred, jailed and held in solitary confinement for 14 months, by the same people whose criminal behavior he exposed.

The name of the attorney is Dr. Richard Fine, PhD.

The attorney who exposed bribes of the Los Angeles County to local state judges - to the tune of $57,000 addition to each judge's salary, per year - remains disbarred, even though he committed no crime, no ethical violation and his exposure of judicial corruption saved money and was in the public interest.

Judges who were involved in criminal behavior, on the opposite, received a retroactive immunity of their CRIMINAL liability - an unheard of move - from the California State Legislature.

Now, if we compare what was happening in Los Angeles County, California, and in Fannin County, Georgia, there was no difference at all.

Fannin County, together with two other counties, paid Judge Brenda Weaver at least $4,500 in three months, and, according to a tip from the bank, many more checks from Brenda Weaver did not reach her account at all, were not deposited (Thomason checked on both sides, County and bank).

So, County taxpayer money leave the County, the "operating account" that was never audited receives only a small portion of the money, and the rest disappears without a trace.

Looks like a criminal theft from taxpayers to me.

Doesn't it?

Yet, Brenda Weaver believes that her little (or not-so-little) "slush" fund, funded by briberies of three counties, and used by her for bribery of attorney Mary Elizabeth Priest (who she additionally bribed with a judicial nomination) is outside of the State of Georgia's Open Records Act because the bribery fund is part of "judicial records". 

Yet, if the fund is funded by the three counties (like it was in Los Angeles County, California, where the scheme had to be cancelled after its exposure in the media and public outcry about bribery of judges), first, the records are discoverable on the County side - which is very much subject to the Open Records Act, and second, may not be covered under the Open Records Act, because it is NOT an official operating account of the judiciary. 

The bribery fund of Judge Weaver, which may be existing until this day - and legitimacy of which Weaver tried to confirm through the obviously bought dismissal decision of the "friendly" Judicial Qualifications Commission - is not funded out of the official State budget meant for the judiciary and it has never been audited, upon information of witnesses who investigated the matter with the appropriate authorities, as an official court operating account because reportedly Brenda Weaver claimed that it is her account that is not subject to audit.

Also, note that Brenda Weaver, an attorney and judge of many years, has the stupidity of claiming, in print, that the court stenographer "prevailed" in the very proceedings where she voluntarily agreed to the DISMISSAL of her defamation claim - which is the opposite of prevailing.  I will dedicate a separate blog article to the analysis of the merits of the defamation counter-claim, and to misconduct and frivolous tactics of the now-judge Mary Beth Priest in that proceeding.

Apparently, Mark Thomason dug deeper and found much more in terms of "financial discrepancies" of the financially talented Judge Brenda Weaver, which will be revealed in one of the next blogs.

And, since one cannot steal or launder a lot of money while pretending that is done legitimately, without a LARGE number of helpers, the helpers organized and struck, and keep striking, back at Mark Thomason and attorney Russel Stookey.

But - what is very interesting to me, the JQC - if they truly "investigated" the matter - had to do what would amount to the audit of Judge Brenda Weaver's "operating account", had to see that it was funded by counties and not by the state, and had to CHARGE Brenda Weaver for ethical violations ADDITIONALLY - and to turn her into the FBI AGAIN.

Which did not happen.

And my question is - how much money or influence was paid or exerted, respectively, upon the members of the JQC in order to extract from them the shameful decision that they produced.

And, if we are talking about corrupt public officials, how STUPID should you be to get caught like Brenda Weaver was - because she actually PAID $17,000 of COUNTY taxpayer money to the attorney for the stenographer (the same attorney who she paid off with a nomination to the judicial seat right DURING the short court proceedings where Mary Beth Priest represented the stenographer).

How really stupid, arrogant, entitled and vindictive Brenda Weaver, a former teacher, an attorney and a judge of many years must be to, instead of simply RELEASE the damned audio tape that Mark Thomason wanted - because there were MULTIPLE witnesses who heard the Judge AND the Sheriff AND a Sheriff's investigator call the witness "nigger Ray", laughing all the way.

The judge in question resigned anyway.

There was nobody's "reputation" to save.

And, Judge Brenda Weaver should have stayed away as far as possible from the whole situation because HER HUSBAND George Weaver was actually A WITNESS of what was said that day in court, because he was one of the ATTORNEYS OF RECORD that day, and because he was the one who actually went out into the hallway after the exchange of racial slurs happened in the absence of the witness and told that person, in the presence of several people, what he was called, and that he can now sue the County.

Instead of staying far away from the case, Brenda Weaver injected herself into it as much as she could, and did not do it in a smart way either.

WHY would Judge Brenda Weaver thought no better than to:

• order the stenographer to cook the transcript AND the audiotape (the stenographer admitted that to two witnesses);
• deny access to the altered audio;
• closely monitor proceedings, sending that same husband of hers, George Weaver, to be present in the courtroom during public hearings on Mark Thomason's open records petition and the stenographer's counterclaim; and
• pay off the attorney representing that unfortunate stenographer TWICE -
• with $17,000 in taxpayer money out of an unaudited account illegally funded, as bribes, by the three counties, and
• with a nomination to the now-vacant judicial seat left by the judge who used that racial slur?

How arrogant can one become when one climbs to that judicial bench?

As to what actually happened in that courtroom, what exactly was said by the judge and the sheriffs that Judge Weaver ordered erased (which is a crime, tampering with official court records) from the transcript and the audio, about a similar case in another state with a similar judicial misconduct, and about why the tampered audio was not released to the public - I will publish that story in my next blog.

Stay tuned.

Citizen of the Year.  Right.

And the recipient of the Golden Padlock Award of Year 2017.

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga - Part I. Since JQC and FBI refused to consider the evidence of corruption of #JudgeBrendaWeaver, it must be published.

I have written a lot about judicial misconduct in the State of Georgia, and dedicated several posts to the outrageous situation when, in order to cover up the use of racist language by a white male judge, a white female judge engaged in a campaign of persecution of a journalist, Mark Thomason, and his attorney, Russel Stookey, had her former law clerk (and now District Attorney) Alison Sosebee illegally arrest them, throw them in jail, charge them with felonies - and how these courageous people were able to get out of jail and get their charges dropped (but, as far as I know, not expunged yet) only after an outcry started by a no less courageous journalist, Rhonda Cook.

In fact, upon my information, but for Rhonda Cook, at least one of these two people, had a considerable chance of not surviving the ordeal.

I wrote about that persecution of journalist Mark Thomason and Attorney Stookey 

here (with additional links to more blogs within this article) and here.

I also wrote how the State of Georgia appears to target criminal defense attorneys with disciplinary actions for nonsense while allowing attorneys and judges engaged in corruption escape any accountability.

I also wrote how the State of Georgia allows its judges caught in misconduct to escape accountability, run from the bench, get into the legislature, and from there, attempt to squash (oops, "reform") the very body that was supposed, on behalf of the public, to investigate and prosecute judicial misconduct in the state.

As one of the witnesses to this sad story told me characterizing this whole mess with judges "helping out" one another to escape accountability in investigations of corruption - the best way to survive a firing squad is to kill the firing squad, first.

And that's exactly what Judge Brenda Weaver has been doing with the two people who had the audacity to apply for court records and, when told to buzz off, and told, and told, and told again, and threatened, and threatened again, and slapped with a motion for thousands of dollars for attorney fees, and slapped with "judge-friendly media" slander - continued to go on and on in digging more and more and even submitting the entire file to the FBI.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, while our world-renowned "free press" is busy discussing the "flood footwear" and the next faux pas of our President, that same free press, nearly all of it, with few courageous exceptions, turned a completely deaf ear to the BASHING, vicious, cruel bashing of a journalist, who dared to investigate a CORRUPT judge.

Well, the "free press" did not actually turn a completely deaf ear - only a tone deaf ear.

Because, the so-called mass media central press sources DID cover the recent DISMISSAL of complaints (4 of them, including one from a professional association of journalists of the State of Georgia) against Judge Brenda Weaver, saying that:


1. after investigation and talking to ONE witness (Judge Weaver's former law clerk, Judge Weaver's husband's former employee and the prosecutor in the case who signed the arrest warrant Alison Sosebee), the investigation took what Sosebee told them at face value and dismissed the case for "lack of evidence" and as being "without merit"; 

and that

2. the Judicial Qualification Commission is satisfied that Judge Weaver did not influence prosecutor Sosebee in any way in the investigation and prosecution of Mark Thomason and Attorney Russell Sosebee;  

3. JQC noted that the FBI investigation against Judge Weaver has ended with no charges filed; and then

the Commission bashed - no, not Judge Brenda Weaver for using her considerable power and connections for corrupting, as this series of blogs, based on documentary evidence and witness accounts, will show, EVERYBODY who had any role at all in this investigation.  No, the JQC bashed the VICTIMS of Judge Brenda Weaver,

Since such words in such documents under such circumstances are only too familiar to me, as an investigative reporter on judicial corruption of many years, and constitute a "go-ahead" to other authorities to further prosecute Thomason and Stookey in any possible manner they can invent, contrive or fabricate, and 

since the Judicial Qualifications Commission preferred to blatantly LIE to the public that there was no evidence of misconduct of Judge Brenda Weaver when it had TONS of such documentary evidence presented to it, I will start to PUBLISH that evidence -

so that the public would see for itself what exactly Brenda Weaver is and how exactly she "cleared her name", as the "mainstream" "free press" so readily agreed, without doing its job and using their considerable resources to do a proper journalistic investigation, see:

• Washington Post reporting on the dismissal;
• New York Times reporting on the same

See also reports SAVORING the bashing of the victims of judicial corruption, SAVORING that the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which was RIDDEN (as the later blogs will show) with conflicts of interest - "lambasted" the journalist and his attorney for exercising their right to get access to open court records, and be slapped with a defamation lawsuit for their efforts, as well as jailed, starved, charged with felonies, harassed and intimidated.

It all boiled down, in the eyes of the Commission - as reported by the "free press", to Thomason's and Stookey's "personal dislike" of the judge.

There was actually a very courageous article by a local journalist Bill Torpy questioning whether the Judicial Qualification Commission suddenly turned into a judicial lapdog.

After reading these publications and the documents I am planning to publish, you be the judge of that.

My later blogs will show how much of "personal dislike" every honest member of the public in the State of Georgia should have to this corrupt woman.

Let me give you a tiny sneak preview of her "unofficial biography" to come and tell you that:

• She was the Chairperson of the JQC before its "reform" and was forced to resign only long after the complaints were filed, and only because of a public outcry;
• She was represented in the dismissed FBI investigation by the PRESENT JQC Chairman;
• Her daughter works in the law firm of one of the members of the JQC who decided this case and DID NOT recuse, and - to crown it all;
• she DID influence criminal investigation and prosecution of Thomason and Stookey, and there is evidence and witnesses of that, which the corrupt JQC did not want to consider;
• she bought off the attorney for the court reporter not only with money, $17,000 out of her "court operating account" which was supplied - as a bribe - by the County and not the State, similarly to how it happened in Los Angeles County in California recently, but also with a nomination of that attorney to a judgeship, instead of the judge who called a witness "nigger Ray", repeatedly, and Brenda Weaver ordered the stenographer to cook the transcripts and cook the audio tape so that the media "would not get what they want", and there are witnesses to stenographer admitting to that order;
• that the Speaker of the Legislature of the State of Georgia who appointed some of the members of the JQC who decided this case is - guess, who? - Judge Brenda Weaver's former SWEETHEART, and that there is an interesting history stemming from certain arrangements between him, Brenda Weaver's husband's family, and the Governor of the State as to how to make Brenda Weaver a judge.

And that is only a tiny crown of the iceberg of evidence that the JQC - in this composition and with THIS amount and depth of conflicts of interest - would not like to look at and preferred to ignore.

Personal dislike.

Right.

For publication of the ugly story, in a series of blog articles, of how Judge Brenda Weaver

• robbed taxpayers of money,
• robbed taxpayers of honest judicial services,
• robbed taxpayers of their trust in the integrity of the judiciary, and
• corrupted or intimidated everybody around her, with documentary proof and witness accounts - 

Stay tuned.

On arraignments in New York jails - Part II

As I said previously in my blog on this topic, Part I, New York Court administration introduced a "pilot" system of arraignments of criminal defendants in County Jails.

I will repost, for the reader's convenience, the conflicting reports of the goals of that "pilot program"

Declared goal as per press release	Prosecution’s view of the goal	Judge’s view of the goal	Police view of the goal	Public view of the goal
Ensuring indigent criminal defendant’s constitutional right to counsel to comply with a settlement in a lawsuit against the State of New York for violating indigent defendants’ 6th Amendment right to counsel, confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the year 1963, 54 years ago	Convenience to police, cuts of expenses	Convenience to judges	Convenience to police	Consolidation of "services" at arraignment to cut public expenses on such arraignments. Crime control

I did describe in Part I the team of judges introducing the "pilot" program - predominantly former prosecutors with a history of misconduct and/or corruption.

Since then, a reader has sent me a tip about another local news source covering the story and about the outrageous interview of the not-so-bright Chief Administrative Judge Molly R. Fitzgerald (helped, I am sure, by the even less-bright-than-herself law clerk Porter Kirkwood, see description of their "accomplishments" in Part I).

Now, WBNG.com 12News took upon itself to explain to the public what the "pilot program" was about.

And did they explain.

Come again?

From this astounding piece of journalism I, as well as all other readers, have learned that:

• even though the arraignment is the INITIAL stage of criminal proceedings, 
• it applies only to NON-LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

In other words, it is an unnecessary procedure that costs taxpayers money.

Because, if people who are only arrested by the police are already deemed guilty (by WBNG.com's Josh Martin), why do we need arraignments and all other criminal procedures?

Well, I do not think Josh Martin, or his editor for that matter, bothered himself too much with an answer to that particular question.

Presumption of innocence is a complex concept to comprehend, I guess.

But, let's go further down Josh Martin's extraordinary statement.

The "pilot program", according to #WBNG.com's #JoshMartin is actually meant to "SAVE YOU SOME MONEY" and to "KEEP OFFICERS SAFE".

Voila.

Gone are the claims that the program was actually nothing of the kind, but was meant to COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF A CLASS LAWSUIT to actually satisfy the needs for competent legal defense at arraignments for indigent criminal defendants.

Same as with the previous "professional" media source I reported about in Part I of this blog series, Press & Sun Bulletin, Josh Martin of WBNG.com decided to interview none of criminal defenders and none of the criminal defendants - while reporting that 14 of them were already arraigned - as to their thoughts and feelings about the new "pilot program".

The only people he interviewed were:

Judge Fitzgerald and

Police officers.

Well, we owe Josh Martin who in his youthful lack of understanding of the world, actually reported (and video-reported) what police officers and Broome County Sheriff Mark Smolinsky said about the "pilot program":

Holding a court proceeding in a party's witnesses' (prosecution witnesses') office is a great thing, apparently.  A "one stop shop", and it is designed and works well for the convenience of police officers.

And, as Judge Fitzgerald chimed in, for the convenience of judges and attorneys, too.

Nobody recalled convenience of bail/bond witnesses, likely, as indigent as indigent defendants.  Apparently, if it would cost extra money to officers to go to the small municipal courts, if it would be so inconvenient to not-so-poor judges and attorneys to go there "in the middle of the night", as Judge Fitzgerald, who is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, openly admitted, then how inconvenient and costly will it be for defendant's witnesses to appear at the arraignment/bond/bail hearing in a "centralized location" instead of within a walking distance from home?

Remember, the whole program was aimed, and taxpayer money were provided by the legislature, to help INDIGENT defendant - and thus to help their taxpayer-funded defense counsel, NOT to provide a convenience to police officers, prosecutors and judges.

In the included video interview, first, as an introduction, the news anchor asks Josh Martin:

"This is a change that will affect TAXPAYERS across the county, correct?"

And, Josh Martin, instead of showing any knowledge of why the pilot program was actually funded by taxpayers, rushes ahead and repeats his asinine paragraph from the article - with a smirk:

The video piece then quotes Broome County Sheriff Mark Smolinsky saying that "all in all it was the biggest common sense approach to be put in place" and continues:

Josh Martin then repeats his take on what arraignments are - and gives a glimpse of the inside of the improvised "courtroom" within the Broome County jail.

There is an intercom device visible, and a computer monitor, but I did not see an audio recording device - and arraignments must be kept on record.

The overview of the room shows a VERY limited number of seats, and, since the arraignments are to be held in jail, there is only one door - behind the judge - that will be locked, in accordance with jail security rules. 

Imagine if a member of the public wants to enter or exit that courtroom - they will have to ask the judge to ask the police officer to ask the other police officer on the radio to unlock the door and provide surveillance to the member of the public to go pee.  Imagine how many people would like to attend these proceedings, and that is just part of the inconvenience to the public - I described other inconveniences in Part I in a table.

But, inconvenience to the PUBLIC, those people who FUND these proceedings, do not count either - as long as there is a convenience for the police officers, prosecutors and judges

I already explained in Part I, in a table, how jail security rules will affect what was supposed to be a PUBLIC hearing - which neither Josh Martin, nor Sheriff Smolinsky, nor Judge Fitzgerald even try to mention.

So, accessibility of arraignments by the public is not even a big concern of the authorities - it is not a concern AT ALL.

And that, as I said before, is another class lawsuit waiting to happen.

So, dear taxpayers of the State of New York, it is as always - in order to fix one problem, the corrupt team that only knows how to fix things into their own pockets and in their own favor - "fixed" the problem right back into another bigger problem - now depriving indigent criminal defendants not only of proper legal defense, but also of a public arraignment.

Because, if it is so damned convenient for the police officers, prosecutors and judges to hold arraignments in jail - here is what they ARE going to be held, the majority of them, or the majority of them for indigent defendants.

The police will simply and "conveniently" arrest people only on weekends and only at night, in order to put them through the "convenient" - and secret - arraignment procedure behind locked doors.

Martin then reported that the program launched "this past Monday" - and showed a video interview of Judge Fitzgerald.

First, look at the eyes and facial expression of this woman.

This is the Chief Administrative Judge of a very large judicial district.  There is no thought showing in the eyes, none at all.

And here is what she said: "It's more efficient, people do not have to go ... wherever ... (waving her hand) in the middle of the night - they come here.  The room is equipped.  And it's working really well".

This is the degree of thought, the degree of preparation for public speaking, and the ability for PREPARED public speaking that this Chief Administrative Judge of a large judicial district shows.

I keep wondering - WHOSE appointee is she?  Who is pushing the career of this imbecile up and up?

And, of course, Judge Fitzgerald is portrayed at the background of an American flag and framed on both sides in the background by police officers (Sheriff Smolinsky on the right)

- sending the public a clear message what this program is REALLY about, and what their money is REALLY going to be used for - the convenience of judges and police, not ensuring legal rights of indigent criminal defendants, which was what the money was asked and received for.

By the way, at the end of the video, Josh Martin talks, once again, about savings to taxpayers - but claimed that "it is unknown" how much savings the program will bring.  Not even an estimate.

Great program.

Great journalism.

I wonder who will file the new class lawsuit - because it is a matter of time that such a lawsuit WILL be filed.

And, to New York taxpayers - employing brainless, corrupt and arrogant "golden boys" (and girls) COSTS money.

A lot.

#BanBumpStocksNow. On selective hand paralysis of Barack Obama, U.S. Congress - and President Trump

Every day in the media nowadays is just another time for Trump-bashing, or for bashing somebody from his administration and/or family.

Today was no different.

The social media were bashing KellyAnne Conway, for the audacity to accuse the previous president, Barack Obama, for not introducing regulation of the so-called bump stocks - devices that transform semi-automatic rifles into automatic rifles.

I will pass on vulgarities spewed towards Kellyanne Conway. 

It is understandable why Conway is the target of such vulgar ire from anti-Trump commentators - she was retained as the leader of now-President Trump's election campaign and won that campaign for him.

Of course, she must be the worst, and must be bashed relentlessly - about her intellectual and mental abilities, her looks etc.

The avalanche of sewer language that commentators endowed Kellyanne Conway with was incredible.

But, what really caught my attention was a discernible thread of argument, repeated again and again, by different people - that former President Obama asked, begged and tried to cajole the U.S. Congress to regulate bump stocks, and even cried (on camera) because Congress refused to do so - and, for that reason, Kellyanne Conway's finger pointing at Obama who could have prevented the tragedy in Las Vegas was not pointing in the right direction.

Here is how this argument was presented:

Note the focus - "Obama had no support from a Republican controlled legislature".

The same idea, "Congress blocked him at every front", with some insult thrown in for good measure.

Here is yet another variation of the same idea:

I do not know whether George Voinovich said anything of the kind, or whether anything in this statement is true.

But, let's assume that what #TimAdkins, #JesseKershaw, #NancyRuthKeener and those who "liked" or "loved" their statements, believe - is absolutely and positively true.

So, let's agree that the following is true:

Former President Barack Obama wanted "dearly" to introduce a sensible gun control legislation - and specifically, to control bump stocks - but, Republican-controlled Congress did not let him.

And that's why bump stocks remained unregulated.

A good, convenient argument, right?

Well, there is an 800,000 people-strong hole in that argument, and its name is - #DACA.

Because, the same as gun regulation reform, the "Republican-controlled Congress" refused to introduce immigration reform legislation, too.

But, that did not stop Barack Obama from turning around, grabbing a sheet of paper into his fidgety fingers and signing DACA as an Executive Order.

Which takes us to a question - why Barack Obama could not do the same with regulating bump stocks.

Selective hand paralysis?

By the way, for purposes of full disclosure - I voted in presidential elections in this country only once.

In 2012.

For Barack Obama.

And, what I do agree in criticism of Kellyanne Conway for her finger-pointing into the past is - Barack Obama is a former president now.

And, the power to issue executive orders, as well as the choice to put pressure upon the Legislature to introduce

• real gun control legislation that will ban once and for always automatic and semiautomatic weapons in possession of civil population, as well as all devices that turn rifles into such weapons - is in the present President's court, AND
• real increase in efficiency of law enforcement preventing proliferation of illegal weapons through the Mexican border and selling them within the U.S.

is in the hands of another man.  President Donald Trump, and his administration, which Kellyanne Conway is part of.

So - why is the Trump administration spending time criticizing the predecessor instead of actually ACTING NOW?

Let's not engage in nit-picking as to who did what wrong and when.

Let's concentrate on the real issue, here and now.

People DIED.  A lot of people died.  A lot of people were injured.

We cannot bring back the dead.

We cannot, in many instances, health to the wounded.

But, we can help victims' families pay for the funerals, support children and dependents left without support, help the wounded help their medical bills.

And we sure can put pressure on BOTH our Legislature AND our current President to come together, drop infantile behavior and introduce effective measures to make sure such shooting would not happen again - or at least to significantly reduce the likelihood of it happening.

President Trump must shed his own selective hand paralysis, grab that pen NOW, while bump stock is selling like there is no tomorrow after the tragedy in Las Vegas, and issue an Executive Order to ban bump stocks NOW, as an interim measure.

And then, U.S. Congress owes to us to introduce sensible gun-control and anti-illegal-weapon-proliferation legislation - which the President must enforce.

Because, without such legislation - for many of us who would want to just peacefully spend time with friends, listen to the music and celebrate family events, like many people who went to that Las Vegas festival did - there may be no tomorrow.