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.

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.