"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Saturday, October 28, 2017

How we enable public prosecutors to commit crimes in office - the case of Suffolk County (NY) DA Thomas Spota and his criminal charges - too little, too late

Violation of civil rights is a criminal offense, I found today from the criminal federal indictment of Thomas J. Spota, the just-resigned and now former District Attorney of Suffolk County, New York.

Spota is charged as Count 4 of the indictment as an "accessory after the fact to the deprivation of John Doe's Civil Rights.

Here are the full charges from the docket report of the criminal case against Thomas Spota.

Here is the full indictment against the former DA Spota:

The indictment had more or less vague and conclusory statements of what was it that Spota did wrong.

Reporters hunting for juicy details provided a less sterile view of why exactly former DA Spota was indicted.

Yet, as juicy as the indictment against the now-former DA Spota can be, Count 4, accompanied with review of the list of civil rights lawsuits against former DA Spota in the official electronic register of such cases -, raises a bigger question.

Why wasn't he indicted earlier?

Spota has been sued many, many, many times for violation of civil rights (see below the list of lawsuits against him from as of yesterday, codes 440 "civil rights", 445 "Americans with Disabilities Civil Rights in Employment", 550 "prisoner petitions - civil rights") - and most of these cases were dismissed, on prosecutorial immunity grounds.

And, dismissal of civil civil rights lawsuits on judge-invented immunity grounds should not have prevented charging DA Thomas Spota for the CRIME of violation of civil rights under 18 U.S.C. 242 through criminal indictments in every single case where he was sued - because sworn statements from witnesses about violation of civil rights are enough to charge with such a crime, and every single civil rights lawsuit requires that it be sworn - certified under oath.

Here is the list of lawsuits against Thomas Spota available on as of yesterday.  There are 131 cases listed on Pacer against Spota, some of them where he was an attorney, but still, here is the list where codes 440 and 550 - civil rights and prisoner civil rights - repeatedly appear.

Gaps in the farthest right column, "Date Closed", indicate lawsuits against Thomas Spota that are still ongoing.

There are 18 (!) such ongoing lawsuits as of today, plus two on pending appeals.  10 are pending for over a year, 7 are pending for over 3 years, 5 are pending for over 5 years and one is pending for over 7 years.  And that is with existence of absolute prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts which courts use to get rid of civil rights litigation against prosecutors immediately!  I wonder what former DA Spota did so that even the extremely biased federal courts let civil rights lawsuits against him proceed for such a length of time?

Date filed Code Meaning of code Case Number Duration of litigation as of October 27, 2017 Spota's role in case
1/6/2010 440 Civil righs 2:2010-cv-00032 7 years 9 months Defendant
5/27/2011 440 Civil righs 2:2011-cv-2588 5 years 5 months Defendant
3/20/2012 440 Civil righs 2:2012-cv-01455 5 years 7 months Defendant
8/28/2012 440 Civil righs 2:2012-cv-04327 5 years 2 months Defendant
8/28/2012 440 Civil righs 2:2012-cv-04327 5 years 2 months Defendant
4/10/2013 440 Civil righs 2:2013-cv-2104 over 3 years Defendant
4/17/2014 442 Employment 2:2014-cv-02473 3.5 years Defendant
11/17/2014 445 Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment, Civil rights 2:2014-cv-06731 2 years 11 months Defendant
6/27/2016 440 Civil righs 2:2016-cv-3431 1 year 4 months Defendant
7/5/2016 440 Civil righs 2:2016-cv-3723 1 year 3 months Defendant
12/22/2016 440 Civil righs 2:2016-cv-07047 0 years 10 months Defendant
5/8/2017 530 Habeas corpus general 2:2017-cv-3135 0 years 5 months Respondent
5/8/2017 530 Civil righs 2:2017-cv-03135 0 years 5 months Defendant
8/17/2017 440 Civil righs 2:2017-cv-4853 0 years 2 months Defendant
8/21/2017 442 Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment, Civil rights 2:2017-cv-04897 0 years 2 months Defendant
8/24/2017 550 Prisoner petitions - civil rights 2:2017-cv-05023 0 years 2 months Defendant
9/29/2017 440 Civil righs 2:2017-cv-05706 0 years 1 month Defendant
10/13/2017 360 Other personal injury 2:2017-cv-06006 0 years 1/2 months Defendant

While I will try, time permitting, to look into what kind of civil rights cases were not dismissed - as usual - on prosecutorial immunity grounds against former DA Spota, the question remains:

why do we, People of the United States, the constitutional source of power in the government, allow our prosecutors to have judicially (and thus illegally) granted prosecutorial immunity for corrupt acts and for violation of the U.S. Constitution?

Why did we allow Article III federal courts that DO NOT have authority to legislate, not only to legislate, but to carve out an exception to the U.S. Constitution - granting certain classes of people, starting from judges themselves, and extending to prosecutors, the usual breeding ground of judges - an exception to their own constitutional oath of office?

Why are we asleep at the wheel and allow prosecutors to become bolder in their lawlessness because - as the example of DA Spota shows, he's been sued for years by victims of his criminal behavior, and for years federal courts who are tasked by the U.S. Congress through the Civil Rights Act to protect THE VICTIMS of civil rights violations, protected THE PERPETRATOR, under an illegally - judicially - granted "absolute immunity".

By the way, such immunity was granted (illegally) by the U.S. Supreme Court on a pretext that attorney discipline is enough for prosecutors.  Of course, U.S. Supreme Court knew at the time it was spouting this illegal nonsense that prosecutors are never disciplined.

But, the whole idea of usurping the exclusive authority of Congress to legislate and giving immunity to prosecutors, the main source of the judiciary, for CRIMINAL behavior and for oath-breaking?

Why do we enable and encourage prosecutors to commit the FEDERAL CRIME of civil rights violations by protecting them from accountability to their VICTIMS by allowing courts to give them immunity from that CRIMINAL behavior?

Why do we allow the same judges and prosecutors who give themselves (judges) and prosecutors absolute immunity for MALICIOUS and CORRUPT acts authority to block our access to grand jury to prosecute them criminally for that behavior?

Because they do.

You won't be able to access the grand jury without presentation by a prosecutor.

I still remember how I talked to Delaware County (NY) Senior Assistant DA John Hubbard asking him why wouldn't he prosecute then-judge Carl Becker for falsifying court records, filing a falsified certificate of elections going back go 2002 when I pointed out that there is no documentary proof of his legitimacy on file?  It is still there, in that record, falsely certified by Delaware County Board of Elections while underlying documents that could prove or disprove that he was ever elected in 2002 were long gone.

You know what the now-DA Hubbard told me then?  "Tanya, why?  Why are you doing it?  Why do you need to do this?"

You know what the now-DA Hubbard DID NOT tell me at that time?

That he was the freaking LAW PARTNER of Carl Becker before Becker usurped the bench.  That came out only after 
  • Becker ran from the bench in July of 2015 during an State Comptroller and an FBI investigation, as well as several of his cronies in Delaware County shortly before him and shortly after him;
  • Hubbard's boss Dick Norhtrup was elected a judge on November 4, 2015;
  • I was safely suspended from the practice of law, on November 15, 2015, less than 2 weeks after Northrup's election, for criticizing Carl Becker for the same falsification of election records
    • in a secret proceeding that
      • I had a right to open,
      • asked to open, but
      • was denied my right to an open proceeding right there in the Delaware County so that people who know me and whom I represented would come and see what exactly I am charged with, and without a hearing, 
  • Northrup was sworn in (unlawfully) by the same Becker, who was not a judge any more by that time, was a private attorney and did not have a right to swear in new judges into office, but was still allowed to don a black robe and swear in a new judge.  That Becker was allowed to unlawfully don back the black robe and swear in Northrup as a new judge speaks volume about their closeness and favors they likely exchanged over the years.

After all that, Hubbard ran for a DA himself and now disclosed to the public, in January of 2016, that actually all this time when he was a Senior Assistant District Attorney, his office appeared in front of his own former law partner - without any disclosures in criminal proceedings about that.

Hubbard and Northrup were opponents of my clients in criminal felony cases before Becker for years, they NEVER made a disclosure that Becker is Hubbard's former law partner.

And, both Hubbard and Northrup faithfully locked the doors of the grand jury against prosecutions of themselves, any Delaware County officials known for their corruption, and, of course, their benefactor tossing them victories in criminal cases - former law partner of John Hubbard Carl Becker.

The same way as former DA Spota obviously locked the doors of the grand jury for investigations against himself and the police, and that situation continues until now.

While there is no double jeopardy in charging people for crimes in BOTH state and federal court, the only way former DA Spota was charged was only in federal court.  No state prosecutor dared present a criminal charge against DA Spota to a state grand jury.

And, former DA Spota is old.  Very old.

So, he was allowed to violate people's civil rights with immunity for years and decades, so one does look for reasons other than those stated in the indictment for why in reality he was indicted now.

Somebody desperately wanted his powerful seat that he was clinging to?

The whole story is disgusting, but it is time for people across the country to see that nothing good is coming out of prosecutorial immunity and insist that their legislative representatives do their jobs and to have them
  • legislatively outlaw, once and for all, judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and introduce penalties FOR JUDGES for any attempts of applying it;
  • put the power to present cases of public corruption to grand juries into citizens' hands directly,
  • remove the secrecy from the identities of grand jurors and from grand jury proceedings, on both "true bills" and "no true bills", at least after the fact when an indictment was already rendered proceedings, at least after the fact;
  • take away authority of "legal advisors" to prosecutors as parties of criminal proceedings disqualified from being such an "advisor" by their dual role, acting both as advisors of the indicting body and as party to litigation - which provides prosecutors an opportunity to block criminal grand jury investigations and indictments against themselves and public officials they are closely tied with.
Until and unless that is done, cases like DA Spota will be popping up - only when the feds condescend to bring criminal charges against state officials, which happens next to never, and only when there is no way of concealing the garbage any more.

We deserve better.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part XI - The Governor of the State of Georgia and his aversion to sunshine in his own office

Just filed an open records request with the Governor of the State of Georgia, and, boy, it was fun - actually, not.

This is the Open Records Request I have filed.


Mr. Deal:
You do not have a subsection in your "required list" of an Open Records Request, so I had to choose something else. This is an open records request. Also, you do not provide the e-mail of the Governor's office, which is a public record, but require me to provide mine.  Please, provide within the period of time required by law, to the above mentioned address and email address, copies of the following public records: e-mail of the Governor's office, e-mail of the Appallachian Circuit court administration,  all records pertaining to nomination and appointment of Mary Elizabeth Priest in 2016 as a judge.

Thank you


Remember - that was the Mary Elizabeth Priest who Judge Brenda Weaver paid off, by paying her $17,000 from state Judge Bradley's bribery account funded by three counties, and by having her appointed as a judge by the State Governor Deal, in an extremely timely and expeditious manner, while she was still representing the stenographer who apparently cooked both the transcript and the audio, so that these two court "documents" would match and not show racial slurs by Judge Roger Bradley and, according to witnesses, at least two law enforcement officers who were in the courtroom.

Nothing too crooked, not at all.

I received this response to my Open Records Request from the Governor's website:

Yet, I have no way of proving I filed my Open Records Request - because the Governor of the State of Georgia does not seem to be too friendly with Open Records requests.

First, the Governor of the State of Georgia only gives you a mailing address and a telephone number to file your open records requests.

Despite proudly posting on his "Contact us" page Facebook and Twitter accounts, there is no way to contact the Governor through Facebook, attempts to do that throw you back at an online form (not e-mail address).

Instead of providing an e-mail address for the quickest Open Record Requests that would leave a record with the requesting party and proof that the request was made, the Governor's website provides a link to a form.

This is a well-known trick of governments to duck Open Records Requests by creating conditions when people cannot provide proof they ever filed an Open Records Request - the ideal proof would be an e-mail, creating an electronic record that the request was sent, with a time-stamp.

Not so.  The Governor for the State of Georgia prefers snail mail or phone calls - the only way of preserving evidence of an oral records request to be filed over the phone would be to record it.

I did.

The gentleman who answered the phone at 404-656-1776 in the office of the Governor Nathan Deal of the State of Georgia, after hearing that I want to file an oral Open Records Request (which is allowed under the Georgia law), got off the phone the minimum of 3 times to consult with somebody as to how to deal with me.

He was clearly unprepared to deal with such a request, and at first claimed that that phone number was only for "constituents".

I told him that there was no such restriction on the website.

He then told me that I need to file my Open Records Request with the Office of the State Attorney General.  I said that I wanted to file my request specifically for public records in the Governor's office.

After some off-the-phone consultations he tried to re-route me to another person, but first asked me if I am an individual or an organization - which was irrelevant to the nature of my request.

I honestly told that I am just a private individual.

After some more consultations off the phone, he said that he needs my name, then he will transfer me to the supposed Open Records officer.

I said that I would prefer to give my name to that Open Records officer directly, if that becomes necessary.

Then he consulted off the record once again and came back to me, directing me to file my oral Open Records Request by e-mail, to

A minute's search showed me that a Roy Barnes was the State of Georgia's Governor from 1999 to 2003.  If the gentlemen at the Governor's office thought it was some kind of cute joke, the joke is entirely on him, since the way the Governor's office acted was a clear violation of the Open Records Act.

This is the form that I was forced to use in the first place when I filed an Open Records Request following the link "email the Governor".

Here is the screenshot of the form that occurs when you follow that link:

The drop-down list in "What is Your Message" section does not include an Open Records Request, and does not include "Other" as an alternative option, so you have to choose something entirely different from what you want if you want to file an Open Records Request.

After I sent my Open Records Request this way, this is the only proof that I've sent it that I received (and the window in the "message" was too narrow to preserve in a screen scan my entire Open Record request):

That's it.

So, there is no proof whatsoever that I have ever filed an Open Records Request - short of my recording of the telephone conversation with the Governor's Office, of course, where the Governor's Office ducked my attempt to file an oral Open Records Request by directing me to the e-mail of the former Governor whose term expired in 2003, 14 years ago.

Beautiful job, Governor Nathan Deal.

As I see, your office is very much pro-sunshine.

But, that was not all.

I have actually filed my Open Records Request, in an expanded format, by sending it to the e-mail address the Governor's office so kindly gave me, as well as to the "reply to" e-mail address that came with the confirmation e-mail from the Governor's office that the Governor will be given my message filed through the online "Contact us" form.

Once again, here is the response from the Governor's office to my online filing.

Here is the "reply to" e-mail address from that e-mail:

Here is my e-mail to that address, copy to the e-mail address that the Governor's office directed me to send my Open Records Request to:

And - here is the instant response from the official "reply-to" Governor's office e-mail address:

My message could not be delivered because:

  • "the remote server is misconfigured", and because
  • "Recipient address rejected: access denied".

So, the Governor's office makes sure that you cannot file an Open Request by any means, and, if you do, you requests will be rejected (as mine was, twice - orally and in an electronic format) and evidence that you ever made them not preserved.
As a result - dear Georgians, enjoy the sunshine - outside, in the very literal sense.  That's enough of sunshine for you.  Sunshine in the government all remained as a fake promise on paper - as Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey have learned the hard way, see my previous stories of their saga for exercising their right to access public records in the full-of-sunshine State of Georgia, Parts 1 through X in the blog list on the right.

Update as if 18:05 on October 24, 2017: I have got a response from a Rhonda Barnes from the Governor's office who claimed that she will be handling my open records request, and that she has never met former Governor Roy Barnes.  I will take that claim at face value now, give Ms Barnes the benefit of the doubt and wait for production of documents.

I will publish any documents provided to me in response to my open records request to the Governor of the State of Georgia.

Meanwhile, I am finishing review of other documents I recieved in Mark Thomason's case and will shortly start publishing them, too.

Stay tuned.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

How the free press taught President Trump how to bash the 1st Amendment - and the free press

I see a lot of "mainstream media" articles lately about President Trump threatening to revoke licenses of news outlets for supposedly publishing what he considers "fake news" - and about how bad his behavior is, that it is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

And - it is in violation of the 1st Amendment.

There is no question that the government may not quash the press simply for the publications critical of the government.

But, in this particular situation - where the "free press" is horrified of the President threatening the free press with adverse consequences for criticizing this particular President - who brought this on?


Let's recall how the same free press was bashing Donald Trump, at that point only a presidential candidate, and not a public official - for what, remember? - for criticizing a judge.

Whether Trump had good reasons to criticize that particular judge or not - I think, he did, see my blogs about it here and here if you are interested in the essence of that controversy - is not so relevant to the core question:  did Trump have a 1st Amendment right to criticize the government?

Because - judiciary is part of the government, remember?

At that time, the "free press" raised a firestorm explaining why it was inappropriate for Trump to criticize a judge - because it was "racist" apparently to point out the judge's own background as having "Mexican heritage" (as I said in my blogs, Trump did not go far enough in his criticism, the judge not only had "Mexican heritage", but was also the so-called anchor child of illegal immigrant parents, which required his disqualification because he identified with the people, just like the judge's own parents, who Trump pledged to deport), and because the judge was "widely respected".

Well, the same "free press" now moderates comments on their articles in social media - and removes (censures) comments that are critical of the articles, see my blogs about it here and here

But, the same media leaves in and does not moderate or censure out vile personal attacks making racist comments about the President's skin color, hair color, length of his sexual organ, his bedroom activities with his wife, claiming his wife is a porn star - and that's just the blandest descriptions of what is actually posted, and what the "free press" allows to be posted in comments, again, while erasing comments that are critical of the issues in articles and are actually relevant and on point.

If we distill the issue down to the very basics, we have the following question:

Does ANY individual in the United States have a right to criticize the government under the 1st Amendment?

The answer seems a no-brainer.

Of course, everybody has a right to criticize the government in the United States.

Yet, the free press appears to instill into the readers a double standard.

The "rule" of the "free press" since 2016 was that that "somebody" does not have a right to criticize the government if he is a private individual (even though a presidential candidate) who certain media sources do not like.

And, that "somebody" does not have a right to criticize the government if the public official criticize is a judge - because it somehow undermines public "trust" in the integrity of the judiciary.  

In other works, do not criticize a particular judge for potential appearance of impropriety, bias or misconduct in order to help the judiciary as a branch of the government to save face in front of the public.

Well, the "free press" has itself to blame now, because President Trump appeared to have learnt the lesson - that in certain times censure of criticism of the government is good.  That's what the press and comments told him in 2016.  Shut your mouth, Donald Trump, and do not criticize a judge.

In other words, shut your mouth, a private individual, and do not criticize the government.

Isn't it what Trump is returning to the "free press" now - shut your mouth in your criticism of me, the public official, or I will yank your broadcasting license?

Saturday, October 14, 2017

The #JudgeBrendaWeaver saga, Part X - the fight against access to the tampered court audio file in the Louisiana doppleganger case

In my previous blog, the Part IX of the #JudgeBrendaWeaver series, I published a comparative table with a Louisiana case where an attorney was punished for PROVING that court audio records were tampered with - in order to protect a judge who failed to disclose her own financial interest in the real estate company who she assigned to deal with equitable distribution of a couple's real estate in a divorce proceedings.

Here is that story in documents.  I publish these documents as a cautionary tale of what Brenda Weaver and her crew of accomplices may be up to next, following the example of Louisiana Judge Phyllis Keaty and her crew of accomplices.

Here is the first request, a peaceful request by an attorney to a court reporter to prepare a transcript of a certain hearing in a divorce case.

Here is attorney Christine Mire's 

request to court reporter Kathy Mathews:

The stenographer responds as peacefully and gives the attorney a cost quote for the transcript.

The attorney obviously paid for the transcript, received it, reviewed it - and found it troubling, because it contains something that she did not hear happening in the proceeding where she was present.
  She asks either for a copy of an audio, or, to accommodate the stenographer and save time for everybody involved - simply to come and listen to the audio at the stenographer's office.

Well, that's what Mark Thomason in Georgia had to sue for - simply to listen to the audio of a public court proceeding that was reportedly made public (only not to him) to the Sheriff's department to listen to and laugh, around a water cooler.

Here is what attorney Christine Mire in the doppleganger case in Louisiana asked the stenographer to do:

And here is what the stenographer did - asked for a delay of disclosure, and got on the defensive claiming that she values her professional integrity and considers such a request a challenge to that integrity.

After several delays were given to the stenographer, and she was nowhere near complying and providing access to the audio file, attorney Mire moved for a deposition of the stenographer - and that was all done as a due diligence process in preparation of a motion to recuse the presiding judge Phyllis Keaty.  Since attorneys are severely punished for making "unfounded false accusations" against judges, attorney Mire had more than enough reasons to establish any discrepancy or irregularity (or criminal conduct, as in tampering with court records), through documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses.

So, attorney Mire, asked court reporter Kathy Mathews to come and be deposed under oath regarding the audio file.

The stenographer asked for yet another delay - now for a delay of the date of the deposition:

Attorney Mire agrees to change the date.

Moreover, attorney Mire accommodated the stenographer even further - she offered to release her from the duty to testify on a subpoena if she simply provides a certified copy of the audio.

In answer to that reasonable offer, the stenographer sues Christine Mires client to block him from access to the audio file, and, for that she hires Susan Theall,


  • represented the opponent of Christine Mire's client in a divorce proceedings under a very interesting circumstance: she actually employed the presiding judge's law clerk as her secretary!;
  • represented Christine Mire herself in the past as Christine Mire's divorce attorney;
  • employed Christine Mire; and
  • was her close friend

Here are interesting details about Susan Theall revealed in testimony of Christine Mire in Christine Mire's attorney disciplinary proceedings (where Susan Theall, Christine Mire's former own attorney, employer and friend, testified already as a judge who replaced Phyllis Keaty on the bench - while Phyllis Keaty moved to greener pastures, to an appellate court):

First of all, why would a law clerk of a judge not be FULLY employed by a judge.

Why would it be even allowed for a law clerk of a judge to be employed in any other capacity by anybody else.

Why would a law clerk of a judge be allowed to be hired AS A SECRETARY - and by whom? - by an attorney appearing in front of that same judge in court?

Knowing that law clerks do research and advise the presiding judge on how to decide a case, it is completely inappropriate to have that same law clerk PAID by an attorney for one of the parties - and that is exactly what was happening in this case.

For that alone, Susan Theall was supposed to be DISCIPLINED as an attorney and, likely, disbarred - instead of being elevated as a judge herself.

But - the testimony was happening after Susan Theall actually became a judge

- as Mary Priest became in the Georgia case, as an obvious payoff for her frivolous behavior helping to cover up of tampering with court audio by judge Brenda Weaver.

By the way, Susan Theall is now running for the appellate court - the same court where her friend and co-conspirator Judge Phyllis Keaty is seating, and shamelessly panders to the public her supposedly high ethics and integrity:

So, after Susan Theall was caught in paying off the law clerk of the presiding judge through an additional "employment" as a "secretary" and got off the case, Susan Theall was hired by the court stenographer to represent that court stenographer in a case that the stenographer brought against Christine Mire's client, to block him from access to the audio file - which obviously could not show any disclosure of the conflict of interest by Judge Keaty, for the simple reason that such a disclosure never happened.

It did not work though.

A subpoena duces tecum was issued against the stenographer, signed by Deputy Clerk of the Court.

In an email to Kathy Mathews attorney Mire explains that it is her duty to her client to prudently discover information pertaining to recusal of a judge in the pending divorce proceedings.

Susan Theall immediately moves to recuse the presiding judge in the related access to audio action that the stenographer filed (Mathews v Hunter) claiming that Theall represents yet another judge, Judge Mary Broussard, presiding over the access to audio action: 

#SusanTheall also files on behalf of the court stenographer Kathy Mathews a motion for an order of protection and restriction of access against attorney Mire's client:

In that motion, attorney Susan Theall cites to a multitude of reasons why the equipment of Kathy Mathews should not be provided for the deposition - after Christine Mire clearly advised Kathy Mathews that she will release her from the necessity for any subpoenas if she, very simply, provides a CERTIFIED copy of an audio instead of coming and being deposed.

Such a motion was obviously frivolous.  But, since Susan Theall was a friend of judge Phyllis Keaty, employing the judge's law clerk - and in the not-so-distant future, in 2010, Theall showed herself publicly as being "member of online community" supporting Keaty's election campaign -

Susan Theall was never disciplined for her frivolous motion.

Attorney Mire responded to the motion for an order of protection and restriction of discovery and access to the court audio files and cross-moved for sanctions.

In the motion for sanctions, Christine Mire very clearly explained why restriction of access to the audio file was not warranted.

Meanwhile, an additional attorney, Anthony Fontana, joins representation of the court reporter:

Anthony Fontana represents everything, from wills and trusts to sexual abuse to maritime law to felony defense.

Here are two masterpieces that this male attorney has sent to his female attorney colleague, Christine Mire, copy to Judge Phyllis Keaty.

I specifically draw your attention to the language that attorney Fontana

an elderly white guy, uses against his female colleague, a dark-skinned young woman:

Attorney Fontana makes a direct threat against attorney Mire, who was a witness of what Judge Keaty did or did not disclose in court proceedings, and thus did not need an audio to testify about it herself - "These allegations [that Kathy Mathews made "additions" to and/or "alterations" to the trial Court's statements in the official transcripts of the Hunter proceedings] made in public records without you having listened to the tapes first are being taken very seriously by my client.  These allegations are serious and damaging to my client's position as an officer of the Court, to her reputation and business as a Court reporter.  She intends to hold both you and your client accountable for the damages".

First of all, when making such a threat, attorney Fontana knows that his threats are frivolous and inappropriate - because attorney Mire is fully covered by litigation immunity against any claims of defamation against the court reporter.

Moreover, as a witness to what Judge Keaty said in court, she can very well herself testify that "additions and alterations" were made to the transcript, without listening to the tape, and she can use her own personal knowledge as a witness to seek the audio, because the transcript reflects what was not said in court, and that is an "addition or alteration" all right.

On top of that, Attorney Fontana allows himself a completely uncivilized behavior with a younger colleague, a minority woman, calling her letter "pure garbage", specifically because she dared to suggest what was screaming into everybody's face - that Attorney Fontana's client cooked the transcript, and refuses to give access to the audio because it will be clear from the audio.

In two months after the first threat, attorney Fontana escalated the threat and now threatened a criminal action against Christine Mire AND her client - same as it was actually done in Georgia to Mark Thomason and his attorney Russell Stookey.

In his letter, attorney Fontana continues to engage in uncivilized language and to call attorney Mire's legal writing "rantings"

Well, Christine Mire actually WON access to the audio, against tremendous odds, and at a tremendous personal risk to herself, doing her due diligence in preparation of a motion to recuse.

And, she had a technical expert testify under oath as to the actual tampering of the court audio file to put into it a separately recorded audio file where Judge Phyllis Keaty purports to disclose the conflict of interest that she never actually disclosed.

In respect to providing to the public the actual PROOF that:

  • court audio files CAN BE tampered with technically, and that
  • they ARE ACTUALLY tampered with;
attorney Christine Mire went, to my knowledge, further than anybody else in this country.

Of course, such an assumption makes no sense whatsoever, at least because judges gave themselves a gift of immunity specifically for their CORRUPT acts on the bench, despite their oaths of office to honestly enforce and uphold U.S. and state Constitutions and laws.

Moreover, judges did not stop at giving themselves the gift of immunity for corrupt behavior, but corrupted their personnel by giving THEM the gift of immunity for THEIR corrupt behavior.

Of course, nothing so persuades one in the integrity of a person as that person's gift of immunity for corrupt behavior to himself and to his close circle of friends and accomplices.  

For the publication of the testimony of the technical expert as to how the court audio file was "spliced"/tampered with in the Louisiana case, the doppleganger of the Georgia #JudgeBrendaWeaver case - which tampering could not possibly be done without participation of the court reporter in whose possession the audio was,

Stay tuned.