Difference between revisions of "Faux Process And Rubber-Stamped Orders"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Passing The Buck
(username removed) |
(username removed) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
In 2017, Judge Bowers presided over a hearing regarding one very specific issue in the case. I represented the defendant in the case. Judge Bowers made an oral ruling in favor of the plaintiff and told the plaintiff's attorney to draft a "proposed order" for the judge to sign. In his proposed order, the plaintiff's attorney inserted a clause that resolved an additional issue to the case and cited inapplicable law to justify the bogus ruling. Judge Bowers signed (or "rubber-stamped") the proposed order, which created additional, unnecessary litigation to simply undue Judge Bowers' improperly signed order. That was the first time I ever dealt with a rubber-stamped order. While it was disheartening to witness a fellow attorney attempt such an underhanded maneuver, it was far more terrifying to see the tactic succeed at the hands of a judge. Another Cobb State judge corrected Judge Bowers' order at a subsequent hearing, and I moved on with my career believing that this was simply an honest mistake by a busy judge; I never expected that rubber-stamping was this judge's ''modus operandi'' for managing his caseload. Time proved otherwise. | In 2017, Judge Bowers presided over a hearing regarding one very specific issue in the case. I represented the defendant in the case. Judge Bowers made an oral ruling in favor of the plaintiff and told the plaintiff's attorney to draft a "proposed order" for the judge to sign. In his proposed order, the plaintiff's attorney inserted a clause that resolved an additional issue to the case and cited inapplicable law to justify the bogus ruling. Judge Bowers signed (or "rubber-stamped") the proposed order, which created additional, unnecessary litigation to simply undue Judge Bowers' improperly signed order. That was the first time I ever dealt with a rubber-stamped order. While it was disheartening to witness a fellow attorney attempt such an underhanded maneuver, it was far more terrifying to see the tactic succeed at the hands of a judge. Another Cobb State judge corrected Judge Bowers' order at a subsequent hearing, and I moved on with my career believing that this was simply an honest mistake by a busy judge; I never expected that rubber-stamping was this judge's ''modus operandi'' for managing his caseload. Time proved otherwise. | ||
In 2022, I was hired to defend a civil matter in Fulton County that | In 2022, I was hired to defend a civil matter in Fulton County that should have been dismissed and closed with a 5-minute hearing by a competent judge. However, the Fulton judge presiding over the matter had her own agenda and was not interested in making decisions based on the facts and the law. After multiple unsuccessful motions to recuse the presiding judge, the Fulton County judiciary recruited Judge Grant Brantley from Cobb County to take over the case. With Judge Brantley now assigned to the case, I had high hopes that my client would finally get a fair shake and the case would be dismissed as it should have been over two years ago. That was not the case. Rather, Judge Brantley took the baton from the previous judge, executed the "rubber-stamp" process with impunity in favor of the opposing party. That case is still pending. To an experienced lawyer or judge, it would appear that Judge Brantley knew absolutely nothing about the applicable law and simply didn't care to. Again, the case should have been dismissed in 5-minutes and closed over two years ago. | ||
The Georgia Code of Judicial Ethics bars the mere ''appearance'' of impropriety. As to the practices and habits implemented by Judge Brantley, it "appears" that recklessly rushed rulings and "rubber-stamped orders" are | The Georgia Code of Judicial Ethics bars the mere ''appearance'' of impropriety. As to the practices and habits implemented by Judge Brantley, it "appears" that recklessly rushed rulings and "rubber-stamped orders" are regularly used tools for closing cases. He's simply not preparing for cases over which he presides and blitzes to the conclusion he wants without properly verifying the law or facts to his cases. And to justify these practices, Brantley asserts that "If the losing party doesn't like it, they can deal with it on appeal." This way of rapidly closing cases is severely flawed as it often times unnecessarily expands litigation; and many people cannot afford the long-drawn-out appellate process while, in the meantime, their rights and liberties can be trampled with no recourse pending appeal. Further, appellate judges have their own backlog of cases and to '''"pass the buck"''' onto the Court of Appeals is an irresponsible use of State resources and doing so causes irreparable harm to a party. | ||
In 2022, Judge Carl Bowers publicly praised Brantley stating: "He's given me great advice many, many times over the years when I worked with him," and "I learned so much from him that I use today in the courtroom in state court." Bowers went on to say that " | In 2022, Judge Carl Bowers publicly praised Brantley stating: "He's given me great advice many, many times over the years when I worked with him," and "I learned so much from him that I use today in the courtroom in state court." Bowers went on to say that " | ||
(username removed)