Difference between revisions of "Faux Process And Rubber-Stamped Orders"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
(username removed) |
(username removed) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
(2) The judge picks a prevailing party and tells the attorney for the "prevailing party" to draft a proposed order for the judge to sign.<br> | (2) The judge picks a prevailing party and tells the attorney for the "prevailing party" to draft a proposed order for the judge to sign.<br> | ||
(3) The prevailing party's attorney drafts the order and inserts wording awarding additional remedies that were not within the scope of the judge's oral ruling.<br> | (3) The prevailing party's attorney drafts the order and inserts wording awarding additional remedies that were not within the scope of the judge's oral ruling.<br> | ||
(4) The judge then signs the order without scrutiny, thus awarding the drafting party the remedies improperly inserted into the proposed order by the prevailing party's attorney.<br> | (4) The judge then signs the order without scrutiny (presumably without reading it), thus awarding the drafting party the remedies improperly inserted into the proposed order by the prevailing party's attorney.<br> | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
I have witnessed this method of clearing out cases in multiple courts and by different judges across the State of Georgia. The rubber-stamped order is perhaps the most successful tool used to circumvent due process in civil cases and "if you don't like it, you can appeal," as Brantley would say. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford an appeal and the appellate court also presents its own barriers to equitable case resolution. Brantley’s way of “passing the buck” onto the Georgia Court of Appeals is an irresponsible use of resources and acts contrary to justice. | I have witnessed this method of clearing out cases in multiple courts and by different judges across the State of Georgia. The rubber-stamped order is perhaps the most successful tool used to circumvent due process in civil cases and "if you don't like it, you can appeal," as Brantley would say. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford an appeal and the appellate court also presents its own barriers to equitable case resolution. Brantley’s way of “passing the buck” onto the Georgia Court of Appeals is an irresponsible use of resources and acts contrary to justice. | ||
(username removed)