Difference between revisions of "Faux Process And Rubber-Stamped Orders"

The rubber-stamped order is perhaps the most successful tool used to circumvent due process in civil cases. I have witnessed this method of clearing out cases in multiple courts and by different judges across the State of Georgia; it is Judge Brantley's ''modus operandi'' and "if you don't like it, you can appeal," as Brantley would say. Unfortunately, appeals are expensive, not everyone can afford an appeal and the appellate court presents its own unique 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.

The rubber-stamped order is perhaps the most successful tool used to circumvent due process in civil cases. I have witnessed this method of clearing out cases in multiple courts and by different judges across the State of Georgia; it is Judge Brantley's ''modus operandi'' and "if you don't like it, you can appeal," as Brantley would say. Unfortunately, appeals are expensive, not everyone can afford an appeal and the appellate court presents its own unique 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.

<br>

<br>

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. 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. 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.