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

Jump to navigation Jump to search
(username removed)
(username removed)
Line 10: Line 10:
=Passing The Buck=
=Passing The Buck=
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>
</br>
 
In 2018 for example, you presided over a hearing regarding one very specific issue—I represented the defendant in that case. At the end of the hearing, you made an oral ruling in favor of the plaintiff and told the plaintiff’s attorney to draft an order for you to sign. In his proposed order, the plaintiff's attorney inserted a clause that resolved a material issue to the case that was not within the scope of the hearing and cited inapplicable law to justify the bogus ruling. You signed (or “rubber-stamped”) the proposed order, which created additional, unnecessary litigation.
In 2018 for example, you presided over a hearing regarding one very specific issue—I represented the defendant in that case. At the end of the hearing, you made an oral ruling in favor of the plaintiff and told the plaintiff’s attorney to draft an order for you to sign. In his proposed order, the plaintiff's attorney inserted a clause that resolved a material issue to the case that was not within the scope of the hearing and cited inapplicable law to justify the bogus ruling. You signed (or “rubber-stamped”) the proposed order, which created additional, unnecessary litigation.


(username removed)

Navigation menu