Difference between revisions of "Faux Process And Rubber-Stamped Orders"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Passing The Buck
(username removed) |
(username removed) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
In 2022, I was hired to defend a civil matter in Fulton County that should have been dismissed with just one hearing by a competent judge. However, the Fulton judge presiding over the matter 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 simply reaffirmed the bogus rulings of the assigned judge with his “rubber-stamp” MO described above. It would appear to a competent lawyer or judge that Judge Brantley knew absolutely nothing about the applicable law in the case. That case is still pending—though, again, it should have been dismissed and closed over two years ago. | In 2022, I was hired to defend a civil matter in Fulton County that should have been dismissed with just one hearing by a competent judge. However, the Fulton judge presiding over the matter 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 simply reaffirmed the bogus rulings of the assigned judge with his “rubber-stamp” MO described above. It would appear to a competent lawyer or judge that Judge Brantley knew absolutely nothing about the applicable law in the case. That case is still pending—though, again, it should have been dismissed and closed over two years ago. | ||
[[File:RubberStamp.jpeg|left|200px|Faux Process]] | [[File:RubberStamp.jpeg|left|200px|Faux Process]] | ||
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 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. | 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 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. | ||
Unfortunately, the primary cause of Judge Brantley’s heightened level of impropriety is that he—like other senior judges—is not subject to election or re-election and has the benefit of remaining in a perpetual ''lame duck'' term. In short, senior judges cannot be held accountable and, therefore, a conventional approach for curbing Judge Brantley’s behavior is unavailable. Thus, challenging Judge Bowers is my unconventional attempt to make a positive impact on resolving this senior judge conundrum. While I understand that Judge Bowers is an active State Court judge and not a retired Senior Superior Court judge, I firmly believe that opposing Bowers in this election is a step forward to resolving the issues at hand. | |||
=Conclusion= | =Conclusion= | ||
(username removed)