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

In 2019, I represented a mother in Muscogee County in a custody battle for her 5-year-old son. The mother had primary custody at the time and an intermittent hearing was held to potentially appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to the case. The judge asked the father’s attorney to draft an order appointing the Guardian Ad Litem. The opposing counsel drafted the “proposed” order for the judge to review. In the proposed order, however, the opposing attorney inserted a clause that changed full custody from the mother to the father. The judge signed the order without scrutiny and the mother lost primary custody of her son without notice or a hearing on the matter. It took over a year for the mother to get primary custody of her son back.

(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>

Rubber-stamped orders are perhaps the biggest threat to 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.

In 2022, Judge Bowers publicly stated that "Brantley’s given [Bowers] great advice many, many times over the years when [Bowers] worked with him," and "[Bowers] learned so much from him that [Bowers] use today in the courtroom in state court." While Judge Bowers did not specify exactly what “advice” Judge Brantley has given you that you use in the courtroom, my personal experience shows that, like Brantley, Judge Bowers executes the "rubber-stamp" process systematically. In 2018, Judge Bowers presided over a hearing regarding a very specific issue—I represented the defendant in the case. At the end of the hearing, Judge Bowers made an oral ruling in favor of the plaintiff and told the plaintiff’s attorney to draft an order for Bowers 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. Judge Bowers signed (or “rubber-stamped”) the proposed order, which created additional, unnecessary litigation.  

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 he recklessly rushes rulings and "rubber-stamps" orders systematically to rapidly close 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. Presumably, a 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.