Difference between revisions of "Georgia Ethics Code Does Not Apply To Fulton Judges"

In what should have been a no-brainer recusal of a biased judge, a slew of Fulton County judges rallied behind their rogue colleague which tragically confirms the already perceived level of integrity held by the Fulton County judiciary.

Beginning in May of 2020, Jackson had been making payments toward the purchase of a home located in The Country Club of the South. As is known, home values have been skyrocketing since at least September of 2021 and, at some point amidst this modern day gold rush, the seller decided he no longer wanted Jackson to buy the home and subsequently hired a company to stage an eviction, which was inevitably botched resulting in what appears to be an array of backdoor dealings among Fulton County Superior Court Judges, the Sheriff and lawyers—or is it all just one big coincidence? Let's review the facts, and you be the judge.

==The Country Club of the South: Fulton County’s Very Own Mar-a-Lago==

Though the McCrackens hired a property manager to execute an eviction, this was obviously not a typical landlord-tenant case—with an alleged rent of $15,000 per month after a $100,000 down payment under a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Having committed to removing Jackson as their buyer, the McCrackens’ property manager refuses to drop the case despite having failed to deliver proper legal notices before initiating the eviction (or "dispossessory") process. At the time the case was filed the real estate market was getting exponentially warmer and it appeared to be in the McCrackens’ interest to pocket Jackson’s investment and seek a new buyer. Jackson offered multiple times to simply pay off the running balance and continue with the purchase, to which the McCrackens’ attorney has repeated "Not a chance!" Clearly, it was never about rent, it was about the sale. But why?

"As an experienced landlord-tenant attorney—often times defending tenants—I have been privy to witnessing behavioral patterns of many landlord attorneys and judges that are complicit with these tactics, and it is very sad to say the least. Whether you have flat out corruption or if you have a judge who simply isn’t paying any attention to detail, it's a very scary situation." McMaster continued: "The other judges turned a blind-eye when we sought removal of Judge Leftridge and relief from what we perceived to be blatant impropriety in Jackson's case. It was almost as if they were saying 'It doesn't matter what the law says, we aren't going to remove our friend from the bench.'"

Because the McCrackens are not a named party to the eviction case, Jackson could not address his title and breach of contract disputes in a counterclaim. So in February 2023, Jackson filed a ''Petition For Quiet Title And Complaint for Breach of Contract'' against "All The World" and the McCrackens.

It'd be easy to write this all off as an act of "greed" in light of a ''hot'' real estate market. But Navigating Justice's investigative team has uncovered information that paints a much different, darker picture. Here's what we know:

*On May 25, 2020, Derrick Jackson gave an additional $15,000 for The Country Club of the South homeowners' membership, though Jackson later learned that the actual Club cost was only $7,500, which meant Mike McCracken misrepresented the actual costs resulting in a net profit to McCracken of $7,500 on the transaction.

The above shows that the McCrackens made large asset purchases whenever Jackson paid to them substantial sums of money required by the agreements between the two parties. All the while Mike McCracken claimed that he owed Bank of America $1.8 million, which Jackson came later to find out was $300,000 more than the debt amount shown on the Security Deed for the Property (which showed $1.52 million). Bank of America, completely unaware of the of the Purchase Agreement described above, later transferred the mortgage to FirstKey Mortgage LLC in January of 2021.

All that being said, what at a glance appeared to be the result of simple greed was more likely an act of necessity. If it is true that the McCrackens cannot catch up on their mortgage (now owned by FirstKey), the McCrackens have no choice but to renege on their Purchase Agreement with Jackson and sell the property for full price to a fresh buyer, making a "staged" eviction their ONLY chance out of debt with the unsuspecting FirstKey mortgagor. And with the collective agenda of multiple Fulton County Superior Court judges the McCrackens may very well succeed, which would explain why Jackson wants the entire bench recused from the case.

On March 23, 2023, Derrick Jackson filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition demanding, among other things, the recusal of the entire Fulton County Superior Court bench after two of the judges (including Judge Leftridge) failed to recuse themselves from the eviction case despite conflicts, two judges (one in the eviction case and one in the Quiet Title case) refused to recuse Judge Leftridge, and three judges (including Judge Leftridge) all refused to appoint a special master, who's appointment is mandated by Georgia law in the Quiet Title case. To illustrate how the circumventing of checks and balances is done by Superior Court Judges, Navigating Justice developed the following chart based on court documents in Jackson's cases highlighting the key players and their respective roles:

3. After the Bankruptcy stay was lifted, Paramount filed a motion for an immediate writ of possession ("eviction") and for the release of all funds that were in the Registry of the Court, which was estimated to be just over $115,000. Judge Leftridge's staff attorney informed the parties on December 21, 2022 at 11:03 AM that the Court was going to issue an order on Paramount's motion, which had only been filed the evening before, December 20, 2022. On '''December 22, 2022''', the parties were served an order signed by Judge Leftridge for an immediate writ of possession against Jackson, the release of the more than $115,000 held in the Registry to Paramount and ordering Jackson to pay $30,000.00 more into the Registry of the Court no later than December 31, 2022. Counsel for Jackson had emailed the Judge's staff attorney earlier that morning only to receive an auto-reply stating that she was on vacation.

4. On December 28, 2022, Jackson filed a motion to recuse Judge Leftridge from the eviction case. Judge Leftridge signed a reassignment order on '''January 6, 2023''' in light of Jackson's recusal motion and the motion to recuse was subsequently assigned to Judge Richardson.

6. On January 31, 2023, Jackson filed a ''Petition to Quiet Title and Breach of Contract'' against the McCrackens, which required the assigned judge to appoint a special master. That case was assigned to Judge Richardson but Judge Richardson did not appoint a special master.  

9. On '''February 17, 2023''', Judge Richardson denied all three pending motions to recuse Judge Leftridge and the eviction case was then assigned back to Judge Leftridge. Judge Krause then transferred the Quiet Title action to Judge Leftridge on February 24, 2023.

10. On '''March 2, 2023''', Jackson's counsel motioned to recuse Judge Leftridge from the Quiet Title action. Before Judge Leftridge signed the reassignment order as required by law, she set a hearing on the McCrackens' motion trying to stay the appointment of a special master. That hearing was set to take place on '''March 10, 2023''' before the Honorable Judge Alford Dempsey. However, on March 9, 2023, the Court canceled that hearing in light of the pending resusal motion against Judge Leftridge.

12. After refusing to appoint a special master in the Quiet Title action and other counts of apparent impropriety, Jackson filed a ''Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Writ of Prohibition'' against the entire Fulton County Superior Court bench of judges. That matter is still pending.

Based on the above, the actions (or inactions) taken (or not taken) by the Fulton County Superior Court judges and their subordinates are consistent with gaining and maintaining the most control over the outcome of the case, which is inconsistent with their duty to remain neutral and impartial. If they were neutral and impartial, they would have no interest in preventing a special master from taking jurisdiction over the matter. But they are certainly fighting hard to keep a special master from reviewing the case, VERY hard.