GBI files complaint over judge's conduct

jackson wrote:

her actions show her actions. that's all we know for sure. you're infering from her actions what you believe she believes. that don't make it so. you can't know what she believes without her telling you her beliefs. you're making an assumption. an assumption i believe is clouded by some personal problem you seem to have with the judge.

You're crazy. That much is evident from your posts.

I don't know the judge. I've never had the displeasure of meeting her in any capacity.

Anyone who sticks up for this judge so ardently is obviously connected to said judge. So why don't you share your connection with us all??

You don't think actions speak to someone's thoughts?? Really?? So when someone flagrantly breaks the rules, you don't think that says something about their belief in those rules applying to them?? You think the judge believes the rules do apply to her? Then why would she so blatantly violent them???

The Sage version 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're crazy. That much is evident from your posts.
I don't know the judge. I've never had the displeasure of meeting her in any capacity.
Anyone who sticks up for this judge so ardently is obviously connected to said judge. So why don't you share your connection with us all??
You don't think actions speak to someone's thoughts?? Really?? So when someone flagrantly breaks the rules, you don't think that says something about their belief in those rules applying to them?? You think the judge believes the rules do apply to her? Then why would she so blatantly violent them???

my friend sam he is so cool

i'm crazy? i'm not the one saying i know someones thoughts from hearing a tape recording of that person ranting. i'm not connected or related to the judge. i've been in her court during jury duty is the only time i've been around her. i just don't think what she was recorded doing is that big of a deal. that's why, imho, i think you have another agenda with the judge. her ranting on tape is the only concrete thing you have against her and you're using that as best you can because that's all you've got. rules are open to interpretation, especially when the lawyers get involved. i don't think much if anything will come of the complaint to the jqc. time will tell. i've shared my connection with the judge, so now, please, how about you share what your real problem with the judge is.

http://www.gabar.org/handbook/georgia_code_of...

Maybe you should read it. Then come back and ask again. There may be some words in there a little too big for you. If you have any troubles, let us know!

Can't think of many more deserving than KCC. Wonder if she ever lies in bed at night and wishes for another daddy (not sugar daddy, real daddy)

[QUOTE who="The Code's Preamble"]The Code is designed to provide guidance to judges and candidates for judicial office and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. It is not designed for nor intended as a basis for civil liability or criminal prosecution. Furthermore, the purpose of the Code would be subverted if the Code were invoked by lawyers for mere tactical advantage in a proceeding.
The text of the Canons and Sections is intended to govern conduct of judges and to be binding upon them. It is not intended, however, that every transgression will result in disciplinary action.[/QUOTE]

If it turns out she had a good reason to be angry (and I don't know if she did or didn't) then there's the out.

The Sage version 2 wrote:

http://www.gabar.org/handbook/ georgia_code_of_judicial_condu ct/
Maybe you should read it. Then come back and ask again. There may be some words in there a little too big for you. If you have any troubles, let us know!

you're not sharing. what's the real deal here with you and the good judge? what's fueling your animosity with her and anyone who disagrees with you?

I will say this for what it's worth .I grew up around criminals and i have no respect for the G.B.I. I'VE NEVER SEEN THEM TAKE DOWN ANYONE THAT WASN'T EASY OR SOMEONE ELSE WERE FIXING TO.

Atticus Finch wrote:

<quoted text>
If it turns out she had a good reason to be angry (and I don't know if she did or didn't) then there's the out.

There's no excuse for what she did.
She should go, voluntarily or involuntarily.

that's your opinions, and nothing else. i have differing opinions. neither will have bearing on the outcome what so ever.

I agree. 99.9999 percent of the time,what I think and
what is really going on is two different
things.

You mean you can't tell why she is irate! Things are not going too good right now for her. One thing after another has happened to her some of it her fault some not. But it still happened and it doesn't look good for her name to keep coming up, with her sitting on the BENCH so to say. Y'all need to check around a little.
Hint: Some of it started in 2007, some going on before that. Some of the latest BLC losing control of the Empire, it may be cracking in the wrong places!!!

Cow Poke wrote:

You mean you can't tell why she is irate! Things are not going too good right now for her. One thing after another has happened to her some of it her fault some not. But it still happened and it doesn't look good for her name to keep coming up, with her sitting on the BENCH so to say. Y'all need to check around a little.
Hint: Some of it started in 2007, some going on before that. Some of the latest BLC losing control of the Empire, it may be cracking in the wrong places!!!

hint,put yourself in her position,she thinks gbi are investigating her with no proof,hint,everything is undercover without her knowledge.i do not blame her in the least.she stood up like any real man would do even if she is a woman.balls is what it,s called.i am not her close friend but i would be proud to call anyone my friend who stands up to these people.just because you put acronyms in a title does not give them the right.

casual observer wrote:

<quoted text>hint,put yourself in her position,she thinks gbi are investigating her with no proof,hint,everything is undercover without her knowledge.i do not blame her in the least.she stood up like any real man would do even if she is a woman.balls is what it,s called.i am not her close friend but i would be proud to call anyone my friend who stands up to these people.just because you put acronyms in a title does not give them the right.

Do you have proof the cops had no proof against her? Do you have proof the cops were even investigating her?? Don't make claims you can't back up!

The FACT is, if the cops got a tip, they had a duty to investigate it. If it came up with nothing, so be it. But if there was a tip, and it was not investigated, then people would be claiming there is favoritism going on. "Why isn't she being investigated???" The cops are in a lose, lose situation it seems.

If there was an investigation, she can get angry all she wants. But she can't lash out at officers on tape!

Sorry,,,,,,,The snake is loose, the good lady judge is not only on the way out, she is on the way to jail. The whole house of cards is crumbling and the Old Man can do nothing. Remember where you heard it, "It's All over But the Shouting".

soon, very soon.............

The Sage version 2 wrote:

<quoted text>...
The FACT is, if the cops got a tip, they had a duty to investigate it. If it came up with nothing, so be it. But if there was a tip, and it was not investigated, then people would be claiming there is favoritism going on. "Why isn't she being investigated???" The cops are in a lose, lose situation it seems....

No, it is quite simple.

Policeman: Judge, we got a tip about some alleged nefarious behavior on your part.

Judge: Do you know who the tipster is?

Policeman: We shorely do, ma'am. Otherwise we would not have a duty to investigate.

Judge: Does the tipster have business pending in my court? Is the tipster involved in a lawsuit against me?

Policeman: I don't want to reveal to much, but one of those is true.

Judge: Hmmmm.

Policeman: So, I need to investigate. Did you do the alleged nefarious behavior.

Judge: No, I did not. Now I am going to give you a tip.

Policeman: Whut is that ma'am?

Judge: If someone brings you a false tip for the purpose of messing around with judicial business, then that is obstruction of justice.

Policeman: Golly, gee! That is true.

Judge: And?

Policeman: And I guess I should seek an arrest warrant for the tipster on obstruction charges.

Judge: Well, that is between you and the magistrate. Whatever you think is best.

Policeman: Thanks, ma'am. I am so glad I am not corrupt or this could have turned into a real tar baby on me.

Judge: Glad to be of timely assistance. Go get'em, tiger!

Please! Sounds like you're back on the movie set making a sequel to - To kill a mocking bird!

ROFL at atticus finch. Excellent example.

Police: Judge, we have information that you're involved in criminal activity. We intend to surveil your phone calls, watch your residence and tail your vehicles.

Judge: Wow. Thanks for letting me know about the investigation as I had requested.

Police: That's no problem. We will probably be serving a search warrant at your residence next Tuesday.

Judge: Thank you for that courtesy, I'll ensure the house is clean and coffee is brewing.

Police: It's so nice the way we get along. The fact that A SITTING JUDGE INSISTED WE KEEP HER ABREAST OF ANY INVESTIGATION AGAINST HER had nothing to do with our decision. We always keep suspects in the loop of our investigations.

Judge: There are things I'm certain you're keeping secret, you know, just to make it look as if the investigation is legitimate.

Police: No ma'am. In fact, all of our information is coming from Alan Smith, and should anything unforeseen happen to him or should he change his mind about informing, we would have to stop the investigation of you.

Judge: OK. I know Alan, and he's a good guy. I think I'll go talk with him and tell him not to let my position influence him in any way.

(This comes from pages 32-36 of the Chattooga law Enforcement investigation manual)

Atticus surely thinks the cops are stupid
and Miss Prissy is an intellectual genius.
I think she's an overzealous, power hungry
female who's gotten away with too much, at
least for now. But why would she think
differently. She's always had daddy to take
care of everything, and a Sheriff who took
orders from Daddy, too.
Why do you think they jump at every given
opportunity to sue John Everett ?
He doesn't play leap frog for them !
YYYEEEAAA JJJOOOHHHNNN !!!!!!