GEORGIA Corrupt judges

UNIFORM RULES SUPERIOR COURTS OF THE

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNCIL OF SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

Rule 2.4. Calendar Clerk The term "calendar clerk" as used in these rules refers to that person who is charged with the responsibility of setting and scheduling all hearings and trials in actions assigned to a particular judge. Each calendar clerk carries out those duties under the supervision of the assigned judge, or the designee of that judge. Amended effective October 9, 1997.

Rule 2.5. Assigned Judge The term "assigned judge" as used in these rules refers to the judge to whom an action is assigned in accordance with these rules; or, if the context permits, in circuits having a general calendaring system, to the trial judge responsible for the matter at any particular time. Amended effective October 7, 2010.

Rule 3.1. Method of Assignment In multi-judge circuits, unless a majority of the judges in a circuit elect to adopt a different system, all actions, civil and criminal, shall be assigned by the clerk of each superior court according to a plan approved by such judges to the end that each judge is allocated an equal number of cases. The clerk shall have no power or discretion in determining the judge to whom any case is assigned; the clerk’s duties are ministerial only in this respect and the clerk’s responsibility is to carry out the method of assignment established by the judges. The assignment system is designed to prevent any persons choosing the judge to whom an action is to be assigned; all persons are directed to refrain from attempting to affect such assignment in any way. If the order or the timing of filing is a factor in determining case assignment, neither the clerk nor any member of the clerk’s staff shall disclose to any person the judge to whom a case is or will be assigned until such time as the case is in fact filed and assigned. Amended effective October 9, 1997; October 26, 2006.

Rule 3.3. Exclusive Control The judge to whom any action is assigned shall have exclusive control of such action, except as provided in these rules, and no person shall change any assignment except by order of the judge affected and as provided in these rules. In this regard an assigned judge may transfer an assigned action to another judge with the latter's consent in which event the latter becomes the assigned judge.

Rule 3.4. Local Authority The method of assignment and the procedures necessary for an orderly transition from one calendaring system to another shall be established by each multi-judge circuit. All such systems shall be adequately published to the local bar; copies shall be filed with the respective clerk(s) and with the Supreme Court of Georgia. Amended effective October 7, 2010.

CUZZORT v. The STATE. 519 S.E.2d 687 (1999) 271 Ga. 464 No. S99A1120. Supreme Court of Georgia. September 13, 1999.

*689 The precise method of assigning and calendaring cases adopted by a multi-judge circuit, however, must comport with the notion of due process under the State and Federal constitutions, as well as the spirit and purpose of the uniform rules and applicable statutes. See id.

2. The purpose of the assignment system in multi-judge circuits is to "prevent any person's choosing the judge to whom an action is to be assigned." USCR 3.1. In this regard, we have approved of a system in which the chief judge makes assignments in accordance with a method specifically approved by a majority of the other judges because the chief judge is not such a "person" as described in the Rule. Lumpkin, supra at 394, 509 S.E.2d 621.

MAYOR & ALDERMEN OF the CITY OF SAVANNAH v. BATSON-COOK COMPANY et al. 728 S.E.2d 189 (2012)291 Ga. 114 No. S11G1814.

Supreme Court of Georgia. May 29, 2012.

"All parties before the court have the right to an impartial judicial officer." Stephens v. Stephens, 249 Ga. 700, 702, 292 S.E.2d 689 (1982). The issue of judicial disqualification can rise to a constitutional level since "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process." In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955). See also Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009). Judicial integrity is "a state interest of the highest order" because the power and prerogative of a court to resolve disputes rests upon the respect 191*191 accorded by citizens to a court's judgments which, in turn, depends upon the issuing court's absolute probity. Id., at 889, 129 S.Ct. 2252. "If the public lacks confidence in the impartiality of judges, or worse, refuses to comply with judicial decisions voluntarily, the notion that `we are a government of laws' would necessarily collapse." Dmitry Bam, Making Appearances Matter: Recusal and the Appearance of Bias, 2011 B.Y.U.L.Rev. 943, 968. It is vital to the functioning of the courts that the public believe in the absolute integrity and impartiality of its judges (see Smith v. Guest Pond Club, 277 Ga. 143, 146, 586 S.E.2d 623 (2003)), and judicial recusal serves as a linchpin for the underlying proposition that a court should be fair and impartial. 2011 B.Y.U.L.Rev., supra, at 949.[1]

*******************************

From 2012-2013, this corrupt court the Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit (CJC) followed a method of assignment that each judge is assigned their own case for all hearings, except in cases where the judge has an interest in the case or has been bribed. In that case the party that is bribing the judge or the judge can assign the case to the conspiring judge. This is what happened in my case, since the whole judicial system in Georgia along with the governor Nathan Deal and other public authorities who have the responsibility to enforce the laws, to protect the constitution that protect the freedom of the citizens, these officials have turned a ‘blind eye’ to these crimes, now the corrupt judges do not have to hide their corruption, as you see in the method of assignment for 2014.Where they disregard the notion of due process under the State and Federal constitutions, as

well as the spirit and purpose of the uniform rules and applicable statutes in the state of Georgia. Empowering them to assign cases to themselves. See the method of assignment from 2012-2014.