Fani Willis manages to stay on the Trump case in Georgia, but what about the crooked judges who are embedded, and protected, in the U.S. "justice system"?

Fani Willis

 

Georgia district attorney Fani Willis had the "distinct pleasure" of having a state judge "read her the riot act" over her highly questionable personal behavior in the Donald Trump election-subversion case in The Peach State. Judge Scott McAfee ultimately allowed her to stay on the case, so now the rest of us might have the "distinct pleasure" of watching Willis convict Trump -- in a case that appears to consist mostly of open-and-shut evidence -- and help send his doughy derriere to prison. Now that will be must-see TV.

It's been a long and winding road to justice in Georgia, and Liz Dye, of the Above the Law legal website analyzes the many twists and turns in this peculiar case. Under the headline "Court Reads DA Willis For Filth, But Lets Her Office Stay On The Trump Case; Well, that was ugly," Dye writes:

Donald Trump’s bid to derail the Georgia election-interference indictment ran aground Friday morning as Judge Scott McAfee ruled that the Fulton County District Attorney’s (FCDA) Office can stay on the case.

TL, DR (too long, didn't read)? Don’t sleep with your direct report on the biggest case of your career. Just don’t.

That seems like the most obvious take-home lesson from Willis' self-created mess. But Dye does not stop there:

The sprawling RICO prosecution has been in chaos for two months since former Trump campaign official Mike Roman revealed that DA Willis was romantically involved with Nathan Wade, the outside attorney hired as special prosecutor on the case. The allegations, which appeared to have come from Wade’s sealed divorce proceedings, were couched in a motion to dismiss the case on dubious procedural grounds, or to disqualify the FCDA entirely.

No one gave a damn about the procedural complaints, which had been previously rejected and rated just a couple of pages in Friday morning’s order. But we all watched hours of nasty, televised hearings dissecting the sex lives, bank accounts, and cellphone records of consenting adults in excruciating detail. It was a huge black eye for the FCDA, which certainly appears to have misrepresented the nature and timing of the relationship to the court. Or as Judge McAfee put it, “[N]either side was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic one. However, an odor of mendacity remains.”

That's a polite way for the judge to say, "I'm not pleased about having to wade through the muck of your romantic exploits." And Judge McAfee had more to say on that subject, as Dye writes:

Whether or not an actual conflict existed, giving Willis an incentive to prolong the case so her boyfriend could bill more hours, the optics were just terrible.

The appearance standard recognizes that even when no actual conflict exists, a perceived conflict in the reasonable eyes of the public threatens confidence in the legal system itself,” the judge scolded. “When this danger goes uncorrected, it undermines the legitimacy and moral force of our already weakest branch of government.”

(The judiciary is our weakest branch of government? You could have fooled me. I've seen first-hand that judges can ruin a litigant's life with a flick of the hand. I've seen them -- in multiple kinds of cases, in multiple jurisdictions -- brazenly rule contrary to fact and law and get away with it. As a nation, we've even seen that kind of crooked behavior from the U.S. Supreme Court (see here and here). When it comes to acting corruptly and getting away with it, federal judges certainly are not weak. They answer to no one, except appellate judges (on federal circuit courts), and those "justices" will go to extraordinary lengths to protect district-court scoundrels..Mrs. Schnauzer (my wife, Carol), and I have been there and seen that.

 

How gross can it get? An apparent sheriff's deputy attacked Carol from behind while she simply was talking with two other officers during an eviction that was unlawful on eight to 10 grounds. Carol wound up with a comminuted fracture of her left arm that required eight hours of trauma surgery for repair -- and her medical records indicate the surgical team had to deal with a number of possible complications that could have put Carol's life at risk; plus, she is expected to lose at least 25 percent usage of her arm. You can see the damage in the images above and right.

Greene County Sheriff Jim Arnott has gone to considerable lengths to protect Carol's assailant, who should be in prison for felony assault. We only know the guy as "Mr. Blue Shirt" because neither Arnott nor his lawyer --Damon Phillips of the Keck & Phillips law firm, has been willing to produce his name as they are required to do under the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Why are Arnott and his attorneys going to such an effort to protect "Mr. Blue Shirt's" real name and affiliations? More importantly, why is U.S. District Judge M. Douglas Harpool issuing all kinds of unlawful rulings, apparently designed to help Arnott & Co. conceal the assailant's identity, in our civil rights/personal injury lawsuit, By the way, records from Carol's health-care provider indicate the cost of her treatment is more than $80,,000, so we have sustained significant physical, financial, and emotional damages that are ongoing.

We are going to expose Mr. Harpool for the rogue that he is, explaining exactly how he has violated relevant law in a way that can only be intentional, raising this question: Who has been communicating with the judge in an improper ex parte manner, encouraging him to screw us over at every turn?

Our efforts likely will include a complaint against Harpool to the Judicial Conference, which recently was featured in a ProPublica article titled "The Judiciary Has Policed Itself for Decades. It Doesn’t Work;The secretive Judicial Conference is tasked with self-governance. The group, led by the Supreme Court’s chief justice, has spent decades preserving perks, defending judges and thwarting outside oversight. 

In upcoming posts, we will be unmasking some of the federal "rogues with robes" we have encountered, both in Alabama and Missouri. We also will be further examining how the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) violated Constitutional principles and its own precedent in unlawfully ruling for Trump in his insurrection case and presidential-immunity case. 

Bottom line: Trump is disqualified from appearing on the 2024 ballot -- or any future ballot-- because of his actions as an insurrectionist on Jan. 6, 2021. Also, Trump cannot be granted presidential immunity because there is no provision of law that supports such a finding.