Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Brian House: Sock puppet for the prosecution

Reading comments on my last post, I was not surprised to see someone describe Brian House's courtroom demeanor. The descriptions given me by others who have watched this disgrace of a public official matched the latest I read and tells me that House really is not fit to be a judge.

House, it seems, takes all of his cues and direction from prosecutors, and especially Chris Arnt. What Arnt tells him to do, he does, period, which proves that Brian House is nothing more than the sock puppet for Buzz Franklin and his outlaw gang. That is pathetic, but Brian House is pathetic and is a pathetic excuse for a judge.

Wait a minute! Should I not be showing respect at least for the office? House may be incompetent and even craven, but should judges not receive respect?

My answer is this: Brian House does not respect his office and his place in the "justice" system, so why should I respect House or his office? Each day House purposely seeks to make a mockery of justice, knowing that even if he helps the prosecution frame innocent people, it will be years before the guilty verdict is overturned -- if it is overturned at all. (The Georgia Supreme Court and its appeals allies are notorious for twisting the law to fit whatever prosecutors in that state want.)

When a man or woman puts on the black robes of a judge, that person is under obligation not only from the people but also from God Almighty to do right, not to be a lying prosecutor's sock puppet or ventriloquist's dummy. When the Bible says that "to whom much is given, much is expected," it means just that. Much is expected from House, and he gives very little except what Buzz tells him to give.

He will answer one day for what he is doing, but in the meantime, one hopes he answers to the voters this year. However, I have my doubts that voters in the LMJC even care, and if they return this slice of refuse to the judge's bench, they will get the justice that they deserve -- none.

11 comments:

sshattuck said...

I don't disagree with you, but a big part of the problem is the public. The public almost always supports the "law and order" judicial candidate, even though a judge's role should be to ensure fair trials. That means that an inordinate amount of criminal judges are former prosecutors. If a defense attorney runs, they are harangued by their opponent as someone that defends criminals and are soft on crime. Therefore, the public is part of the system that encourages convictions and makes defendants "guilty" unless the overwhelming evidence demonstrates the opposite. As long as the public values "law and order" over justice and fairness, judges will generally favor the prosecutors.

Doc Ellis said...

Greetings Dr Anderson

Shared

Thank you for writing this essay

Doc Ellis 124

Anonymous said...

The voters do care in Catoosa County. The problem we are up against is NO ONE IS RUNNING AGAINST BRIAN HOUSE OR ANY OF THE OTHER JUDGES.You can not vote them out folks if no one runs against them. PERIOD!

William L. Anderson said...

That is quite sad and very telling. So, people in the LMJC are going to have to deal with a Third World legal system.

Anonymous said...

That is very sad, I can't believe those crooks are going to stay in charge.

Anonymous said...

Lord help us all. Thank's Mr Anderson for the info.

Anonymous said...

Is there not some kind of impeachment process for the elected?

KC Sprayberry said...

And thanks to the GA legislature, we can't even write in a candidate unless said candidate has authorized themselves to be written in. In other words, they have to sign up as a write in candidate. I found this out about 2 years ago when the other judges were up for a vote.

As for no one running against them, there used to be candidates against these judges. Those people faced not only the usual argument about being soft on crime, but a firestorm of personal slurs, until most just plain stopped campainging. This isn't something restricted to the judge's races, though. And it is something the local people are working on. But it's hard finding people willing to take the chance any longer.

Leanna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rita Stonecipher said...

These small Georgia County officials act and get away with actions that mimic police brutality without consequences that was seen nationwide in the 1960's. Prejudice, discrimination and police brutality was widespread and those that "tortured" citizens BEFORE trial was accepted and not spoken about in most cases.
I fear, that not only are some states making their rules "as they go", but that we now have a "new group" that has attracted local/state police discrimination. Not Black, Hispanic, Jewish or homosexuals. I am very afraid that the newest discrimination has been pointed at and hit hard. The identity of those newly discriminated people are identified as OUR SOLDIERS AND VETERANS. More and more cases are brought to the attention of the media because of the increase in police misconduct and sometimes even lethal assaults on veterans during arrest for one of two probable reasons: One-- the police view veterans as trained killers and should be feared even in the absence of remotely-noted sign of a threat from said veteran. OR--- Two--- Some, possibly a high percentage of law enforcement officers (especially small rural areas), ACTUALLY HOLD FEELINGS OF HATE AND JEALOUSY towards our veterans. I am relatively sure of these conclusions and believe if you poll smalltown policeman nationwide, A SIGNICANT NUMBER COULD NOT PASS PHYSICALS FOR ANY BRANCH OF THE MILITARY. So it stands to reason, that a notable number of police, would especially harbor hate for our Marines, Navy Seals, or Army Rangers. How many more incidents have to happen before the REAL USA CITIZENS take control of their state agencies, and ALL OF OUR COUNTRY!!!!!!!

liberranter said...

Rita:

Sadly, I think you have it all wrong. In all too many localities today, trauma and PTSD-addled combat veterans ARE the police. Because many of them are still on active reserve duty in their respective states' "National Guard" [sic], record numbers of them nationwide have completed multiple tours of duty over the last decade in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. These people are absolutely the worst, most unacceptable choices imaginable for filling the role of "peace officer," given their tendency to see everyone they encounter as "the enemy" and deal with them accordingly (you will be greatly disturbed to discover how many of today's cops who've been involved in unjustified violent killings of innocent citizens are recent combat veterans). Although they are absolutely unfit to serve as "peace officers," combat veterans are ideal for the role of "law enforcement officer," their "counterinsurgency" training provided by multiple tours in Iraqghanistan being just what the PTB are looking for to keep us proles in line.

So, if there has been any killings of veterans by cops, it's only because said veterans had not been fortunate enough to have been inducted into the Sainted Brotherhood of "Civilian" [sic] Law Enforcement, where the use of their deadly skills, far from being considered a dangerous threat, would be fully appreciated and enthusiastically backed up by their "Brethren in Blue."