Ethics Compaints against Richardson, Judge.

The ubiquitous Georgia Anderson filed complaints against Speaker Richardson and Judge James Osborne:

A self-styled ethics watchdog filed formal complaints Wednesday against Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) and the Paulding County judge who presided over the elected official’s speedy and secret divorce last week.

Rome activist George Anderson sent his ethics complaint against Richardson to the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee. Anderson also filed a complaint with the Judicial Qualifications Commission against Superior Court Judge James Osborne.

Osborne is the speaker’s friend and former law partner who presided over Richardson’s divorce case in a closed hearing Feb. 6. Osborne also sealed court records of the divorce.

Of course if the Speaker’s not really divorced then there’s nothing to file complaints about. Hmmm….

Powered by ScribeFire.

27 comments

  1. eehrhart says:

    Well Mr. Anderson has just committed a felony.

    He swore falsely under oath to an untruth. Title 16 of the Georgia code is very specific on the false swearing provisions in this instance and the penalty is a felony.

    The man has filed numerous ridiculous complaints about me for years and every single one has been tossed out.

    Now he has gone to far and he clearly broke the law. I plan to vigorously prosecute his law breaking by seeking legal redress. I will be seeking out the appropriate district attorney and file the complaint.

    He states I was in Las Vegas and I can prove that is absolutely false. He states I was with a lobbyist on trip I did not take, also untrue. He states maliciously that I was influenced on a trip I never took. Untrue. I have been there ONE time on business 15 years ago and I can produce the Delta receipt for that trip. The conference he refers to is the Speakers conference at which every Speaker in the US was attending. I am not the Speaker and was not there.

  2. eehrhart says:

    No Rugby this is about me alone.

    Your sarcasm aside do you defend someone who makes false allegations?

    Do you doubt I can prove this as false?

    Should we just ignore the law because you want what he said about me to be true?

  3. eehrhart says:

    Oh so sorry Bobby…. am I picking on your paid lackey again. You would think that after having filed a mountain of frivolous complaints against me over the years you and your little buddy George would give it up.

    Too bad this time he crossed the line and I can have him prosecuted under the law.

    Are you going to pay for his defense or does he have enough of a subsidy from you already?

    Are you defending a lawbreaker?

  4. Gag Halfrunt says:

    Earl, remember to fight fair. I know you guys really like to have the record sealed so no one can tell how badly y’all been whipped. Please, please do this one in the open.

  5. Gag Halfrunt says:

    “Well Mr. Anderson has just committed a felony.” Um, I’m not a lawyer like Earl or George so I might be wrong about this but isn’t accusing someone of a crime actionable?

  6. NonPartisanGA says:

    It’s only actionable if its untrue and the person knew it was untrue and said it with mailicious intent.

  7. eehrhart says:

    Aww bobby I dont want to sue you; just to let you know that it is no secret to anyone who pays George to file his complaints.

    He has such a bad record against me. Try Zero for about 20 with every single one being tossed.

    And Gag I look forward to doing this where you and all your buddies can see it. In fact go look at Georges complaint. If you can get through the childish scrawl and bad grammar you may even be able to make some sense of his garbage.

    I want this right out where everyone can see he broke the law by lying under oath and where he can be punished to the full extent allowed for a felony.

    Oh and it is only actionable if I am wrong and I am not. He lied about me under oath and that is a felony.

    Look it up

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Earl,

    I’m curious as to how yo’re going to argue that Anderson was in violation of this oath (which I presume is the only thing you can “prosecute” him on):

    “PENALTIES: False swearing
    A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been administered or who executes a document knowing that it purports to be an acknowledgement of a lawful oath or affirmation commits false swearing when, in any matter or thing other than a judicial proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a false statement. A person convicted of false swearing shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both.”

    I don’t think that you simply saying that none of what he is claiming is true (even if you prove it in an ethics hearing) constitutes Anderson “Knowingly and willfully” making a false statement.

    Anderson has to know for sure that you haven’t been doing what he claims you’ve been doing. Only if you get him to admit that on the witness stand will you be able to prove anything.

  9. eehrhart says:

    Bill,

    Your research on title 16 and false swearing is good but not up to date. The law now provides that it is a felony and not the 1000 dollar fine.

    With respect to “knowingly and willfully” this applies to his making the statement.

    The burden of proof lies with me to prove it false and I assure you this is easy with respect to his statement about me.

    If you applied the interpretation you are advocating then no one who ever made a false statement could be prosecuted for it as all they would have to claim was that they did not know it was false. There would be no way for a prosecutor to mind read and the law would be useless.

    This is not the interpretation in case law.

    If you make a false statement under oath and cannot prove it then you are guilty prima fascia

  10. eehrhart says:

    In other words:

    Free speech protections extend to any kind of lies anyone tells here or anywhere else when merely spoken or written. And they should. Slander and libel laws not withstanding, but those are different standards of proof.

    However if you swear an oath, and sign it, which can harm another with your words. You better damn well be sure what you said is the truth or you can suffer the consequences under the law.

    In this case it is a FELONY

  11. shrike071 says:

    Just wondering if you are also going to throw some of your heft at the AJC for falsely stating that you said “I’ve never been to Las Vegas….”, because you obviously have.

    Lest you need a refresher on what you said – scroll-up.

  12. eehrhart says:

    Shrike you and George can form a comedy club for those who believe what they read in the AJC

    That is too funny for words!

    Even if it were true, that is not a statement under oath signed by me with the intent to cause another a fiscal penalty.

    What I said was that I had never been to Vegas any time recently and certainly not to a Speaker’s conference. I did say that 15 years ago that I had been there on business. Just for your edification that is not a crime.

    If you cannot see the difference in that then you need help.

  13. Tommy_a2b says:

    Hey Mr. Chairman, since I know you will be reading this eventually, can you tell me when Tom Graves will be let out of the Dog House? Rumor is you helped put him in it so I thought maybe you could help get him out.
    Thanks,
    Tommy

  14. shrike071 says:

    Well, Mr. Ehrhart – then you should at the least demand a correction from th AJC.

    “Even if it were true, that is not a statement under oath signed by me with the intent to cause another a fiscal penalty.”

    To paraphrase: “Even if it were true, since I wasn’t under oath – I can do what I wish.” Your reply is curious, since you give the impression that unless under oath – one can’t take you at your word.

    “What I said was that I had never been to Vegas any time recently and certainly not to a Speaker’s conference.” /snip “Just for your edification that is not a crime.”

    Nor did I state it was a crime, so please refrain from getting your pants in a knot. “Never been to Vegas any time recently”? Outside of the obvious comedic effect of that statement, I wonder if the reporter from the AJC would be willing to stand by their report? I’ll let you know what they say.

  15. Christie Edmondson says:

    Do you people think it is time that the Senate votes on these veto overrides? Where is the sense of fairness and accountability. It would seem like these senators would do the job they were hired to do and interpret the Constitution. It seems to me they need to exhibit some courage and put these veto overrides up for a vote. Up or down, let the chips fall where they may!!!

  16. Icarus says:

    Christie,

    We’ve been over this. We’ve been over it a lot around here.

    The Senate has met their constitutional requirement of “consideration”. The job they were hired to do does not include being the Speaker’s lap dog. If the Speaker wants to continue to be dumb enough to give the Senate leverage against him, I think the Senate needs to remain smart enough to use it.

  17. Christie Edmondson says:

    Thanks for the response and info. I have a personal interest in one of those veto overrides. You are the only person that has really responded as far as an explanation that I understand. Thanks

  18. Icarus says:

    No problem, Christie.

    We’ve had a few new “sock puppets” show up here recently to obscure the Speaker’s reign of terror, and one of the most often used tactic is to try to blame the Senate for inaction when it is the Speaker that dug this hole.

    Therefore, sorry if my answer was a bit blunt. There were quite a few threads from the day of the House overrides and the next few that explain a lot of the inside baseball. You can search for them using the box at the top right of the screen (under logo, under recent comments).

    The fact is, the Senate rules define “consider” to include assigning the bills to committee. The Senate has indicated that they will most likely override a few more, and not some others. I have no insight into which ones will eventually come out of committee. However, I have no doubt that they’re going to hold them until The House decides to move on legislation that is at the top of the Senate’s wish list.

  19. Gag Halfrunt says:

    I’d like to follow up on Earl’s suggestion that “that it is no secret to anyone who pays George to file his complaints.” I’m assuming that Earl will apply this standard evenly by asking the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee to re-open the complaint filed against Richardson last year. As I recall, that complaint indicated that everyone knew about the “personal relationship” which formed the basis of the complaint.

    I’m also intrigued by the suggestion that Anderson is Kahn’s lackey, since that would mean that Kahn was behind complaints filed by Anderson against Roy Barnes, Calvin Smyre, Kathy Ashe, Terry Coleman, the Democratic Party (while Kahn was Chair), and many other Democrats. No wonder that the Dems replaced him.

    Interesting that Earl seems willing to make up facts to do his master’s bidding while accusing the AJC of doing the same.

  20. Bill Simon says:

    Earl,

    Thank you for the illumination on the upgrade to it being a felony.

    However, all it takes is for a pretty smart lawyer to undo your interpretation of “knowingly and willingly” and likely get the law thrown-out.

    Why would the good crafters of such a law include the words “knowingly and willingly” if they did not mean exactly what I stated?

    It is the difference of intent and deliberate. AND…I’ll bet you that if Anderson is represented by a good lawyer (someone on the caliber of Roy Barnes or Marc Hershovitz), the trial will be a jury trial, and it will be up to a jury of 12 people to decide if it was a “knowingly or willfully” statement of untruth.

    Don’t take my argument as an attack (one of the few times I have a desire to engage with you without kicking your rear-end)…all I’m saying is how you think it may be a “slam-dunk” here doesn’t make it so.

    Before it even gets to a trial, it has to come out of the grand jury. My own personal observation of a recent case brought before a county grand jury is that despite being handed over reams of documentation that demonstrate the subject willfully and deliberately violated the law, the grand jury decided not to allow the case to go forward to trial.

    Good luck, though, in your endeavor. It will take around 9-12 months for the investigation to occur before all evidence is gathered to present to the grand jury.

Comments are closed.