Most reprehensible

That is what Judge L. A. McConnell had to say about Attorney John Oxendine in 1991. Quote:

“Defendant has failed to comply with the discovery ordered by this Court. Defendant’s counsel, John W. Oxendine, wilfully and intentionally tried to obstruct the discovery laws of this state and the Court finds this conduct to be the most reprehensible of any seen in thirteen years of private practice and eight years on the bench.”

Kinda like Yancey getting a judge to block the ethics probe into Ox’s shady fundraising practices. Once a slimebag, always a slimebag.

Read Jim Galloway’s write up.


  1. Lady Thinker says:

    Oxendine has shown a pattern of being ethically challanged. He tried to pass this off as occuring twenty years ago but his pattern of behavior is deeply rooted so I can’t buy his excuses.

    • Ambernappe says:

      I know that you are being sarcastic – this is NOT one liberal judge. He does believe in the Constitution and that the law applies (not ought to apply) equally to everyone. How a person with Secretary Oxendine’s checkered background could think that his/her hijinks would remain secret forever is a mystery to me. Maybe now, others will reveal information which will completely eliminate the threat he poses to the integrity of the State of Georgia.

      • B Balz says:

        Don’t be naive, Ambernappe – 17 years of helping Georgians with insurance issues, strong conservative (never was a Log Cabin guy), and his ‘peccadilloes’ are minor.

        Not my choice, just being pragmatic.

        • Ambernappe says:

          I am FAR from naive, but am disappointed in the reason that people with knowledge cannot reveal what they know – sometimes the person in the right can lose his position because the “people” are not happy that the foibles of their favorites have been revealed. The whole situation is a modern day tragedy.

          • B Balz says:

            You see a tragedy and I see a Kabuki dance.

            “A week is a long time in politics”
            “…he immature’s with age…” Harold Wilson

            Don’cha know over at the Cocks Plantation they’re planning a big ol’ Elephant Roast? My point is that so many people, outside of the pol echo chamber, could care less, and will believe the last story/mailer/robo-call they get before they pull the handle.

            Shoes will drop, this is not over – – – –

    • bartsimpsonisdaman says:

      Cow sh** is pretty smelly but it sure burns when it’s dry.

      Y’all need to elect this idiot. I hear he plans on moving the governors mansion to your closest trailer court.

      Vote Barnes!

    • “””The Oxendine campaign, however, paid $12,500 to a for-profit consulting company owned by Echols in exchange for the TeenPact kids’ volunteer work. Before deciding to run for the PSC, Echols served as Oxendine’s campaign manager.”””

      Take the money and run… Probably gives the tots a pizza and he keeps the loot…. Two household votes for anybody but these two.

  2. AlanR says:

    Somebody with a long memory really doesn’t like John Oxendine. A lot.

    I wonder if any of this will matter? Oxendine has a lot of money on television right now.

    • polisavvy says:

      It should matter regardless of the age of the suit in question. It speaks volumes as to his character (or lack thereof). Ethics and discovery is pounded into the heads of law students. There was no excuse. What he did is totally indefensible.

  3. chefdavid says:

    I can say one good thing about the OX. He is good for the blogs. I may just have to change my vote. If he causes this much to blog about and he is not in office, imagine how much fun we could have when he is governor.

  4. B Balz says:

    As a layman and not a learned lawyer, the conclusion I draw is that Mr. Oxendine sought to win this case, without regard to the law or procedure. Perhaps this is an unjustified benefit of the doubt.

    In the Judge’s 21 years of experience, he indicated that the younger Oxendine was sullying his family name and that this tactic was illegal. Pretty strong stuff!

    The covering entry not allowing either party to bring the matter to the Bar smacks of an awareness of impropriety and potential adverse consequences. Perhaps a learned lawyer can answer this question?

    Is this an example of an aggressive attorney pulling out all the stops, at the expense of his own reputation, to win his clients case?

    • polisavvy says:

      I am not a “learned lawyer.” However, I was a legal assistant at one of the largest law firms in the Southeast for ten years and had worked in smaller firms for about eleven years. I have drafted many a settlement agreement. Never, and I mean never, did I draft a settlement agreement that gave an attorney a pass for being totally unethical. Things like that are never part of a settlement agreement (I think the two experts on WSB back me up on this).

      I can’t say if he was “pulling out all stops.” I can say that he broke several Bar rules by failing to comply with the discovery practices required in the State of Georgia. No attorney should be allowed to violate the State Bar in order to win PERIOD. He knew what discovery was and what the repercussions are for failing to comply with the discovery. He NEVER should have gotten away with it.

      His actions speak as to the true character (or lack thereof) of the man (and I use the term quite loosely). His actions of 20 years ago are quite relevant today especially considering all the other questionable offenses he has committed (and is being investigated).

        • Dawgfan says:

          This is not simply about “pulling out all the stops” it’s about the obstruction of justice, and if I’m not mistaken we almost impeached a President over that sort of thing. By withholding material facts a just decision cannot be rendered. Someone constitutional rights are being denied. If he has that little regard for the law then he has no business being Governor.

          • B Balz says:

            The question remains: Was this aggressive or illegal? Why didn’t the Judge declare contempt?

  5. Jason Heyward for President says:

    So how many of the bad headlines that the Ox has had this week are a direct result of Eric’s binder?

  6. GAPoliticsisfun says:

    It may be to late for “the binder” to have any effect. Ox has enough cash to fight off almost anything that may come out of “the binder”.

  7. ACCmoderate says:

    “As governor, I don’t care who gets the credit. Just so long as you don’t report me to the State Bar’s Ethics Committee”

      • Goldwater Conservative says:

        They protect their own by giving great consideration to ethics. Too bad MAG and other medical associations do not do the same.

  8. Progressive Dem says:

    Ox raised $800K this reporting period. He’s gonna be in the runoff. I’m expecting the two GOP finishers to rip each other to shreds.

  9. B Balz says:

    B I N G O !!!

    Why would he have set his sights on Roy, a month ago, if he did not know he would walk away with the nomination? We all had this discussion earlier in the year, now it has come to be.

    I am curious how the front pages will read in September.

  10. MSBassSinger says:

    I watched the coverage on WSB last night about this issue. I am not an Oxendine supporter.

    But, something seems fishy.

    First, though I haven’t known many judges, the ones I have known are not wallflowers in their courtrooms. If what Oxendine did was so outrageous (defying the judge’s order to turn over evidence for discovery), why did the judge not charge Oxendine with contempt of court? Why would the judge agree to a final settlement that protects all parties – did both sides and the judge have some bad behavior to hide?

    Second, if I heard correctly on the news, Oxendine did not renew his bar membership after 1995.

    Third, if he is elected, would that make him the first Injun Governor for Georgia?

    The whole story seems sufficiently spun as to look, to me, like more mudslinging than a real issue.

    • Ambernappe says:

      You obviously are a person involved with the superficial. What does the former spouse of The Ox have to hide? The Ox had good reason not to try to renew his license as he had said he would not.

  11. ZazaPachulia says:

    I wonder who that ‘whistleblower’ is working for. I’m guessing it’s got to be someone from the party establishment (aka, Deal, Johnson or Handel).

    This whole race is to the point now where I’m tempted to pull a Democratic primary ballot on the 20th to vote for Baker so that I’ll be slightly less likely to be faced with the proverbial ‘Sophie’s Choice’ of picking between The Ox and King Roy in November.

    But that’s not going to happen… I’m going to pull the GOP primary so I can vote against Oxendine twice — once in the primary and once in the runoff.

  12. Spacey G says:

    Chris. Hon. The “Read Jim Galloway’s write up” links to Richard Belcher’s original WSB-TV story. Even thought they’re both on the Cox Plantation, Galloway’s not gonna like that. (I doubt the TV people will even notice.)

    As for the whistleblower… I’ve got a few ideas about who THAT is. Not too hard to make a list, eh?

  13. macho says:

    I’ve always wondered how such a doofus / remedial criminal like Blagojevich could get elected Governor of Illinois, but now I’m starting to watch the rerun before my very eyes here in Georgia.

    Talk with anyone who served with Blagojevich in Congress, and they’ll tell you what a slimeball / idiot he was, much like the elected officials in Atlanta refer to the Ox.

  14. True Grit says:

    I agree with MSBass Singer…Big shock, huh? The judge did have the ability to hold Ox in contempt and failed to do so. Instead he said how many things he WISHED he could do to him, while he held back on one thing he could do. Sounds like the judge was blowing off steam.

Comments are closed.