In a much worse case than mine, by a 7-2 margin, the US Supreme Court seems to be in disagreement with Judge #Beavers opinion just as the Georgia High Court seems to be. The Chief Judge suggested that I hire an attorney. Now I'm beginning to wonder who needs to hire a an attorney for advice. Or attend a better law school.
As said, previously, and against the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, I had to listen to Judge Beavers lecture me in his courtroom about not being a lawyer, I have to admit it was somewhat gratifying to find that my opinion was more in line with the Georgia Supreme Court's recent decision and now the US Supreme Court. No, I didn't graduate from a third or fourth tier "Up The Road School of Law" in Atlanta (Ranked 6th in the top 10 worst law schools in the country by the Daily Caller and 178th out of 200+ law schools in the US News "peer reputation rankings"). But some things just aren't that complicated.
In dismissing a motion, I have no idea why anyone would feel the need to point out that a motion is filed pro se. If the motion is that poorly written, "pro se" should speak for itself. The other party was pro se but they weren't made to feel ridiculed and advised to hire an attorney.
The other side's past attorney, Parisa Naderi Herrin, doesn't seem to have ever lost in Judge #TonnyBeavers' court. While reviewing years of cases, all cases have not been reviewed yet that involve both Herrin and the Chief Judge. But if she has lost a case in the Chief Judge's court we haven't found it, yet.
Could the opposing side's gateway position with a global home retailer that has done much for the county have sway with the court? In a previous action, did the mother's attorney allege that it may be necessary for The Home Depot Corporate to get involved in the parties' case? Was there evidence presented by the opposing side that would prove this to be necessary? Or just baseless allegations?
I'm closing this topic but allowing it remain visible.
I looked the background materials and it is obvious that this is a personal attack on the judge ... I also note it is not the first.
I will say that the areas you cite as presumably impeaching the judgment of Judge Beavers are not as clear an indictment of his judgment as you pretend.
For instance, in the dismissal of the motion by the judge, he references two previous motions and does note they were proffered 'pro se' ... and denies the motion on the basis that the protective order moved against expired making the whole matter moot. Beyond that, I wonder if the inclusion of the term 'pro se' in the order is simply not analogous to the acknowledgement of the author - i.e. an attorney of which a copy of an order is often, by directed as well as discussion of said order.
The judge may have admonished you in open court but the simple use of the term pro-se in describing the motion I don't take as a pejorative.
Beyond that, while you can argue that you were denied justice and cite these similar cases the constitutional issues were more celebrated (although largely ignored by the courts - intentionally) it speaks at most to the imperfection of the law in rendering justice.
And had that been the extent of your post, it would be left open. What is bothersome to me is the intent to ridicule directly the educational background of the particular judge when it really doesn't make any difference.
Yea, call it my reaction to law school snobbery which is at least in part based on the knowledge that some of the best attorneys in history simply 'read the law' in a process that remains a path to practice, at least in states such as California, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, New York and Maine. While New York and Maine require attendance (one or two years at a formal law school) the other states allow those who have worked as a clerk under a judge or attorney to take the bar exam and upon passage, are allowed a license to practice.
Anyway, the use of these forums for personal payback is really not appropriate and while I've been intrigued by your view of the family justice system and such legal issues as in the online stalking case decided by the GA. Supreme Court are a valued contribution - the rather petty efforts to slap and slam individuals is discouraged.