I can't believe a grown man can be as dumb as Bill Berryman. I don't see how he manages to feed himself.posted @ Wednesday, October 8, 2014 - 20:25
Why is the County wasting money hiring counsel, is the case too tough for Billy Boy Berryman? I guess he must not have played golf too much with this federal judge, or doesn't have an assistant who was the judge's law partner.posted @ Sunday, August 17, 2014 - 00:29
I guess that's why they made the series finale so bad, so there will be nowhere to go but up.posted @ Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 21:26
Richt should NOT be making excuses for his players' misbehaviour. It could very well have cost us the game.
The rules should be changed, such that even ONE unsportsmanlike conduct penalty should result in immediate ejection. If the penalties continue, just like in wrestling, the entire team should be disqualified.
"That’s just because of the intensity of the game. If you go out and you see someone you dislike, just hate with all your heart, it’s going to be hard for you not to say something to them.” THAT is the problem - and the problem with Mark Richt's leadership. I can understand rivalry; my college team played its big rivalry game yesterday as well. (And lost, of course.) But you certainly do not "hate with all your heart" the other side - that is just stupidity.
Sports are sports, and require sportsmanship, not hating someone with all your heart. And if Mark Richt can't enforce that discipline on his team, then HIS blood should be pumping from standing in the unemployment line.posted @ Sunday, November 3, 2013 - 12:09
@melquiades: That is an excellent point, and deserves to be addressed. There are really three responses.
First, the harsher response, is that she should have thought about that before she laid down. If it were a man boohooing and saying "I just can't afford to support another one," we would rightly tell him to suck it up and stop whining - he laid down now he needs to pay up.
Secondly, while I dismiss the nonsense about contraception (which does not bring down abortion rates and which instead contributes to the culture which enables abortion - in fact the lady from your example probably laid down because she believed that contraception would work), I would agree that we do need to support services for families in so-called "crisis pregnancies." The solution to a crisis pregnancy is to eliminate the crisis, not the baby. That's why I encourage lavish support for crisis pregnancy centers which provide resources to families in such situations - help finding a job and keeping a job, baby diapers, help renting a place to live, help finding childcare, free legal aid when the woman is threatened with violence if she keeps the baby, etc.
For forty years the pro-life moment has allowed itself to be libelously portrayed as only caring about the unborn baby, not the woman or not the baby after he is born. We must do all we can to end that myth.
With that aside, it seems that if pre-birth infanticide (abortion) has to remain decriminalized in the United States (and for the moment it does according to the US Supreme Court), then it should be done safely. "Safe, legal, and rare" was the lie that they told in the nineties. In many states, there are more regulations governing animal clinics than abortion facilities. This is true in Georgia as well. Why should women's health be placed at such risk?
The law about admitting privileges (that abortionists cannot commit abortions unless they have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital) is to me common sense. Many times, women undergoing abortions have medical complications which require emergency attention. I can put you in touch with a lady I know who actually documents all the times she sees ambulances rush into abortion clinics.posted @ Saturday, November 2, 2013 - 20:52
If they got rid of everyone on MARTA who is a nuisance, there wouldn't be anybody left on it.posted @ Friday, September 6, 2013 - 18:14
Sigh. This, if nothing else, should cause Bill Berryman's immediate dismissal from the Athens-Clarke County Unified Government. Oracle has it exactly right - there is absolutely NO reason to file a motion for new trial in a bench trial. Do you really think that the Judge who just issued the decision is going to say "Woops!" and suddenly make a different decision?
Particularly on the ground alleged here - "contrary to evidence." Do you REALLY think that a Judge is going to say "The decision I just made was contrary to the evidence?" If he thought it was contrary to the evidence, he wouldn't have made it in the first place. This is obvious.
Motions for New Trial are used in jury trials frequently, when you want the Judge to overturn the Jury's verdict (I've used it in this way successfully), and in criminal cases (essentially to extend the time to file a Notice of Appeal), but I have never seen it done in a bench trial. If he wants to appeal, then appeal, and let other Judges look at it. But it is the height of unprofessionalism to waste the time of the trial court, and the money of your client, fighting against a Judge who has already made his decision - IN HIS OWN COURTROOM! If you don't like the decision the Judge has made, you appeal - you don't fight the judge in his own courtroom. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand this, you just need to be a person with sense.posted @ Monday, August 19, 2013 - 21:49
I never thought I would say this, but I am finding myself agreeing with Professor Wilkes here, though for different reasons. In response to the Professor, I say that if this vandal had not been vandalizing a building, he wouldn't have been tazed and would still be alive.
But nevertheless, I concur in his ultimate opinon, regardless of his reasoning. I think other police departments might be able to handle tasers, but Athens-Clarke is very different. In my experience, Athens-Clarke police are very aggressive and heavy-handed, which is a sign of immaturity, poor training, and irresponsibility.
For instance, several years ago when a client called me to ask some question about her legal rights at a traffic stop, the idiot Athens-Clarke cop threatened to arrest me for "obstruction!" Lol. I would truly not be surprised if, when a Judge in Athens finds someone not guilty of something, an idiot Athens-Clarke cop goes right up to the bench and writes the Judge a ticket for "obstruction" - because the Judge is obstructing his attempt to put the person in jail.
This is not an indictment of all Athens-Clarke police, but from what I have seen I am uncomfortable with that department having tasers. I could just see them going around tasing (tazing?) every person they see. "Obstruction!!! *taze*"
(The counterargument to my point would be that we give these people guns, and they don't go around shooting everyone they see. My surreply would be that, psychologically, even for an Athens-Clarke cop, shooting someone is on a very different level than tazing them.)posted @ Thursday, August 15, 2013 - 21:51
Naegleria was featured in two episodes of House M.D.posted @ Tuesday, August 13, 2013 - 22:23
But we've got to verify it legally!
is positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably dead!posted @ Thursday, August 8, 2013 - 18:41
This is another very well deserved loss for Bill Berryman, whose heavy handed tactics have cost the people of Athens-Clarke County ungodly amounts of money that could have been better spent.
The Commission should strongly reconsider Mr. Berryman's employment - the County would be better served by an attorney who is reasonable and picks his battles, instead of litigating endlessly just for the purpose of litigating. Not only is that not being a good steward of the public funds, but it is also extremely bad lawyering. A good lawyer knows when to pick his battles, and has respect for his client's bottom line. The community can do better than Bill Berryman.posted @ Thursday, August 1, 2013 - 20:22
To the royal Baby! May He be long-lived, happy, and glorious, and one day reign o'er us - because He's got to be better than Obama!posted @ Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - 18:15
Isn't it funny how the media never calls him or her the "royal fetus" or the "royal tissue" or the "royal cells."posted @ Monday, July 22, 2013 - 10:49
The other problem was her attitude. When someone displays attitude, they lose credibility. Instead of blaming other people, she needs to look at herself - and I don't mean physical appearance, I mean introspection - to knock off that attitude of hers.
"Madea goes to Court" is funny though.posted @ Friday, July 19, 2013 - 21:59
Wow I am very sorry to read of Mrs. Oliver's passing. She was a participant in the Women in Black anti-war protests that I counter-protested when I lived in Athens. Most of the Women, including Mrs. Oliver, were very respectful and I thought we got along very well. Even though I disagreed with her and the rest of the Women, their dedication to expressing their beliefs is inspirational. May she rest in peace.posted @ Friday, July 19, 2013 - 21:56
The Not Guilty verdict was absolutely the right one, and the only verdict that any reasonable jury could have reached. The prosecution's case was doomed right from the start when it put Miss Credibility herself on the stand as its first witness. And it did not get better from there.
So the verdict is a triumph for justice and fairness, and for the right of the citizens to defend themselves when threatened and attacked. And we may well be glad that these rights have been vindicated, and that we do not have to walk around in fear of thugs - we can defend ourselves and the laws of this country will back us up. So we may be glad and rejoice in this.
BUT, let us keep in mind also that someone has died. I'm not saying the death was not justified - obviously it was - but nevertheless, someone's son, grandson, nephew, etc., has died. Even as we thankful for our rights and the laws that secure those rights, let us be graceful, and have respect for the family who is mourning their loved one.posted @ Sunday, July 14, 2013 - 19:44
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
This Declaration proves definitively that rights do not come from the government - rather, rights come from God. If rights came from the government, then the government could rightfully take them away - and then they were not rights at all, but privileges. If rights came from the Constitution, or the Supreme Court, they could be rightfully taken away by amending or suspending the Constitution or changing the Supreme Court.
So, in order for a right to be inalienable - that is, can never be rightfully taken away - that right must come from an unchangeable source, a Source with whom there is no change or shadow of turning. Thus, in order for us to acknowledge that there is such a thing as a right, we must acknowledge the existence and the supremacy of God, and that the government is subordinate to and completely dependent upon God, in that it exists only to subserve those rights which God has established.posted @ Thursday, July 4, 2013 - 21:55
So I heard on the news recently that the military rose up and overthrew a dictatorial president who had no regard for individual freedoms. You don't know how disappointed I was to find out they were talking about Egypt.posted @ Thursday, July 4, 2013 - 21:21
Judge Gillian Abramson of New Hampshire once remarked, in sentencing a defendant, "infinity is not enough jail time for you." I think that applies here too.posted @ Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 17:56
I am reasonably proud of the House for passing this important piece of legislation; the hard science which confirms that unborn babies do feel pain is one of the strongest weapons we have to debunk the mythology that the baby is just a "woman's body" or "tissue" or a "clump of cells" or whatever intellectually void word or phrase that pro-aborts dream up to minimize the baby's humanity.
The fact that men are speaking up on this matter is not to be condemned; rather, to the contrary, it is absolutely capital - because abortion is a men's issue. In fact, offhand I cannot think of anything that is MORE of a men's issue. In the ordinary case (not to foreclose one exception), women do not spontaneously become pregnant without a man being involved at some point in the pregnancy-inducing procedure. Every baby who is killed by abortion is a man's baby - and thus abortion is a men's issue.
The invocation of the name Gosnell is very relevant and important to this discussion for this reason alone: That if the very same baby that Gosnell killed had been located in the birth canal instead of outside of it, his crime would instead be regarded as a "constitutional right" rather than the first degree murder of which he was convicted. This seems like such an extremely arbitrary line with no scientific or philosophical reasoning behind it. The government drawing arbitrary lines is bad enough, but drawing them in such a way that costs human lives is unconscionable.
I do wish, however, that the bill had not included a "rape exception," which to me is the zenith of foolishness. The United States Supreme Court holds that rapists themselves cannot get the death penalty - so why should the innocent baby get the death penalty, and the innocent woman be subjected not only to the emotional trauma of the rape but also the great emotional trauma of having killed her child (not to mention the physical side effects of abortion)? These psychological scars remain with the woman long after the rapist's jail time (if any) is up.posted @ Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 13:45
No but I know how much the Democratic Party campaigned for her to win in her last election. I think I even got a call from Hon. Shirley Abrams (D-Atlanta) asking me to vote for her. (Must have been a robo-dial, lol)posted @ Wednesday, June 5, 2013 - 18:54
You've accidentally labeled Mrs. Quick as "R-Athens" instead of her correct designation of "D-Athens."posted @ Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - 11:36
@Minion: Your point is well taken. Let it be clear that I am not speaking as an Attorney (a "counselor") or an Administrative Hearing Officer, but rather just as a plain ole private citizen.
Actually I watched the arguments; and, to be fair to Mr. Sweat, he did ask a reasonably intelligent question (though it was obviously one that he had just copied from the luminary Justice Nahmias who had asked the exact same thing about a minute prior.)posted @ Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - 11:28
Oh merciful heavens, anything but this. I guess all the kids fresh out of law school are busy studying for the Bar, so they had to lower their standards and dredge this guy up.
I wonder though, how is he going to decide this case? He couldn't possibly have practiced law with either of the lawyers involved here, or played golf with them or anything! How will he know who to agree with!?
Now, on a broader note, irrespective of the Judge (or in this case, Mr. Sweat) chosen, I am concerned about this whole business of sitting on a higher court "by designation." (This is not limited just to Georgia, it happens on the federal Courts of Appeal all the time, they'll appoint a District Judge to sit by designation.) This concerns me because I think people have the right to expect that when their cases reach that level, they will be heard by only appellate Judges. The judges by designation were not elected to sit on appellate courts reviewing cases.
Especially the Supreme Court, which is not JUST an "appellate court" but also a policy court - setting policy for the entire State. This is particularly true in this case, where as the article indicates the case came up from the Court of Appeals. This means that the Supreme Court granted certiorari - that is, they determined that the issue was of significant seriousness in the public policy of Georgia that it needs a final pronunciation from the highest Court in the State on the matter. I think that Judges who set policy for the state should be elected by the people of the State.posted @ Monday, June 3, 2013 - 09:04
This is actually the silliest dog-bites-man story I've seen in many a long year. So what if the Pope DID perform an exorcism? That's what Priests do. The Pope is a Priest.
Lawyers write contracts, doctors write prescriptions, veterinarians neuter cats, Priests perform exorcisms. Dogs bite men. These things are not news.
So if he did perform an exorcism, so what? If he did not perform it, then so what? Either way, so what?posted @ Wednesday, May 22, 2013 - 17:49
Summary: I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. I'm not saying it's lonely to be a movie critic, but we often find ourselves seated alone in an empty theatre when we're watching new stuff. I know people who say they won't go see anything unless they have at least one other person to go with, but I've always enjoyed having the place to myself. read more
As you might imagine, the vast majority of the editorial cartoons available these days for publication through the syndicate which supplies cartoons to the Athens Banner-Herald/OnlineAthens are addressing the situation in Ferguson, Mo., where the fatal shooting of a black teen by a white police officer has touched off a number of demonstrations -- some peaceful, but many not at all peaceful, with tear gas fired by police officers and gunshots fired by some protester. read more