Fresh Loaf

OBJECTION George Anderson files his ethics complaint

Controversial Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford is the latest public official to get slapped with an ethics complaint by George Anderson, a government watchdog who’s always game for spelunking into the Open Records abyss.

On Friday, Anderson, the executive director of Ethics in Government Group, requested the State Ethics Commission and the Judicial Qualifications Commission investigate allegations against Bedford, the jurist who’s presided over such cases as the lawsuit about the Piedmont Park parking deck and the 2007 Terry Williams murder in Little Five Points. (My esteemed colleague Scott Henry touched upon the jurist’s Orwellian campaign slogan this morning. His opponent in the general election is Atlanta Magistrate Judge Keisha Lance Bottoms.)

Anderson alleges Bedford has misused “contempt of court” fines doled out to courtroom guests whose cell phones go off, speak out of turn, or conduct themselves in an unbecoming fashion. He wants the JQC to investigate whether the judge has misdirected fine payments to the Atlanta Santa Project, a charity Bedford founded and whose public service has been widely noted. Other allegations include not fully disclosing his campaign expenses and discussing pending cases outside the courtroom.

According to the minutes from a July 2008 NPU-F meeting that Bedford attended, he discussed the Terry Williams murder case. Members of the group who were interviewed by CL also said Bedford mentioned the case. (The judge was unavailable for comment on Friday.)

Now, here’s where this whole damn thing gets bizarre…

(Photo by Joeff Davis)

On Friday, Anderson called a 1:30 p.m. press conference in the rear of the Fulton County Justice Center downtown. After circling the building, I called him to see if he canceled the event. He said he had been caught in traffic and that the presser had been rescheduled for 2:00 p.m. CL photographer Joeff Davis and I decided to go eat terrible pizza and talk about election fraud while Anderson battled traffic. The pizza was, indeed, no good.

At 2 p.m., Davis and I returned to the Justice Center where we came upon four young women who said they were Bedford supporters. One of them was a local college student. Her father called and she left to meet him around the corner. Anderson arrived shortly thereafter. Tucked under his arm was a thick folder of documents and exhibits related to the Bedford complaints.

Before Anderson could begin making his comments, however, the four supporters walked out of the Justice Center accompanied by a two gentleman. One held a video camera, the other was dressed in a crisp suit and bowtie. He wore sunglasses and took a place next to me.

The girls, including the aforementioned college student, unfolded signs. “Re-elect Judge Bedford.” “We support Judge Bedford.” The man in the bowtie motioned for them to stand behind Anderson so the man with the video camera could include them in the shot.

Anderson saw the signs and laughed. “‘We support Judge Bedford?’” he said to himself. “Well, Judge Bedford doesn’t support you!”

Anderson was warned by a stranger on the street that he was being set up by Bedford’s campaign team, and that the man in the bowtie and the sign-holding college students were trotted out to muzzle Anderson’s message. The watchdog didn’t care and continued.

As Anderson explained why he was filing the complaints, the man in the bowtie — who identified himself only as “Vincent” and said that he was just a Bedford supporter — ripped a page from Sean Hannity’s playbook. When Anderson mentioned the alleged misdirection of “contempt of court” fines to pet charities, the man in the bowtie accused the watchdog of being against the United Negro College Fund, an organization that’s benefited from Bedford’s philanthropic efforts. When Anderson said the JQC hadn’t been vigilant enough in keeping an eye on judges, the man in the bowtie said the whole dramatic affair was really about the commission, not Bedford.

Anderson fielded questions from one woman who questioned why he was standing on the courthouse steps and tarnishing Bedford’s name. When I asked her name so I could identify her in the article, she understandably declined. But when I asked if she worked for Bedford, she smiled and said she didn’t want to answer.

Here’s where things started making sense: One of Anderson’s main gripes with Bedford comes down to not crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s. On the judge’s disclosure form, he listed large expenditures of $26,908.66 and $49,984 to Hampton South and the Watkins Group, respectively. Anderson said Bedford’s reasons for the expenditures — “consulting”— were vague and didn’t pass ethical muster.

It turns out some of Anderson’s confusion could probably have been answered at the press conference. Remember Vincent? You know, the aforementioned “man in the bowtie” who was there simply as a “Bedford “supporter?” He works for the Watkins Group. He had a sticker of the company logo — a purple shield with the firm’s letters — slapped on his day planner. (If you can bear to sit through the company’s website animation, you’ll see the logo.) Remember the college student holding one of the signs? After a couple of Google searches of the name she gave me and news articles, it’s clear she’s related to Vincent. The guy who warned Anderson that he was being set up by Bedford’s political team? He also was a political consultant, although he told CL he wasn’t hired by Keisha Lance Bottoms, Bedford’s opponent.

Bookmark It

Posted in News | Add a comment

Tags: complaints, Ethics, Fulton County Superior Court, George-Anderson, judicial qualification commission, press conferences, State Ethics Commission, t. jackson bedford, watkins group.