Incredibly, the judge who will determine the validity of the latest demand for an open-court hearing on Richardson's divorce is Osborne, Richardson's former law partner and the same judge who mishandled the case in the first place. All other Paulding County judges recused themselves from handling Anderson's petition.
Uh, OK. Next up, my opinions on Georgia tech and new research on whether night follows freaking day.
By the way, I think I'd really enjoy law school, assuming they teach writing like this, from Speaker Glenn Richardson's motion to keep his divorce case sealed:
"Because this case does involve one party as a high-ranking public official, it may tend to cause people such as Anderson to slide from underneath the objects under which they hide to try and gain their own notoriety to justify their own self existence," Richardson wrote.
Professional. Speaker Richardson, by the way, appears to be serving as his own attorney AND picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel at the exact same time. That is absolutely fantastic. To continue from the article:
"Without any limitation, it has been well established and the court should take judicial notice that the Atlanta Constitution is not only inherently unreliable but, in its effort to sensationalize matters, is not bound by truth or facts," Richardson wrote.
Presumably Richardson means The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I don't think the Atlanta Constitution exists anymore.
Look, I'm no friend to The AJC. Over the years I've applied for a few jobs there. And not only have I never rated an interview, I've never rated a courtesy phone call saying "thanks, but no thanks."
But, all of a sudden, I want to read Speaker Richardson's filings and see what sort of evidence he uses to show that it has been "well established" that "the Atlanta Constitution (sic)" is "inherently unreliable." And I've gone from not giving a damn about his divorce to thinking I might want to read that thing.