Ethics gadfly sues Fulton judge again

By RHONDA COOK

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Relentless government watchdog George Anderson has filed his fourth complaint against Fulton Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford, and the judge has again threatened to retaliate with a frivolous litigation lawsuit.

Bedford, through his lawyer, gave Anderson 30 days to withdraw the suit, which is the time the law allows.

“Should you fail to voluntarily dismiss the above-referenced action within the stated time period, Judge Bedford will seek all legal redress available to him,” attorney Mark Trigg wrote in a letter to Anderson.

That would include seeking reimbursement for the judge’s legal expenses.

“Just as Judge Bedford is not above the law, he’s not beneath its protections, either,” Trigg wrote Friday in an e-mail on behalf of Bedford. “He has the same legal remedies available to him as anyone else who is faced with repeated filings of costly frivolous lawsuits.”

Anderson’s issue is with Bedford’s practice of suggesting charitable contributions from those whose cell phones ring during court sessions.

One of the charities on Bedford’s list of appropriate groups is the Brandon Foundation. The judge’s family created the foundation a decade ago to honor Bedford’s grandson, who died of cancer.

Anderson filed his first complaint against Bedford in Fulton Superior Court last December. In February, Bedford’s lawyer told Anderson the judge may countersue him for abusive litigation. Anderson withdrew that complaint on March 16.

But Anderson filed a second complaint on the same day, March 16.

The second lawsuit was withdrawn on April 27.

A third one was filed May 11 and that one was withdrawn on May 20..

The fourth complaint, which is pending, was filed July 15.

Anderson said in an interview he withdrew the complaint the first three times because of stress over the potential of a “frivolous lawsuit” claim against him and because of health problems.

But Anderson said Friday he is unwilling to let it go. He said he had never been punished for having a ringing cell phone in Bedford’s court, but he took up his campaign after getting calls from people who had been.

“All four of your complaints against Judge Bedford arise out of the same set of facts ... and include the exact same ... claims,” Trigg wrote in a letter to Anderson, who has filed numerous ethics complaints and lawsuits against various public officials.

The charge Anderson made in all four complaints is that Bedford “betrayed the public trust” when he began suggesting people would get back their cell phones quicker if the made a charitable donation.

Trigg noted in his letter to Anderson that Bedford had not tried to recoup legal costs when the first three complaints were filed but that may not be the judge’s decision with the fourth one.

“Judge Bedford has been exceptionally patient, gracious and restrained in response to Mr. Anderson’s first three lawsuits. Unfortunately, it’s now become clear that approach hasn’t been effective. While Judge Bedford takes no pleasure in having to exercise his legal rights in this way, Mr. Anderson’s latest conduct has left him with no other choice.”