[Malum Prohibitum]

The President of the Probate Judge's Council asserts on her public web site that the probate court cannot be forced to issue the license until "the necessary reports have been received."

From Judge Cason's web site (emphasis is mine):

Upon receipt of the required criminal and mental health records, those records are reviewed for the applicant's eligibility to receive a license. Any questions concerning eligibility are referred to the Judge for determination. If the applicant is determined to be eligible to receive a license, the license is issued. Note: The Carroll County Probate Court has no control over the length of time for the return of the criminal and mental health records from the F.B.I. and the G.B.I. On all applications, this process may take as much as six months. The Court cannot be required to issue a license until the necessary reports have been received.

:-k

Let's see. O.C.G.A. 16-11-129(d)(4) states, in pertinent part:

The law enforcement agency shall notify the judge of the probate court within 50 days, by telephone and in writing, of any findings relating to the applicant which may bear on his or her eligibility for a license or renewal license under the terms of this Code section. When no derogatory information is found on the applicant bearing on his or her eligibility to obtain a license or renewal license, a report shall not be required. The law enforcement agency shall return the application and the blank license form with the fingerprint thereon directly to the judge of the probate court within such time period

Who is right? The judge or the General Assembly? It is a very perplexing question . . . :lol:

 

[lsu_nonleg]

Legislature creates law, judiciary interprets it. Interpreting the law did not give one license to create new definitions of words or attach conditions where none existed in the original text.

But WTF do I know, I feel that way about the federal Constitution, too.

Groan, once again I missed the sarcasm in my rush to, "what the F(!#@ do you mean the answer isn't clear!!!"

 

[ptsmith24]

Legislature creates law, judiciary interprets it. Interpreting the law did not give one license to create new definitions of words or attach conditions where none existed in the original text.

But WTF do I know, I feel that way about the federal Constitution, too.

Very true.

 

[Taler]

I assert that Betty is :screwy:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I assert that Betty is :screwy:

Her argument won at the trial level in one case, which is now on appeal. All pleadings available here.

 

[Adam5]

Re: President of Probate Judges Council Can NOT be Forced .

The law enforcement agency shall notify the judge of the probate court within 50 days, by telephone and in writing, of any findings relating to the applicant which may bear on his or her eligibility for a license or renewal license under the terms of this Code section. When no derogatory information is found on the applicant bearing on his or her eligibility to obtain a license or renewal license, a report shall not be required. The law enforcement agency shall return the application and the blank license form with the fingerprint thereon directly to the judge of the probate court within such time period

It doesn't make sense to me, how this can up for interpretation. The state legislature plainly says that a report in not required. Judges should not be allowed to override what the law says.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Well, sir, that is because you are not trained in the subtleties of the law, sir, which declare emphatically that something which is not required actually is required and something that shall be done in 60 days shall not be done prior to the expiration of 6 months . . .

 

[Adam5]

Well, sir, that is because you are not trained in the subtleties of the law, sir, which declare emphatically that something which is not required actually is required and something that shall be done in 60 days shall not be done prior to the expiration of 6 months . . .

I wish I could interpret my bosses deadlines that way......

 

[glockgirl]

Well, sir, that is because you are not trained in the subtleties of the law, sir, which declare emphatically that something which is not required actually is required and something that shall be done in 60 days shall not be done prior to the expiration of 6 months . . .

I wish I could interpret my bosses deadlines that way......

dang skippy!

I am so glad MP is here to translate this legal gibberish for us

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I wish I could interpret my boss' deadlines that way......

I do!

 

[Rammstein]

So if a probate judge tells me I must give my relatives part of the inheritance, can I tell her "eh....I'll think about it. Expect my decision in 4-6 months."

 

[Dan H]

So if a probate judge tells me I must give my relatives part of the inheritance, can I tell her "eh....I'll think about it. Expect my decision in 4-6 months."

EXACTLY!

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

I guess we will soon find out in the Moore v Coweeta County case.