Nathaniel “Nate” Broughty opens his latest Nate the Lawyer video with a kind of disbelief that feels almost tired, like he’s watching a story that should have wrapped up cleanly months ago, but instead keeps finding new ways to escalate.
The headline piece, as Broughty lays it out, is this: Christina Peterson, the former Douglas County probate judge who was formally ruled “systemically incompetent” and removed from the bench, is now suing the City of Atlanta and an Atlanta police officer for $50 million.
In Nate’s telling, the wild part isn’t just the size of the lawsuit, or even the fact it exists, but that it comes after a stack of other controversies that already put Peterson in the public spotlight for all the wrong reasons.
He frames it as a story about accountability and power, but also something else that’s harder to measure – entitlement mixed with grievance, the kind that makes every consequence feel like a conspiracy.
A Judge’s Fall That Didn’t Stop At Removal
Broughty walks viewers back to who Christina Peterson is, noting she was elected as the first Black woman probate judge in Douglas County, Georgia.
In the clips he plays, you hear her oath of office, and then Nate immediately pivots to what he describes as her first big push: money.
According to Nate, Peterson wasn’t satisfied with what probate judges had been paid previously, and he tells it like this was not a quiet negotiation but a public demand to be paid at the same level as more senior judges in the county.
A Fox 5 I-Team segment that Nate includes – featuring reporter Randy Travis – describes the debate over how big a paycheck a newly elected judge “should be getting,” with county leaders pushing back on the number Peterson wanted.
In that Fox 5 clip, Peterson says she’s “looking for fairness across the board,” and argues she has the same qualifications as everyone else.
The news segment also points out a basic fact that sticks in people’s heads because it’s so simple: the man she replaced made about $96,000, and Peterson knew the pay when she decided to run.
Nate’s commentary on that moment is blunt and skeptical, because in his view, you can’t play the “I’m new here” card while also pushing to be treated like a long-time veteran at the top of the pay scale.
He then claims Douglas County made Peterson the highest paid judge in the county anyway, and he uses another news clip to show how her earnings reportedly ballooned.
That clip says Peterson made $266,000 in one year, more than any judge in the courthouse, and even more than the Georgia Supreme Court justices who would later decide her fate.
It explains the number as a combination of her salary and fee money, including money from birth and death certificate fees – about $139,000 – on top of a $127,000 annual salary.
Even if someone doesn’t know the details of how probate courts are funded, you can feel the resentment this kind of pay structure creates, because it makes the job look less like public service and more like a personal revenue stream.
And Nate clearly thinks that perception matters, because it colors how people read everything that comes next.
The Marriage License Case That Set Off Alarms
Broughty shifts to what he calls a major issue involving a Thai immigrant named PJ Skelton.
He explains that Skelton married in Douglas County in 2016, before Peterson took office, and that the “problem” began with a mistake on the marriage license about her father’s name.
As Nate tells it, Skelton didn’t know her father’s real name, so she wrote her uncle’s name on the original marriage license because that uncle raised her and filled the role of a father in her life.
Later, she discovered her father’s actual name and tried to amend the marriage certificate, filling out paperwork and going in front of Peterson to make the correction.
Nate claims Peterson “decided to make things difficult,” and he adds an extra detail he believes is relevant: Peterson saw an Asian woman married to a Black man, and he suggests that played into how the situation unfolded.
From there, his description gets darker fast.
He says Peterson ordered Skelton to come to court, then ordered her jailed for 48 hours and fined $500 for contempt.
In the news clip that follows, Skelton is heard saying she doesn’t have memories of her dad and doesn’t know who he is, which makes the whole situation sound less like “paperwork drama” and more like someone being punished for trying to fix something personal and confusing.
The clip says Skelton served two days of a 20-day jail sentence for contempt before her husband could pay the $500 fine.
It also includes a line that hits like a hammer: the panel described Peterson’s decision as a “hasty and shockingly disproportionate reaction,” calling it a hallmark of incompetence.
This is one of those moments where it’s hard not to pause and think about what power looks like at the ground level.
A probate judge isn’t supposed to be a person you fear for asking a basic question, yet here’s a case – presented by Nate and reinforced by the news excerpts – where a citizen walked in for a document correction and walked out in handcuffs.
That kind of story sticks in a community for years, because people start telling each other, “Don’t go in there unless you have to,” and trust doesn’t come back easily.
Ethics Allegations And A Reputation For Conflict
Broughty then describes Peterson as not only a judge but also a lawyer representing clients, and he brings up an example involving a reported $70,000 settlement tied to an HOA lawsuit.
According to Nate, Peterson had a “big win” with a settlement, but he says she “decided to keep it all.”
The news clip he plays frames it as anger stemming from a lawsuit filed in 2017 against an HOA that led to a $70,000 settlement, and it says a complaint filed against Peterson by the Judicial Qualifications Commission alleged she never shared that money with her clients.
Nate reacts like the allegation speaks for itself, saying she “bounced with the cash,” and he uses that as a bridge into another theme he says shows up repeatedly: conflict and accusations.
He claims that anytime Peterson was criticized, she would respond by accusing people of racism and saying complaints existed because she was a Black woman.
The news clips reinforce the idea of constant friction, describing communications that “reveal a judge who publicly vilifies colleagues,” threatens unnecessary legal action, and projects what the clip calls a “spiteful and vainglorious persona.”
Peterson is also shown in a clip describing herself as the first African-American female and Democrat, saying she was never celebrated or congratulated, and that on the day she was sworn in she received her first JQC complaint.
Nate’s framing here is pointed: he doesn’t deny race may shape how public officials are treated, but he suggests Peterson used race as a shield against accountability, especially when the criticism was about job performance and courtroom behavior.
Then he gets to the formal discipline track.
Nate says Peterson was charged with around 30 ethics violations, and he describes her defense as basically: she’s new, she’s going to make mistakes, and she’s had additional training.
But the hearing panel, based on the news clip, wasn’t persuaded.
The clip says the report cited multiple examples of failing to actually do her job, including needlessly delaying petitions, and it states the panel found her guilty of “systemic incompetence.”
It also includes a line about judges being expected to promote integrity and impartiality, and says Peterson “cannot or will not” do so, so “she must go.”
That part matters because “systemic incompetence” isn’t a casual insult, it’s a formal finding that the problems were not one-off slipups but something deeper and repeated.
In plain terms: the panel didn’t just say she messed up; it said the mess was the system.
The Buckhead Arrest And The Body Camera Fallout
Broughty then says the Georgia Supreme Court still had to make a final decision, but before it could weigh in, Peterson went out in Buckhead, and the story took another turn.
A Fox 5 segment included in the video reports Peterson was booked into the Fulton County Jail and charged with felony obstruction and simple battery of a police officer after an incident outside the Red Martini lounge.
Another Fox 5 clip says an unofficial police report claimed she appeared to be under the influence and punched an Atlanta police officer in the head.
Nate describes it in his own rough language, saying she went to the club and got her “wig pushed back,” which is his way of signaling that this didn’t look like a calm misunderstanding, but a chaotic scene.
Then comes a key point the news clips emphasize: Peterson was not removed because of the felony charges.
A segment explains that the Georgia Supreme Court removed her in response to ethics charges brought by the commission investigating judicial misconduct, not because of the Buckhead arrest.
The clip says the Supreme Court decision was an 80-page document laying out 28 counts of misconduct and 30 alleged violations, including improper conduct toward county officials and inappropriate use of court resources.
It also notes that on social media Peterson posted, “This is a setup, not justice.”
Nate uses that as the hinge into the lawsuit chapter, because he says this is where the $50 million claim grows out of the arrest narrative.
The body camera story, as presented in the 11Alive-style news clip Nate plays, names Officer Keith Wadsworth responding around 3:00 a.m. to a commotion outside the Red Martini Lounge.
The clip says Peterson allegedly screamed, interrupted, forcibly pushed the officer in the chest, and kept swiping his hands away as he attempted to assist a woman being escorted out.
It says she’s then accused of pushing him again, leading to her arrest.
The warrant, the clip says, includes Wadsworth stating under oath he was struck “with a closed fist,” and the audio reportedly includes him saying several times that he’s been punched.
At the same time, the clip notes it’s difficult to tell from the footage during the scuffle.
It then describes Peterson spending more than an hour in a police unit, sometimes hurling profanity, refusing to identify herself, and creating processing complications because nothing came up with a finger scan.
She was later booked into the Fulton County Jail, faced battery against a police officer and felony obstruction charges, then was released on a $5,000 bond, with a judge ordering her not to contact law enforcement and to stay away from the lounge.
Even without seeing the video, the way it’s described paints a picture of a person who does not accept “no” from anyone, even in a situation where the stakes are instantly high.
And when you pair that with the earlier reporting about courtroom conduct, you start to see why this case has such a magnetic pull online: it looks like a collapse of professional boundaries in public.
The Charges Get Dropped, And A $50 Million Lawsuit Appears
Broughty says that after the body cam footage came out, it “didn’t look too good” for Peterson, but he adds that Peterson and her lawyer wanted Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to take a deep look at the case.
A news clip included in his video says attempts to reach Peterson were unsuccessful, and that she hung up during one phone call, while her attorney pushed for Willis to review everything closely.
Nate then states that Willis dismissed the case, and with the criminal charges dropped, Peterson has now turned around and sued the City of Atlanta.
A news clip lays out the lawsuit claim: Peterson alleges the officer lied, and that the city portrayed her as a violent felon.
The lawsuit, according to that report, says police hurt her reputation by posting what it calls an edited video and leaving it up even after charges were dropped.
Nate emphasizes another detail he finds important: Peterson is representing herself.
He acknowledges she’s an attorney and has the right to do it, but he also calls it “always complicated,” noting there’s something risky about being your own advocate when you need a neutral, objective strategy.
The same news commentary included in his video adds that Peterson posted glamour shots on Instagram with the caption “Taking everything back that was stolen from me,” and hashtags like “year of redemption,” “reclaiming my time,” “clearing my name,” and “justice for all.”
Nate closes by saying she’s looking for $50 million from Atlanta taxpayers, asking viewers whether they think she has a good case, and offering his own view that it’s a long shot, while admitting he’s been wrong before.
That ending is classic Broughty: skeptical, slightly amused, but still leaving room for the legal system to surprise him.
And here’s what makes this fascinating in a grim way: the lawsuit isn’t just about one night outside a club, it’s about competing stories of identity and authority.
On one side, you have official findings of misconduct and incompetence, plus news reporting describing a chaotic arrest with claims of pushing and punching a cop.
On the other, you have a former judge insisting the system set her up, that the public was fed a distorted version of events, and that the reputational damage is worth $50 million.
Even if the lawsuit goes nowhere, the case still exposes a problem that doesn’t fit neatly into a courtroom filing: when someone has held power, and then loses it, sometimes they don’t simply step down – they swing back.
And as Nate’s video makes clear, the people who end up paying for that swing, at least at first, aren’t just officials and lawyers; it’s the public, watching the institutions they’re supposed to trust get dragged into one more ugly round of the same fight.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
