FINALLY A DAY IN COURT

[gpatt0n]

Will somebody please buy my house so I can get out of Paulding County?

 

I used to think it Paulding was a great place to live, but after reading all of this rhetoric - Commissioners stealing (or allowing builders to steal) people's property, houses/properties being condemned due to builders not getting the proper permits 20-years ago (before the laws were really in place to enforce such things), misappropriation of funds... And when I google, P.Com pops up with lots of negative stories - SP's story, evil principals at a certain HS, schools not making AYP...

 

I know that it seems the grass is always greener on the other side of the road. It is not.

 

Actually, given the pressures of growth and influence of money on politics/government, I wouldn't be complacent - we can do a better job - but compared to much of the world things are actually pretty good.

 

If I were grading Paulding overall on a true 100 percent point scale their failings would put them in the 80-84 point range. Far from perfect but a good solid C+.

 

If, on the other hand, I were to grade the county's performance on a 'curve' ... its grade would be a good A- ... not the top of the class ... but in terms of integrity and the like, pretty high.

 

That the county has grown from a two man Fire Dept. to one that earned the vast majority of residents a drop in their ISO rating is a true public service accomplishment.

 

The clearing of the roads just a few weeks ago is another example.

 

We've actually got a pretty good, competent, honest government and it has graded from a low of a C- to the current A- in this respect over the course of the last 30 years. And this would be in the context of the United States.

 

If you were to go to Mexico, Asia or even many European areas you'd find government almost impossible to deal with as they ask for bribes almost like life is the petty bureaucrats personal toll road.

 

We actually have it pretty good. The complaints and concerns are to make it better.

 

pubby

[GreenEyedGirl]

Where is there a mishandling of funds? If you are talking about the campaign contributions and the law firm contributing to several candidate's campaigns, I hate to bust your bubble but those campaign contributions that are mentioned in this thread are perfectly legal and ethical.

 

 

I'm not saying there are mishandling of funds. A lot of the thread seems to insinuate there may be.

 

My point was that I doubt the local Republican Party has anything to do with the issues that have been mentioned about contributions made to candidates. They don't force candidates to run Republican (most folks in this county are conservative, so candidates choose to run Republican).

 

Also - the other point - if there are folks here that feel there is an issue with funding, payouts, contributios, etc then they should try to get it investigated. Comments shouldn't be made that throw citizens that have an interest in politics and conservative values (ie the local party) under the bus.

[WHITEY]

There are certain Facts to consider in this thread that it appears that certain posters are okay with.

 

1 a law suit was filed almost five years ago and has yet to be heard in a court of law.

 

2 Paulding County Board of Commissioners have spent a reported $1,300,000 and the original case has still not been heard, and to my knowledge has not been scheduled to be heard?

 

3 A hearing was scheduled this past Wednesday to determine not if the County owed Surepip money But rather how much they owed him for a violation of a State law (anti slap)

 

4 Some post in this thread plainly show that our tax dollars are being spent in a manner that I do not agree with (see post # 52)

 

5 Some post allege that campaign contributions are being given to candidates to maintain the status quo within the Board of Commissioners.

 

All of the above items can easily be verified through the State of Georgia web site or through the various County offices. Some of which I have verified.

 

I am of the opinion that all citizens of Paulding County who seek redress from the County should have their case heard in a timely manner.

I am appalled at the money spent by the County to litigate this case and to my knowledge the original case has not even scheduled to be heard yet?

The time has come to resolve these cases without any further undue delay.

[GreenEyedGirl]

There are certain Facts to consider in this thread that it appears that certain posters are okay with.

 

1 a law suit was filed almost five years ago and has yet to be heard in a court of law.

 

2 Paulding County Board of Commissioners have spent a reported $1,300,000 and the original case has still not been heard, and to my knowledge has not been scheduled to be heard?

 

3 A hearing was scheduled this past Wednesday to determine not if the County owed Surepip money But rather how much they owed him for a violation of a State law (anti slap)

 

4 Some post in this thread plainly show that our tax dollars are being spent in a manner that I do not agree with (see post # 52)

 

5 Some post allege that campaign contributions are being given to candidates to maintain the status quo within the Board of Commissioners.

 

All of the above items can easily be verified through the State of Georgia web site or through the various County offices. Some of which I have verified.

 

I am of the opinion that all citizens of Paulding County who seek redress from the County should have their case heard in a timely manner.

I am appalled at the money spent by the County to litigate this case and to my knowledge the original case has not even scheduled to be heard yet?

The time has come to resolve these cases without any further undue delay.

 

Good summary!

[gpatt0n]

Where is there a mishandling of funds? If you are talking about the campaign contributions and the law firm contributing to several candidate's campaigns, I hate to bust your bubble but those campaign contributions that are mentioned in this thread are perfectly legal and ethical.

 

In most ways I agree with you BB and while I can describe our method of funding political campaigns as legal and constitutional I just can't, on principal, call our campaign finance morass moral or ethical.

 

The rub is this. In every other walk of life when you give someone a couple of grand, you get something tangible in return. Very few people are so magnetic that people reach into their pockets to retrieve $100 bills because they are so dynamic and wonderful.

 

The point is if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck you can pretty call it a duck. And that's the problem with campaign finance - especially when you look at 'loopholes' in the tax code and other special provisions that are against the interests of the general public.

 

pubby

[bvrat5199]

Again, IF surepip and his family have been wronged, it should be made right and I wish them the best. Should the jury of our peers in Paulding County not rule in his favor, then I will feel the judicial process has spoken - that is all we can ask of them and we all have to remember that we don't live in a perfect world.

 

One thing that should out rage us all, and is not in question is the amount of time this case has been going on. FIVE YEARS of tax payer money has been spent to AVOID this case going to a jury of peers....there is NO EXCUSE for that, and anyone that has paid taxes in PC over that time period has an absolute right to be outraged over the waste of their money - no matter how much the amount is.

[NewsJunky]

Your case is one thing but I think I would lay off the attacks.

 

I agree with you SOLO. I can understand surepip's frustration but more trouble from those mentioned is something he probably can do without. I hope for a just and correct outcome in this case.

[bvrat5199]

Where is there a mishandling of funds? If you are talking about the campaign contributions and the law firm contributing to several candidate's campaigns, I hate to bust your bubble but those campaign contributions that are mentioned in this thread are perfectly legal and ethical.

 

There is NOTHING ethical in the handling of campaign contributions in this nation at ANY level of Gov't.

[gpatt0n]

I agree with you SOLO. I can understand surepip's frustration but more trouble from those mentioned is something he probably can do without. I hope for a just and correct outcome in this case.

 

I would be severely disappointed if the county or any of the folks involved in this dispute were to suddenly become vindictive and seek to 'screw-em' any way they can.

 

I'm appalled that those who are warning SP believe the current crop of commissioners have that kind of narrow response in their repertoire. It is an issue, compartmentalized and being dealt with.

 

FYI: I know that the Sheriff wouldn't participate in that kind of thing. Couldn't say that about all the sheriffs' I've known but certainly the vast majority. I also wouldn't put vindictiveness beyond some other folks but for the most part they are no longer in office.

 

Now they may take a contract.

 

pubby

[katcol]

We now have to wait while the opposition has 10 days to provide cited cases to support their position of why our attorney's fees are out of line, and then somewhere between 1 and 8 months, based on previous rulings, before we get a new ruling, based on the ruling we got November 18th from the oral arguments presented on March 17th 2010.

 

And the Good Old Boys of Paulding County continue to get their way.

 

Yeah, I am disgusted. Can you blame me ?

 

So, who reviews the work of their attorneys to see how many of their fees are out of line?

[bvrat5199]

So, who reviews the work of their attorneys to see how many of their fees are out of line?

 

WAIT...are you suggesting that an atty's office would over charge a gov't for profit? NOOOOOOOOO.

[NewsJunky]

I would be severely disappointed if the county or any of the folks involved in this dispute were to suddenly become vindictive and seek to 'screw-em' any way they can.

 

I'm appalled that those who are warning SP believe the current crop of commissioners have that kind of narrow response in their repertoire. It is an issue, compartmentalized and being dealt with.

 

FYI: I know that the Sheriff wouldn't participate in that kind of thing. Couldn't say that about all the sheriffs' I've known but certainly the vast majority. I also wouldn't put vindictiveness beyond some other folks but for the most part they are no longer in office.

 

Now they may take a contract.

 

pubby

After the recent award to someone whose name was used on a public message board I would just be careful what claims I made against folks. That is all I said. I stand by that Pubby. Surepip is very frustrated and that is truly understandable. I do wish him peace and a just conclusion to his long quest for a day in court.

[WHITEY]

I agree with you SOLO. I can understand surepip's frustration but more trouble from those mentioned is something he probably can do without. I hope for a just and correct outcome in this case.

After almost five years of frustation,It is past time for a little name calling.

And it is past time for Surepip to have his day in court, Let a jury of his peers make the decision ASAP

[surepip]

Long week, especially after such a waste of good time and money Wednesday. We have just returned from wrapping up the Poultry show.

 

I have attended 100% of the International Poultry Exposition for all 3 days every year since 1976. This year I missed the entire opening day to have it wasted watching and listening to another 6 hours of Courtroom BS. This is an event where hundreds of my customers from around the world are in one building in order to be available for meetings and discussions on equipment sales and performance. And I missed 40% of it to sit and watch Wiener was my time and our money asking the same stupid questions over and over and over again because he did not like the answers.

 

Let me set the record straight on one particular item:

 

To the best of my knowledge, Neither David Austin, Tommie Graham, Todd Pownall, or David Barnett have accepted any campaign contributions from Holland & Knight or any of their attorneys.

 

Jerry Shearin received enormous amounts and Echols, Kirby and Ragsdale did receive smaller amounts.

 

Virtually all of our current elected reps and senators have a long history of donations coming from Holland & Knight or from other PACs and/'or politicians who Holland & Knight have donated to.

 

I will pull up some of the links for the various pages from the State Ethics Commission site showing the contributions from Holland & Knight to the various politicians, and showing the trail as the money works its way back to previous Paulding County Commissioners and many of our current and previous elected officials and/or their PACs.

[mojo413]

Surepip... I am very sorry for all the agony you and your family have endured for the past 5 years.

 

I've got a suggestion. I do not know if anyone will take me up on my suggestion. I am sure the lawyers wlll not like it.

 

Let's all meet for a late lunch at the Briar Patch this next week. Here's the plan...

David Austin, Larry Ragsdale, Tommie Graham, Todd Pownall, David Barnett and you will sit at a table on the far end towards Martins.

We will block off access to that room to anyone else.

I'll arrange a pastor to say the blessing.

None of us can be close enough to hear your conversation.

Sheriff Gary will post an officer to verify no one can get close enough to hear the conversation. The officer will hand you your trays.

You 6 guys cannot leave the table until you reach a settlement. So go to the bathroom just before you sit down.

When you reach a settlement David will call the countys attorney from the table. You will call your attorney from the table. The attorneys will do what you guys tell them to do.

The settlement terms will be sealed.

I will pay the bill for the meal. You guys can order anything on the menu.

You guys must shake hands before you can then go to the bathroom.

Anyone who releases the terms of the settlement must contribute $100,000.00 towards the newly formed "Payoff the $65,000,000.00 Court House Loan program".

 

Like I say the attorneys will hate this plan. Their income from this nightmare has just come to an end.

Edited January 29, 2011 by mojo413

[LisaKW@bellsouth.net]

Even if this post was "done in jest", it is in very poor taste.

 

All it takes is for a couple of wack-a-doos who hold things posted on PCom as "Gospel" for things to get ugly.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Epiphany

[Animal]

Best of luck surpip,may justice ring.

[surepip]

Surepip... I am very sorry for all the agony you and your family have endured for the past 5 years.

 

I've got a suggestion. I do not know if anyone will take me up on my suggestion. I am sure the lawyers wlll not like it.

 

Let's all meet for a late lunch at the Briar Patch this next week. Here's the plan...

David Austin, Larry Ragsdale, Tommie Graham, Todd Pownall, David Barnett and you will sit at a table on the far end towards Martins.

We will block off access to that room to anyone else.

I'll arrange a pastor to say the blessing.

None of us can be close enough to hear your conversation.

Sheriff Gary will post an officer to verify no one can get close enough to hear the conversation. The officer will hand you your trays.

You 6 guys cannot leave the table until you reach a settlement. So go to the bathroom just before you sit down.

When you reach a settlement David will call the countys attorney from the table. You will call your attorney from the table. The attorneys will do what you guys tell them to do.

The settlement terms will be sealed.

I will pay the bill for the meal. You guys can order anything on the menu.

You guys must shake hands before you can then go to the bathroom.

Anyone who releases the terms of the settlement must contribute $100,000.00 towards the newly formed "Payoff the $65,000,000.00 Court House Loan program".

 

Like I say the attorneys will hate this plan. Their income from this nightmare has just come to an end.

 

 

This is not far off from what we suggested to David Austin March of 2009, shortly after he took office, and it was flat our rejected by the BOC. Of course that was half a million dollars ago.

 

And even though the BOC and their attorney claim they have not broken the Georgia Anti-Slap Statute; at the court ordered mediation the ONLY offer we were made by the BOC was to NOT continue to sue us for their attorney fees.

 

 

[Gone]

This is not far off from what we suggested to David Austin March of 2009, shortly after he took office, and it was flat our rejected by the BOC. Of course that was half a million dollars ago.

 

And even though the BOC and their attorney claim they have not broken the Georgia Anti-Slap Statute; at the court ordered mediation the ONLY offer we were made by the BOC was to NOT continue to sue us for their attorney fees.

Remember you have a different BOC now. New members were sworn in this January. The old King Jerry gang is GONE!

[surepip]

Remember you have a different BOC now. New members were sworn in this January. The old King Jerry gang is GONE!

 

We have made offers to discuss this with the new BOC as well, and were again told they would wait until after the hearing.

 

And instead of having their attorney allow this to come to an "END" at the hearing as the judges ruling called for, their attorney needlessly postponed reaching any sort of finality for weeks to come, wanting to spend thousands of dollars more to produce and cite more case law in the case so the judge can again deny it. So the judge allowed them 10 more days to submit their new briefs. And insult to injury is it is sort of like spending another $25,000 so they can attempt to reduce the legal bills tendered by $5000.

 

Makes lots of sense doesn't it ?

 

In addition, we will all have to pay for ANOTHER hearing to duplicate the previous one concerning the Anti-Slap Stature Ruling already issued by the judge.

 

Because there was 2 separate zonings on the same PRD at the hearings which we filed constitutional challenges on 5 years ago, there had to be two different suits, or "companion cases". One ending in 2854 and on with 2855.

 

Our attorney filed 2 separate motions on the Anti-Slap as we have done with every motion filed the past 5 years. There has always been 2.

 

On the ruling Judge Beavers issued on November 18th, which denied ALL of the BOC motions & claims, and ruled in favor of us on our Anti-Slap Statute, clearly stating the BOC AND their attorney had both broken Georgia law by attempting to deny us our 1st Amernment rights to petition the government, the ruling which Judge Beaver's office filed in the case, they failed to list BOTH case numbers, omiting 2855 by mistake.

 

Wiener, the BOC attorney then claimed as a result that all of the legal fees in regards to case 2855 could not be awarded to us because they left the number off the paperwork.

 

Instead, our attorney will have to Re-File a copy of the motion in the Anti-Slap Statute, and Judge Beavers will sign it, or so he stated he would in court as soon as our attorney files it.

 

Then we will wait while another hearing is scheduled, so we can spend another $5000 to $25,000 to get everyone together for another hearing on a ruling which is absolutely identical to the one where he already has ruled in our favor.

 

The BOC will pay their attorney ANOTHER $25,000 or so to go thru all of the testimony again.

 

Just so the BOC attorney can see the ruling with BOTH case numbers listed.

 

Another PILE of wasted tax payer money, and another couple of months wasted and it is all merely an academic exercise in futility so Wiener and Holland & Knight can continue sucking money out of the Paulding tax payers.

 

So, in summary Mojo and Far West, you guys go right ahead and make arrangements for a negotiated settlement meeting and let me know when you have an agreement from the BOC to attend and follow your groundrules.

 

I will be waiting with bated breathe!

 

Want to make any bets on this one ?

[LisaKW@bellsouth.net]

"You 6 guys cannot leave the table until you reach a settlement."

 

And of course, SP, you were ALWAYS fair and equitable in your counter-offers.

 

Whatever you guys are smoking, I hope they make it legal and over-the-counter in my life-time.

[stercus tauri]

We have made offers to discuss this with the new BOC as well, and were again told they would wait until after the hearing.

 

And instead of having their attorney allow this to come to an "END" at the hearing as the judges ruling called for, their attorney needlessly postponed reaching any sort of finality for weeks to come, wanting to spend thousands of dollars more to produce and cite more case law in the case so the judge can again deny it. So the judge allowed them 10 more days to submit their new briefs. And insult to injury is it is sort of like spending another $25,000 so they can attempt to reduce the legal bills tendered by $5000.

 

Makes lots of sense doesn't it ?

 

In addition, we will all have to pay for ANOTHER hearing to duplicate the previous one concerning the Anti-Slap Stature Ruling already issued by the judge.

 

Because there was 2 separate zonings on the same PRD at the hearings which we filed constitutional challenges on 5 years ago, there had to be two different suits, or "companion cases". One ending in 2854 and on with 2855.

 

Our attorney filed 2 separate motions on the Anti-Slap as we have done with every motion filed the past 5 years. There has always been 2.

 

On the ruling Judge Beavers issued on November 18th, which denied ALL of the BOC motions & claims, and ruled in favor of us on our Anti-Slap Statute, clearly stating the BOC AND their attorney had both broken Georgia law by attempting to deny us our 1st Amernment rights to petition the government, the ruling which Judge Beaver's office filed in the case, they failed to list BOTH case numbers, omiting 2855 by mistake.

 

Wiener, the BOC attorney then claimed as a result that all of the legal fees in regards to case 2855 could not be awarded to us because they left the number off the paperwork.

 

Instead, our attorney will have to Re-File a copy of the motion in the Anti-Slap Statute, and Judge Beavers will sign it, or so he stated he would in court as soon as our attorney files it.

 

Then we will wait while another hearing is scheduled, so we can spend another $5000 to $25,000 to get everyone together for another hearing on a ruling which is absolutely identical to the one where he already has ruled in our favor.

 

The BOC will pay their attorney ANOTHER $25,000 or so to go thru all of the testimony again.

 

Just so the BOC attorney can see the ruling with BOTH case numbers listed.

 

Another PILE of wasted tax payer money, and another couple of months wasted and it is all merely an academic exercise in futility so Wiener and Holland & Knight can continue sucking money out of the Paulding tax payers.

 

So, in summary Mojo and Far West, you guys go right ahead and make arrangements for a negotiated settlement meeting and let me know when you have an agreement from the BOC to attend and follow your groundrules.

 

I will be waiting with bated breathe!

 

Want to make any bets on this one ?

 

Best of luck to you surepip. Don't let the bastards get you down. Hang in there.

[surepip]

And of course, SP, you were ALWAYS fair and equitable in your counter-offers.

 

Whatever you guys are smoking, I hope they make it legal and over-the-counter in my life-time.

 

Sorry friend, but a counter offer would mean they offered something. They offered to not conterclaim $1million+ in legal fees if we dropped everything.

 

Eleven months later the Judge ruled all of their claims against us were denied, and ruled the BOC and their attorney had broken the Georgia Anti Slap Laws. So what counter offers were you referring to made by us ?

 

What many do not understand is relatively plain and simple.

 

Kieth Wiener and his firm, Holland & Knight have a Cash Cow with the Paulding County BOC. The old one, new one, whatever.

 

They are able to funnel hundreds of thousands of [tax payer] dollars to various "Chosen" political candidates, PACs, and other organizations of their choice by continuing to drag out our case [and others].

 

If they settle, the cash cow is gone and they will have to find another one somewhere else.

 

 

So they keep telling the BOC, "Even though the Judge ruled against us, authorize us to continue, and we can file some more case studies and briefs, keep on with unnecessary litigation and argue other facets of the case for another $50,000 or $100,000 or so, and to drag the process out for months.

 

And we MIGHT be able to reduce the amount of legal fees we have to pay by $25,000 or so.

 

You know, pay a dollar or $2.00 now so they might be able to save $0.50 later when they finally have to pay up on the legal fees because the judge has already ruled the BOC and their attorney broke the law and have to pay the Morrison's legal fees.

 

It is all quite absurd. But for them it is very profitable as well.

[gpatt0n]

Before any of you get to warm and fuzzy with the idea that the commission can gather for lunch with an individual and hash something of this nature out ... consider that such a meeting in the county to conduct the county's business is on its face a violation of the open meetings law.

 

Government is by law and design charged with doing the public's business.

 

That means that in most cases when more than three of the five commissioners are together, they constitute a quorum and that can be construed as a meeting of the public body. There are specific opportunities and times when these men can meet in private - in an announced executive session is one - but the type of meeting suggested is simply against the law.

 

Sorry to throw cold water on the idea but the law is the law. Oh, and it would relate to a conference phone call as well. Indeed, any remedy or action taken without proper notice is and can be ruled null and void.

 

The commission, notably, can visit with their attorney in executive session to discuss legal issues (including the status of the suit) but the law, in my understanding, would require them to hold a hearing if they wanted to talk directly to Surepip's attorney. (That would be getting testimony and just like the hearing about the principal's firing, that entire review of the record would have to be in public/open session. Only the board's deliberations are allowed to be conducted in executive session.)

 

Now, they could carry on an email (or snail mail) conversation but those documents by definition would be public record and subject to an open records act.

 

pubby

[surepip]

Pubby,

Mike Jones, the county administrator or whatever, sat at Wiener, the Holland & Knight attorney for the BOC all day Tuesday.

 

It was pretty evident Wiener was following the same battle-plan and tactics these guys have used since the suits were initiated almost 5 years. I don't see where any meetings at this point would or could be fruitful. It is plainly obvious they have no intention of paying us and moving forward to the courtroom trial until they are forced to do so by the judge.

 

For Wiener, he just continues to ride that old cash cow which has been feeding him for 5 years. And I have to assume the new BOC will react, and act the same as the previous BOC. For the next 30 to 45 days we will both be paying to file motions with Judge Beavers which are absolutley identical to this done last spring, which he ruled on November 18th.

 

But because his office staff inadvertantly left off one of the 2 case numbers Wiener and the BOC is insisting we do all the filings AGAIN, have ANOTHER hearing, and Judge Beavers will rule again, exactly as he did the first time. He already said this in court last week, but Wiener still insisted we go through the motions, and money, and do it again.

 

Stall-Stall-Stall, and keep sending hundreds of thousands of dollars to the candidates Holland & Knight supports.

 

I just find it incredulous that it keeps going on and going on and going on.

 

But, like our attorney said Tuesday evening as we left court. It will just mean more money they have to pay us back for legal fees.

[LisaKW@bellsouth.net]

Sorry friend, but a counter offer would mean they offered something. They offered to not conterclaim $1million+ in legal fees if we dropped everything.

 

 

Here ya go - fixed it for ya:

 

And of course, SP, you were ALWAYS fair and equitable in your counter-offers/dealings and never once said one thing and then tried to one-up at the last minute.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Epiphany

[surepip]

Here ya go - fixed it for ya:

 

Epiphany, on 29 January 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

 

And of course, SP, you were ALWAYS fair and equitable in your counter-offers/dealings and never once said one thing and then tried to one-up at the last minute.

I guess I am slow sometimes......

 

What is that supposed to mean, infer, or reference ?

[gpatt0n]

I believe that epiphany doesn't really understand the situation.

 

Let me see if I can clarify.

 

First, lets assume that you feel that land was taken from you by a slip of the pen on a subdivision platt and the result is your land is trimmed 40 feet on one side and 30 feet on another. What would you do?

 

You would file suit is what you would do.

 

See, epiphany, in the Morrison's court case the Morrison's were asking the courts determine if the road-way and utilities run in the subdivision were actually placed on land belonging to them and therefore a county error resulted in a unlawful taking of land. The Morrisons said it was and the county said it wasn't and the last time I looked, the courts are there to determine who is right and who is wrong.

 

But the county, for some reason - possibly a fear that it would lose the case on its merits - chose instead to counter-sue and threaten to charge the Morrisons with their (now over $1.3+ million) legal fees. The county believes it was audacious and frivolous for them to even question that.

 

The Morrisons said they believe there were mistakes made and asked for their day in court.

 

But that day in court has not happened. Instead, the sole question litigated over the past five years has been the county's claim that the Morrison's questions were frivolous and the Morrison's should repay the county for their legal fees incurred by filing the suit.

 

Now, there has already been one ruling - that the case is not frivolous - and the county is not due legal fees.

 

Indeed, that ruling says the county's effort asking the Morrisons for the county's legal fees was a legal tactic designed to force the Morrisons' to shut up and quit before the issues the Morrisons' raised in their suit could even be heard. In essence, judge Beavers in this case saw the ligitation/defense strategy of the county to counter-sue being an abuse of the first amendment rights of the Morrison family.

 

Said differently, the court basically ruled the county should not have chosen a strategy of endless litigation designed to 'break' the Morrisons and force them to drop their case.

 

The reason the county chose that strategy is because the county figured the Morrisons would run out of money before they ever got to court. The effort on the part of the county to keep them out of court was, according the ruling, clearly designed to avoid the legitimate issues that the Morrisons had the right to be heard upon in front of the court.

 

Hence, the county's sole offer for them be withdraw their case in return for the county dropping their counter-suit with its $1.3 million potential request for their attorney's fees was to acquiesce to the county and award them a victory. (They didn't want to go to court and the only offer they made involved the Morrison's dropping their case.)

 

Think of it this way. You have a 30.06 rifle in the cab of your truck. Some renegade cop likes it and takes it and alleges you are in violation of the law. You complain and file suit but the cop says he'll arrest you for felony obstruction if you don't drop your suit to get it back. This renegade cop would be wrong, he would have violated your second amendment right to keep and bear arms and his threat to arrest you was just plain bogus.

 

Still, his offer is for you to let him have his way - regardless or despite him being in wrong - or you will have to pay.

 

That is basically where the county is with the Morrison's.

 

 

The county made no offer in regard a settlement of the issues, only that they wouldn't seek to bankrupt them by asking they reimburse the county for the Morrison's asserting their first amendment rights.

 

Remember, the Anti-slapp law is based on the First Amendement:

 

First Amendment

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

You see that the right to petition the government (including in the courts) for a redress of grievances is every bit a part of that amendment as freedom of the press, freedom of religion or the right to have and bear arms.

 

Right now the case is not about who is right and who is wrong - the facts are for the court to decide. What the ruling in place said is that county can no longer litigate to drive up costs and force the Morrison's to drop their suit.

 

Still, and this is what is so frustrating for the Morrison's, the county continues to delay by litigating and driving up the costs.

 

Why are they continuing to do this?

 

In the old days, one might suggest that is the $64,000 question. The only problem is that when the legal costs of both sides are taken into consideration, the amount in play is almost 30 times that substantial sum.

 

 

pubby

[mei lan]

Here ya go - fixed it for ya:

 

Here ya go - fixed it for ya:

 

View PostEpiphany, on 29 January 2011 - 09:38 PM, said:

And of course, SP, you were ALWAYS fair and equitable in your counter-offers/dealings and never once said one thing and then tried to one-up at the last minute.

 

I'm confused as well. Not being a smart-aleck...I just can't figure out what you're trying to say.

[surepip]

Thank You Pubby!

 

You hit the nail on the head.

 

5 years now we have been fighting this fight.

 

5 years now we have been backed into a corner.

 

The BOC has been found by the court to be in error. They have been found to be in error of the Georgia Anti Slap Statute. They have been ordered to pay our legal fees.

 

So they continue to fight, arguing every step of the way.

 

And, because the BOC had Mike Jones sitting there with their attorney Wiener ALL day, for another 8 hour of legal work, I have to assume they intend to continue to litgate, litigate and litigate.

 

They have spent in excess of $1,300.000 and continue to add to that sum.

 

And it will continue to add and add and add until YOU GUYS SAY NO MORE!!!!!!!

 

When will it stop ? is up to you guys. You have pissed away $1,300,000+ and and climbing. How high will you allow it to go ?

[LisaKW@bellsouth.net]

Pubby, I understand the situation and I'll be a little more clear for those of you who are being deliberately obtuse.

 

According to many posts on PCom from several members, MANY developers in the County are/were corrupt, crooked or otherwise not quite on the up-and-up. They were always looking for ways to get what they wanted and screw the little guy.

 

BUT SP is one of the ONLY people who has always been fair and straight up in ALL of his dealings? The one GOLDEN CHILD who would never try to jack his price up to get more money in a time when the market was flourishing, never tried to stick it to the Gov't?

 

My question: Did the Gov't originally offer you any money for your land? Or did they just build around you?

 

I would really like to see the documentation that led up to this and not just keep hearing "The Gov't screwed me". I want to see what led up to it and not just read this rhetoric.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Epiphany

[lowrider]

All I can say to the negative folks out there:

 

What if it had happened to you?

 

What if they took your land?

 

Would you just "let it go"?

 

I know that I wouldn't have been able to fight the county. Besides the fact that litigation is extremely stressful and draining, I would not have had the money to fight.

 

I'm with surepip all the way on this one. Not only did they take his property, they have never given him his day in court to prove his point.

 

I hope he wins and wins big. For ALL of us.

 

He's not the only one in this county to be wronged during the previous administration with all of the building going on and money to be had for anyone that was willing to take it under the table.

 

He just happens to be the one strong enough to last this long through litigation.

[TJB]

Pubby, I understand the situation and I'll be a little more clear for those of you who are being deliberately obtuse.

 

According to many posts on PCom from several members, MANY developers in the County are/were corrupt, crooked or otherwise not quite on the up-and-up. They were always looking for ways to get what they wanted and screw the little guy.

 

BUT SP is one of the ONLY people who has always been fair and straight up in ALL of his dealings? The one GOLDEN CHILD who would never try to jack his price up to get more money in a time when the market was flourishing, never tried to stick it to the Gov't?

 

My question: Did the Gov't originally offer you any money for your land? Or did they just build around you?

 

I would really like to see the documentation that led up to this and not just keep hearing "The Gov't screwed me". I want to see what led up to it and not just read this rhetoric.

 

Why would he spend so much time and money if he didn't think he had a case?

[Beach Bum]

Why would he spend so much time and money if he didn't think he had a case?

 

I guess possibly the same reason the county is spending so much time and money on the case - I suppose the county and their legal counsel feel strongly enough about the case and their position in the case, thus the reason for expending the money to defend the case.

 

In the end, I just want the party that has been wronged to win. But I won't be basing my opinion on what I "hear" on paulding.com or any other message forum - if I want to know badly enough, I will simply attend when the trial begins and get ALL the facts from BOTH sides. We should always remember there are two sides to every story and we are only hearing ONE side here.

[rchaos]

I guess possibly the same reason the county is spending so much time and money on the case - I suppose the county and their legal counsel feel strongly enough about the case and their position in the case, thus the reason for expending the money to defend the case.

 

In the end, I just want the party that has been wronged to win. But I won't be basing my opinion on what I "hear" on paulding.com or any other message forum - if I want to know badly enough, I will simply attend when the trial begins and get ALL the facts from BOTH sides. We should always remember there are two sides to every story and we are only hearing ONE side here.

 

There you go BB. This is exactly what I plan on doing and I encourage everyone here to do the same. After all, we have paid one hell of an admission fee for this, might as well stay for the curtain call.

[gpatt0n]

Pubby, I understand the situation and I'll be a little more clear for those of you who are being deliberately obtuse.

 

According to many posts on PCom from several members, MANY developers in the County are/were corrupt, crooked or otherwise not quite on the up-and-up. They were always looking for ways to get what they wanted and screw the little guy.

 

BUT SP is one of the ONLY people who has always been fair and straight up in ALL of his dealings? The one GOLDEN CHILD who would never try to jack his price up to get more money in a time when the market was flourishing, never tried to stick it to the Gov't?

 

My question: Did the Gov't originally offer you any money for your land? Or did they just build around you?

I would really like to see the documentation that led up to this and not just keep hearing "The Gov't screwed me". I want to see what led up to it and not just read this rhetoric.

 

epiphany:

 

First, no one has proven corruption so I would not go there.

 

Second, I've been around this situation on palisades for a while. That property was a "JEWEL" and notably it was basically flat, next to the four-land and railroad and close to sewerage. In real estate parlance, it had 'location, location and location.

 

The conflict regarding the property in the years leading up to its final development for housing involved many community leaders (including myself) calling for it being held for commercial/industrial use.

 

Surepip's prior mantra regarding the property was that it, because of its proximity to the railroad, ought to be used for industrial property as was established in several versions of the county's long term land use plan. (I used to review these back in the 1990s.)

 

Anyway, that property was a JEWEL and the dominant political power in 2006 were the home builders (individually and collectively).

 

Now to your questions. To my knowledge Thad and Melissa were more than happy to live in their home there and had no intention of selling or moving. My understanding is they were seeking to enforce an existing option on some nearby property and would have bought it and sold it but mostly, they were trying to delay development by tying that parcel up litigation.

 

As far as the government is concerned, the only interest in the property would have been by the Industrial Building Authority and my understanding of Mr. Morrison's position is that he would have been all for them buying the property ... and would have dropped his suit to enforce his option had they been the buyer and the property would have gone industrial as a result.

 

But the IBA was warned off most of the property (save the land ultimately purchased by Wellstar. Indeed, my understanding is that SP gave WellStar a heads up that the second 30 or 40 acre parcel adjacent to their current corner, was available allowing the hospital to buy the land instead of the competing homebuilder).

 

As far as the second question, "Did the government offer you any money for your land?" I sense confusion. The county was brought into this, not because they owned the land (except the existing right of way/county road) but because the land was bought by a developer who by gaining county approval for his/its plan, was empowered to grade the land, change drainage, move water lines, move roads, etc.

 

The purpose of the county's public zoning meeting, including the stipulations agreed to by the developer at that meeting, was to establish some of the more critical rules between the existing landowner (Surepip) and the developer.

 

That those rules, including property lines, rights of way, and all were more or less ignored when the bulldozers started moving stuff around is the subject of the suit.

 

The Morrisons were never asked to sell anything or buy anything. Indeed, with the stipulations they had negotiated at the meeting (that were later ignored) they chose not to oppose the PRD zoning.

 

The county was named along with Contour Development (the subsequent developers) because they 'signed off' on the new 'rights of way' ... elimination of 'buffers' and allegedly covered up issues with the way the water system was replaced that resulted in illness and pain.

 

In other words, if the developer knocked down the trees without a land disturbance permit, that was okay with the county (although they'd fine another developer for the same infraction); if the developer moved the existing road right of way over twenty feet on the Morrisons' private property (and got an extra five lots in the development as a result) that too was okay with the county. The allegation is that the county didn't make the developer comply with the law ... and I'm sure if that ever comes to court, one surveyor will say 'did and another will say, did not.

 

But the point is, this was never about the county buying their land and it is not about the Morrisons even refusing the zoning. It is about the county not wanting to admit they didn't provide equal protection of the laws ... another constitutional requirement.

 

pubby

[mei lan]

My question: Did the Gov't originally offer you any money for your land? Or did they just build around you?

 

I would really like to see the documentation that led up to this and not just keep hearing "The Gov't screwed me". I want to see what led up to it and not just read this rhetoric.

 

I believe you can do a search on the forum and find all manner of documentation as to what happened, when, where, etc. As I understand it, the tractors dug into his property with markers clearly showing it wasn't their land, and the planning/zoning/whoever wouldn't stop them. In such a case, I don't see how they could have offered him money up front.

 

BTW - just because most people might cheat (which I will not acknowledge, but just for the sake of argument) doesn't mean everyone does or would. I cannot speak for surepip, but I would bend over backwards before I would ever knowingly cheat anyone out of anything.

[mei lan]

Pubby posted his tome while I was writing my note, and his version is much more complete than mine.

Edited February 1, 2011 by mei lan

[gpatt0n]

Oh, and Beach bum:

 

I don't know if the Morrison's will prevail on all counts of their original lawsuit.

 

What I do know is that they've already prevailed on the topic of whether the county was seeking to litigate the Morrisons into silence. That is at the gut of the Anti-Slapp law and that has been decided, appealed and confirmed.

 

That ruling also establishes that the county doesn't want to go to court ... or why else spend over a million dollars in legal fees to avoid that when, at most (if the county lost) their damages to Morrison's would have been easily less than a half that.

 

That is kind of like asking, if you will, why someone would raise and spend a million dollars to run for a county commission chairman job that paid less than a quarter of that?

 

pubby

 

 

PS: No one has raised nor have I heard planned to spend a million dollars to be Paulding County Commission Chairman but if they did, wouldn't you be suspicious of them? I would.

[cherokeewoman]

I believe the Morrisons are just trying to make the developer do what they were suppose to do within the confines of the law..and the zoning laws and agrements... One during that time was never enforced... whatever the developer did was ok... it did not matter, no matter if it was written... the developer could do what he wanted void the zoning laws and it was ok and nothing was done about it.

Surepip had the backbone to fight it, and he has been fighting it for years... I believe he is in the right and if the county was not in the wrong they would have already settled this.... they are just trying to make him give out of money and quit, but I know my Surepip, he is in the fight to the end.... if we had to get up a collection or a funderraiser for him, most would back him...The county did not do what they should have done to enforce the laws of the development, they let the develper have a free reign as they always did... I made calls weekly about the development in my area, they would come out and the only thing we got was a few leland cypress... They did nothing when the developer drained a pond into a small creek..

even when we had it on tape... they did nothing about the grading and the 70ft banks that caused run off onto our property.

They did nothing when they had cut down trees too close to the creek.. We did not have the resourses to fight this, but Surepip did, and I am glad that someone could make a stand... The things that were done wrong duing this building era and commisioners era were bad... the deveopers had control and they did not care, all they saw were dollar signs and I hope all of them are now in a food line somewhere. It was a corrupt group that ran the county and it was a corrupt group of developers, I hope they all get their just deserve.

This should have been settled a long time ago...I know Surepip, if he was not in the right, he would have never started this.

At one time he was a beliver in the Sheridan reign, but he like a lot of others saw the light.... I tried to tell the years ago, but was blasted, all saw the light eventually... Hopefully Austin, who we voted in will see to it that this past errors and resolved.... I think we should all email him and ask him about this, I am sure he will be wanting to run again.