Troubling Trend: Politicians Using Law to Shield Themselves From Criticism
Visited 733 times, 1 so far today Print This! | Twitter This!
Lilburn dog owner Randy DeCarlo apparently discovered that Lilburn City Council member Eddie Price had illegally claimed a homestead exemption on rental property that he has owned for several years. The county has billed him for three years in back taxes—a total of $1,786.86—the maximum number of years that the county can go back; Price reportedly received the benefit illegally in 2004 and 2005 as well.
DeCarlo has used the information to blister Price for his irresponsibility—Price called it an `honest oversight`—at City Council meetings. Price complained and DeCarlo was threatened with revocation of his probation and jail time. The `back story` is that DeCarlo had recently agreed to probation for a handful of charges that his dogs—DeCarlo rescues basset hounds from the dog pound—were disturbing the neighbors with their barking. Price, whose rental property is near DeCarlo’s home, testified against DeCarlo.
In response, Price reportedly complained to DeCarlo’s probation officer that he was being harassed, provoking the change in DeCarlo’s status which may prevent him from exercising his free speech rights in public hearings involving Price.
Wednesday’s consent order may put a halt to DeCarlo’s recent public campaign against Lilburn City Councilman Eddie Price, one of the witnesses at his hearing. DeCarlo has pointed out at public meetings that the councilman and his wife had recently been assessed back taxes for a homestead exemption on a piece of rental property near DeCarlo’s rural Lilburn home.
Last year, Snellville City Council member Robert Jenkins was a very vocal supporter of a massive Tree Lane development proposed by mega-developer Wayne Mason. Former Council member and area resident Joe Anderson uncovered Jenkins’ undisclosed business relationship with Mason, including the fact that Mason apparently allowed Jenkins to live rent-free in one of the homes on the subject property and even paid the utilities for him.
During the public hearings on the rezoning, Anderson blasted Jenkins for failing to reveal the conflict of interest and the perks received from Mason. Anderson said that he had personally seen Jenkins living and working on Mason’s property.
Jenkins responded with a law suit accusing Anderson of stalking, harassment and intimidation. Jenkins asked the court to prevent Anderson from further “harassment” to include speaking at public hearings. That suit, well over a year old, has yet to be resolved.
In both cases, elected officials have attempted to use the authority of government to squelch legitimate criticism. As the peoples’ servants, Jenkins and Price are subject to greater scrutiny and even public scorn, regardless of how uncomfortable that criticism may be. In fact, public officials can claim no protection from unreasonable or even untrue criticism, as long as there is no physical threat or defamation.
Any citizen who stands against public corruption of any measure is to be commended as the true public servant, while it is our job to stand with them at the ballot box to remove from office those who abuse the power with which they are entrusted.
Dog lover agrees to stay away from witnesses against him | ajc.com
Bob,
“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.”
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.
Democracy in it’s purest form is supposed to be messy. While the courts are clear on an individual’s right to express themselves without interference or censorship, there are sanctions that can be filed through civil proceedings to address material in dispute. In this case, the politician choose to use influence through the criminal courts to rectify my comments.
The issues with the city of Lilburn, who this politician represents, presents a number of issue for me since I reside in the un incorporated section of Lilburn that is part of Lilburn’s annexation plan. I am opposed to the annexation on a number of issues including the obvious tax increases annexation would impose and the fact the city would be able pass and enforce animal ordinances.
The consent agreement was negotiated between my attorney’s only hours before the matter would have been heard in the courts. The problem with consent agreements they in themselves are open to interpretation. I agreed to not have any contact with the state’s witnesses if that contact related to the court case for which I am on probation.
I did not nor would I relinguish my rights under the first amendment to discuss political issues, government policy or to speak directly to those politicians that I voted for to serve the “people’s needs”. One can question how far this consent agreement can reach? Does it forbid questioning political figures on key policy issues in which the citizen might disagree? The root of my questions have always been why shoudl a politician have the power to make tax policy when seemingly he doesn’t make sure he is in compliance with those same laws.
What should be troubling is the misuse of OUR judicial process where the threats of taking away my freedom for up to seventeen months was at stake. Citizens understand the role of incarcerating criminals who present a clear danger to the community and yet…… how does one justify sending someone to jail over an issue as it relates to everyone paying their taxes?
I accept in good faith the councilman’s commitment to return the “people’s money” for all the taxes that were not paid through his oversight. I assume, in good faith that amount will include the years 2004 and 2005 along with late penalties and interest as well. The laws that allow taxes to be “dismissed” simply because a three year time frame has expired needs to be addressed. Hopefully, this case will serve to forward that change.
Thank you for this article, Bob. I am glad that someone else locally has brought this up.
Unfortunately, Gwinnett County, as well as several others in Georgia have a very negative national reputation for this sort of thing, especially when it involves animal welfare. People who may not live directly in these counties but work for business or charities that service the area are very aware. They may not “say” anything, but rather just demure from sinking their money into the area. This definitely hurts potential commerce. If parts of Georgia are so depressed with the exit of industry, then there is just going to be more hurt when outside businesses, as well as charities that would help the people, get the impression that many towns are “every person for themself.” Who wants to take that risk?
I do know people within the various jurisdictions who have tried in the past to speak out, not in any threatening way, but just in a manner that is every constituent’s right and duty and with the proper channels, and they no longer speak out of fear. Some counties have a “list” that you go on when you complain. They fear that they will have beloved pets taken away through some loophole, and even worse.
The most disturbing thing is not the fact that people complain about law abiding people, as they say “truth will out”. Sure, if there is a complaint, authorities should check it out. Rather, it is as you say, how things are handled when a public authority figure is involved goes totally off the wall. There was a clear conflict of interest with Price seeming to make it personal, or at least that is what a reader surmises, and it would never have even been a complaint at all if the person at a neighboring property wasn’t so concerned on making a killing flipping a house.
Currently, there is a case in Cobb county, if its even considered a case, where an individual had been keeping a number of dogs in a crawl space underneath a house with no access to good ventilation or water. It is apparent that the dogs were not just under there for a day, as one dog made good on an escape and is scared out of his/her mind and cannot be caught. Apparently, the authorities “know” this person, where normally animal welfare authorities would intervene and the person would surely have their rear end hauled in court or in jail, the person is given a “pass” because they are a known party to the local authorities. The county is giving this person, who has a suspended license, equipment owned by the county to move the dogs to another county (driving WHAT with a suspended license?).
At any rate, hats off to you for bringing up this topic.
Chris
http://houndsgood.com