Please Do The Right Thing Judge Williams

From the Tribune and Georgian:

And justice for all, except Dennis Perry

Dear Editor,
This is an open letter to Judge Amanda Williams:

Your Honor,
I would first like to thank you for your handling of the Chua case. You knew that Bill Smith could not be trusted with Chua. You knew Bill Smith could not be trusted with the jury. You knew Bill Smith could not be trusted with the witnesses. And you knew Bill Smith could not be trusted with the evidence. You knew that, and how did you know that, because it happened before, didn't it Madam?

It happened in the Dennis Perry case, didn't it Madam? Didn't Bill Smith suddenly have a coughing spell during jury selection? Every time a certain juror's name was mentioned, Bill Smith would cough signaling the district attorney.

Is that not true Madam? Bill Smith hand-picked that jury. Is it not also true madam that Bill lost all the evidence in this case that would point to the real killer, or maybe even a friend of Smith? Isn't that true Madam?

And is it not true that Bill Smith paid two witnesses to testify against Perry. And one of those witnesses was a man (the only one) that could say Perry was in the county on the day of the murders, and is it not true that this man, "Corky" Rozier, did not testify in this case, yet still was paid.

Paid for what Madam, to keep his mouth shut? You see, Corky was going to say that he seen Mr. Perry that day, yet when confronted on his story by a member of the defense; Corky went to the DA and said he could not testify, and they never called him. Isn't that how it happened Madam?

Ms. Williams, the fact that Bill Smith paid these witnesses out of the Federal Seized Assets Account makes this case a federal case. It is my understanding that the FBI refused to take this case for many years because they did not have jurisdiction. Well, guess what, they do now. Thanks to Bill Smith, this case will be reopened by the FBI. You Madam have a chance to make things right in this case. You have the chance to overturn an injustice and grant Mr. Perry a new trial before the feds do.

In closing, I would just like to state that the captain of a ship always goes down with the ship, but the crew can jump off at any time. Ms. Williams, I think it's time for you to jump ship; you don't want to go down with this ship.

Rick Rogers
Kingsland

The Rob Mastaroni Saga

I have confirmed from two different sources that Rob Mastaroni was fired by Sheriff bill Smith yesterday morning.One source left a comment under rumor mill post below.

So here is the story as I understand it.

Judge Williams asked the Sheriff office to please send them any personal property and records of Dr. Chua. Mr. Mastaroni complied with that order and sent the property and records. This fired up the Sheriff, who was very mad that Mr. Mastaroni actually complied with a court order. So he told Mr. Mastaroni that he had worked his last day as an employee of the Camden County Sheriff's office.

Well, As the morning went on Bill realized that he was being investigated by the F.B.I., so at about noon Bill called and gave Mr. Mastaroni his job back.

Will Mr. Mastaroni tell the F.B.I. the truth about Bill Smith?

Why is Bill still trying to ignore court order?

I will remind all Sheriff Office employees that you took an oath to the people of this county, if you break that oath in your loyalty to Bill, you will be right next to him in front of a Federal Judge.

Is Bill Smith worth you going to jail?

Rumor Mill

Rumor has it the F.B.I. is involved in the Smith case. I have heard they are working with the GBI and I also heard they took it away from the GBI. More to come!!!!!!!!!


Another Rumor!!!!!

Mr Mastaroni has been fired from the sheriffs dept?
I have not heard anything on this. Please help me out here!!!!


Is this a dog???????



From supportoursheriff@blogspot.com






Or Bill's hair piece??????

A Plea For Help

I am Daniel Perry, Dennis Perry's older brother, I am an ex red beret from the 82nd airborne. I used to be the gung ho "die for our countries cause" kind of patriot, But I have changed because of this ridiculous attack on my innocent brother. I trusted the system before I was let down by john johnson, amanda williams, dale wesling & others. Since then my whole life has changed. I no longer trust the government. I am not sure how we can help here but some old trusting feelings are trying to surface. If there is anyone out there reading these things and you have some sort of influence in these matters you must act with all diligence to free Dennis Perry. This attack on our family was just as devastating as it was on the Swains, and now the true murderer scoffs at the justice system that can't seem to catch up to him. We as a country have rescued many. This is no different. Dennis is only one of many. Please check with the Innocence Project. The people they have freed were REALLY innocent. Prosecutors have a 98% conviction rate in this country.That is too near perfect for humans. Some of them brag they could convict an innocent, and then they do it! If you are reading this and you are an official in Camden Co. and not involved with this kidnapping of Dennis Perry, do all you can to bring down the evil regime in your county. Corruption cannot be tolerated. We all know people in power never really pay for their evil doings behind closed doors, but we as responsible citizens must at least relieve them of their responsibilities and free the innocent. I thank God every day I was able to move away from there. bill smith's father, who was a good man, is now turning over in his grave! That's all I have to sat for now. I love you guy's for helping, but please remember when you lay your head down tonight, where Dennis is laying his. Time is of the essence. thank you.

Sheriff Supporter Proves Sheriff's Office Behind Pro Blogs

After months of saying the Sheriff's Office has nothing to do with the support blogs, one supporter says yes they are behind it.

From http://supportoursheriff.blogspot.com/

2. David Mills -
Patrol DeputyThe creator of 4thebadge site before it was hacked by Mr. Rogers. Oh before you say you didn't. Without ever speaking one word to Deputy Mills I have learned that the way the site was hacked was by a mistrust of a members. When Rick had access inside the site he simply deleted all the post and reopened it the way he saw fit. Then a story came out that at best was based on information from the inmate Internet. The story goes that Deputy Mills was allowing inmates go into the Females shower and having sex. They then claimed he was sent to the substation to work as punishment. Alright after some investigation work here is how you know that this is nothing more than an inmate trying to get back at an officer. Had Mills brought a male inmate into the female block for anything, there is two cameras in the block and there would be no way to hide it. One of the camera's is aimed to cover the "day room" and I guess you can see the shower from the camera so if any two inmates went in there to have sex you would have seen them go in. I was also informed they can retrieve footage from the camera for review. So with all this if they were unable to find any sufficient evidence to fire Deputy Mills than there was no sex going on. Also had he done this I find it hard to see him being put on the road by the department. Again another attack from unreliable Intel. With Intel like this were you ever employed by the government looking for WMD.

TRSP Review: This person is a liar.
First, David Mills said he was not the owner of that blog, So is David a liar or the supporter?
Second, Access to a blog must be given by the owner, As I have stated before I didn't know who owned it, and I was trying to find out, so why would they give me access? Once again more lies.
Third, the shower incident. The cameras don't matter because you all would destroy the tapes anyway to cover your butts. If you are going to pay witnesses and inmates you surely are not going to keep video tapes.

Stop the lies and start telling the truth. You ask me to post my background I did. Now I ask you to stop lying and tell the truth. If you even k now what that is anymore.

Was This Just An Accident? Mother Does Not Think So

Name: Patricia Smith
Subject: My daughter's death--

My daughter died nov.25,2001, while hunting with her husband. Her death was ruled an accident. My son-in-law is kin to the sheriff, Bill Smith here in Camden Co., Georgia. Yes this is a good-ole boy county. I have tired to get the 911 calls she made, autopsy photo's sent to Ross Graham Investigations, He has two doctors waiting to read the autopsy and see the photos. If they find any wrong doing they were going to present her case to the Vidog Society in PA. Then I could get it investigated and it wouldn't cost me an arm and leg. I don't have a lot of money. They were have domestic problems, he hit her several times and nothing was done by the law. Now I cant get the reports and other information that I need. So far I have contacted the representatives in GA.,senators,attorney general,Governor,President,vice President and John Ashcroft. I still have not get any results. I still have a few letters that have not been answered. I will not stop until I have the truth. I did have the FBI(a family friend) in Florida read the reports that I do have and they said it needed to be looked into. They also said if I did continue to seek the answers that I should be careful. They know well of the reputation on the law in Georgia. Please cant you help me in any way. Please answer. Patricia Smith 389 Greenville Rd, Kingsland, GA 31548

TRSP Review: Does anyone have any information on this case.

Jane Beaver Receives Drug Money For Testimony!!!

Here is the audit report for 2003. It lists Jane Beaver receiving $12,000. Can anyone tell me why this was paid out of the drug fund. Usually when there is a reward for a case it is kept in a separate account. But I know this is Camden County and we don't follow the law here.

For those of you who don't know who Jane Beaver is please read the next post.


Click on pic to enlarge:

Did Smith Tamper With Evidence In This Case

From: http://injusticebusters.com/04/Perry_Dennis.shtml

Daniel Perry's diligent struggle for justice for his brother, Dennis

Feb. 2003: Dennis was convicted of a double murder

A plea from Georgia

injusticebusters received this message.

I would like to ask anyone a question. If there was an 18 year old murder and 8 yrs of investigation ensued. And all 8 yrs of the information was lost along with all the evidence in the case by an incompetent sherrifs office, except for the only DNA found which exonerates a suspect, should a DA be allowed to begin a case without any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise? What if they hire a guy to investigate it for 40,000 dollars of drug money and he takes a sole picture of anyone fitting the description to taint the only witnesses? Do you believe this can happen in the U.S.? It did. Ask me about it.

In a time when we are convicting innocents and sending otherwise free people to their deaths, we need a change in the power the prosecutor has. If the District Attorneys were some foreign entity murdering our innocent defendants we would spend billions of dollars and even give our lives to defend our innocent victims of this Justice system. I bet you never looked at that way. Did you know the Medical Examiners office is controlled by the DA? The DA can fire him or cause him grief! If the DA wants someone to be convicted he can do what ever he wants with the evidence. The DA can hide the innocence of a person! The DA should not control the M.E. or the evidence. I suspect Hundreds or maybe thousands of COMPLETELY INNOCENT people are being held against their will right now in OUR prisons! There is a conflict of interest in the DA. He is an elected official and if he doesn't get convictions he's gone! Please Help we are in a race against time. What can we do? Contact me with your ideas. Daniel Perry at drkanglmoonshdws@aol.com

From the family website:

. . . Dennis was accused of a double murder that happened 18 years ago. He was cleared in the very beginning by Joe Gregory, the investigator for the GBI. There was a picture line up of 12 people which included Dennis. It also included a guy that had bragged about doing the murders. The eyewitnesses of the murders picked the guy that was bragging, not Dennis. But Mr. Gregory did not stop there in trying to clear Dennis. He checked to see if Dennis was at work that day. Joe called Dennis' supervisor, he told Joe Dennis was at work pouring concrete until around 6 PM that day. Dennis worked in Atlanta. The murders happened in south Ga., 6 hr. away, about 8:40 PM!


After the witnesses picked the guy bragging, the sheriffs office, headed by sheriff Bill Smith, mysteriously let him go! Not only that, they also lost the picture line-up. In fact since then, the great sheriff has lost all the evidence related to the murders except one hair, which excludes Dennis 100% as a possible suspect! When asked on the witness stand how and why he no longer had any of the evidence his reply was quote unquote "I DON'T KNOW "!!!


During the 5 months before the trial, Dennis was offered several deals, the last being manslaughter eligible for parole in 40 months. The 40 month finished the day that Dennis was convicted! He would not take any deals! Yet he was convicted without any evidence in an 18 yr. old murder.


Bill Smith is still the sheriff in this town. I guess you should be very careful if you happen to pass through Camden Co. Ga. especially if you look like someone he wants to target for one of his unsolved crimes. . . You may not know Dennis, nevertheless a small amount of checking would let you know Dennis IS innocent . . .

Sincerely,
Daniel F. Perry Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lost evidence key in slaying defense
Jacksonville man on trial for deaths
By Gordon Jackson, Florida Times-Union staff writer, February 11, 2003

BRUNSWICK -- During testimony yesterday in the trial of a Jacksonville man accused of the 1985 slayings of a husband and wife at a Camden County church, defense attorneys questioned how key evidence could have been misplaced.

Dale Westling, an attorney representing Dennis Arnold Perry, expressed concern about the methods used by the Camden County Sheriff's Office to safeguard evidence.

The evidence was found at Rising Daughter Baptist Church after police said Harold and Thelma Swain were gunned down during a Bible study class.

The missing evidence includes the following:

A pair of glasses investigators say were worn by the man who shot the couple.

An empty Pepsi bottle which may have had the fingerprints of the attacker.

A tape-recorded interview with witnesses.

Photographs of possible suspects.

A box containing telephone wires to the church which were found cut after the shootings.

Buttons from a shirt believed to be worn by the attacker.

"There was no crime scene integrity," Westling said. "There was a significant amount of tangible evidence [now missing]."

Westling also criticized investigators for allowing church officials to clean blood from the floor before samples could be used as evidence.

The man ultimately responsible for safeguarding the evidence, Camden County Sheriff Bill Smith, was blunt with his response about what happened: "I don't know."

Smith testified all the evidence should have remained intact after lead investigator Butch Kennedy quit his deputy's job in 1992, and he didn't know what happened.

"I don't get directly involved in the process," Smith said.

Though only two men are responsible for holding evidence and releasing it to investigators, Smith said nobody has ever been reprimanded for losing evidence that could hold the key to a conviction.

Despite the missing evidence, John Johnson, assistant district attorney for the Brunswick Judicial Circuit, said he was confident evidence will show Perry is guilty.

During opening arguments, attorneys for the prosecution and defense agreed a clean-shaven, slender man with shoulder-length hair entered the church and confronted 66-year-old Harold Swain. The two men argued and Swain was shot four times by the man. Thelma Swain, 62, ran into the church vestibule to help her husband and was shot once in the chest by the assailant, who fled in a battered brown car.

Johnson told the six-man, six-woman jury that Perry, 41, became a suspect a few years after the shootings when an episode of the television show Unsolved Mysteries depicted the crime. A woman called investigators and said the police composite drawing on the show resembled her daughter's boyfriend, Dennis Perry.

Until that time, investigators said Perry was never a suspect.

Johnson also said witnesses will testify Perry was in Camden County the day of the shootings, even though Perry told police he was in Atlanta that day. Perry is the only one capable of the shootings, Johnson said.

Westling, however, said investigators never followed leads against another possible suspect, even though the other suspect was arrested on weapons charges three months after the Swains were gunned down and the suspect matched a composite drawing.

The trial before Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams is expected to last about a week.

The trial was moved to Glynn County because of pretrial publicity.

Staff writer Gordon Jackson can be reached at (912) 729-3672 or via e-mail at gjacksonjacksonville.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Witness testimony differs in slaying
Descriptions vary of 1985 shooting
By Gordon Jackson, The Florida Times-Union, February 12, 2003

BRUNSWICK -- Testimony yesterday by eyewitnesses to the 1985 shooting deaths of a husband and wife at a Camden County church showed how time can challenge one's memory.

Witnesses agreed the man who shot 66-year-old Harold Swain and 62-year-old Thelma Swain was a young male with shoulder-length blond hair. They also agreed the assailant and Harold Swain argued just before the shootings.

But they agreed on little else.

Prosecutors say Dennis Arnold Perry, 41, of Jacksonville is the man responsible for the deaths. Perry was arrested in January 2000.

The case baffled investigators for nearly 15 years until it was reopened and new evidence was found that prosecutors said links Perry to the crime.

Defense attorneys argue their client was never a suspect until four years ago, when a woman said Perry resembled the police composite drawing shown on the television show Unsolved Mysteries.

Some witnesses yesterday said the man who asked to speak to Harold Swain at a Bible study class in Rising Daughter Baptist Church wore glasses with thick lenses and dark frames, while others said the man was not wearing glasses.

Vanzola Williams said she was leaving the church early to pick up her daughter when she was startled to see a man standing in the vestibule. Williams said the man said he "wanted to speak with someone." When Williams asked who the man wanted to speak with, she said he pointed at Harold Swain.

Williams described how Swain suggested he and the man go outside to talk, but the man insisted on staying in the vestibule.

Williams said she heard gunshots as she was walking toward her car in the parking lot. She ran into the pastor's study in the rear of the church to call police, but the phone was dead. Investigators later discovered the phone lines were cut.

Another witness, Vandora Baker, said the man walked down the main aisle of the church. But three other women inside the church that night said the man who shot Harold Swain four times and Thelma Swain once looked into the church through a doorway in the vestibule but never entered the main area of the church where worshipers gathered.

Three witnesses said Harold Swain never acted like he knew the young man who asked to speak to him on March 11, 1985. But one woman, Cora Fisher, was allowed to testify by Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams through a written deposition taken before the trial because the witness has health problems.

Fisher testified that Swain knew the man who asked to speak to him. Fisher testified she was afraid for her life for 16 years because she was afraid the man who shot the Swains would kill her.

Witnesses who were at the church that night testified they hid in different parts of the church until they knew it was safe to leave the building.

Fisher was the only witness who identified Perry as the assailant from a photograph shown by investigators. She testified there was "no doubt" Perry was the man who shot the Swains. The only difference between the photograph and her memory from the night of the shootings, Fisher said, was Perry's hair was darker than the man who showed up at the church that night.

Testimony is scheduled to continue today at the Glynn County Courthouse.

The trial was moved from Camden County because of pretrial publicity.

Staff writer Gordon Jackson can be reached at (912) 729-3672 or via e-mail at gjacksonjacksonville.com.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Witness offers likely motive for killings

By KAREN SLOAN, The Brunswick News, February 13, 2003

Jurors in the double murder trial of Dennis Arnold Perry heard for the first time Wednesday what prosecutors offered as a motive in the killings at a Camden County church.

Jane Beaver, the mother of Perry's girlfriend at the time of the shootings in 1985, testified that prior to the slayings, Perry made threats against a man she believed was Harold Swain, one of the victims.

According to Beaver, Perry did not identify his intended victim by name.

"He said, 'I always wondered what it was like to kill a n-----, and now I'm going to get me one,'" Beaver told the jury in Glynn County Superior Court.

Perry is charged with the March 11, 1985, shooting deaths of Harold and Thelma Swain, who are black, at the Rising Daughter Baptist Church in Woodbine.

Beaver said Perry told her prior to the shootings that he was angry with a black man who lived near his grandfather in Dover Bluff because the man refused to lend Perry money to travel to Jonesboro. Beaver testified that the Swains lived in the same neighborhood as Perry's grandfather.

Perry's defense attorney, Dale Westling, questioned Beaver about her feelings toward Perry in 1985, asking her if she had ever called Perry "white trash."

While Beaver denied calling Perry "white trash," she said she was not happy about her daughter's relationship with Perry, whom she suspected of using illegal drugs.

Police investigated Perry as a possible suspect after Beaver called "Unsolved Mysteries" after the television show aired a segment on the murders, assistant district attorney John Johnson said in his opening statement.

Beaver said she called the Camden County Sheriff's Department to report Perry as a possible suspect on multiple occasions in the days after the shootings, but never received a response from police.

About seven years after the shootings, Beaver testified that she took photos of Perry to two women who were at the church when the murders occurred, and that both witnesses said the photos looked very similar to the shooter.

When cross-examined Wednesday by Westling, Beaver testified that the women said they were not absolutely sure that the man in her photos was the same man in the church years ago.

Beaver told the jury she was later contacted by Dale Bundy, who was hired by Camden County Sheriff William Smith in 1998 to reinvestigate the Swain murders.

Westling questioned Beaver's ability to remember specific statements allegedly made by Perry in 1985, when Beaver was unable to recall numerous other specific dates relevant to the case.

Beaver's daughter Carol Ann Raborn, Perry's girlfriend at the time of the murders, also took the stand Wednesday.

When questioned about a telephone call she allegedly received from Perry the day before the shooting, telling her that he was in Camden County on a motorcycle trip with his brother, Raborn said she could not confirm the date of the telephone call.

Ronald Rhodes, formerly a special agent with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, testified that when he interviewed Raborn in November 1998, she said she had received a phone call from Perry the day before the murders, informing her that he was in Camden County.

Under Westling's cross examination, Raborn testified that she felt she was being led on by Rhodes at times during the interview, and that he may have put words in her mouth. No tape recording was made of the 1998 interview.

Wednesday's testimony began with the cross-examination of Butch Kennedy, a former detective with the Camden County Sheriff's Department who was the lead investigator on the case in 1985.

Westling used Kennedy's testimony to reiterate that several pieces of physical evidence from the crime scene are missing, including two Pepsi bottles, a pair of eye glasses possibly worn by the shooter, a smudged mirror and photos of police lineups.

Kennedy also testified that one witness at the church, Vanzola Williams, identified another man in a police lineup as the possible shooter. Kennedy said Perry was not a suspect in the original investigation.

The prosecution is seeking the death penalty and was expected to continue its case Thursday. The trial was moved from Camden County to Glynn County to avoid pretrial publicity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Camden resident testifies in '85 shooting trial
She says suspect had been angry
By Gordon Jackson, Florida Times-Union staff writer, February 13, 2003

BRUNSWICK, Ga. -- Prosecutors produced their first witness yesterday who they say links Dennis Arnold Perry to the shooting deaths of a couple at a Camden County church in 1985.

The witness, Jane Beaver, said Perry told her less than a week before the shootings that he was upset after he was ridiculed by an African-American neighbor of his grandfather.

The Camden County resident also described her quest of more than a decade to link Perry to the shooting deaths of Harold and Thelma Swain, African-Americans, during a Bible study class at Rising Daughter Baptist Church.

Despite repeated attempts to get investigators to consider Perry a suspect, Beaver said her first contact with an investigator was about a year before Perry's arrest in January 2000. Testimony did not reveal why investigators never returned any of Beaver's calls about the case.

Perry, 41, of Jacksonville, was arrested after a composite sketch of the assailant was shown on television.

The trial, which was moved from Camden County to Glynn County because of pretrial publicity, could possibly conclude this week, court officials have said.

Beaver said she had photographs of Perry, who dated her daughter before the March 11, 1985, shootings, which she showed to some of the witnesses who saw a man enter the church.

Defense attorney Dale Westling, however, questioned Beaver's methods for showing the photograph. Beaver testified she told witnesses she had a photograph of a man who looked similar to an artist's rendition of the assailant.

At first, Beaver denied telling witnesses the photo resembled a possible suspect but later testified, "I probably did say something similar to that."

Westling asked Beaver how she could be so positive about her conversation with Perry, where he made the alleged threats more than 18 years ago but couldn't remember a conversation with a witness years later when she showed the photographs.

Westling also asked how Beaver could be certain Perry was threatening to kill Harold Swain when he never named the neighbor of his grandfather who upset him. Westling pointed out that at least six neighbors, including the Swains, living near Perry's grandfather were African-American.

Beaver's daughter, Carol Ann Raborn, said she was questioned after Perry's arrest about a telephone call investigators said she received from Perry the day before the shootings. Perry called to say he was in Camden County but he had to leave to go to Jonesboro.

Raborn testified she told investigators she couldn't recall when that conversation took place. The interview with authorities was upsetting, Raborn said, because they asked "leading questions."

"I didn't like it too much," Raborn said. "He was insinuating I knew more than I did."

Ron Rhodes, a former special agent with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, denied Raborn's claims about leading questions, but said the interview was never recorded.

Staff writer Gordon Jackson can be reached at (912) 729-3672 or via e-mail at gjacksonjacksonville.com.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Supposed confession center of trial

By KAREN SLOAN, The Brunswick News, February 14, 2003

The prosecution rested its case Thursday, halfway through the fourth day of the double murder trial Dennis Arnold Perry Thursday, after investigators testified about what they considered to be a confession.

John Johnson, chief assistant district attorney, rested the state's case after three witnesses testified that Perry had made statements after being arrested in January 2000 that they said implicated him in the killings. Perry is charged with the March 1985 shooting deaths of Harold and Thelma Swain at the Rising Daughter Baptist Church in Camden County. He faces the death penalty.

Detective Dale Bundy, hired by Camden County Sheriff William Smith in 1998 to work exclusively on the Swain murders, told the jury that Bundy had essentially confessed to the murders after he was taken into custody in Florida and interviewed. Former Georgia Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Ron Rhodes and Florida Department of Law Enforcement agent Terry Mullen also testified that Perry confessed to the slayings.

Rhodes testified in Glynn County Superior Court that his report was based on his memory of the conversation. No audio or video recording was made of the interview. When Perry was taken into custody by police on Jan. 13, 2000, he initially denied any involvement in the killings, all three witnesses testified.



Perry then made statements later that night that Bundy said was a confession, he told the jury.

"I said, 'You were at the church that night?' He said, 'Yes,'" Bundy recalled on the witness stand.

Bundy also testified that Perry had said the gun went off accidentally and that he would take the killings back if he could.

All three witnesses agreed that the interview ended when Perry said, "I want to stop. You're trying to put words in my mouth."

Rhodes testified that at that point during the interview, he tried to tape record the conversation, but Perry refused to speak on tape.

Bundy, Rhodes and Mullen all testified that they did not try to coerce a confession out of Perry.

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Dale Westling, Rhodes told the jury that he tape-recorded most of the witness interviews during the investigation of the Swain murders, but decided not to tape record the interview with Perry. He said he did not want to distract Perry when the tape ended and had to be changed.

Perry became a suspect in the murders after a segment on the television show "Unsolved Mysteries" aired showing a composite sketch of the shooter. The mother of Perry's former girlfriend called in to suggest Perry as a possible suspect. While prosecutors spent Thursday morning attempting to prove that Perry confessed, the defense spent Thursday afternoon trying to prove that the wrong man is on trial for murder. The jury heard the testimony of three witnesses who said they heard another man make statements at a party in Mariana, Fla., about shooting a black preacher and his wife in a church in Georgia, after the murders occurred.

Joe Gregory, a retired GBI special agent who assisted in the original investigation of the case called as a defense witness, testified that he tried to get an arrest warrant for a man other than Perry the summer after the murders, but was told by the district attorney that he needed more evidence.

Gregory told the jury that that suspect had been brought to the attention of investigators by police in Telfair County, who had arrested him on weapons charges.

Vanzola Williams, who was at the church the night of the killings, identified that suspect in a lineup as the shooter, but said she was not absolutely sure, Gregory testified. Gregory also said that Ms. Williams was shown a photo spread of similar-looking men, which included Perry, and that she had not picked him out. Gregory was retired from the GBI when Perry was arrested in 2000, and told the jury that he went to Bundy and offered him information on his past investigation, but was turned away.

"I can't remember his exact words," Gregory said in court. "He was not interested."

The man Gregory had investigated, Donnie Baritine, took the stand Thursday and told the jury that he was not involved in the Swain murders. The trial was moved from Camden to the Glynn County Courthouse to avoid pretrial publicity.

The defense was expected continue its case Friday. Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams is presiding.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


'Confession' under fire
Duval man tried in church deaths
By Gordon Jackson , Florida Times-Union staff writer, February 14, 2003

BRUNSWICK -- The prosecution concluded its case yesterday against a Jacksonville man accused in the 1985 shooting deaths of a couple in a Camden County church.

The case ended with testimony by investigators who arrested the suspect and took what they described as his confession.

The statement, however, was never videotaped or recorded and no original notes exist from interviews with Dennis Arnold Perry, 41, of Jacksonville.

Perry was arrested Jan. 11, 2000, after a composite sketch was shown on a television show. He faces the death penalty in the shooting deaths of Harold and Thelma Swain, who were attending a Bible study at Rising Daughter Baptist Church.

The trial was moved from Camden County to Glynn County because of pretrial publicity.

Camden County sheriff's investigator Dale Bundy testified that he and other investigators wrote statements from memory after interviewing Perry. Bundy told the court Perry offered a "confession."

Perry refused to talk with arresting officers after an initial interview, which he ended after accusing officers of "putting words in my mouth," Bundy said.

Perry told officers he "could have ridden to Camden County" the day of the shootings, but he couldn't remember for certain, Bundy said.

"He said, 'I might have gotten drunk or stoned and did something I don't remember,''' Bundy said.

Bundy also testified Perry admitted to being at the church the night of the shootings, but that information was never in a police statement written by any officer involved in the arrest.

Former Georgia Bureau of Investigation special agent Ron Rhodes said he took notes of Perry's statements after his arrest but shredded them after he transcribed them in typing.

Terry Mullen, a special agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which assisted with Perry's arrest, said Perry has said he didn't remember a lot of what happened because he was "drinking a lot and using drugs."

"He said he could have been at the church, but couldn't remember," Mullen said.

When Mullen said he didn't take notes or record the interview, defense attorney Dale Westling asked how the investigator could recall events for testimony about Perry's statements to arresting officers.

"Show me in this report where it says Dennis Perry said, 'Yes, I killed Mr. and Mrs. Swain,'" Westling said.

"It doesn't say that," Mullen acknowledged.

When he first began his testimony, Bundy explained how he was hired in 1998 by the Camden County Sheriff's Office specifically to review evidence and witness statements from the shootings.

Bundy testified how his first interview with a woman from the church helped make Perry a prime suspect.

Once Perry became the focus, Bundy said he showed other women at the church Perry's picture from a mug shot taken by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office from a DUI arrest in the early 1990s.

Westling asked Bundy why he showed witnesses only one photograph, especially when the average person can recognize the front and side profiles of a police mug shot.

"You don't believe today, Mr. Bundy, that showing [witnesses] a single mug shot of Dennis Perry was suggestive or tainted?" Westling asked.

"No," Bundy replied.

Westling also expressed surprise that Bundy could take less than a week after being assigned to the case to make Perry the prime suspect, when two other investigators spent a total of 16 years on the case and couldn't make an arrest.

Bundy responded that Perry had already been identified by witnesses as a prime suspect.

After the prosecution rested yesterday afternoon, witnesses for the defense included Charlie Williamson, a former co-worker of Perry. Williamson said he was certain Perry worked the day of the shootings with him in the Atlanta area because a few days later, an artist's rendition of a suspect was published in an Atlanta newspaper and he joked with Perry about the similarity in appearances.

"I kidded him about it," Williamson said. "He had a twin brother."

Another defense witness, Donnie Barrintine of Marianna, denied killing the Swains after Westling asked if he committed the crime. But two other witnesses said Barrintine bragged about shooting two people at a church in Georgia.

John Johnson, the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case, showed a timecard from the week of the shootings and said it would be impossible for Barrintine to drive six hours to Camden County to shoot the Swains because he worked that day.

But Westling said the timecard showed Barrintine had the day off work.

"That's not what the timecard says," Westling said.

Superior Court Judge Amanda Williams ended the dispute by telling the attorneys, "We'll let the jury decide that."

Staff writer Gordon Jackson can be reached at (912)729-3672 or via e-mail atgjacksonjacksonville.com.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jacksonville man found guilty of murder

By Gordon Jackson, Florida Times-Union staff writer, February 15, 2003

BRUNSWICK, Ga. -- Dennis Arnold Perry, a Jacksonville man accused in the 1985 shooting deaths of a couple in a Camden County church, was found guilty yesterday of two counts of murder.

After the unanimous verdict from the six-man, six-woman jury was read, John Johnson, the prosecuting attorney, met with family members of the murder victims and returned to the Glynn County courtroom with a plea bargain offer.

Perry, 41, accepted two consecutive life sentences for the shooting deaths of Harold and Thelma Swain at the Rising Daughter Baptist Church in Camden County on March 11, 1985.

In return, Perry agreed not to appeal the conviction. He must serve a minimum of 20 years before he is eligible for parole, Johnson said.

Family members agreed to offer the plea bargain to ensure they didn't have to go through another trial in appeals court and to give closure to the murders that have haunted them for years, Johnson said.

The case was described as especially challenging for the prosecution because the evidence was 18 years old, some witnesses had died and memories had faded over time.

"In the 25 years I have been a prosecuting attorney, this is the most difficult case I have had to try," Johnson said.

"The family of Harold Swain is at peace with that verdict. I'm glad this is over and this case is closed."

Helen Umphrey, Perry's mother, described the verdict as "a travesty of justice."

"I have no faith in the legal justice system any more," Umphrey said.

Perry's family members said they would continue investigating the murders until they find evidence that could implicate someone else because they think the jury prosecuted the wrong man.

The trial, which began Monday, was in Glynn County because prosecutors were concerned pre-trial publicity could make it difficult to find a jury that hadn't heard about the double homicide.

During closing arguments earlier yesterday, defense attorney Dale Westling said the prosecution's case against his client revolved around "suggestive and tainted" work by investigators, who took less than a week to make Perry the prime suspect in 1998, after other detectives spent years on the case without making an arrest. Perry was arrested near his Jacksonville home on Jan. 11, 2000.

Westling said Camden County Sheriff's Office criminal investigator Dale Bundy was hired to solve the crime and he was willing to abandon proven investigative techniques to make an arrest.

Witnesses identified Perry as the man they saw in the church the night of the shootings based on one mug shot of Perry taken when he was arrested for DUI in Jacksonville in the early 1990s.

Westling criticized investigators for losing "tangible evidence" that could have proven his client's innocence or guilt.

He also criticized investigators for never recording interviews of statements they said Perry made after his arrest. Investigators argued in testimony this week that Perry ended the interviews after he accused police of "putting words in my mouth."

"The evidence is not only lacking, it's non-existent," Westling said.

Johnson, however, defended the investigation that led to Perry's arrest, saying Bundy looked at the evidence for the first time in 1998 and "got information other investigators were unable to do."

Johnson said an earlier witness testified Perry threatened to kill Harold Swain two weeks before the shootings for ridiculing him after Perry asked to borrow money. Johnson said Perry didn't name Harold Swain when he said he was going to kill the man, but he didn't have to.

"We know ... Dennis Perry was talking about Mr. Swain," Johnson said.

Jurors began deliberating at 4 p.m. and reached a verdict about 7:30 p.m.

My Thoughts On Chua

I was shocked when I seen the verdict. I would have never thought they would fined him guilty of murder. The drug violations, I was thinking he would be found guilty on over half of them. The jury saw it differently. Thank God we did not listen to the Sheriff when he said there was not enough evidence for murder. That is why Sheriffs are not also the DA. The defense used the Sheriff to their advantage. One headline read "Southeast Georgia's top law man supports Dr. Chua." I told them from the beginning not to side with Smith, Yet they toted him like a new born baby, thinking this man would get Dr. Chua out of trouble. From all I read this case was also about Smith and the people sending Smith a message that he and his friends no longer can get away with law breaking. For those of you who think Smith and Williams are still real good friends, I would ask you to rethink that. She sentenced Bill's friend to life, the toughest sentence she could hand down. If they were friends Chua would have gotten 20 years. I think Bill Smith getting involved in this case cost Dr. Chua. What do you think?

Breaking News

Chua sentenced to life:

From: The Times Union

Chua found guilty of murder, sentenced to life in prison

St. Marys doctor was also convicted in 7 of the 16 drug charges he faced

By Gordon Jackson, The Times-Union

BRUNSWICK - After nearly 11 hours of deliberations, a five-woman, seven-man jury found physician Noel Chua guilty Saturday of felony murder and of seven charges of violating Georgia's Controlled Substance Act.

Immediately after the verdict, Chua was sentenced to life in prison by Judge Amanda Williams. He was also sentenced to five years in prison on the drug charges.
Before the clerk of court read the verdict, Williams told people in the audience she would allow no outbursts or they would be arrested. After the verdict was read, Williams asked each juror answered individually if his or her verdict was freely and voluntarily given. Each juror answered yes.
Chua sat erect and displayed no emotion as the guilty verdicts were read, but supporters of the doctor slumped as they heard them.
District Attorney Stephen Kelley asked Williams to hold Chua in Glynn County because the convicted murderer had been given preferential treatment at the Camden County jail, where he had been seen walking outside unsupervised before his trial.
The St. Marys doctor was arrested in September 2006, more than eight months after the drug overdose death of Jamie Carter III, his patient and housemate, on Dec. 15, 2005.
Chua was charged with 16 violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act and one felony murder charge.
The indictment listed 10 narcotics prescribed by Chua to Carter over a three-month period before his death.
Investigators arriving at the home testified they found numerous medications in Carter's room. An autopsy showed Carter died of multi-drug intoxication.
During the five days of testimony, jurors listened to conflicting accounts by witnesses called by the defense and prosecution.
Medical experts testifying for the prosecution said medical records indicate Chua prescribed narcotic pain killers such as morphine, oxycodone and methadone to Carter for no apparent medical reason. Some drugs were prescribed to Carter without a medical examination, they testified.
Other testimony for the prosecution included a witness who told jurors he had sex with Chua when he was 15 years old. Another witness told jurors Chua prescribed narcotic pain killers to him even though medical records showed he had a drug addiction problem.
During closing arguments, District Attorney Stephen Kelley compared Chua to a drug dealer and said the doctor ignored information in medical records from other physicians indicating Carter may have had a drug problem.
Kelley also told jurors Chua should have recognized signs Carter was heavily intoxicated on narcotic drugs when he saw the victim hours before his overdose death.
Medical experts testifying for the defense argued Chua was simply trying every option possible to treat Carter for pain from chronic headaches.
Chua followed acceptable medical practices when he prescribed different pain medications to treat Carter, defense attorney Donald Samuel told jurors during his closing arguments.
The evidence produced by the prosecution, Samuel said, showed no intent by Chua to harm Carter. The doctor was exploring every treatment option possible, Samuel said, and was not aware that Carter was not following directions when he took a combination of pain medications that led to his death.
gordon.jackson@jacksonville.com,
(912) 729-3672

Saving Dennis Perry

My letter to the Governor:

Chua Defense Calls Expert Witness From South Carolina!!!

Why South Carolina?

Mr. Samuel's, Chua's lawyer, is from Atlanta and I would think you could find better experts in Atlanta, than in South Carolina. We all know what is in South Carolina. I question whether or not this witness can be bias in his testimony.

Everyone has said Chua deserves a fair trial, but so do the Carters.

What do you think of this witness?

Check back for more updates on the defense.

Poster Comments

Remember the movie,
The Terminator comes to save the people.


Please leave your comments!!!!!!!!!!!

St. Mary's To Borrow 40 Million Dollars Without Your Consent

Public Service Authority will vote of closing of bond loan Thursday
By Greg Jones
The Camden County Public Service Authority voted unanimously Tuesday to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City of St. Marys and have a resolution approving and authorizing a vote for a $5 million short-term loan.The PSA will vote Thursday at 10 a.m. at the Camden County Annex to proceed with the closing of the short-term bond. St. Marys Mayor Rowland Eskridge was not present at the meeting Tuesday.
The delayed vote on the closing will give PSA members more time to review documents relating to the short-term loan, something Kingsland Mayor Kenneth Smith said was vital. He said this is a major decision for the PSA, and members need to make sure that they know everything about the bond documents so there will not be any surprises in the future.Both city lawyer Amanda Blackledge and County Attorney Brent Green told the PSA members that they would not be responsible for the loan should St. Marys default on it. The two attorneys also said the PSA members could not be sued. St. Marys Councilors Gull Weaver and L.J. Williams echoed what the lawyers said.But Smith wanted to review the documents more to ensure that St. Marys would be the only government responsible for the bond. However, Smith said he has no problem supporting the city because he knows St. Marys has to address its water-and-sewer problems.St. Marys Councilor Gary Blount encouraged the PSA to look over the documents more and call him or any city officials to answer any questions. He encouraged them to have their attorneys look over the documents, too.
Last Thursday, the St. Marys City Council unanimously approved the $5 million short-term loan through the PSA for water-and-sewer improvements. St. Marys Assistant City Manager Max Tinsley said the $5 million loan will be repaid when the municipality gets its $40 million bond sometime in the middle of November. Both loans will be given by Bank of America, and the loans will allow the city to continue to make payments on work currently be done to upgrade the Point Peter Plant, he added."There is a reason we are doing the bond through the Public Service Authority. Normally we can get a $5 million bond for wastewater treatment, [but] this gives us the lowest interest rate," Tinsley said.He said the city went to other financial institutions to finance a $40 million bond, but no one in Camden County wanted to give the city a bond that high. He notes that it would have taken St. Marys a full year to develop an city agency that also must be state approved to perform the bonding. Tinsley said the PSA has the authority to issue bonds, and the county agency is the only agency that would even consider doing it."It would cost too much money for us to do it ourselves, and Bank of America recommended us not to do that," Tinsley said.About $16 million of the $40 million bond will pay for a 1 million gallon expansion of the Point Peter Plant. About $24 million of the bond will pay for the 4 million gallon expansion of the same plant sometime in 2008. The bond will cost more than $43 million due to lawyers fees and other costs associated with it.

TRSP Review: Something does not pass the sniff test here. Why are they going to the PSA? Where is the public vote on this? Is it true they went to the PSA to avoid a public vote? I don't think we are being told everything here. Your input!!!!!!!!!

Is Berry To Blame For The Sheriff's Problems?

OK This is a part of the response from the Sheriff's supporter's blog:
You must read the whole thing to understand my post, so go there first and read it.

http://supportoursheriff.blogspot.com/

I AM NOW ON MY 6th VERSION OF THIS STATEMENT. THE REASON IT HAS TAKEN SO LONG IS THAT IT IS NOT WISE TO TYPE WHILE YOUR ANGRY. RICK ROGERS I WILL SAY THIS SIR, WHILE YOU HAVE AN AMERICAN RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION YOU AT LEAST HAVE ACTED LIKE A ADULT AND NEVER HAD TO REFER TO NAME CALLING OR SLAMMING A MAN TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS. I RESPECT THAT OF YOU AND HAVE NEVER REALLY ATTACKED YOU AS YOU THOUGHT I HAVE. I JUST AM HERE TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE NEGATIVE PRESS IS COMING FROM A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THIS FOR THE WRONG REASONS. NOT FOR CAMDEN'S WELL BEING. THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT THIS WHOLE DAMN SITUATION BEGAN BECAUSE SHERIFF SMITH WOULD NOT HELP STEVE BERRY GET RID OF JUDGE AMANDA WILLIAMS. THAT IS 100 % ACCURATE, ITS WHAT STARTED THE WHOLE BALL OF MESS. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT ASK THE COMMISSIONER. HE ACTS AS IF HE IS LOOKING OUT FOR OUR BEST INTEREST. WHICH IS BULLSH*&#. LOOK AT THE FACTS. THE FIRST THING HE TURNED AGAINST THE SHERIFF WAS WHEN IT CAME TO THE NEED OF A NEW JAIL. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN IN THE JAIL IN THE LAST YEAR, THE DAMN THING IS FALLING APART. PIPES ARE BUSTING ALL OVER THE PLACE. ONE PIPE BUST THEY HAVE TO SHUT DOWN LIKE 1/3 OF THE ROOM IN THAT BLOCK. ITS FALLING APART. BOTTOM LINE. OFFICERS I HAVE SPOKEN TO HAVE STATED THAT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANYTHING. NO ROOM FOR INMATES, OFFICERS, PROPERTY, NOTHING.


Alright, Steve Berry, went to Bill Smith and wanted to get rid of Amanda Williams, and Bill said no. So Berry launches this attack against the sheriff. Any proof that this actually happened? I guess not or we would have seen it by now. Remember just last week I said Amanda Williams was trying to distance herself from Smith, by ordering Glynn County to handle Chua at the trail. Many of you thought I had lost my mind, But I stand by that still today as I think she does not want to be around Smith with all these investigations going on. And yes I have heard all the rumors about Williams and her driving problems, But once again there is no proof of that, unless that is what Berry wanted to use against her and Bill has that information? But I don't know. Why I am putting this out there, To get the rest of the story. I am sure someone, somewhere will come forward with something. They always do in this town. I have never said Berry was an angel, He knows this has been going on for years, along with Williams, Rhodes, Rainer, Sears, and many others.

I have thought that maybe it was my emailing the commissioners everyday that got Berry motivated, but I could be wrong and "Bill is Great" could be right.

So "Bill is Great" You could be right on how this started, but how it started really isn't as important as what Bill has done. So do you agree Bill should not have used the drug money that way. He is the only Sheriff in the country that I have found that actually pays prisoners. A judge, and a DA, both have said in court they don't trust Smith to do his job, yet you keep saying this is all Berry's fault.

NO THIS IS BILL'S FAULT HE IS THE ONE THAT DID THESE THINGS.

Once you can admit that Bill has done wrong, then we can move on. But by you saying that William Murrel has saved the taxpayers thousands of dollars is misleading when other inmates do that kind of work for free.

And why is it not all trustees get paid for work I had a friend in Jail for 3 weeks who worked on Col. Easterlings home and all he got was 5 bucks in cash. But he was not there on drug charges, only those on drug charges get paid. Kinda ironic isn't it.

Bill brought this upon himself, if he would have followed the law he wouldn't have anything to hide.

As for Charlene Sears she has to take some of the blame as well. Right after being elected she comes on this blog and posts my background info and talks about my credit problems, which as you can see does not bother me, but the fact that a future commissioner thought that it was ethical to post such stuff tells me a lot. Now this woman never ever talked to me or really didn't even know I existed then. She only got to this blog through Sandy's. So either she accessed some kind of computer, or she called Dionne Warrick and her Psychic Friends Network to get my background. I will leave that up to you to decide.

So the bottom line is that the Administration at the jail is corrupt. They do not care about the people of Camden County and that can and has been proven time and time again. Only this time it is not going away. I am here to STAY.

What Happens To Deputies Who Talk To The GBI?

From: http://vlex.com/vid/18726091?ix_resultado=3&sort=score&query%5Bcoleccion_id%5D=14&query%5Bct_resultados%5D=8&query%5Blc_query%5D=texto%3A%28william+AND+e.+AND+smith+AND+sheriff+AND+camden+AND+county%29+OR+titulo%3A%28william+AND+e.+AND+smith+AND+sheriff+AND+camden+AND+county%29&query%5Bfrase%5D=william+E.+Smith+Sheriff+Camden+County

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 94-8992.
Athel B. COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v. William E. SMITH, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Camden County, Georgia, Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
July 26, 1996.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. (No. CV293-70), Anthony A. Alaimo, Judge.
Before ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
In 1993 appellant/cross-appellee Athel B. Cooper ("Cooper") filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against appellee/cross-appellant William E. Smith ("Smith"). Smith is the Sheriff of Camden County, Georgia, and Cooper was one of his deputies. Cooper alleges that Smith refused to renew his commission as a deputy because Cooper cooperated with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) during their investigation into corruption at the Camden County Sheriff's Department. The district court granted in part and denied in part Smith's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. This appeal followed.
Facts
"In reviewing the district court's denial of summary judgment, we–in most qualified-immunity interlocutory appeals–accept the facts which the district court assumed for purposes of its decision about whether the applicable law was clearly established." Ratliff v. DeKalb County, Georgia, 62 F.3d 338, 340 (11th Cir.1995) (citing Johnson v. Jones, --- U.S. , , 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2159, 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995)); see also Dolihite v. Maughon by and through Videon, 74 F.3d 1027, 1033 n. 3 (11th Cir.1996) (explaining that the appellate court might ordinarily simply accept the district court's identification of each appellant's actions and knowledge for purposes of comparison with clearly established law); Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087, 1091 (11th Cir.1996), petition for certiorari filed 64 USLW 3742 (Apr. 25, 1996) (NO. 95-1743).
The following are the relevant facts assumed by the district court:
In 1991 or 1992, the [Georgia Bureau of Investigation ("GBI") ] began an investigation of alleged corruption in the Camden County Sheriff's Department. In July of 1992, Cooper and his wife ... gave information to the GBI which they believed would be kept confidential. The Coopers' conversations with the GBI took place at the Coopers' home. According to the Coopers, Smith and others in the Department found out about the Coopers' cooperation with the GBI. After the Coopers spoke to the GBI, the Camden County Grand Jury returned an indictment against Smith. Smith was reelected as Sheriff of Camden County soon after his indictment.1 Following Smith's reelection, Cooper began to hear rumors that he would no longer have a job when Smith's new term began in 1993.
Seeking clarification of his job situation, Cooper wrote a letter to Major Charles A. Easterling ..., the Acting Chief Deputy of the Department, on November 24, 1992. In Easterling's response, dated December 9, 1992, he declined to give Cooper a promotion or assurances of job security. On December 17, 1992, Cooper wrote to Smith in response to Easterling's letter ... [detailing his discontent with matters within the Department].
1 The indictment against Smith was later dismissed.
Cooper v. Smith, 855 F.Supp. 1276, 1277 (S.D.Ga.1994).[1] On December 29, 1992, Smith told Cooper that his commission as deputy sheriff would not be renewed for the following year.
Cooper filed the instant suit, alleging that he had been dismissed in retaliation for exercising his right to free speech in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2] The district court granted Smith's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. As to the First Amendment claim against Smith in his individual capacity, the district court held that Smith was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Cooper's speech contained in the December 17, 1992, letter. However, the district court held that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Cooper's speech in cooperating with the GBI. Cooper v. Smith, No. CV293-70, slip op. at 12 (S.D.Ga. Aug. 4, 1994).
Cooper appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the speech contained in the December 17, 1992, letter. The district court's ruling on this issue is not a final order. FED.R.CIV.P. 54(b); Winfrey v. School Bd. of Dade County, Fla., 59 F.3d 155, 157 (11th Cir.1995) (In the absence of certification by the district court, "a partial disposition of a multiclaim or multiparty action does not qualify as a final judgment [under § 1291] and is ordinarily an unappealable interlocutory order.") (internal quotations omitted). Assuming arguendo that we have pendent jurisdiction, we decline to exercise it. Smith cross-appeals, challenging the district court's denial of qualified immunity with respect to Cooper's speech in cooperating with the GBI. This denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). We affirm this ruling.
Discussion
The appealable issue in this case is whether a public official who terminates an employee for cooperating with law enforcement investigators is entitled to qualified immunity.[3] "[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2740, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). That Smith was performing a discretionary function when he refused to renew Cooper's commission is not in dispute. For Cooper to pierce the qualified immunity protecting Smith, he must show that Smith violated one of Cooper's "clearly established" rights under federal law. Id. It must be kept in mind that the sweep of qualified immunity is necessarily broad. It protects "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). The policy considerations driving such a rule are straightforward: government officials exercising their official discretion in the discharge of their duties cannot live in constant fear of lawsuit, with the concomitant costs to public servant and society. Such fear will stymie the work of government and will "dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible [public officials], in the unflinching discharge of their duties." Harlow, 457 U.S. at 814, 102 S.Ct. at 2736 (quoting Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F.2d 579, 581 (2nd Cir.1949)). The doctrine of qualified immunity was created to "avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment." Id. at 818, 102 S.Ct. at 2738.
At the same time, qualified immunity is not an impenetrable shield, because of which all manner of constitutional violations by public officers must be tolerated. "When government officials abuse their offices, "action[s] for damages may offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees.' " Anderson, 483 U.S. at 638, 107 S.Ct. at 3038 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 814, 102 S.Ct. at 2736). In an effort to balance these competing concerns, the Supreme Court has devised an objective test for evaluating official conduct. "[W]hether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the "objective legal reasonableness' of the action assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established' at the time it was taken." Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (internal citations omitted).
Cooper argues that Smith refused to renew his commission because he cooperated with the GBI in their corruption investigation. We must determine whether Cooper had a clearly established right under the First Amendment to speak with the GBI. If we find that such a right was clearly established, then Smith is stripped of the protection that qualified immunity affords, insofar as Cooper's speech in cooperating with the GBI caused Smith's adverse employment action.
"It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee's constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech." Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 383, 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2896, 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). Nonetheless, the First Amendment does not protect all speech by public employees. In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), the Supreme Court outlined the balancing test through which public employee free speech claims are to be evaluated. This test is designed to balance the interest of the employee in commenting on matters of public concern against the interest of the employer in the efficient delivery of public services. Id. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734-35. "Because no bright-line standard puts the reasonable public employer on notice of a constitutional violation, the employer is entitled to immunity except in the extraordinary case where Pickering balancing would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the discharge of the employee was unlawful." Dartland v. Metropolitan Dade County, 866 F.2d 1321, 1323 (11th Cir.1989); accord Hansen v. Soldenwagner, 19 F.3d 573, 576 (11th Cir.1994).
We must decide whether the result of the Pickering balance on the assumed facts would lead to the inevitable conclusion that Cooper's discharge was unlawful, such that Sheriff Smith could not have believed that his actions were lawful in light of clearly established law and the information he possessed. Anderson, 483 U.S. at 641, 107 S.Ct. at 3039-40. In applying the Pickering test, we first ask if Cooper's speech to the GBI can be "fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern." See Rankin, 483 U.S. at 384, 107 S.Ct. at 2897 (quoting Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1690, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983)); Bryson v. City of Waycross, 888 F.2d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir.1989). This is done by examining the content, form and context of the speech. Bryson, 888 F.2d at 1565; Dartland, 866 F.2d at 1324. The Supreme Court in Connick, 461 U.S. at 146-47, 103 S.Ct. at 1689-90, held that the question of whether a public employee's speech is constitutionally protected turns on whether the speech relates to matters of public concern or to matters of merely personal interest to the employee. If the speech does not involve an issue of public concern, our inquiry ends there. Id. at 146, 103 S.Ct. at 1689-90; see also Ferrara v. Mills, 781 F.2d 1508, 1512 (11th Cir.1986). Second, if the speech involves an issue of public concern, we must balance Cooper's First Amendment interest against Smith's interest in the efficient delivery of public services. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568, 88 S.Ct. at 1734-35; Bryson, 888 F.2d at 1565. Again the context and circumstances are considered.
In this qualified immunity context, we then have to determine whether the inevitable conclusion of the Pickering balance is that Cooper's discharge was unlawful. The district court found that Cooper's statements to the GBI involved matters of public concern, that his interest in making these allegations to the GBI were not outweighed by Smith's interest in the efficient management of his department, that Cooper's cooperation with the GBI was "pure whistle-blowing," and that Smith was therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. Cooper v. Smith, slip op. at 13 (S.D.Ga. Aug. 4, 1994). We affirm the district court's conclusions in this regard. There can be no doubt that corruption in a police department is an issue of public concern. At the same time, Sheriff Smith has a strong interest in the efficient operation of the Department. However, that interest is insufficient to overcome Cooper's interest in revealing to the GBI what he knows about illegal activities within the Department. Clearly, the law does not discourage public employees from cooperating with law enforcement in investigations of unlawful activities within their respective governmental organizations. This is, then, one of those "extraordinary case[s] in which the First Amendment conclusion would inevitably favor [the plaintiff] in light of Pickering balancing." See Hansen, 19 F.3d at 578.
An analysis of the case law reveals that it was clearly established at the time Smith refused to renew Cooper's commission that it was a violation of Cooper's First Amendment rights to take adverse action against him for cooperating with an official law enforcement investigation. In Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481, 1486-87 (11th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 987 , 113 S.Ct. 1586, 123 L.Ed.2d 153 (1993), we held that three supervisory police officers who allegedly retaliated against the plaintiffs for seeking to expose corruption within the police department were not entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiffs, who were officers in the Birmingham Police Department Narcotics Unit, alleged that they were "whistleblowers" who "sought to expose allegedly corrupt connections between police, city officials and drug dealers" and that as a result of these efforts they were "exposed to retaliatory harassment, threats and transfers to keep them quiet about affairs that might be a matter of public concern." Id. at 1486.
We found Oladeinde to be one of those cases where the "inevitable conclusion," that the defendants had violated the plaintiffs' freedom of speech, would be reached. Id. at 1487; see also Brawner v. City of Richardson, Tex., 855 F.2d 187, 193 (5th Cir.1988) (noting that it is clearly established that a public employee's speech revealing improper conduct by fellow employees is protected under the First Amendment). The similarity between the Oladeinde case and the case at bar is sufficient to have put a reasonable sheriff in Smith's position on notice that he could not constitutionally refuse to renew Cooper's commission for cooperating with the GBI.
Contrary to Smith's argument, the instant case is distinguishable from Dartland and Hansen. In both of those cases, the expression by the plaintiffs of personal dissatisfaction within an otherwise protected speech context removed their cases from "inevitable" status under the Pickering balance. See Dartland, 866 F.2d at 1324 ("Although Dartland possessed a constitutional interest in expressing his view on a matter of public importance, the insulting nature of his words gives his speech an element of personal as opposed to public interest."); Hansen, 19 F.3d at 577 (Though "[s]ubpoenaed deponents may generally be free to criticize their employers," the "manner of Hansen's speech was vulgar, insulting, and defiant."). Only speech that relates to matters of public concern, not speech relating to matters of merely personal interest, is constitutionally protected. Connick, 461 U.S. at 146-47, 103 S.Ct. at 1689-90.
In contrast to the nature of the employee speech in Dartland and Hansen, where their insulting or vulgar manner rendered those words of personal rather than public concern, Cooper's speech in this case is clearly a matter of public concern. The district court viewed the facts as "pure whistle-blowing," finding no evidence that Cooper did anything except express the facts as he knew them to the GBI, nor that he used his cooperation as an opportunity to denigrate the department through the expression of personal grievances. To allow Smith to punish Cooper with impunity merely for speaking in a proper manner with the GBI would send a signal to public employees everywhere that it is better to remain silent than to cooperate with those officially charged with rooting out wrongdoing in public organizations. This the law does not do.
Conclusion
Because the law was clearly established at the time that Cooper's speech to the GBI was constitutionally protected, Smith violated Cooper's First Amendment rights when he refused to renew his commission, insofar as that refusal was based on Cooper's cooperation with the GBI. Thus, the district correctly concluded that Smith is not entitled to qualified immunity as to this allegation.
AFFIRMED.
[1]The judgment of the district court as reflected in this published opinion was modified in a subsequent order dated August 4, 1994.
[2]Cooper also asserted an equal protection claim. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Cooper's equal protection claim. Cooper does not challenge that ruling in this appeal. In addition, in the district court Smith sought summary judgment with respect to Cooper's claim against him in his official capacity. The district court declined to address Smith's argument in this regard. Smith does not challenge this ruling on appeal, and thus we do not address it.
[3]The district court determined that Cooper had adduced sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether Cooper's speech in cooperating with the GBI caused Smith to terminate him. Cooper v. Smith, CV293-70, slip op. at 14 (S.D.Ga. Aug. 4, 1994). To the extent that Smith challenges that determination on appeal, we decline to address Smith's argument, which amounts to an evidentiary sufficiency issue not itself immediately appealable. See Johnson v. Jones, --- U.S. at , 115 S.Ct. at 2156; Cottrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir.1996); Dolihite, 74 F.3d at 1033 n. 3; Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d at 1091.

An Open Letter To The Camden County Board of Commissioners.

Dear Commissioners,
I know you have no authority over our Sheriff, but you do have to duty to report wrong doing. You must come together minus 1( We know Charlene thinks he has done no wrong) and ask for the State and Federal Governments to investigate what is going on is this department. William Smith's has time and time again ignored what the people have asked him to do. I am afraid that left unchecked the sheriff may do major harm to our community. There are some people who don't feel safe with this Sheriff in office.
Some who have spoke out against the Sheriff and have talked to GBI agents are scared of what the Sheriff might do to them. People should not be afraid of the MAN WE PAID TO PROTECT US. You also have to constitutional duty to protect our citizens from tyrants like Smith. He is not only robbing us blind (or in most cases in plain sight), he is also threatening people. Mr Southwell was one of the first to be threatened and where is he now? How many lives have to being ruined before you take action? You can enacted a resolution condemning Smith for his actions and send it to Atlanta and Washington, and ask them to investigate. You have the power to do this and you should, as Representatives for the people of Camden County.

Thank you
Rick Rogers
The Real School Police

For Those Who Only Get Their News Here!!

Unbelievable!!!!!!!

From:

The Florida Times-Union
October 14, 2007

Georgia inmates reportedly did work out of state

By Paul Pinkham, The Times-Union
WOODBINE - Camden County Sheriff Bill Smith took jail inmates out of state to work at his ex-wife's house and repeatedly used inmate labor in the county at his girlfriend's home and on his properties the past several years, former inmates and other witnesses told the Times-Union. -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
At least three prisoners were carted to South Carolina to perform kitchen and bathroom renovations at his former wife's house, according to former inmates and an electrician who worked on the property this year.
They also described work they did at his girlfriend's St. Marys home and properties owned by Smith.
The sheriff used proceeds from federal drug forfeitures to pay the trusties $50 a week, according to inmates and records obtained by the Times-Union under Georgia's Open Records Act. Federal guidelines say the money can be used only for law enforcement purposes such as training or equipment.
And under Georgia law, using inmate labor for personal gain is a felony violation of a sheriff's oath of office. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into Smith's use of inmate labor.
Smith refused to answer specific questions but defended his trusty program in a statement issued Thursday through his spokesman.
"Over the years the program has proven to be cost effective and is a tremendous benefit to the citizens of Camden County," Smith said. " ... There are many success stories of inmates who have used their work experience as trusties as a springboard to making a better life for themselves."
But a former federal prosecutor said the use of inmates for private labor raises liability, exploitation and tax issues if payroll taxes aren't withheld from the inmates' pay.
"The whole thing reeks," said attorney Samuel Jacobson of Jacksonville. "Suppose one of these guys got loose and sexually assaulted a child. Think of the liability to the county."
Christopher Murphy, 31, said he worked before his 2005 escape at the sheriff's wooded hunting camp in northern Camden County and at a secluded property known as the Ponderosa south of Woodbine. Murphy, now in prison for the escape and stealing an unmarked patrol vehicle, said he was unaware of the GBI probe.
But other inmates and their families and St. Marys electrician Ray Dyals said they have been interviewed recently by GBI agents. Dyals said he also told the GBI he was warned about a possible bogus arrest after Smith learned of his cooperation.
District Attorney Stephen Kelley requested the GBI investigation in July after Times-Union reporters observed Camden inmates building a structure without a permit on private property at Cumberland Island National Seashore.
The probe has expanded since then, according to those who have spoken to investigators.
In the past, Smith has said he sees nothing wrong with working inmates on private property as long as they are paid. Smith also has said questions about his spending practices are "politically motivated."
He used identical language after he was charged with six counts of illegally using inmate labor following a GBI investigation in 1991. Those charges were dropped, and Smith agreed with the Georgia Attorney General's Office that he would no longer work inmates on private property.
County Commission Chairman Preston Rhodes questioned why Smith broke that promise and said the information "needs to be pursued to the full extent of the law."
Across state lines
Dyals said he thought nothing of it when the sheriff asked him to accompany him and inmate Rodney Mullis to Charleston to prepare Smith's former wife's kitchen for new cabinets.
"He said I'll have somebody there to work with us, but I need you there to oversee it," said Dyals, a friend of the sheriff's for 30 years. "We'd done it that way before."
Dyals said Mullis, who was being held on cocaine charges, dressed in street clothes and worked unsupervised with Dyals while Smith napped in another room of the Charleston house.
Mullis couldn't be reached, but his father said Mullis told him he spoke to the GBI.
Another former inmate said he also detailed for GBI agents two trips he took to Smith's ex-wife's house in 2003 to do plumbing work. The Times-Union interviewed him in the St. Marys office of his lawyer, J. Robert Morgan, under the condition he not be named because he fears retaliation from the sheriff.
In 2003, he said, he was in jail for stealing tires when the sheriff wanted him and another inmate to build a handicap-accessible shower and sink for his son at the Charleston home. The first time he went, he said, a deputy drove him to the state line, where Smith met them.
He said he and other inmates were grateful to be paid for their work. Morgan said outstanding warrants against his client were dismissed after he cooperated with the GBI.
Lavinia Smith, the sheriff's former wife, didn't want to talk about the work done at her home.
"I have no knowledge of that," she said.
Local work
Back in Camden County, the sheriff's girlfriend had an identical reaction.
"I have no knowledge of that," Sandra Addy said.
None of the former inmates interviewed by the Times-Union recalled working at Addy's St. Mary's home. But Dyals, a neighbor, said he told GBI agents he saw several inmates fixing an outdoor light and changing a garden pump there this summer.
Former inmates did recall working at Smith's hunting camp and at the Ponderosa, the sheriff's getaway south of Woodbine.
Murphy remembered being transported to the hunting camp with other inmates.
"We were clearing a bunch of land," he said. "He [Smith] said this is ... his little hunting ground."
Murphy also recalled chopping wood and feeding Smith's hogs at the Ponderosa. He said he was surprised when inmate workers occasionally were left unsupervised and when Smith paid them. But he didn't ask questions.
"I didn't want to go back inside," Murphy said.
Morgan's client said he did plumbing and tile work unsupervised at the Ponderosa. He said deputies also drove him and another inmate to Jacksonville to buy supplies for the project.
"I was out there every day for about three months," he said. "We'd call if we needed something."
He recalled Smith calling him at the jail and asking: "Have you fed my hogs yet? They can't go to McDonald's like you and me."
Another former inmate who records show was paid from forfeited assets denied that he or other inmates worked on private property. Eugene Marr said he worked around the jail while incarcerated on disorderly conduct charges in 2005 and 2006 and only worked at the Ponderosa after his release. He recalled seeing one trusty, methamphetamine manufacturer William Murrell, accompanied by deputies at the property, but nobody else.
"There was no leaving going on," Marr said. "It was jail."
But both Dyals and Morgan's client said they felt threatened by the sheriff after talking with GBI agents. Dyals said he was warned Smith wanted him pulled over and arrested after learning of his cooperation.
Morgan's client played for the Times-Union a message Smith left on his cell phone in August after learning of his cooperation with the GBI. Smith left his cell phone number.
"Just wanted to chat with you," the message says. "I think I already know what's happening, but give me a call."
The man said he hadn't spoken to Smith in years.
"I was freaked out," he said.
Losing patience
This isn't the first time Smith's use of inmate labor has been investigated. A 1991 GBI probe began after an inmate took a joy ride in a deputy's personal vehicle he was washing, started drinking and injured two Marines in a crash.
The sheriff was indicted in 1992, but the attorney general didn't prosecute.
Smith contended the investigation was instigated to disrupt his re-election campaign. He later testified that inmates took bricks and a fireplace insert to his residence at Harrietts Bluff and polished floors at a former girlfriend's house.
"I don't see anything wrong with that," Smith testified in 1997 in a lawsuit brought by a deputy who said he was fired for cooperating with the GBI.
Attorney Jacobson said the sheriff could be accused of involuntary servitude or forced labor or violating federal tax and wage and hour laws. Though Jacobson has no connection to Camden County, he said commissioners have a right to be upset.
"The county was feeding these people and housing these people, and here they were working for somebody's benefit," Jacobson said. "It's improper gain and compensation for the sheriff. He's appropriating something that isn't really his. He's exploiting his position for personal enrichment either for himself or for the benefit of someone he cares about."
The sense of deja vu has frustrated county commissioners, who cut Smith's budget and sued him in August over control of the confiscated drug money. Because the sheriff is a constitutional officer, the only authority commissioners have over him is budgetary.
"Every taxpayer is put at risk by Bill Smith's foolishness," Commissioner Steve Berry said. "While he profits, the taxpayer takes the risk. It's win-win for him and lose-lose for us."
Smith said commissioners rejected his offer to allow them input into the trusty program.
But Berry and Commissioner Katherine Zell said the sheriff has violated the public's trust.
"A lot has gone on that has been swept under the rug," Zell said. "It just goes on and on."

Times-Union writer Gordon Jackson contributed to this report. paul.pinkham@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4107

SHERiFF'S STATEMENT Camden County Sheriff Bill Smith's statement to the Times-Union on inmate labor: I cannot comment on specifics but I would like to say that I feel the trusty program to be a worthwhile, viable program. Over the years the program has proven to be cost effective and is a tremendous benefit to the citizens of Camden County. The Board of Commissioners was given the opportunity to have input into how the Trusty program should operate and they rejected the offer out of hand. Nevertheless, I welcome any constructive input or guidance they may provide. My philosophy has always been that it is far better to let the trusties wear out serving the community than to rust out sitting in jail. As I have stated many times in the past, we do not have the luxury of locking inmates up and pretending they no longer exist. There is no out of sight out of mind. We have to see them as individuals, individuals with the potential for improvement. There are many success stories of inmates who have used their work experience as trusties as a springboard to making a better life for themselves. Despite the naysayers I will continue to operate the trusty program fairly and impartially.


This story can be found on Jacksonville.com at http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101407/met_208183322.shtml.

Brain And Spinal Cord Trust Fund Robbed By It's Board Members

For those of you who don't know Bill Smith sits on this commission.

From http://savannahnow.com/node/374549

Report: Trust fund not used for medical expenses
Brandon Larrabee Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 12:30 am

ATLANTA - A state trust fund aimed at helping brain- and spinal-injury victims lead normal lives inexplicably halted its funds from being used for medical treatment and instead paid for iPods, lawnmowers and appliances, according to a scathing report from state auditors.
But the director of the Brain and Spinal Injury Trust Fund said the report does not paint a full picture of the agency's efforts and seems to spring at least in part from a misunderstanding of the fund's role.
The audit takes the commission overseeing the fund to task for limiting its spending on medical expenses, devoting its funds to seemingly frivolous purchases, and allowing administrative expenses to eat up money that could be going to those the fund is supposed to help.
"Improvements are needed in all aspects of the operations of the trust fund. ... Our review found that the commission is not administering the trust fund in keeping with the fund's overall purpose as outlined in the constitutional amendment and state law," the auditors wrote.
The fund was set up under an amendment to the state Constitution approved by voters in 1998, with revenue generated from a 10 percent fee on DUI convictions.
Auditors questioned the commission's interpretation of the law, namely the agency's belief that it doesn't have to pay for medical expenses and should instead focus its efforts on trying to help Georgians with spinal and brain injuries lead independent lives.
The commission will provide up to $5,000 for some medical expenses that follow the initial accident that causes a brain or spinal-cord injury, but not for the cost of care for the accident itself.
But the auditors said failing to do so likely runs afoul of state laws and didn't match up with what legislators meant when they created the fund.
"According to an e-mail from the legislator who co-sponsored the amendment that created the trust fund, he understand 'care and rehabilitation' to include 'provid(ing) money to help pay for the catastrophic medical costs of accident victims whose insurance is exhausted,' " the audit said.
Craig Young, executive director of the fund, said paying for medical expenses wasn't necessary in many cases and could eat up much of the fund's revenues. He said that as few as three awards for medical expenses could use up the fund in a given year, even though many of those with brain or spinal-cord injuries already have access to private insurance or public assistance.
He also said the governor's office and the attorney general's office haven't differed with the commission on its interpretation of the law.
"We just think the auditors kind of missed the boat on their particular take," Young said.
The report also scolds the agency for spending funds on a variety of items that auditors suggest are more frivolous than medical bills.
"While the commission will not use the trust fund to cover persons' major medical expenses, it routinely uses the fund to pay for such items as home modifications, cars, car insurance, household furniture and appliances, personal electronics (such as an (iPod) and computers), and lawn and garden equipment (such as lawnmowers and a 12-row sprayer)," auditors wrote.
But Young said expenses that seem questionable to someone outside the program hold up when looked at in the right context. The iPod, he said, was given to a school custodian who used it to block out the noise or activity that otherwise caused problems because of the custodian's brain injury.
A woman with a wheelchair needed a side-loading washer and dryer because she couldn't reach up far enough to open top-loading machines, he said. Similar stories lie behind other expenses cited by the report.
"We looked them all up, and I'm satisfied with every one of them," Young said.
He also said the commission has taken steps to limit its administrative funding to 11 percent - although auditors say that's largely by moving some of the expenses to other parts of the agency's budget - and moving to recover any funds that recipients didn't spend within a year of when the grants were rewarded, two other concerns raised by the report.

TRSP Review: The only thing I will say is "an Ipod to block out noise." Don't you put the earphones in you ears and listen to music. The louder your environment the louder the Ipod.

No wonder Mr. Craig young refused to kick the Sheriff off the board. He is just as bad as Smith. Did he really think that we would believe that.

Maybe the Governor will listen now. Or I can always campaign against him. i am sure the Dems would like that office back. Governor you need to piss or get off the pot, and take action. You have ran from this problem from day one.