FOUR FOR FOUR ALL FOUR INVOLVED IN MY CASE QUIT!!!

WHAT IS THIS MAN HIDING??????????

CHIEF HATCH RELEASE THE TAPES, STOP HIDING AND BE A MAN AND STANDUP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT! YOUR JOB IS TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH, NOT COVER YOUR FRIENDS ASS!

YOU HAVE KNOWN ALL THIS TIME THAT THISE TAPES WERE AVAILABLE, YEY YOU CHOOSE NOT TO TELL ANYONE. WHY?

The Letter

Ethics Complaint Against Mayor and Entire City Council

Ethics complaint against Chief Hatch, Mayor Deloughy, and the entire City Council


Chief Hatch has lied about several things in my case. Many of you have seen the evidence I have provided.

First, Chief Hatch lied about an internal investigation I requested after my arrest. Chief Hatch said no such investigation took place, but I received a bill for my open records request for that document. Also in the email in response to my request, Chief Hatch stated it was not done yet, and he would send the final copy and the amount for the cost to the City Clerk for me to pay before I picked up the paperwork. Please find the enclosed documentation.

Second, I requested a second internal investigation one year later, claiming Joshua Hamlett falsified the police report in my case. Upon completion of this request, I got a copy and found it very disturbing. First the investigator didn’t do a complete investigation. He took the accused (Hamlett) word for it. If they would have done a complete investigation the 911 tapes would have been listened to and the investigator would have heard the Sheriff as the second caller, yet the investigator listed as an unknown caller. The sheriff says as 911 answers “This is the Sheriff”. They did not pull the CAD report from the 911 center that proves Hamlett couldn’t have done all that he said he did, as the CAD report lists him as being at the doctors office for only 20 minutes.

Third, when I started sending all this information to Chief Hatch, He took it as a threat and told me not to email him again. Since when is sending information about a case a threat? Maybe when that person knows he is caught in a huge lie.

Fourth, your city manager in defense of Chief Hatch sends me a threatening email and copied the city attorney on it stating that I need to remove an image that I use on Topix. This image is of Chief Hatch, and it was taken off a public domain website. Later after I returned Mr. Crowell email and stated that no laws were broken by my use of this image, Crowell admitted that is was not illegal, so why did he email me was it INTIMADATION?

And last but not least, The Mayor and entire city council has ignored every bit of this. They have ignored several complaints against Chief Hatch even after I predicted that Officer Hamlett would quit after I filed the second internal investigation. Oh by the way, he did quit 2 days later. All other officers in this case, also quit.

Further documentation upon request.

Rick Rogers

Mayor Deloughy And Shelia McNeill's Famous Check

Wow I Did Not Know That!!!

I wonder why there was not much press on this?

Search the web your self, I could only find this on one site, and none of the local papers even mention it.
Was it ever made public?

Shanahan Never worked "outside the box" For The City Of St. Marys

Shanahan, 53, was asked to describe a time when he worked "outside the box."


While he served in the U.S. Air Force, Shanahan responded, he was trying to bring various departments together to create a rapid-response force. But the people he was encouraging to work together didn't want to do so -- and they all outranked him.

So, he called a meeting before "happy hour" at the non-commissioned officers' club, and everyone showed up, getting the process started, Shanahan said. The audience chuckled.

Shanahan has been city manager in St. Marys, a town of about 21,000 people, for roughly six years. He was previously the county manager in Habersham County, Ga.

Shanahan said he practices "management by walking" -- essentially getting out and talking to people.

Full article:

http://www.oakridger.com/localnews/x1849212780/Council-picks-top-city-manager-candidate-today


LAIR LAIR BILL SHANAHAN IS A BIG FAT LIAR.

I FEEL FOR YOU IN AUGUSTA!!

YOUR CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE DONE A BETTER BACKGROUND CHECK.

Augusta Takes St. Marys Trash

WE WIN!!!

Can you believe Augusta would want a piece of trash like this?

I wonder if he was hired on the Friends and Family plan?

Mr Shanahan do you have family in Augusta? I feel that would be the only reason they would want a corrupt manager in their city.

One down and two to go, The Mayor and Police Chief will be next.



OLD NEWS
St. Marys city manager finalist for Augusta position

Bill Shanahan, two others interviewing

Posted: December 14, 2010 - 3:49pm


By Morris News Service

AUGUSTA — St. Marys City Manager Bill Shanahan is among three finalists for Augusta's open deputy administrator position.

Shanahan, Douglas E. Smith, assistant city manager of Delray Beach, Fla., and Jefferson, Ga., City Manager John A. Ward III were named finalists today.

They were chosen from some 155 applications received by Augusta Human Resources.

All three hold master's degrees in public administration and have experience working in Georgia local governments, according to their resumes.

The deputy administrator position is designated as "chief operations officer" on a proposed restructuring chart put together by a team of city department heads and Administrator Fred Russell.

The COO oversees departments called environmental services; recreation, parks and facilities; utilities; engineering and emergency services, which include fire, 911, animal services, the inmate work camp and emergency management, according to the draft chart.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2010-12-14/story/st-marys-city-manager-finalist-augusta-position#ixzz1EtCsV58P

Mayor Talks Out Of Both Sides Of Mouth

THE WORST MAYOR EVER!!!!!!

This man claimed just a few weeks ago that he was for the people. He said that it was his job to work for the people, but recent events PROVE that he is nothing more than a man wanting to cover his ass.

Mr Mayor, why won't you respond to my email asking you authorized that ORR (open records request) that was sent to the radio station, a private business? Answer, YOU but you won't be a man and say so.

Mr. Mayor, when the letter said that the radio station had three days to respond, what would you have done if they didn't respond, as you had no legal actions you could take. Answer, Most likely they would have called in the corrupt St. Marys PD and have them arrest everyone at the radio station. After all, Rich
Riggle will do anything for a friend.

Mr. Mayor, Why did you tell K-Bay  that the email from the attorney didn't exist? Why did you return their ORR for that email with a smart ass comment. That sir is not very professional and really makes people think YOU are not working for them.

KEEP COVERING YOUR ASS BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO NEED IT.

YOU ARE THE WORST MAYOR I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!

END EXECUTIVE SESSION AND OPEN UP THIS GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY AND BE HONEST WITH THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY!!!

WILL THE WORST MAYOR EVER ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?

There is another new blog in town, very interesting!!!

I have one question after reading this post!

From: http://stmaryscitizen.com/author/stmaryscitizens/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do not believe the rumors!

Posted: February 13, 2011
Author: stmaryscitizens
Filed under: Uncategorized
Leave a comment »

Recently on a similar website with a similar name there were accusations made that the City Manager and Mayor are in some type of panic mode. There are claims the City Manager Bill Shanahan was direct by Mayor Deloughy to seek out and find the signed petition that went to the Grand Jury. Keep in mind that this is only a rumor and there is no facts behind it at all. In fact it is just another untrue rumor by the Nutty Group and Alex Kearns to disrupt the Grand Jury process. The fact is there is not such directive to Shanahan by the Mayor to do any such thing.



There is also unfounded rumors that Bill Shanahan sent out FOIR’s to media outlets and others requesting copies or the signed Grand Jury petition. It was also lied about that he is so stupid that he does not know that the FOIR’s are only for government entities. No one is stupid enough to believe that a City Manager does not understand the process of a FOIR and who they can submit it to. Again it is another lame attempt by the Nutty Group and Alex Kearns to try to frame this debate. This site and others have gone along way in debunking these liars.





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

THEN WHO AUTHORIZED THIS LETTER?

DO WE HAVE A ROGUE CLERK?

DID SHE DO THIS ON HER OWN?

WHO IS THE DUMBASS THAT APPROVED THIS LETTER?

But I do like the blog and love another view on this problem in St. Marys. Keep it up!

The Cities Request To A Private Business

When are these people going to learn that the people they represent are not held to the same standards that they are. The radio station does not have to give out this info, because the law is for government agencies only.

HOW DUMB ARE THEY

ENJOY

Stupid City Of St. Marys Requests FOIA From Private Business

I have requested that the request made by the city of St. Marys be sent to me. I requested it from both the city and K-Bay. I figured that if the government can ask private bussiness' for open records, then I can too. Will post it when and if I get.


Who wants to take bets on who gets this document to me first?

I bet the radio station will be the only one to send it.

The city will not they will find some reason not to send it. The great open government we have in St. Marys.

They are all crooked and corrupt. Yes you,

Mr. Mayor,
Mr City Manager who wants to move but can't because no one wants a corrupt City manager,
Mr Police Chief who wants to move but can't because no one wants a corrupt police chief
and yes,
the entire city council is just a joke. You all should quit and walk away.

Hase Makes Waste!!!!!!!!!!

If the City Council of St. Marys wants to play dirty , so will the citizens of St. Marys.

Remember back in the day Charlene Sears called my blog and others WORTHLESS.

And were did that comment get her?

Now Deb Hase, another elected official, who uses bloggers all the time to get her message out is saying that she doesn't put much stock in the bloggers’ campaigns.

Really Deb, that is not what you said to me during the last election for Sheriff. If you remember correctly you told me at the July 4th parade, that you were proud of what us bloggers were doing for the county.

He is Deb's letter to local business owners"

From http://camdencommentary.com/2010/12/19/deb-hase-calls-for-economic-boycott/

There is a shocking movement underfoot in our community. Recent criticisim of our navy base commander and his support of Sheila McNeill as a lobbyist for Kings Bay Navy Base was expressed in a letter to the editor last week. Today I heard that it was also posted on a local blog that is known for trashing local leaders and business people. The anonymous bloggers are apparently urging people to boycot Sheila’s Hallmark due to her successful lobbying and work as a member of the Camden Partnership. Not that I put much stock in the bloggers’ campaigns, but this is such an unethical effort, that I have been urging people to show their support for Sheila, who has done so much for this community, and worked so hard to maintain our level of military missions at our base. We as business people know what this community will be if the base ever leaves or severly reduces the missions at Kings Bay. Her business, like ours, has been suffering in this economy. I am asking you to show your appreciation and support of Sheila’s local business as a thank you for her sacrifice over the years to keep our community solvent with our number oneemployer, Kings Bay Navy Base. Just pay her a visit and let her know how much you appreciate her. I am sure that you will be glad you did. Maybe someone will do the same for your business in the future. God Bless, and I am thanking you in advance for supporting Sheila. Deborah Hase”


Gee Ms Hase do you go out of your way for all citizens of this city, or just ones that line your pockets with cash!!!!!!!!!!!

I used to like you and I also supported you when you ran for city council, and like you I am now turning my back on YOU. I think it is terrible that you supply information to bloggers and then when they do one thing you don't like YOU TELL LIES to make them look back.

"known for trashing local leaders and business people" I didn't hear one complaint from you when we were going after Smith, in fact you help out!!!!

But I see the shoe is on the other foot.

Enjoy your time as a member of the city council while you can, as this will be your last round in local politics.

And by the way Deb and Sheila if the Navy wanted the airport shut down, They would shut it down. Kinda like they did after 9/11. I don't believe they asked you if it would be OK to shut it down then, did they?

Boycott St. Marys Georgia, Entire City Is Corrupt

City employees may no longer appeal if they are fired.

The City Council voted 4-2 Monday night to repeal its appeals policy.

http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2010-10-...

This City has said FU to the taxpayer and now to their own employees.

The City Council and police department are so corrupt, they think they can do whatever they want and just ignore the people.

Boycott all of St. Marys and force the business community to take action. If sales drop, they will comp0lain and as soon as enough start complaining they will have to react.

WHERE IS THE MAYOR AND WHY IS HE LETTING THIS HAPPEN?

Employee should all quit and find new jobs as this statement by the council shows their lack of respect for its own employees.

This mayor and his council have no respect at all for their employees.

Council Members Deborah Hase, Chuck Trader and John Morrissey MUST GO

FU TAXPAYER SO SAYS COUNCIL MEMBERS

St. Marys votes to fund more airport studies


Two councilmen say the project wasn't supposed to cost taxpayers.

Posted: September 14, 2010 - 11:16pm

By Gordon Jackson

ST. MARYS - City Council members voted 3-2 Monday to fund a new appraisal and a separate environmental study at the site of a proposed municipal airport near Woodbine.

Councilman Sidney Howell, who voted with Greg Bird against funding the studies, said it violates a non-binding referendum question that voters approved more than two years ago. The referendum gave city officials permission to relocate the airport under the condition no local taxes are used for the project.

"It's wrong spending money when the referendum said at no cost to taxpayers," Howell said.

The studies will now consider 600 acres that city officials said will be donated by a group that is the top bidder - so far - for Sea Island Co., which has declared bankruptcy.

The appraisal will also include more than 225 acres of wetlands never considered in the initial study, city officials said. The city's share for the two studies is $1,912.

Council members Deborah Hase, Chuck Trader and John Morrissey voted in favor of the motion. Keith Post, who has consistently voted for airport relocation, didn't attend.

Before the vote, Hase defended the recommendation to use local taxpayer money to fund the studies.

"The referendum still said to move it [the airport]," she said.

Earlier this year, council members approved a resolution 4-2 to use city funds for "incidental expenses" for airport relocation. Bird said the resolution allows city officials to disregard the voters' wishes.

"They gave themselves carte blanche on moving the airport," Bird said. "They put no limits on it."

Bird asked council members to delay the vote two weeks because the city has never published a Finding of No Significant Impact study, or FONSI, in the county's legal organ as the FAA requires.

The report was never published because city officials voted to abandon airport relocation in February 2007, a month before the study was released. Eleven months later, a new city council decided to resurrect the airport relocation issue.

City Manager Bill Shanahan said the city is not required to publish the study in the county's local newspaper because it was published in a federal publication that he did not identify.

But Bird disagreed, reading from a March 2007 letter from the FAA.

"In accordance with FAA procedures, the FONSI must be made available to the public," Bird read. "The enclosed notice must be placed in a local newspaper as soon as possible and run for a minimum of three days."

Bird said it's important for the public to understand the impact a new airport could have on the environment.

"We don't know the significance of the project," Bird said. "We need to find out exactly what we're dealing with [regarding] environmental issues."

Hase disagreed, saying the FAA understands the issues surrounding the project.

"It doesn't hurt to move forward," Hase said. "We need to keep moving with this project."

gordon.jackson@jacksonville.com, (912) 729-3672

Why do you need to keep this moving, and at what cost?

St Marys A Hot Bed For Abusive Police!!!!!!!

Will the City Of St Marys Ever Learn?

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/787/787.F2d.1496.85-8288.85-8287.html

787 F.2d 1496


Bradley Jay DEPEW, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CITY OF ST. MARYS, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Charles Earl FOWLER, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CITY OF ST. MARYS, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 85-8287, 85-8288.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

April 28, 1986.

Richard A. Brown, Jr., Brunswick, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

Alva J. Hopkins, III, Folkston, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and ATKINS*, Senior District Judge.

ATKINS, Senior District Judge:



The City of St. Marys appeals from an adverse verdict in consolidated section 1983 actions which were based upon allegations that the city knowingly approved a pattern of improper police conduct consisting of acts of violence, intimidation, and humiliation.1 Appellant maintains that the evidence was insufficient to prove a policy or custom establishing the city's fault regarding the constitutional deprivation of plaintiffs' rights. In addition, appellant maintains that plaintiffs were not denied due process because adequate state remedies exist.2 Because we find that the evidence supports the verdict, and that the existence of a state remedy does not bar a section 1983 action of this type, we affirm.

* There was sufficient evidence before the jury from which the following facts could be inferred. On July 22, 1983, plaintiffs, Fowler and Depew, began repairing a customer's jeep at Fowler's garage. After completing the repairs at 1:30 a.m. the next day, plaintiffs took the jeep for a test drive. Fowler noticed a problem with the steering, so he allowed the jeep to veer to the right on two occasions and was subsequently stopped by Officer Kusek.

Fowler explained what he was doing, but was told he had to submit to a sobriety test although none of the officers detected any alcohol odor on his breath. Fowler readily agreed to take the test. Later, a lab report showed negative alcohol content.

While Kusek went to his car, apparently to obtain the test equipment, Fowler sat down in the jeep. When Kusek returned to the jeep, he grabbed Fowler around the neck and tried to drag him from the jeep. Fowler clung to the steering wheel, because he was surprised and frightened. When Kusek was unable to drag Fowler from the jeep, he demanded Depew's assistance. Depew, however, refused to interfere in any manner.

After a short while, several other officers arrived at the scene. One officer held Depew at gunpoint while he was handcuffed. Other officers helped Kusek drag Fowler from the vehicle. Then, Fowler was thrown to the ground and beaten by the officers before he was handcuffed. Depew was taken directly to jail, while Fowler was taken to a hospital for blood tests.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed these actions against the city and other parties. Plaintiffs alleged that their civil rights were violated due to the use of excessive or unreasonable force by the city's police officers. Liability was asserted against the city based on allegations that the mayor and city council had knowingly established a policy or custom of police misconduct. During trial, the evidence revealed several prior incidents of police misconduct. The evidence also indicated that the city failed to train, supervise, and discipline its police officers as required.

Ms. Donini testified that she had been harassed and forcibly placed in a police car by the city's officers during their apprehension of a suspect on her property in 1981. When she complained of a violation of her rights, she was informed that she had no rights. Moreover, her complaints were largely ignored by the mayor and council members. In fact, the city commended the officers for their actions.

Ms. Crumbley, a council member since 1979, testified that the council was aware of the Donini incident and another incident involving Michael Dixon. Mr. Dixon had also initiated a lawsuit alleging police brutality. Crumbley denied that the officers acted improperly, and maintained that these cases were settled merely to preserve peace in the community.

Mr. Dyals, a council member since 1980 and former chairman of the police subcommittee, stated that he was unaware of any investigation or disciplinary measures regarding the Donini or Dixon matters. Similarly, when questioned about another incident involving David Chaney, he could not remember any investigation regarding the matter.3

Councilman Saunders initially testified that no action had been taken by the council in the Donini and Dixon matters; however, he later testified that the Donini matter had been investigated. He stated that the council concluded that the officers had acted correctly. He also admitted that no action had been taken to alter police policy.

Additional evidence indicated that other complaints of police misconduct existed. Officer Ring remembered a complaint involving Officer Murray, but could not recall the details. Similarly, Officer Wiggins, a former training officer, was disciplined when he struck a handcuffed prisoner for no apparent reason.

The evidence relating to the lack of proper training, supervision, and discipline consisted of various personnel evaluation reports, employee warning reports, directives promulgated by Chief Keele, and the testimony of various witnesses. For example, Officer Ring was never disciplined other than by verbal reprimand although he had been cited for poor and improper work on many occasions. Similarly, while Officers Halley and Kaser were known to be hot tempered, both officers remained on patrol duty.

Chief Keele admitted that he had disciplinary problems with his officers. Nevertheless, he did little to rectify the problem. In fact, he stated, "At six bucks an hour, you take what you can get."

While the parties presented conflicting evidence, testimony indicated that the officers received inadequate training concerning the use of force in any given situation and when the use of deadly force was proper. Officer Sanders testified that no instructions on this subject were issued by the department. Moreover, Sanders candidly stated that excessive force was used against Fowler, but that it was nothing that he had not seen before.

The evidence also demonstrated that officers had little incentive to learn the policy and directives of the police department. If an officer failed an examination on the department's policy and directives, he remained in the same position, with the same duties, and he received the same wages. His sole penalty was that he was not promoted to a higher rank.

The mayor and council showed no inclination to change police policy. In fact, while the mayor and council members were aware of prior complaints of excessive force, they continued to assert that the department's supervision was satisfactory and that the officers were doing a good job.

At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, defendants moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied. After the jury returned a verdict against the city, defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Finding the evidence sufficient to support plaintiffs' claims, the district judge denied this motion as well.II

The City of St. Marys contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict which was based on a finding of custom or policy on the part of the city resulting in plaintiffs' injuries. When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs and give them the benefit of all inferences which the evidence supports. This court must affirm unless it is convinced that there is a complete absence of probative evidence supporting the verdict or that the evidence so overwhelmingly supports the city that reasonable men in the exercise of impartial judgment could not render a verdict against it.

Section 1983 generally makes every person liable for conduct which deprives any citizen of the United States of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1982). For purposes of this statute, municipalities are persons. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Section 1983 provides a fault-based analysis for imposing municipal liability; therefore, plaintiffs must establish that the city was the person who caused them to be subjected to their deprivation. To establish a policy or custom, it is generally necessary to show a persistent and wide-spread practice. Moreover, actual or constructive knowledge of such customs must be attributed to the governing body of the municipality. Normally random acts or isolated incidents are insufficient to establish a custom or policy. Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, on rehearing, 735 F.2d 861 (5th Cir.1984) (en banc). However, the custom need not receive formal approval. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. at 2036.

In this case, while the city provided rules and regulations for the operation of its police department, these rules were violated on numerous occasions. The city, however, failed to rectify the situation. The evidence revealed several incidents involving the use of unreasonable and excessive force by police officers. Therefore, the city had knowledge of improper police conduct, but failed to take proper remedial action. The continued failure of the city to prevent known constitutional violations by its police force is precisely the type of informal policy or custom that is actionable under section 1983. See Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F.2d 1220, 1224 (8th Cir.1981); See also Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).III

Appellant maintains that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under section 1983, because they had an adequate remedy under state law and were not denied due process. Plaintiffs can pursue claims for false imprisonment, false arrest, and assault and battery in state court. Since state law provides plaintiffs with these post-deprivation remedies, appellant asserts that plaintiffs have received all the process which they are due under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) is the starting point for discussion. Parratt involved a section 1983 suit for damages of $23.50 brought by an inmate for the negligent deprivation of property without due process of law. The court concluded that the due process clause was not violated because plaintiff had an adequate state remedy. A pre-deprivation hearing was not practical and a post-deprivation hearing was available. Id. at 543, 101 S.Ct. at 1916. The court emphasized the need for this result. Otherwise, every injury caused by a state official under color of law would constitute a due process violation and would be actionable under section 1983. Id. at 544, 101 S.Ct. at 1917. Justices Stewart and Powell concurred, because they did not believe the claim rose to the level of a deprivation of property under the Constitution. Id. 544, 546, 101 S.Ct. 1917, 1918. Justices White and Blackmun emphasized that the opinion was limited to deprivations of property and did not encompass deprivations of life or liberty. Id. at 545, 101 S.Ct. at (White and Blackmun concurring).

In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984), the court dealt with an intentional deprivation of property through an unauthorized act by a state employee. The court extended the holding in Parratt to include intentional deprivations of property where it was impractical to hold a pre-deprivation hearing and where an adequate state remedy existed. The court's holding, however, was based on the fact that the action was unauthorized.

We reasoned that where a loss of property is occasioned by a random, unauthorized act by a state employee, rather than by an established state procedure, the state cannot predict when the loss will occur.

Id. 104 S.Ct. at 3203. The Court reasoned that while the action was under color of law, the unauthorized acts were beyond the control of the state. The Court then discussed Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). In Logan, the court reaffirmed Parratt but distinguished it.

We specifically distinguished the case from Parratt by noting that "Parratt ... was dealing with a ... 'random and unauthorized act by a state employee ... [and was] not a result of some established state procedure.' " Parratt, we said, "was not designed to reach ... a situation" where the deprivation is the result of an established state procedure.

Hudson, 104 S.Ct. at 3203 n. 13 (footnotes omitted).

Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 737 F.2d 894 (11th Cir.1984), rev'd, 774 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc) is the critical Eleventh Circuit decision regarding this issue. In Gilmere, plaintiff's decedent was killed by police officers during arrest. The court ruled that the state survivor tort remedy was all the process that was due because the conduct was random and unauthorized, and a pre-deprivation hearing was impractical. The court then extended the holdings of Parratt and Hudson to include negligent and intentional deprivations of liberty. The court avoided ruling on whether the same result would have been proper for a violation of substantive due process. In fact, the court specifically stated:

Thus our holding today is in line with Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 704 (5th Cir.1981) where the plaintiff's claim was held to be not barred by Parratt because it was based on the substantive due process right to vote. Additionally, the acts of the police here, although most unfortunate, did not "offend those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of English-speaking peoples even toward those charged with the most heinous offense" or "shock the conscience," so as to violate the substantive due process guarantees "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Id. at 910 (citations omitted).
Upon rehearing, the court stated:

We accepted this case for en banc consideration primarily to determine whether Parratt v. Taylor precludes a claim by his administratrix under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 because state tort law provides a comparable remedy.
Gilmere, at 1496 (citations omitted). The court concluded that plaintiff's action was not barred.

Having thus found that the scope of Parratt is necessarily limited by both the legislative history of section 1983 and the Supreme Court's own pronouncements, we perceive at least two alternative constitutional theories ... on which this plaintiff may predicate her section 1983 claim for relief against the police officers.
Id. at 1499.

In Gilmere, the court articulated two theories which allow injured parties to bring actions pursuant to section 1983 regardless of whether an adequate state remedy was available. First, an individual can maintain a section 1983 action whenever the government's conduct violates substantive due process. Id. at 1501. Similarly, an individual can bring a section 1983 action based upon Fourth Amendment violations. Id. at 1502.

Here, the jury determined that the City of St. Marys had implicitly ratified a custom or policy permitting the police to use excessive force against its citizens. The use of "excessive" force in making an arrest constitutes an unreasonable seizure. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a section 1983 action in spite of the existence of any state remedies.4

The evidence was far from overwhelming, but it was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The jury was entitled to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. The evidence revealed sufficient prior incidents where the police had used excessive force to put the city on notice. Yet, the city failed to take proper remedial action. This evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the city's officials implicitly ratified a custom which resulted in plaintiffs' injuries. Based on this evidence, the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain a section 1983 action in federal court regardless of the existence of any state remedy. Thus, we AFFIRM.



*

Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation



1

Plaintiffs did not appeal from verdicts for all other defendants nor contest the amount of the award



2

Appellant also maintains that the pendent state law claims are barred under Georgia statutes. However, a recent case, Toombs County, Georgia v. O'Neal, 254 Ga. 390, 330 S.E.2d 95 (1985) has settled this issue. The defense of sovereign immunity is waived to the extent of the municipality's liability insurance coverage. Id. Neither Acker v. City of Elberton, 176 Ga.App. 580, 336 S.E.2d 842 (1985) nor any of the cases cited therein are relevant. The implied holding of Acker is that a municipality is not liable for the torts of police officers under a theory of respondeat superior. No such limitation on liability exists, however, when the officer's conduct is based on a city's custom utilizing excessive force to control its residents



3

The Chaney incident was not explored during the trial because the court refused to allow certain witnesses, including a former St. Marys police officer, to testify. This incident also involved allegations of police brutality



4

Gilmere identifies the proper balancing tests which will guide parties in the future. See id. at 1501-02. In this case, these tests are obviously satisfied, so there is no need to remand the case

Riggle's Nieghbor Says "he will do anything to help anyone in the neighborhood."

Really Anything?

Here is the complete post from his NEIGHBOR! 


Anonymous said...


Yeah, I know about him. He's my neighbor and will do anything to help anyone in the neighborhood.

As far as I know, he's also a fair cop in St Marys

LEAVE HIM AL0NE RICK !!!
Sat Aug 07, 10:57:00 AM EST


I guess it is hard to believe that some cops are bad.
Let's face it, we have had a doctor found guilty of murder, a firefighter acussed of trying to hook up with a child for sex, and another cop fired or forced to resign 4 times due to sexual problems, So why do you just assume this cop could do no wrong?

 

Emails concerning the Brinko Firing!

I requested all emails concerning Janet Brinko, and this is all I got.

I hardly believe these are the only emails that concern the Brinko case.

YOU PEOPLE ARE A BUNCH OF LIARS.

FROM THE MAYOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO THE POLICE DEPT.

ALL LIARS!!!!!


Donna Folsom email date July 14, 2010.

Dear Mr. Rogers:
Attached is one of the e-mail documents forwarded from Mr. Shanahan.

Thank you,
Darlene M. Roellig
City Clerk
City of St. Marys
418 Osborne Street
St. Marys Georgia 31558
912.510.4039 Telephone
912.510.4013 Fax
darlene.roellig@ci.st-marys.ga.us

From: Bill Shanahan
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:11 PM
To: Darlene Roellig; Donna Folsom; Gary Moore; Bill DeLoughy; Chuck Trader; Darlene Roellig; Deborah Walker-Reed; Deborah Hase; Greg Bird; John Morrissey; Keith Post (keithfpost@tds.net); Sidney Howell
Subject: FW: Meeting Notes

This is a second e-mail that I have as per Mr. Roger’s Open Records Request.
William P. Shanahan, Jr.
City Manager
City of St. Marys
418 Osborne Street
St. Marys, Georgia 31558
912.510.4041 Office
912.510.4013 Fax
bill.shanahan@ci.st-marys.ga.us

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact me immediately by telephone (912) 510.4041 and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.

From: Donna Folsom
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:44 PM
To: Bill Shanahan
Subject: Meeting Notes
Meeting Notes


On May 26, 2010 Bill Shanahan and I were in a personnel session with Janet Brinko. During this meeting, Ms. Brinko became very upset about a letter of caution she was receiving and said she didn’t understand why she was getting a memo and further stated that Alyce Thornhill should be in trouble for disobeying a directive from Mr. Shanahan. She went on to say that Ms. Thornhill had contacted Jolene Haney to discuss the possible pros and cons of consolidating the St. Marys Tourism Dept and Economic Development Department. When the City Manager asked how Ms. Brinko became aware of this, she stated that Jolene Haney had contacted her and informed her that Ms. Thornhill had contacted her (Ms. Haney) about the possible consolidation.

At that time, the City Manager stated that he would look into it further. Ms. Brinko stated that Mr. Shanahan should contact Ms. Haney right now on the phone to confirm the information. Mr. Shanahan stated he did not conduct investigations that way and let Ms. Brinko know he would be contacting Ms. Haney at a later time during his investigation.

Donna M. Folsom

Human Resources Director



Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 4:13 PM
From: Jolene Haney [mailto:jolenehaney@gmail.com]
To: Bill Shanahan
Subject: ORA Request

Bill,

I would like to formally request copies of all correspondence regarding the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Please include e-mails, reports and all written documents from all city employees and city council members for the past 6 months. Please notify me of any cost associated with this request.

Jolene Haney
912-467-2119


Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:21 PM
From: Jolene Haney [mailto:jolenehaney@gmail.com]
To: Barbara Ryan; Mardja Gray; Dave Phillips; Julie Riffe; Susan Lockhart; Mary Neff; Keith Post; John Carroll; Bill Shanahan; Sidney Howell; John Morrissey; Deborah Hase; Greg Bird; Chuck Trader

Subject: Tourism Director

I regret to inform the CVB Authority members that Bill Shanahan has terminated Janet Brinko as our Tourism Director. Over the next few days and weeks we will undoubtebly have many questions and comments from the public. I myself have many questions. In Barbara's absence I will continue to monitor the activities at the Welcome Center and support the staff as needed. We must continue to move forward with our mission. It will be business as usual. I feel certain we will have a special called meeting at some point prior to the meeting on the 27th. I will let Barbara make that decision.

Please contact me with any questions.

Jolene Haney
Vice-Chair
St. Marys Convention and Vistors Bureau
912-467-2119

Emails Sent July 15, 2010

From: Sidney Howell

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 5:09 PM

To: Bill Shanahan

Subject: RE: Update

Bill
I would like to have all copies of this.

Thanks, Sidney


From: Bill Shanahan
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 4:34 PM

To: Bill DeLoughy; Chuck Trader; Darlene Roellig; Deborah Walker-Reed; Deborah Hase; Gary Moore; Greg Bird; John Morrissey; Keith Post (keithfpost@tds.net); Sidney Howell

Cc: Donna Folsom

Subject: Update

Good Afternoon:
After finishing my investigation and reviewing Janet Brinko’s response to the charges, I have terminated her from employment with the City of St. Marys.

I have already had open record requests for the paperwork that led to this.
If you would also like copies of this information, in order to understand the reasons for the action, please let me know.

I will be meeting with the Tourism Department Staff and Authority tomorrow to brief.

William P. Shanahan, Jr.
City Manager
City of St. Marys
418 Osborne Street
St. Marys, Georgia 31558
912.510.4041 Office
912.510.4013 Fax
bill.shanahan@ci.st-marys.ga.us

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact me immediately by telephone (912) 510.4041 and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.


Sent July 30, 2010

From: Bill Shanahan


Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:43 PM

To: 'Gary Moore'; Donna Folsom; Bill.Deloughy@ci.st-marys.ga.us; chuck.trader@ci.st-marys.ga.us; Darlene Roellig; Deborah Walker-Reed; deborah.hase@ci.st-marys.ga.us; greg.bird@ci.st-marys.ga.us; John Morrissey (john.morrissey@ci.st-marys.ga.us); Keith Post (keithfpost@tds.net); Sidney Howell (sidney.howell@ci.st-marys.ga.us)

Subject: Update

Good Afternoon:

Please be advised that, under the advisement of our attorney, I have directed the H.R. Director to send a letter to Janet Brinko and Jim Stein in reference to her appeal.
As per our policy, the written notice of the appeal, to include specific information, was due within three (3) working days of the hearing date.

This did not happen and therefore the appeal process has been terminated. (As per our policy.)
Just wanted to keep you in the loop.
Thanks,

William P. Shanahan, Jr.
City Manager
City of St. Marys
418 Osborne Street
St. Marys, Georgia 31558
912.510.4041 Office
912.510.4013 Fax
bill.shanahan@ci.st-marys.ga.us

The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact me immediately by telephone (912) 510.4041 and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner.

St. Marys Continues To Keep Spending A Secret!!!!

Actual leaked emails:

From: Bill DeLoughy [mailto:Bill.DeLoughy@ci.st-marys.ga.us]

Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Chuck Trader; Deborah Hase; Sidney Howell; John Morrissey; Greg.Bird@tds.net; Keith Post
Cc: Bill Shanahan
Subject: MMST

To All,
I recently met with Shelia Mc Neil and David Keating with respect to retaining our MMST in St. Marys. The Camden Partnership is planning to go to Washington to lobby for retention of this program. Since this program is vital to the well being of St. Marys they are planning to make several trips to DC for the purpose of retaining this unit. The city was asked to sponsor one trip at a cost of approximately $1,500. We can donate this money to the JDA to act as our consultant on this matter. Bill S. has checked our budget and advised me that there are funds available for this purpose. Both Camden Partnership as well as the JDA has been advised that our sponsorship is to be used only for the MMST program.

Please let me know if you will support this effort ASAP. I will authorize this expenditure if there are no major objections.

From: Greg Bird [mailto:Greg.Bird@ci.st-marys.ga.us]

Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:30 PM
To: Bill DeLoughy; Chuck Trader; Deborah Hase; Sidney Howell; John Morrissey; Greg.Bird@tds.net; Keith Post
Cc: Bill Shanahan; Gary Moore (gmoore@tosclaw.com)
Subject: RE: MMST

Hello Bill
I believe this should be decided before an open meeting of council. We might want a legal opinion as to whether this could be construed as a straw poll and conducting an illegal meeting by using the internet. Better to be safe than sorry. I am not in favor of donating tax dollars to Camden Partnership even though I fully support our MMST. Keith Post has taken the lead for us in this area and has done an excellent job in my opinion. If we want to do more then let us meet before the public on it.
Thanks,
Greg

From: Keith Post

Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 11:38 AM
To: Bill DeLoughy
Cc: CityCouncilMembers; Bill Shanahan; Gary Moore; sheilamcneill@bellsouth.net
Subject: MSST Lobbing Effort Funding

Mayor –

It is my understanding that you have the authority to authorize this expenditure, with or without our say-so. That being said, I do appreciate you wanting to know the thoughts of Council informally before you make a decision to expend City Funds.

I will defer to our City Attorney the issue Councilman Bird raised as to whether you can ask our opinion on an issue by email about a decision you want to make. I hope that is not wrong, for if it is not allowed, you and I having a conversation in the hallway about something will be the next thing to go. Soon we will have to drive down different roads to avoid being in the same proximity to each other.

I do want to make an important point as to Councilman Bird’s framing of this situation. I do not consider this request for financial support a ‘donation’ to the Camden Partnership. Sheila McNeill, as you know, is President of the Partnership and she has been the lead in this fight to stop the Obama Administration from cutting the USCG Budget which includes closing our MSST (Maritime Safety and Security Team).

I was asked by Council to be the lead man in the City’s effort to stop the closure of the MSST, and I do appreciate Councilman Bird's kind words in that regard to my service in that capacity. I have kept the council informed with periodic updates formally at Council meetings of the goings on both here and in DC. I have provided copies of letters to all of council that our Senators and Congressman have jointly signed with others from other parts of the country. This has not come about due to my efforts, this has come about due to the enormous amount of respect and accessibility Sheila is afforded on Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon and at Coast Guard Headquarters. As I stated to you earlier, at a national meeting of the Navy League In Washington DC the begin of this month, it was Sheila who was singled out and recognized by the new Commandant of the Coast Guard for our efforts. No one else from anywhere else in the country was afforded this recognition.

I consider this expenditure of $1500. a small investment in her efforts on OUR BEHALF on Capitol Hill, compared to the amount she has actually spent, not only in resources but in her time. I can tell you that I cannot afford to make all the trips she is making. I personally paid for my trip to Washington, DC as part of the Chamber Fly-In as the President of the Navy League in April where we visited with the Coast Guard at their HQ, and also had the opportunity to meet with CG Staff at a dinner. I helped write the letter you signed in support of our efforts, and I wrote and signed a letter to the Commandant as President of the Navy League.

This is a fight we must win. To question making a $1500. investment to assist in the expenses of trips to DC that Sheila is making to lobby on our behalf, when we stand to lose $231,000 in rent alone as a city not to mention the 8 Million Dollar impact to our county and area, is almost ludicrous. The partnership has asked Kingsland and Woodbine for support as well, and how embarrassing will it be for us if they make a commitment before we do. This is the right thing for us to do.

I hope you will move forward to assist the Partnership in their efforts to save our MSST.

Keith

Keith F. Post, Councilman






City of St. Marys

418 Osborne Street
St. Marys, Georgia 31558

Boycott The St. Marys 4th of July Celebration!!!!

The Real School Police is calling for a BOYCOTT of this years 4th of July celebration in St. Marys.

WHY?   You Ask!!!

Because,

They don't mind using our money behind closed doors and out of the sight of taxpayers.

So we shouldn't we spend ours outside of their sight as well. Visit Brunswick this year, or go to Florida and visit Fernandina Beach, They have a great festival and even better fireworks.

Show the city council you are done with their hiding and spending money behind closed doors.

Is Hase Email A Fake?

You now have seen the email, take a good look and tell me what is wrong with it.

Anyone that uses outlook will be able to tell.

I will tell why it is fake in my next post!