Flag Supporters Sue for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
*** Press Release ***
Contact: Dr. Robert Clarkson 864-356-5111
The above mentioned Southern heritage activist leaders have filed suit on a handful
of Stephens County (GA) public school and court personnel.
Lead Plaintiff, Brother Larry, of Toccoa , GA in a public announcement stated: “I'm doing this because I'm a Patriot. I love my country and I consider it my duty to expose evil, wickedness and corruption wherever it might occur especially in government just as our great American forefathers did at great costs.”
Long time political activist Dr. Robert Clarkson of Anderson SC stated in a press
release: “These horrible statements of the middle school principle constitute
outrageous conduct which is words or deeds intended to purposefully hurt those falsely
accused. She knew that these statements were not true and would hurt persons in
the community known to be supporters of the Confederate flag. For her wrong doing
she needs to compensate her victims and receive financial punishment.”
|
Local TV Station Editorial on the Outrageous Conduct LawsuitThough we are a small community—or perhaps because of it—Stephens County is an extremely competitive media market. Though all of the local media respect one another's work, the bottom line is that competition among us is fierce, both in terms of gathering news and maximizing advertising revenues. Even so, there are times when even competitors must put aside their differences and stand on common principles. A lawsuit filed against one of our competitors last week is just such an occasion. In the suit, a group of Southern heritage enthusiasts who demonstrated at Stephens County Middle School last year claims they were slandered and defamed by more than a dozen people and institutions, including The Toccoa Record. The suit centers specifically around reports related to the arrest and subsequent conviction of one group member who allegedly threw a rock at a school bus full of children. In the suit, the plaintiffs say that the newspaper made them look bad in the public’s eyes. There's two things wrong with that. First, defamation suits may only proceed if the information reported is provably false. Second, we'd respectfully suggest that if anything cast a public shadow on the group in question, it was the actions of some members of that group, not the reports about those actions. You can't file a defamation suit just because you didn't like something that was reported or broadcast. If the courts began considering such suits, it would have a tremendous chilling effect on the operations of newsgathering organizations here and everywhere. Courts have long recognized that one of the keys to a healthy democracy is a well-informed citizenry. The key to that, in turn, is the existence of a free and aggressive media. You can't have one without the other. Yes, the editors and reporters at The Toccoa Record have been aggressive in their reporting on this matter, just as we have been. There's nothing wrong with that. The public would be ill-served by a less-than-aggressive local media. Though they are competitors, we wholeheartedly stand behind The Toccoa Record in principle, and we know that they'd stand behind us under the same circumstances. Unless facts come to light which were not mentioned in last week's suit, we just don't see how any judge would allow this action to proceed, at least with regard to The Toccoa Record. If that does happen, there will be a lot more at stake than the feelings of a few individuals who didn't like the way they looked in the paper. |
|
3/28/06
|
|
Dear WNEG Radio,
On most points I agree with you.
|
|
April 13, 2006
I am very disappointed with your letter dated April 5, 2006. I have come to expect that you are on the right side of the issues more often than not. This letter is one of those "nots." You state in your letter to your constituents dated April 5, 2006, "We still have a long way to go in shielding teachers, school administrators and every professional educator from frivolous lawsuits...." Given the fact that my lawsuit against Brenda Kelley is in the news and on everyone's mind lately, I infer that you are insinuating that my lawsuit is frivolous. Have you always considered perjury -- lying under oath -- to be frivolous? Do you consider when a school official claims to receive a death threat solely to increase her own personal political power to be normal and acceptable behavior? How DARE you call the evil and wicked behavior of a fellow high ranking official frivolous! How DARE you give a political partner a "blank check! Do you, like so many of your buddies out there in Washington, believe that you can solve the failure of education in this country by throwing money at our educators without holding them accountable? In case you did not know, the educators in this county have distanced themselves from the very residents who pay them their salary. Oh yes, the public can go to one of their meetings, but the real discussions and decisions are made in a back room! The School board meets and we as citizens are allowed to "spill our guts" to them and no notes are taken. No decisions are made. The real meeting is held in another room. One of your citizens stood up to address the board and they were going to call the law on him for "disturbing the meeting." The Stephens County and City of Toccoa boards ask citizens if they have anything to say after they have done the governments business, but not the School board. The School board is a closed meeting as to addressing them. If our educators were routinely being held accountable for their behavior and appreciated for their integrity, we would not be having the rash of teacher sex offenders preying on our children! And if Brenda Kelley lied about the death threats, could she also have lied about a rock being thrown?! Why wasn't both incidents investigated fully? I brought this to your attention. Why didn't you then ask the questions that we are asking now and need to be asked? It must be politically harmful to go against the "ruling class" in this town? (When Middle School Principals make $93,000 in a town where the median income is $23,000, they are indeed the "ruling class!") The only way to improve education is to start holding our educators accountable to a standard of integrity! It is clear to me that our government officials in this town have forgotten that they "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." And since our government officials are so negligent, the only way to accomplish a standard of integrity is to take this lawsuit to a jury of my peers.
Sincerely,
|
ELOST to pay for lawsuit!
|
|
Robert B Clarkson
Tom Law, Publisher
The Toccoa Record
Re:Leitgebet al vs. Kelly et al, Docket # 2-06-CV-0034-WCO/RWS Dear Mr. Law: You and The Toccoa Record were named in the above-mentioned lawsuit as nominal party defendants. We have no objection to local newspapers reporting the news in clear and well-written articles, at this time. We want to save you and your company on expenses any way we can. Your lawyers can delay filing the answer as long as they wish, until we request it to be filed. If you like, your lawyers can contact me and tell me all the ways we can assist in lowering the expenses to your company. We will drop you from the lawsuit as soon as we can. However, we expect Ms. Kelly to make more untruthful statements at deposition. If she is untruthful, then we will depose you to have the record corrected. The questions for her and you include: Did you quote her correctly? Did you fabricate her quotes and the article? When this issue is settled we will take the necessary steps to assist your company. Yours, Robert B. Clarkson: March 21, 2006 |
The famed Dr. Robert Clarkson is giving yet another facet of evil and wicked government
a run for their money. Today Clarkson and Brother Larry answered the District
Attorney's Motion to Dismiss for the lawsuit that Clarkson and Brother
Larry brought against the District Attorneys.
The Attorney General of Georgia has decided to represent the District Attorney. This Attorney General will not walk away unscathed as long as Clarkson is leading the charge. This is how Clarkson finishes his Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss:
Dr. Clarkson is hosting yet another one of his famous Law Courses on the weekend
of April the 28th. In his course, he teaches patriots to understand law so
they are able to stand up for their rights! He believes that it is fair time
for all law abiding citizens to get tough with their law-breaking public officials.
Sometimes the only way to gain a person's respect is to get them to fear you. |
United States District Court
|
| Lawrence Leitgeb, | } | CA No: 2:06-CV-0034-WCO |
| Dan Roberts, | } | |
| Nelson Waller, | } | Reply to Answer and Defenses |
| Robert Clarkson, as representative | } | of Kelley & School Board |
| of the class of flag supporters, | } | in their Official Capacities |
| Plaintiffs | } | |
| v. | } | |
| Brenda Kelly, Gary Steppe, | } | |
| Jerry Steele, Curtis Waters, | } | |
| Dr. Elizabeth Pinkerton, | } | |
| James Thomas, Debbie Horton, | } | |
| Elaine DeFoor, George Payne, | } | |
| Stephens County School System | } | |
| Michael Crawford, Richard Bridgeman | } | |
| Tom Law and Toccoa Record, Inc | } | |
| Defendants. | } |
Plaintiffs above-named hereby file their Reply to Answers and Defenses from Defendants Brenda Kelley, Gary Steppe (School Superintendent) and the members of the School Board in their official capacities dated March 27, 2006. This is the second Reply to the Answers from these defendants who are now in their official capacity and also now includes the school system. The first Reply was against their attempt to dismiss in their individual capacity. The two answers are very similar and will be opposed by Plaintiffs in two Replies.
1. Ms. Kelley is represented by the same law firm as the School Board; however, she has a decidedly different interest in this case than the other defendants. This creates a serious conflict of interest for an attorney with two antagonizing defendants; therefore, this court should order Ms. Kelley to hire separate counsel. Since Ms. Kelley’s conduct was outside the scope of her authority, she should be required to pay her own attorney.
2. Defendants allege that Plaintiffs improperly plead fraud in their complaint. The fact is that the Plaintiffs did not allege fraud and such is not part of this case. High-priced Atlanta counsel failed to read the complaint even though they billed the rural school district for this.
3. Defendants cannot use the defense of sovereign immunity because their conduct was Ultra Vires. Ms. Kelley does not have the permission from the State of Georgia to use false testimony in a criminal trial or to falsely accuse her political foes of making death threats.
4. The School Board was well aware of the newspaper article and the fact that Ms. Kelley was untruthful. The School Board took no disciplinary action against her and even promoted her to a higher position. By failing to take corrective action, the individual members of the School Board condoned and adopted her behavior and therefore became liable.
The School Board was aware of the criminal trial of Leitgeb for the incident on the edge of school property. They knew that Ms. Kelley testified and they knew or should have known that she committed perjury. Their failure to take corrective action and furthermore, having promoted her, made them liable for her wrongdoing.
5. The School Board holds position of respondeat superior for the administrator (Steppe) who is in the same position for Ms. Kelley. Neither the School Board nor Mr. Steppe has the job description of supporting and assisting Ms. Kelley when she is fabricating stories and committing perjury. Therefore, sovereign immunity is no defense.
6. The School Board has a policy of covering up crimes of its employees such as Ms. Kelley. The School Board has no policy of correcting the wrongdoing and crimes of its officials. The School Board in this case evidenced a pattern, practice, policy, and procedure of condoning and ratifying the tortuous and illegal acts of its officials. Therefore the School District itself is liable.
7. Plaintiff Leitgeb wrote letters to Steppe, Steele (Chairman of the School Board), and all members of the School Board on November 5, 2005, January 17, 2006 and February 6, 2006, which the latter two officially informed the School Board of the wrongdoing of Ms. Kelley and the liability to the School Board. (Letters sent to Steppe and Steele are attached as exhibits A through F. The letters to the other members of the School Board are virtually identical.) The letters requested corrective action but none was offered. Neither the School Board, nor any of its individual members, had the decency to even respond to the letters.
8. Plaintiff Clarkson wrote letters to Steppe, Steele (Chairman of the School Board), and all members of the School Board on January 17th and January 31st of 2006, which officially informed the School Board of the wrongdoing of Ms. Kelley and the liability to the School Board. (Letters sent to Steppe and Steele are attached as exhibits G through J. The letters sent to all the other members of the School Board are virtually identical.) The letters requested corrective action but none was offered. Neither the School Board, nor any of its individual members, had the decency to even respond to the letters.
9. Since the School Board knew about the crimes of Ms. Kelley and the School Board had a policy of adopting of such crimes as their own, now the School District is liable for Ms. Kelley’s conduct and the worthy subjects of a civil rights suit for damages.
Further, the School Board, due to its policy of involving itself in the crimes of its officials, cannot claim defense of sovereign immunity or escape damages including punitive damages.
10. These Defendants filed a blanket or general denial. This forces Plaintiffs to engage in extensive and expensive discovery, investigations, and legal research. This court should order these defendants to reimburse Plaintiffs of their additional expenses cause by their cursory and conclusionary responses. Or in the alternative this court could strike their answers and require them to pay the damages sought.
Court systems all over world now frown upon blanket denials and failure to admit obvious and known facts. Defendant’s attorney has grievously insulted this honorable court.
11. The issue in this case is whether Ms. Kelley was quoted correctly in the article in The Toccoa Record dated March 23, 2004 or whether Ms. Kelley told the truth about the death threats and whether the death threats actually happened.
This is the main issue that the high-priced counsel for the Defendants must answer. Kelley has not specifically denied making this statement, has not specifically denied receiving the death threats and therefore, she in effect has admitted that she did not receive the death threats and that her statement to that effect was untruthful.
12. This Court should declare the allegations in the complaint to truthful and accepted since no specific denial was filed, or hold the Defendants' big city law firm financially responsible for the extra expense placed on pro se litigants to prove most obvious and well-known facts.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to order all defendants to file their Initial Disclosures as the rules require and order these defendants to refile an answer that clearly states their position. Their untruthful and unclear Answer and Defenses not only place a heavy burden on pro se plaintiffs but is also highly insulting to the court. No court should tolerate such arrogance by an overpriced big city law firm.
13. In paragraph 20, Defendants do not state that Ms Kelley’s testimony was correct. Therefore, they have admitted by implication that her testimony was false. The question is whether Ms. Kelley actually received the numerous death threats against her and her family from the Plaintiffs.
14. In paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that "Kelley failed to report these awful death threats to any law enforcement agency." Now all of the law enforcement agencies deny that Kelley reported this awful crime against her and her hot-shot Atlanta counsel knows this. Therefore, this part of the answer is a false denial and Defendants should be held responsible for all of these extra burdens.
15. In paragraph 27, Kelley denied that she made "two false" accusations against Plaintiffs. This denial flies in the face of all evidence and her attorney should be sanctioned by the court.
16. In paragraph 34, Kelley’s attorney denied that her client repeated these "same outrageous accusations under oath in a court of law." The transcript of Ms. Kelley’s testimony is available to her attorney. If Peachtree Street counsel believes that the transcript is false, then they should notify the appropriate judicial authorities.
In conclusion, attorneys for these defendants should be more truthful in the filings of their pleadings.
Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
Signed:
______________________________ Date: _________________
United States District Court
|
| Lawrence Leitgeb, | } | CA No: 2:06-CV-0034-WCO |
| Dan Roberts, | } | |
| Nelson Waller, | } | Reply to Answer and Defenses |
| Robert Clarkson, as representative | } | of Kelley & School Board |
| of the class of flag supporters, | } | in their Individual Capacities |
| Plaintiffs | } | |
| v. | } | |
| Brenda Kelly, Gary Steppe, | } | |
| Jerry Steele, Curtis Waters, | } | |
| Dr. Elizabeth Pinkerton, | } | |
| James Thomas, Debbie Horton, | } | |
| Elaine DeFoor, George Payne, | } | |
| Stephens County School System | } | |
| Michael Crawford, Richard Bridgeman | } | |
| Tom Law and Toccoa Record, Inc | } | |
| Defendants. | } |
Plaintiffs above-named hereby file their Reply to Answers and Defenses from Defendants Brenda Kelley, Gary Steppe (School Superintendent) and the members of the School Board, as individuals, dated March 27, 2006.This is first Reply to the Answers from these defendants who are now in their individual capacity. The second Reply will be against their attempt to dismiss in their official capacity and includes the school system. The two answers are very similar and will be opposed by Plaintiffs in two Replies.
1. These Defendants filed a blanket or general denial. This forces Plaintiffs to engage in extensive and expensive discovery, investigations, and legal research. This court should order these defendants to reimburse Plaintiffs of their additional expenses caused by their cursory and conclusionary responses. Or this court could strike their answers and require them to pay the damages sought.
Court systems all over world now frown upon blanket denials and failure to admit obvious and known facts. Defendant’s attorney has grievously insulted this honorable court.
2. The issue in this case is whether Ms. Kelley was quoted correctly in the article in The Toccoa Record dated March 23, 2004 or whether Ms. Kelley told the truth about the death threats and whether the death threats actually happened.
This is the main issue that the high-priced counsel for the Defendants must answer. Kelley has not specifically denied making this statement, has not specifically denied receiving the death threats and therefore, she in effect has admitted that she did not receive the death threats and that her statement to that effect was untruthful.
3. This Court should declare the allegations in the complaint to truthful and accepted since no specific denial was filed, or hold the Defendants' big city law firm financially responsible for the extra expense placed on pro se litigants to prove most obvious and well-known facts.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to order all defendants to file their Initial Disclosures as the rules require and order these defendants to refile an answer that clearly states their position. Their untruthful and unclear Answer and Defenses not only place a heavy burden on pro se plaintiffs but are also highly insulting to the court. No court should tolerate such arrogance by an overpriced big city law firm.
4. In paragraph 20, Defendants do not state that Ms Kelley’s testimony was correct. Therefore, they have admitted by implication that her testimony was false. The question is whether Ms. Kelley actually received the numerous death threats against her and family from the Plaintiffs.
5. In paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Plaintiffs state that "Kelley failed to report these awful death threats to any law enforcement agency." Now all of the law enforcement agencies deny that Kelley reported this awful crime against her and her hot-shot Atlanta counsel knows this. Therefore, this part of the answer is a false denial and Defendants should be held responsible for all of these extra burdens.
6. In paragraph 27, Kelley denied that she made "two false" accusations against Plaintiffs. This denial flies in the face of all evidence and her attorney should be sanctioned by the court.
7. In paragraph 34, Kelley’s attorney denied that her client repeated these "same outrageous accusations under oath in a court of law." The transcript of Ms. Kelley’s testimony is available to her attorney. If Peachtree Street counsel believes that the transcript is false, then they should notify the appropriate judicial authorities.
In conclusion, attorneys for these defendants should be more truthful in their filings of their pleadings.
Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
Signed:
|
In The United States District Court
Lawrence Leitgeb, } CA No: 2:06-CV-0034-WCO
Dan Roberts, }
Nelson Waller, }
Robert Clarkson individually, and }
Robert Clarkson, as representative }
of the class of flag supporters, }
Plaintiffs }
}
v. }
Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures
}
Brenda Kelly, Gary Steppe, }
Jerry Steele, Curtis Waters, }
Dr. Elizabeth Pinkerton, }
James Thomas, Debbie Horton, }
Elaine DeFoor, George Payne, }
Stephens County SchoolSystem, }
Michael Crawford, Richard Bridgeman, }
Tom Law and The Toccoa Record, Inc }
Defendants. }
INITIAL DISCLOSURES Pursuant to Local Rules and Appendix B, Documents Associated with Civil Cases, which is a packet of instructions issued by the District Court, Plaintiffs hereby file their Initial Disclosures which incorporate by reference plaintiffs’ Interrogatories under Rule 26 which were attached to the complaint. (1) This was explained in the complaint. In summary, this action is for damages for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander and libel as a direct result of statements made by Defendant Brenda Kelley. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Brenda Kelley engaged outrageous behavior when she fabricated a claim that a flag supporter sent her a death threat email. This violated the Plaintiffs' civil rights as well obstructed justice. All other Defendants are essentially party to complaint as per Respondeat Superior. (2) This was described in the complaint. In summary, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants in their personal and professional capacities under the color of law violated the following laws: a. Tort - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - two counts. (3) The names of the individuals likely to have discoverable information include the Plaintiffs whose addresses were in the complaint. Their phone numbers are: a. Leitgeb, 706-886-2883; b. Clarkson, 864-225-3061; c. Waller, 864-225-0882; and d. Roberts 706-886-6258. (4) Persons who may be used at trial are the above. No expert witnesses are anticipated. (5) Please refer to Attachment C for a list of all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in our possession, custody, or control that we intend to use to support our claims. (6) Please refer to Attachment C for a list of all documents, data compilations, and tangible things in our possession, custody, or control that we intend to use to show damages. (7) None (8) None Certificate of Service: I do hereby certify that on this date I sent properly a copy of this pleading to opposing counsel.
______________________
______________________ |
Confederate Flag group following through on $1,000,000 lawsuit Toccoa, GA, June 19, 2006: The organizers of the Confederate Flag Rally on March 19th 2004 are following through on their million dollar lawsuit of the Stephens County School System. It was days after the rally that Brenda Kelley, then principal of the Middle School, claimed that she received the following death threat: "Here I come. The time is near. Put the flag back and I will not kill you in your office." All Plaintiffs are asking the same question that the District Attorney should have been asking: Why was not this alleged e-mail brought to the attention of the proper authorities? The suit is now at the question stage, but the school district and school board remain evasive. Nelson Waller reflects, "It is easy to see that they [the school personnel] are trying to squirm their way out of it. They are not answering the questions!" Larry Leitgeb noted that the school's answers rarely have anything to do with the question. For example, the Plaintiffs ask, "Was the March 23, 2004 article about the death threats published in The Toccoa Record correct? Were you quoted correctly? Did the news reporter fabricate the quotes?" To this question, Ms. Kelley responds that she "did not read the entire article in The Toccoa Record. To her recollection, [she] was never interviewed by a reporter...." Note how she never answers the original question whether or not her statements are quoted correctly. "I don't think that she will ever get an answer like that by a jury. They are going to hold her accountable!" Dan Roberts expressed. Robert Clarkson said, "You need to understand that these well-priced, taxpayer funded Atlanta lawyers have no motivation to settle the case. In fact, it is in their best interest to drag this on as long as possible. Or maybe they think we are going to give up, but we are not!" Currently the group is talking with a law firm to represent them in negotiations, but if necessary, they are more than capable to take the case all the way to trial. "After our case," Clarkson said, "School personnel across the country are going to have a different opinion on Pro Se's representing the cause." -End- |
United States District Court
|
|
(street). Toccoa, Georgia October 4, 2006
Grand Jury Foreperson Dear Foreperson of the Grand Jury: This will be the third letter that I have written to you. I fully understand as Grand Jury Foreperson, you are under no obligation to so much as acknowledge my letters. I am writing to you for the third time because for all I know the first two letters never reached you. For all I know, those letters were intercepted in the mail. I am asking once again that I be given permission to have an audience with you. There are questions I have concerning people in authority in this town who I believe need to be held accountable for their actions or their inactions. If you will allow me, I will be presenting to the grand jury a number of questions relating to the commotion over the Confederate Flag and Stephens County Middle School -- questions that that I have already posed to the sheriff, his deputies, the district attorney, his assistant, Mr. Gary Steppe, the school board, and Ms. Brenda Kelley. I have yet to have anyone even attempt to answer my questions. I am hoping that the Grand Jury will fare better. Sincerely,
Lawrence Leitgeb |