Georgia GESTAPO Operates Under No Laws or Constraints
by PV
Let’s travel back in time just a few weeks…to this published edition of the Vine newsletter that informed you about two members of the Georgia State Patrol who were directed/requested to “visit” a civilian on March 11 on behalf of State Representative Terry England (Douchebag-HD 116)
Since that time, there have been questions asked as to the jurisdiction allowed by the GEorgia STate PatrOl (aka “GESTAPO”). At the time of the incident back in March, the two GESTAPO agents reportedly told the civilian that “We investigate campaign financing and handle Capitol security—part of that job is protecting elected officials…”
Now, according to research on OCGA law, that explanation for the probable cause visit appears to be, potentially, contrary to the actual state law, and quite possibly, contrary to several Federal Statutes.
Regarding the claim by the GESTAPO agents that “[We] handle Capitol security…”, the OCGA law on what the Capitol Police are responsible for appears to be laid-out in OCGA-35-2-122. Of particular note is Paragraph a), which states as follows:
“a) The division shall have jurisdiction and the primary duty to enforce all laws in Capitol Square and the property and buildings owned by the Georgia Building Authority within a five-mile radius of Capitol Square.”
You know what “Capitol Square” means? It is the square of land upon which the Gold Dome building sits where our esteemed legislature legislates. A five-mile radius of that location in the City of Atlanta does not extend to Gwinnett County or Barrow County. That distance might get you, if you travel north from MLK Jr Drive, as far north as North Druid Hills Road & I-85, in DeKalb County. (Sorry, GESTAPO LEOs, you missed the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police by at least 5 miles when you visited the home of someone living in Gwinnett County under the auspice of working for the Capitol Police division.)
Then, there is the stipulated jurisdiction of the GESTAPO itself, as per these two sections, OCGA § 35-2-32 and OCGA § 35-2-33. In reading those two sections, it truly appears that the primary jurisdiction of the GESTAPO is patrolling highways and public roads, and crimes that are happening, or may be about to happen, with regards to traffic laws and such types of laws as they occur while traveling on public roads.
However, through a couple of email conversations with the Open Records Act personnel at the GESTAPO HQ this past week, we learned that there was another potential OCGA law that the two GESTAPO agents could have been operating under.
In OCGA 35-2-73. Employment of security guards, it lays out law regarding how certain specific government officials are to be protected, and it leaves open the possibility that the Governor could direct LEOs (“Law Enforcement Officers”) to protect other individuals. In the first paragraph of OCGA 35-2-73, the last sentence in bold states: “…and such other state property and individuals as may be directed by the Governor.”
Wow…maybe the GESTAPO agents were saved by an order by the Governor directing them to “keep watch over and protect” State Rep Terry England, huh? ‘Cause that would justify their involvement, right?
Unfortunately…for the GESTAPO agents acting on behalf of State Rep. Terry England, paid for out of public taxpayer funds, to harass, bully, and intimidate a civilian practicing his Constitutional rights to express his free speech rights…that avenue of authorization was shut-off when the question dealing specifically with whether that authorization existed from the Governor was answered on Friday, April 8 through an Open Records Request with the Department of Public Safety:
“We have conducted a search of the Georgia Department of Public Safety (“DPSâ€) written communications and found no responsive records. There are also no voicemail messages that match your inquiry.”
The two officers visiting the civilian back on March 11 claimed to have gotten direct orders from The Colonel of the Georgia State Patrol. Unnerving, isn’t it, that the concept of a “Colonel” fits quite nicely with the concept of the GESTAPO? It’s kinda like we’re all living in prisoner barracks, subject to random visits by LEOs engaged in political harassment at the behest of elected officials. (Mmm…if only there was a higher legal-entity that might have something to say about the use of taxpayer funds for political purposes…is it the A-B-C?….No, that doesn’t sound right…the F-U-K?…No, that’s something else entirely…OH! Maybe, it’s the F-B-I?)
With regards to the GESTAPO agents’ claim that they have jurisdiction over “campaign disclosures,” that’s a crock of crappola because it is only the Georgia Government Transparency & Campaign Finance Commission (f/k/a “State Ethics Commission”, now known as “GGTCFC”) that has jurisdiction over any part of OCGA 21-5-1 et seq.
Ohhh…here’s a news tip to any reporters who are on the Vine list: According to OCGA, the members of the GGTCFC shall only serve for one term, and the maximum length of time a term is defined in the law is 4 years (i.e., specifically, that appointee is only an appointee named from the Senate Committee on Appointments). The other member terms are stated in the law and on this Web page at the top to be either 2 or 3 years, respectively, and then they cannot be reappointed (again, it’s in the law that commission appointees shall serve for only one term).
So, news reporters, do the math on the appointment of Hillary Stringfellow, appointed by David Ralston in 2010…and do the math on Heath Garrett, appointed by Governor Deal in the Fall of 2011. How does this “ethics” commission continue to operate legally?
Now, back to the discussion of the GESTAPO. It was discovered this week via Open Records Request that there is no record at GESTAPO HQ that this incident of these two agents visiting the civilian on March 11…ever…happened.
Gasp! Golly, Wally, what to do? If there’s no record…if there was nothing ever filed….if we don’t even know the names of the two purported GESTAPO officers who are alleged to have made this visit, what EVER can we poor, humble seekers of truth and justice do?
Well, luckily for us (and you folks watching at home), we humble seekers of truth and justice have in our hot little hands a 2-page letter written and signed by a couple of lawyers who, while they may think they are God’s Gift to the World, in actuality, they may have just opened themselves up to a world of legal hurt via some teeny-tiny Rules of the State Bar of Georgia (and, potentially, criminal hurt for themselves and their Client, Terry England).
Ladies & Gentlemen, when all else fails…
Leave it to the Lawyers (to eff it up)
Before reading this letter, PV was under the impression that Ben Vinson was a mere lobbyist, toiling away at trying to get legislators to give his clients mo’ money and freebies in the law. But, now, we’re like “Wow, Ben, you’re a real lawyer…”
So, here’s a link to THE LETTER, and let’s proceed with the examination and discussion of its contents.
1) First and foremost, if you turn to Page 2 of this letter, in the last paragraph, Randy Evans/Ben Vinson makes a direct reference to the visit by the Georgia State Patrol, not once, but twice. So, there’s no mistake…Mr. Newton did not lie about the incident with the GESTAPO….these two lawyers are kind enough to state, in writing, that the incident occurred. (Kudos, Mr. Evans/Mr. Vinson) Then, let’s look at the lovely claims by these two Dentons’ lawyers.
2) Back to Page 1, 2nd real paragraph, beginning with “It has recently come to our attention that you…” whereupon they appear to operate under the theory that if you are a lawyer, and you claim that something is “false” three times in a legal letter, that it must mean what they are saying is true (insert Bronx cheer here).
Then, the Lawyers conclude that paragraph with a reference to the State’s legislative website (the one that has all the legislation that State Rep. Terry England has voted in favor of over the years, including every budget that finances the importation of Muslim and Syrian refugees), as if to say “There, Ladies and Gentlemen, THERE’S ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD needed to prove my client is not what these flyers claim he is!”
Wow….all PV can say is ‘Looking forward to seeing your Client on the witness stand answering questions to a jury of 12 taxpayers already pissed-off at what their State Legislature does in their names…and that gasoline tax…and the TSPLOST that will be ongoing by the time this case reaches a jury…and the lobbyists’ spending on him…and all those supposed committee days he got reimbursed per diems for…’
3) Then, the letter gets to the meatier stuff. First is the Lawyers’ claim that Terry England did “fully perform on a personal farm loan financed by the State of Georgia.” Meaning, according to the Lawyers, he paid off the loan. But, did he? Because…
a) According to the political research/news Website, AtlantaUnfiltered.com, in an in-depth story published on February 25, 2013 (PDF copy here if that link does not work)…“…The property was rezoned in February 2013 to allow a church to operate there under a lease-purchase arrangement that will cover payments on the debt.”
Compare the meaning of the statement from AtlantaUnfiltered.com with this statement from top of Page 2 of the Lawyers’ Letter: “Representative England saw to it that payments continued to be made on time.”
How could one reconcile those two statements? Easily. England got the church to pay the debt…and by doing so, England “saw to it that payments continued to be made on time.”
But, that does not mean that England, himself, paid back the loan. And, that was the point of this flyer…that England didn’t, himself, pay the loan back out of his own money.
Now, if the Lawyers feel their statement of “Representative England saw to it that payments continued to be made on time.” is valid as to England being personally responsible for paying back the loan, then they owe AtlantaUnfiltered.com a legal demand letter to alter that story because that story is the basis for the claim in the flyer that England did not pay his own debts off.
Now, there is one absolutely certain way this matter can all be wrapped-up neatly: You Lawyers go obtain an actual, notarized affidavit from the church’s pastor that the church did not takeover the debt from England, and England paid the loan back out of his own pocket. You know, if, in fact, Terry England was truthful to the Lawyers…or, if the Lawyers are being truthful in this letter…that would wrap-up this whole matter of how the loan was paid back. Until that time, it looks more like legal foreplay of not addressing the actual issue of how the loan was paid back.
b) On Page 2 of the Letter, first full paragraph, the Lawyers make reference to “…Such statements cross the line of what is permissible under Georgia law and constitute a wrongful incitement of individuals to commit trespass on Representative England’s property. Should that happen, you will be personally responsible for any and all damage that may result.”
It’s always fascinating to PV when lawyers don’t bother to actually look-up the OCGA citation that supports their threats. Because…if you notice in the letter, all Randy Evans refers to is “…permissible under Georgia law.”
However, in OCGA, there are only 6 occurrences of the use of the word “incite”: One has to do with inciting others to overthrow the government (sorry, not applicable here, though it does seem more so that England’s illegal use of the two GESTAPO officers to intimidate Mr. Newton more resembles the overthrow of Georgia’s Constitutional form of government than anything else), three instances of the word incite have to do with sections of OCGA dealing with Fair Labor Practices (Nope, those don’t apply here either), one instance appearing to have to do with contributing to the delinquency of a minor via pornography (is Terry England underage?), and one instance having to do with encouraging someone else to take immediate ‘breach of the peace’ action via their verbal utterance of ‘fighting words’ to that other person.
Words printed on a flyer, whether inviting/encouraging someone to go visit their state legislator at his/her home, or telling someone in writing to stick it up their attorney’s rear-end, are not words that fit Georgia’s legal definition of the term utterance (which means, exclusively, “a spoken word, statement, or vocal sound”).
So, to the Lawyers’ written threat regarding Mr. Newton being responsible in any way for some constituent of State Rep. Terry England to engage in damaging Mr. England’s property, due to his printing of England’s home address on a flyer (an address, by the way, easily obtained via the State Disclosure Website via people looking-up Terry England’s Publicly Available Financial Disclosure) not being “permissible under Georgia Law”…PV encourages you two lawyers to carefully read this citation from the State Bar’s Website: RULE 4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS.
Federal Laws of Interest
There are a minimum of four federal statutes that point to the illegality of the egregious nature of a combination of State Rep Terry England’s involvement in getting two Georgia State Patrol officers dispatched, unlawfully, to pay a visit, without ANY probable cause associated with their official duties with the Georgia Department of Public Safety, along with anyone at the DPS who is now sitting on information regarding this matter, along with the potential involvement of the head of the Georgia State Patrol in authorizing the visit to Mr. Newton’s home…and, potentially, whatever knowledge these two attorneys are in possession of now regarding the visit by the two GSP officers, they may find themselves subject to answering a federal judge’s questions under 18 USC 3 & 4…because it is their client, State Rep. Terry England, who is the one appearing to be directly involved in the conspiracy to deprive Mr. Newton of his Constitutional rights.
Here is a good introduction to some federal laws that trump Georgia’s lack of laws that control illegal and unethical public employees from engaging in what they have been engaging in with this entire matter:
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
18 U.S. Code § 3 – Accessory after the fact: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3
18 U.S. Code § 4 – Misprision of felony: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983
42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights – https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985
Cheers!
