Friday, February 10, 2012
News More details from Peachtree-Pine court ruling
Posted by Scott Henry @ScottTheHenry on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:49 PM
Much was discussed in last Friday's Fulton Superior Court hearing in re the matter of Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless vs. the World that didn't make it into my hurriedly written blog post, so I'd like to add some perspective to what was decided.
First, what didn't happen: Judge Craig Schwall made no ruling on the Task Force's claims that local business leaders, city officials and even Emory University conspired improperly to strip the shelter of its public and private funding. Task Force attorney Steve Hall repeatedly tried to introduce the conspiracy evidence, only to have the judge tell him the hearing was devoted solely to the question of why the 100,000-square-foot building shouldn't be handed over to its owner, an outfit called Premium Funding Solutions.
Schwall announced his ruling would be based on the answers to two questions:
• Would the Task Force suffer irreparable harm, with no remedies at law, if forced to leave the shelter?
• Would the homeless men living at Peachtree-Pine be harmed if the Task Force was ousted?
Early in the hearing, Hall said his clients planned to sue the accused conspirators for $24 million(!) for participating in "tortious interference" in the shelter's business operations. Well, that certainly answered the first question as far as Schwall was concerned: If the Task Force is entitled to $24M in damages — a remedy at law if ever there was one — then it certainly couldn't claim irreparable harm, he said. Personally, I wouldn't mind a little of that kind of harm.
As to whether the homeless would be demonstrably worse off if another services provider — the United Way, in this case — were to step in, Hall had little ammunition to convince the judge that Anita Beaty must remain in control of the shelter.
"Why are your clients different from any other entity in that they don't have to pay their water bill?" Schwall asked pointedly of Hall in the opening minutes of the hearing — and it only went downhill from there for the Task Force. Some of the judge's choicer comments:
• "I don't think your clients did themselves any favors inviting in Occupy Atlanta. Is it about helping the less fortunate or getting media attention and making personal attacks?"
• "We wouldn't even be here if the city of Atlanta and Georgia Power had the courage to stick up for their taxpayers and shareholders and cut your utilities off."
• "I gave your clients a year-and-a-half without paying rent and begged them to mediate (with the defendants)… Say you don't prove this fraud — then I've trodden on the property rights of the defendant."
The fraud Schwall references is the aforementioned conspiracy — which is a real thing. There are plenty of memos, letters, and emails — as well as deposition evidence — to confirm that A.J. Robinson of Central Atlanta Progress and others undertook a coordinated, behind-the-scenes effort to persuade existing and potential donors not to give any more money to the Task Force.
My response: You say "conspiracy" like that's a bad thing. Andy Young and Billy Payne conspired to bring the Olympics to Atlanta. Roy Barnes conspired with Democrats to remove the Confederate Battle emblem from the state flag. Some conspiracies arguably serve the public good. The real question then is, was the conspiracy against the Task Force illegal or fraudulent?
Having heard the case against CAP and the city, I'd have to say no. Most of the "interference" the Task Force considers so improper involves Robinson or some other bigwig telling donors what a lousy job the shelter is doing and how much better off the city would be if the place were closed or taken over by another agency. I'd say that's pretty well covered by the First Amendment.
For instance, the Task Force is currently suing Emory because some university official called Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, a Peachtree-Pine supporter, to persuade him that Beaty would not be a good steward of his largess.
Hall read from a deposition in which Cathy said he was already having second thoughts about giving more money to the Task Force; that Beaty's plans to build a garden on the building's roof were unrealistic; and that the former homeless woman whom Beaty planned to put in charge of managing a proposed coffee shop in the front of the building was completely unsuited to run any kind of food-service establishment.
In short, Cathy went on the record to say he believed that Anita's vision for operating Peachtree-Pine was — and this is my word — delusional.
Why did Hall relate this extremely damaging information? Presumably, as evidence that the CAP cabal had somehow brainwashed Cathy and other successful businessmen and philanthropists, turning them against the Task Force and ruining Beaty's sterling reputation in the community. "These people assassinated us," he told Schwall.
Delusional. I think it's a good word.
Related Stories
-
Task Force NOT booted from Peachtree-Pine 11
Task Force for the Homeless granted a stay on eviction order by state appeals court
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
"Tick Tick Tick...that's the sound of your shelter running out"
like
dislike
Scott, why let facts get in the way of "compassion" and "it's not fair?"
I am glad to see this angle in print. I have never understood what is illegal about CAP deciding what is best for central Atlanta and taking action accordingly. What the Task Force calls a conspiracy I call CAP doing it's job.
thank you scott for agreeing that what went down against the task force was a conspiracy. i think that if you look at the history of this which goes back to the 1990's by the way, you have to admit that irreperable harm has been done. we'll see what the appeal says. the harm done to the men at PtP is that they will no longer have a place to stay, and the harm to the 600+ men who will come there in the coming months looking for shelter is that they will have nowhere to stay, and the United Way caseworker will put on his/her sad face and tell them that they have only 4million dollars to last the next six months and so can only give mats on the floor to 25 people. write an article on that one!
the parties are not being accused of "city planning," they are being accused of a conspiracy to defraud the task force for the homeless and tortiously interfere with their contractual and business relationships.
for those who think wordplay is the whole of the law (scott henry), i hereby submit the actual definition of conspiracy. it is not "people gettin' together" to do civic good and city planning, scott. it is actionable:
first a broad definition
conspiracy (kənˈspɪrəsɪ)
— n , pl -cies
1.a secret plan or agreement to carry out an illegal or harmfulact, esp with political motivation; plot
2.the act of making such plans in secret
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
even wikipedia is in on this!
Conspiracy (civil)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.[1] A conspiracy may also refer to a group of people who make an agreement to form a partnership in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member and engage in planning or agreeing to commit some act. It is not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furthance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal.[2] "Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged."[1]
In the law of tort, the legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy, i.e. there is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future or to achieve a lawful aim by unlawful means. The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be required. Etymologically, the term comes from Latin con- "with, together", and spirare "to breathe".
ok, another broad definition:
from encarta:
http://www.webcitation.org/5kwRJht8e
Conspiracy
Encyclopedia Article
Conspiracy, in law, agreement between persons to do something illegal or criminal. In this offense, the mere agreement of the conspirators is punishable by legal authority, even though they may not have taken any action to complete the crime. In most cases of conspiracy, however, such acts are performed.
This doctrine of the common law has been changed by federal legislation and by statute in many states of the U.S. Under such legislation the commission of an overt act to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy is essential to consummate the crime. As soon as that act is done, the offense of conspiracy is punishable and is in no way affected by the nature or results of the act, even if the act could not possibly accomplish the conspirators' intention.
Some of the more important common-law conspiracies were those to commit treason or sedition, to murder, to cheat and defraud, and to injure another maliciously. They were misdemeanors only. Statutory conspiracies, that is, acts declared by legislation to be punishable as conspiracies, have been raised to the rank of felonies in some instances.
Even when no crime is involved, a civil action for conspiracy may be brought by the persons who were damaged. A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more persons to defraud another of rights or to obtain an illegal objective.
ok, how about another broad definition:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conspiracy/
"Conspiracy is a separate offense, by which someone conspires or agrees with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another federal crime or offense. It is an agreement or a kind of partnership for criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member. It is not necessary to prove that the criminal plan actually was accomplished or that the conspirator was involved in all stages of the planning or knew all of the details involved. The main elements that need to be proven are a voluntary agreement to participate and some overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the criminal plan. If a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he had not participated before and even though he played only a minor part. A conspiracy may exist when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result, or to use illegal means to achieve something that in itself is lawful.
Wheel and chain conspiracies are two types of conspiracies described in prosecuting offenders. A chain conspiracy involves parties linked together in a linear fashion. Typical drug or firearm smuggling organizations are chain conspiracies. It may consist of a series of drug deals, from manufacturer to the street dealer. In a wheel conspiracy, the ringleader is the "hub" and subsidiary parties are the "spokes". It is generally easier for prosecution to prove that a "chain" constituted a single conspiracy than it is to prove that a "wheel" was a single organization."
.. i will follow up with Black's Law Dictionary definition if you think this is not enough information. have a nice day.
@bastard, Well, in that case, I guess there wasn't a conspiracy. I'm not trying to play semantics here. I simply have not seen evidence that would convince me that the actions of the CAP and other defendants were illegal or fraudulent. As for the men at Peachtree-Pine no longer having a place to stay, that's frankly not true. Only the Beatys and their management team are being evicted from the building, not the homeless. That said, I trust and hope that the United Way will no longer allow the shelter to serve as no-strings-attached lodging for drunks and crackheads.
@scott, you could have saved me a lot of work if you had just looked up "conspiracy" in the dictionary... once again journalism at its finest, and if you got that wrong, something so frikin basic, what inspires "confidence" (another "c" word) that anything else you write has any veracity?
why is it that only schall's opinion is articulated with any responsibility, but the beaty's motions and appeals are parodied, not reported?
fialkow is accused of setting up a christian-sounding shell company to buy the shelter, because frequent attempts by CAP to buy the building from the mortgage owners failed -- because the mortgage owners did not want to send the shelter into default. you constantly misreport even the most basic of facts.
the shelter at present is ordered to close by august. since the time of the acquisition by icthys properties, hundreds have left peachtree pine for jobs, housing, transitional shelter. hundreds more have arrived. PtP accounts for more than half of atlanta's emergency shelter.
what happens on the loss of this shelter. can you build a new one? whose neighborhood association is going to approve a NEW EMERGENCY shelter?
united way is proposing that people give them 4 million dollars to phase out the shelter. right now they are saying (ajc) that they can only handle 25 people, and they are talking about putting the men who have their own rooms in mats on the floor. well, you know it is only 4 million. how long can an organization survive on that, especially if they are serving 25 people?
and if you can make the trip to toledo you can contact the united way there to volunteer for their nutty delusional rooftop garden project. apparently, it is a big thing in real cities:
http://volunteer.truist.com/toledo/org/opp/10451569878.html
you need to tell them and many architects around the world that this is a delusional idea, before it is too late!
please, keep working at this journalism thing. i know you have it in you. you certainly write frequently.
It's obvious in the tone of this article that the author has personal feelings involved that are biasing the integrity of the article and his other reporting on the topic. That being said, he does come right out and let you know where he stands: "I trust and hope that the United Way will no longer allow the shelter to serve as no-strings-attached lodging for drunks and crackheads."
AJC has a great article online today that reports that United Way has to place at least 500 men in housing in six months - they've been averaging only 240 per year for the past 8 years. It also reported that it will cost $4MIL to place them - money that the United Way does not have and they "declined a request" to provide information about where the funding would come from.
Basically, Scott the Henry has put his cards on the table. He feels it's better for these men to be managed by the United Way, which does not have the funding or resources to handle them, than to be cared for by the Task Force. Even if that means in six months we'll have at least 500 more lowest-of-the-low "drunks and crackheads" wandering our streets, at night and during the day, with nowhere to go.
Hey, that's better than giving them a bed with no-strings-attached! They will end up wandering outside until they can get their lives together! ...just going to have to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
Hey, under a bridge is better than under the Beaty's! Right Scott? Turning these men out is just the price those nasty Beaty's have to pay for being so bossy and shunning the other caregiving organizations in the community! Besides, they let these dirty men hang out right in the middle of such prime real estate...good riddance Beaty's!
here is the ajc link:
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/closing-of-downtown-shelter-1347761.html
i stand significantly corrected -- previous statements from UW reported seemed like they could only handle 25 people total. the task force has moved large numbers, probably the current number of 500 into other shelters and housing in just the past few years, with much less in the way of money to work with. we'll see if UW can come up with a long term solution.
actually their job is just to dissappear a large number of people, but what will they do to newcomers? this is destroying over half of the emergency shelter capacity in the city. i know scott thinks the residents should all go to jail to get tb if they don't like living on the streets and can't get into a shelter.
alan harris hates anita beaty almost as much as you do scott, actually probably more, and yet he describes the United Way's plan to house the men at Ptp "laughable" in the article. he actually knows the material conditions on the ground.
it is funny that UW has placed "1,700 in housing and transitional since 2004 -- which only amounts to about 240 a year (from the article)" with significantly more monetary resources than the task force, and yet i think the task force has comparable numbers.
also, the money shot of all journalism about the task force PICTURES OF POSSIBLY POOR BLACK MEN STANDING AROUND IN PUBLIC AROUND THE BUILDING. GOD KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING -- and of course the ajc does not dissappoint.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Time and Place: Read between the lines
To me this photo is about doing your own thing and following your own path in life.
-
Vernon Jones wants to return to the Gold Dome and other interesting qualification tidbits 1
Qualifying period ends, dust settles, campaigns begin
-
Suspects in Pittsburgh gay bashing slated to go to trial Tuesday
The men accused of beating Brandon White in Southwest Atlanta already headed to court
- More »
More by Author
-
Scary suburban theocrats aim to embarrass Atlanta 17
Two suburban right-fringe fundamentalists have crazy plan to distribute nutty American Patriot's Bible
-
Ga. Senate punishes females, the poor, poor females 13
Georgia's senators went after women and poors like they stole something
- More »
