Thursday, November 24

The Delaney Letter, Part II

Our Readers Write
Personal Opinions
November 24, 2005

We stand by our statements of Nov. 17 in Our Readers Write. At no time did we state, infer or otherwise mention Ted Cook, except to note him as the one heading the petition and the one to contact if you wanted your name removed.

Anyone who attempts to apply the letter to Mr. Cook has no reason to do so, including Mr. Cook. We apologize if anyone assumed otherwise.

Steve Delaney
Phillips Drive
Savannah

We stand by our statements of Nov. 17 in Our Readers Write.

That would be that Cook mislead Delaney, et. al., by telling specific untruths that led to Delaney and others to opposing the wheel tax in 2004 and warned others to not let Cook mislead them to oppose the wheel tax in 2005. Oops, Delaney didn’t oppose the wheel tax in 2004, he didn’t sign the petition and, in fact, supported the wheel tax in 2004 and 2005.

So be it, stand right there. If, in fact, Steve is the author of the letter, why does he speak in the plural with things like, we stand and our statements, instead of I stand and my statements? Who else is Steve speaking for? Who are the real authors of the letters?

At no time did we state, infer or otherwise mention Ted Cook,

Who were you talking about? Here’s your sign. The law has been relaxed to allow the plaintiff to merely allege the gist of the defamatory communication. Tenn. R. Civ. P. Rule 8.01; Handley v. May, 588 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). That would be, Cook lied to us, don’t let him do it to you.

Let’s consider whether the Letter was defamatory. The question of whether the Letter was understood by its readers as defamatory is a question for the jury, but the preliminary determination of whether the Letter is capable of being so understood is a question of law to be determined by the court. Cook has concluded it is defamatory and knowingly false.

It don’t matter what Delaney intended or thought with his innuendos, what matters is what a reader of the letter thought the innuendo was. Let’s see, if one were to ask, if you talk about the wheel tax issue and ‘one individual in particular’ at the same time, who do you think the majority of folks in this part of the country would probably think you are talking about? Especially in the Courier’s Readers Write section. Duh!

The letter is libelous, it constitute a threat to Cook's reputation. The words can reasonably be construed as holding Cook up to public hatred, contempt or ridicule. They carry with them an element of disgrace.

Trial courts are permitted to determine that a statement is not defamatory as a matter of law only when it can say that the statement is not reasonably capable of any defamatory meaning and cannot be reasonably understood in any defamatory sense. Gonna be hard to get past that.

Trial courts in defamation proceedings possess one additional adjudicatory prerogative that they do not possess in other civil cases. They have the independent authority to determine, based on all the facts, (a) whether the communication at issue is reasonably capable of conveying the particular meaning or innuendo ascribed to it by the plaintiff and (b) whether that meaning is defamatory in character.

If the letter is not reasonably capable of conveying the particular innuendo, why write this letter of apology? The disclaimer should have been in the first latter.

except to note him as the one heading the petition and the one to contact if you wanted your name removed.

No way to connect Cook to that ‘one particular person’ just because Delaney noted Cook ‘as the one heading the petition and the one to contact?’ Right!

Anyone who attempts to apply the letter to Mr. Cook has no reason to do so, including Mr. Cook.

innuendo - n. In law it means "an indirect hint." "Innuendo" is used in lawsuits for defamation , usually to show that the party suing was the person about whom the nasty statements were made or why the comments were defamatory.

Cook has good reason to do so, Cook knows at least the next leg of the truth behind the letter.

We apologize if anyone assumed otherwise.

How does one apologize to anyone for contributing to a wrong assumption, when the assumption your are apologizing for is the assumption you wanted them to assume?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Ted

Wednesday, November 23

Here is a bit of Hardin County triva.

HISTORY - $28 wheel tax increase as proposed by Resolution No. 08-2004-137 and adopted by the Hardin County Commission on August 16, 2004.

Rhetoric - We have only two choices, this wheel tax increase or a property tax increase and we can't do the property tax thing until next year and we need to fund the jail project, right now and wheel tax is our only available funding source.

November 2004, 55% to 45%, the majority of the voters said no to the wheel tax increase to fund the construction of a new jail. Seems to me that means the voters accepted the risk of a property tax increase as an alternative.

TODAY - $36 wheel tax increase as proposed by Resolution No. 10-2005-176 and adopted by the Hardin County Commission on October 17, 2005.

Rhetoric - We didn’t do the property tax thing when we had the chance because we were in a state of flux with this lawsuit thing and it’s too late to do it now. It would be next year before we can do a property tax increase and the funds won’t start coming in until October 2007.

We’re ready now and we must build a jail complex, right away. What they don’t say is that they want to fund the expense of the jail lawsuit and everything else relating to the jail problem, as soon as possible, even though there is over $3 million in general fund balance.

Our only other choice to fund the $9.3 million dollar project, is the wheel tax and it has already cost over one million dollars in construction costs because of the delay caused by the voters, by vetoing this same funding resolution last year. If we don’t do it right now the costs will continue to go up, don’t veto this one.

THE FUTURE - Question: How can the county legislature body take it upon itself to pass and try to enforce virtually the same resolution, except that is ignorant of the results of the citizens vote, less that a year ago?

What prevents a county legislature from over-riding the vote of the citizens, over and over until the voters say, why bother. Going up on the rate each time as punishment for vetoing their resolutions, over and over again. When does it end?

I say, the only thing that can over-ride the lawful vote of the citizenry, is another vote of the citizens.

Have I missed something here?

Ted
NEED SOME HELP WITH DEMOCRACY IN HARDIN COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Simple Story - In late 2004, Local government wants and needs money, want to float some Capital Improvement Bonds to build a new Jail/Sheriff’s Department complex.

The question - How to pay for it!
Options - A regressive Vehicle Privilege Tax (a.k.a. Wheel Tax) increase or a proportional Property Tax increase.
Choice - Regressive Wheel Tax

The Question - How to pass the resolution authorizing the Increase in Wheel Tax?
Options - Two-Thirds majority at two consecutive meetings or voter approval.
Choice - Two-Thirds majority at two consecutive meetings.

The Question - Can the resolution be vetoed by the voters?
Option - Petition for referendum by 10% of last governors election voters.
Choice - Let’s Vote - Results - 55% vs 45% - November 2004 - NO wheel tax to construct the jail. Resolution vetoed by voters.

The Question - Can the will of the majority of the voters be overridden or ignored?
Option - Pass another resolution in October 2005 with no substantive change other than the dollar amount.
Choice - Override and Ignore the vote on the core issues and pass another resolution with 19-1 vote.

The Question - What to do about it after a second petition failed to get the required signatures due primarily to all out intimidation of the voters by the plantation overlords?
Option - File suite in court to challenge the resolution as violating the sovereignty of the vote by the people under Art. I, Section 1, State Constitution.
Option - Tell Bill O’Reilly and outside media and beg for a spotlight to shine on Democracy in Hardin County, Tennessee.
Choice - Both Options. Results - The will of the voters, once established by an actual vote, will not be violated or ignored in this Country, State or County!!!

While were spreading Democracy and respect for the vote of the people around the world, let's see a little bit of it here in Hardin County, Tennessee.

Thanks for your time. Respectfully submitted for your consideration.


Ted G. Cook
470 Hard Rock Road
Savannah, TN 38372

The Delaney Letter

Were There Reasonable Grounds for Believing
That the Statements in the Letter Were True?

Was There a High Degree of Awareness of Their Probable Falsity?

Did the Publisher In Fact
Entertained Serious Doubts as to the Truth of His Publications?
The Letter

We have learned a great deal more this time around what the true facts really are regarding the need for a jail and a wheel tax.
We were misled by one individual in particular regarding the facts the last time. Who Else But Cook?
We were told a lawsuit would not be filed. - Not Cook’s documented position
We were told that voting down the wheel tax would not cost the county any money. Not Cook’s documented position
We were told that the jail could be built without more taxes. Not Cook’s documented position
We were told a lot of ‘stuff’ that turned out to be untrue. Like what?
We even heard there were individuals who believe their names were signed for them on the last petition. Who knows; you tend to hear everything these days.
But we’ve heard enough now to realize we were misled last time and we weren’t the only ones. This Dude actively supported and Voted FOR the wheel tax, Cook opposed the wheel tax. Who else was misled?
You won’t see our names on the wheel tax petition. Who is 'our' because Delaney's wasn’t there the last time, either.
We encourage others who were misled or misunderstood before to not sign either. Who might that be?
And, if you have already signed and wished you didn’t contact Mr. Cook and insist your name is removed. Would that be that 'one individual in particular' person?
Let’s not be fooled this time. Cook fooled Delaney last time?
-end of letter-

Ostensible Factual Summary -
We were misled last time and we weren’t the only ones.
We were mislead by one individual in particular regarding the facts.
One can not trust Cook, he will mislead you with false statements like he did us and others.
We were told, by Cook, a lot of ‘stuff’ that turned out to be untrue.

The Case


The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.


Did the writer intended to provoke to wrath of Cook, or expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse with the defamatory matter published in The Courier, on the 17th day of November 17, 2005?


The First and Fourteenth Amendments embody profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government, public officials and public figures. But not with actual malice. You Can’t Just Make It Up And Publish Lies!! Duh!


Actual malice exists when a statement is made with knowledge that the statement is false, or with reckless disregard of whether it is false and made with 'actual malice' -- that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. If a person receives a letter containing libelous matter, he will not be justified in publishing it. However, there are broad protection for misstatements about public figures that are not animated by malice.


Excerpts from U.S. Supreme Court Cases on Defamation.


Although honest utterance, even if inaccurate, may further the fruitful exercise of the right of free speech, it does not follow that the lie, knowingly and deliberately published about a public person, should enjoy a like immunity. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, as today, there were those unscrupulous enough and skillful enough to use the deliberate or reckless falsehood as an effective political tool to unseat the public servant, smear a public figure or even to topple an administration.


That speech is used as a tool for political ends does not automatically bring it under the protective mantle of the Constitution. For the use of the known lie as a tool is at once at odds with the premises of democratic government and with the orderly manner in which economic, social, or political change is to be effected. Calculated falsehood falls into that class of utterances which 'are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . .' Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572.


Hence the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth, do not enjoy constitutional protection. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 75 (1964).


The legitimate state interest underlying the law of libel is the compensation of individuals for the harm inflicted on them by defamatory falsehood. We would not lightly require the State to abandon this purpose, the individual's right to the protection of his own good name reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty.


The protection of private personality, like the protection of life itself, is left primarily to the individual States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But this does not mean that the right is entitled to any less recognition by this Court as a basic of our constitutional system." Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 92 (1966) (concurring opinion).

The Program
I choose to exercise my right to protect my own good name.
That’s All I Have Left. I’ve Earned It The Hard Way, Thank you very much.

Tuesday, November 8

American Are Dying,

Defending Our Right to Vote

Let’s Not Let Them Down

Sign the Petition - Let’s Vote

Don’t Let Jeff Sparks, the Landlords, the Preachers, the Car Dealers, our County Commission or Anyone Else Talk You Out of Exercising Your Right to Vote

We’ve Already Earned it!

Sign the Petition - Get It In

Let’s Vote

Sunday, November 6

The Natural Way To Fund Our Operating Obligations

When will we accept the natural way to fund our operating obligations — property taxes that are enough to do the job. We now have to pay for the foolish decisions and procrastination of our county government in the past or even today.

The public needs to understand, that the taxes well-off people aren’t paying translate directly into a combination of higher taxes and reduced public services for the vast majority of Hardin County citizens.

County officials could have engendered more support by being up-front. Critics can chastise commissioners for failing to include the public in the decision-making process, in their rush to solve the jail crowding crisis. They deserve any criticism thrown their direction. This is a message that should resonated well with the voting public.

Any reassurance that community leaders are accurately representing the needs and interests of their constituents, has been total lip service.

Why do they do things in secret and wait until it's all done to tell us? They decide, and then they tell people what they're going to get stuck with. This doesn’t send a clear message to community stakeholders that their opinions matter.

Jail opponents can accused the jail planners of concentrating too much on bricks and jail bars and not enough on treatment and prevention programs to keep criminals from re-offending and re-entering the criminal justice system.

The guiding philosophy in criminal justice is to change the lifestyles and behaviors that lead to crime, resulting in fewer arrests, a reduced need for jail beds and a savings to taxpayers. This is a message that has resonated well with the voting public.

Tennessee’s tax system is the third most regressive in the entire Country, requiring low- and middle-income families to pay more of their income in tax than wealthier Tennesseans. In Hardin County it is about 4 times more for the low income families.

I think we can do better and I had rather not force my grandsons and their children to have to pay for the foolish decisions and procrastination of our county government.

Can't you just see, back some time ago in a smoke filled room somewhere in the past it has been decided - Since we own most of the property in Hardin County, we’ll keep the property taxes artificially low and soak the poor folks with sales tax, wheel tax, litigation tax and any other kind of regressive taxes, fees or charges we can, to operate on.

When we get the land prices where we want them and after we have sold all of the land we want to sell, when we get a lot of folks moved here because of our artificially low property taxes, we’ll increase the property taxes and catch up on repairing/replacing our infrastructure that won’t be able to maintain with no more taxes the low taxes will generate or for lack of funds.

Respectfully Submitted
The Landlords, The Ministers and The Car Dealers

Well now, there are some interesting observation to be made about the letters from the landlords, the ministers, the car dealers and 17 of the commissioners, with the mayor, in a recent Readers Write section in The Courier.

These folks’ letters and Mr. Johnny Bellis’ pretty ads attempt to debate the pros and cons of the wheel tax issue, I think.
At the same time they tell the citizens to not participate in the petition drive that would lead to a much needed debate of the whole jail problem solution, not just how to pay for it. The rational seem to be that if enough of the citizens do sign the petition, they will have to arrange for the citizens to vote and somehow that would not be a good thing because we don't have the time to mess with it.

They would have us believe that if they have to take the time for the citizens to express their wishes, again, the sky is going to fall in and we are really going to be in bad shape, then. Yah, Right. I believe that is the same rhetoric that was put out the last time this issue came up.

If the citizens exercise their constitutional right to vote, the voters may will veto the wheel tax, again. That might mean a property tax increase or, even worse, it might just require a real attempt to minimize the total cost of this project to the taxpayers, by thinking outside the box to plan solutions that will meet our needs for at least the next 15 to 20 years.

In reality, it needs to be pointed out that the only real issue we are facing today is whether or not there are enough concerned citizens with enough courage to step up and sign a petition. Some folks have refused to step up because of their concern that somehow the public record of them exercising their God given right to participate, could come back to haunt them someday.

The penalty of course would surely be some sort of retaliation from the Plantation’s Overlords for us sharecroppers going against their wishes.

The question is - Do at least 750 voters want to exercise their right to vote on the actions of our County Commission in raising our taxes or should we accept their actions on the face value of truth and wisdom.

You often hear the question, "Who’s looking after the minority?" In Hardin County the question is screaming, "Who’s looking after the majority?" It sure as heck is not our elected officials, not the landlords, not the car salesmen and as bad as I hate to say it, not the preachers.

The preachers ask "the citizens to support our elected officials as they make the tough decision of leadership for which they were elected." Yah Right. How can one support someone when they make the tough decision of leadership that they WERE NOT elected to make.

The citizens of Hardin County, in a duly called and held election, under the laws of the State of Tennessee, voted by a majority, in the privacy of the voting booth, not to increase the wheel tax to fund ‘the Jail Project.’

While it is true that the County Commissioners were elected to make tough decisions, the laws of the State of Tennessee give the voters a right to veto that decision, when it applies to local tax non-property increases, if a majority of the voters think they made that tough decision, wrong. This is called checks and balances. Duh! What a concept for Hardin County go get use to.

I wonder what part of that concept the Hardin County Ministerial Association do not understand. If one has any understanding of our form of government, one would know that our elected officials do not have veto rights on the citizen's vote. Not in a democracy.

Let’s try to remember that at one time I was ‘a preacher’s kid’ and the best I remember the notion on fair taxation is - A fair tax system asks citizens to contribute to the cost of government services based on their ability to pay.

This is a venerable idea, as old as the biblical notion that a few pennies from a poor woman’s purse cost her more than many pieces of gold from a rich man’s hoard. As someone once told my dad, there are times when preachers quit preaching and start meddling.

This debate is between the citizens and their elected officials. One could make the assumption that the registered voters also represent a cross-section of the folks that make up these folks congregations. With that thought in mind, if 55% of the flock do not want the wheel tax, just who are these folks representing and speaking for?

As far as the wheel tax issue is concerned, we have been there, done that. Let’s get about doing it different. That was the vote of the majority of the voters in Hardin County and one must remember that the citizens of the county are sovereign, and our county government's legitimacy flows from them.

These folks were elected to represent the citizens, within the limits of the County Charter and the Tennessee Constitution. Even if the state left the loophole in the statutes, I don’t believe they were elected to thumb their noses at the expressed wishes of the majority of the citizens. That action defies the concept of representative democracy or the majority rules concept, but clearly represents the concept of an aristocracy, controlled by a noble or privileged class.

It’s like these folks are telling us "excuse me, you poor forks, even if you are the majority, you have to listen to us because we know what you really want to do, even if you don’t.

The Unites States of America is a Federal Republic. Federal, state and local governments choose their officials based on the popular vote. This is commonly referred to as "representative democracy," and assumes voters choose candidates who represent their views.

Over the years their has been some divisive attitudes developed in Hardin County that keep the County pulled in different direction, to this day.
There is the ‘this or that side of the river’ thing, the ‘Savannah vs Hardin County’ thing and the ‘Savannah/Hardin County vs Pickwick/Counce/ Hardin County’ thing.

But, worst of all is the ever present ‘have and have nots’ attitude. Or as I like to call it, the ‘I got mine, to hell with you, Hardin County elitists attitude.’ Over the years this attitude had gone underground to the general population but it is in times like this that it is quite visible, even to folks who don’t really want to see it.

Our community leaders are constantly challenging the citizens to get involved and to participate in their schools, their community affairs and in their government, so they can trust the decisions made on the citizens behalf. Yet when one of the few opportunities under Tennessee law come along for them to do that very thing, we are told to not do it. What’s going on there?

Does that trust thing apply to an obvious breach of trust by those folks who are asking the citizens to blindly follow them, without questions or comments. Even though they are brazen enough to tell the a citizens they voted wrong.

I would submit that the citizens were not wrong in the last election when they vetoed the wheel tax, but they appear to have been wrong the election before last when they elected this group of commissioners and this mayor, if the voters had any expectation of representative democracy.

I don’t mind debating these folks in an open forum in order for the citizens to familiarize themselves with both sides of the debate. In reality, signing the petition says, ‘we want to hear the debates.’ What’s wrong with that?

Did you notice that the landlord’s think that "Hardin County currently enjoys relatively reasonable rental rates" and if the property taxes were increases they would be required to raise the rents. They make the point that ‘most people rental rates rise in increments of $5.00 per month . . . .’

Excuuuuse me. In order to justify a $60.00 annual increase in rents and attribute it to a .24 mill increase for the jail project, you would be renting a $100,000 per unit appraised market value. Yah right, they would just have to get a little more from those non-property owners.

Signing the petition does not overturn the wheel tax, it puts it on hold. The decision to overturn the tax, will be made by the voters. The Petition is the vehicle we have to use to make that happen.

Well now, it’s nice to have the super car salesmen and political giants, Mr. Jones (D) and Mr. Bellis (R), join in the debate, but as expected they arrived on the side of the plantation owners/overlords and not the sharecroppers.

The car dealers, a.k.a. - 'really good car salesmen,’ tell us that we can’t afford for someone outside the county to dictating to us about building and operating a jail for decades to come. Yah, right. Thee county commissionhas been doing such a wonderful job of doing nothing they were not forced to do over the last two decades with the jail problem, we certainly want to rely on them and their past history of building and operating the jail, don’t we?

Only a car salesman could conclude that "The wheel tax will be paid for by more individuals than a property tax." Well, duh!! According to the U.S. Census, 60% of our owner-occupied houses have two or more vehicles. Heck, eight percent have no vehicles and only thirty-two percent have only one vehicle.

Now when you couple that with their position that the wheel tax is the most efficient, broadest based and fairest tax available as an option to fund the jail, it really gets questionable.

I have no idea what data these folks reviewed to conclude "most efficient," but "broadest based and fairest tax available" can not be supported. Broadest based - while there are approximately 25,000 vehicles registered in Hardin County, there are also approximately 25,000 partials of property in Hardin County.
What they don't share is the fact that 40% of the tax bills for those partials, representing 25% of our total property tax base, are mailed out of state or out of the county to be paid. I would bet that most of these non-resident folks do not have a vehicle registered in Hardin County.

See the difference? The average Hardin County family has one partial of property valued at $70,000 and two vehicles. The increase on the vehicles would be $72.00 and would be only $42.00 on his property. With wheel tax, 40% of the property owners will get the benefit of a new facility for no contribution. What's fair about that?

The average poor and middle class citizen would have to have a $120,000 partial of property, instead of $70,000, to equal the cost of the wheel tax increase. But then again, it would be safe to bet that most, if not all, of the signators of the super car salesmen letter have substantially more real estate holding than the average citizen.

But then again, car dealers are exempt on paying wheel taxes in Hardin County on all of those cars you see parked on their lots, and one must remember these folks are basically really good ‘car salesmen’ and in this case I would highly recommend that you really need to read their warranty on their representations. Ever hear, trust me, it just needs running?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
Ted