In Douglas County, the deadline to file your PT-50R real property return is April 1st. This is also the deadline to file for homestead exemptions.
Returns must be filed if:

• You purchased or acquired property during the previous year;
• You made any changes during the previous year that would affect the value of your property, such as building or demolishing a house, remodeling, adding pools and decks, etc.;
• You wish to split or combine parcels;

Failing to file a return when required by the deadline will incur a 10% assessment penalty on the unreturned property plus interest at 1% per month, and possibly penalties from the date the tax would be due.
Returns should be filed if:

You wish the Tax Assessors to review the assessed value of your property.

If no changes have been made to previously owned property, and no return is filed, the value of the property from the previous year is automatically claimed as the returned value.  This also means if the Board of Assessors does not change your value from last year, you have already lost any chance to appeal your value. Therefore it is important for you to file a return if you feel the value of your property has changed.

Homestead Exemptions – Saves Hundreds of $$$$ on Property Taxes!

The deadline for filing for a homestead exemption in Douglas County is April 1. Application for homestead exemption is made with the Tax Commissioner in the county. Failure to apply by the deadline will result in loss of the exemption for that year.

Generally, a homeowner is entitled to a homestead exemption on their home and land underneath provided the home was owned by the homeowner and was their legal residence as of January 1 of the taxable year.

To be granted a homestead exemption, a person must actually occupy the home, and the home is considered their legal residence for all purposes.  Persons that are away from their home because of health reasons will not be denied homestead exemption.  A family member or friend can notify the tax receiver or tax commissioner and the homestead exemption will be granted.

Additional Homestead Exemption – Homestead Valuation Freeze

Douglas County voted into law a county exemption that increases as your property is revalued by the Board of Assessors due to the market value. This new exemption applies only to the county portion of your tax bill (does not affect state, school or city tax) and applies only to your personal home. Your county exemption will go up to offset the revaluation amount beginning in the year 2002. Many refer to this exemption as a “tax freeze.” Any improvements to your property will not fall under this new law and will result in an increased assessment on your home.  Lock in your value now, while home values are low!

This information has been provided by
Douglas County Taxpayers Coalition

Commissioners claim they have cut the budget to the bone.

One issue that was raised is the county has no cash (matching funds) to pave roads.

The Douglas County Sentinel reported the event here>>>>

www.DouglasTaxes.com

Info@douglastaxes.com

1. FOX5 & School Board

2. Quarterman Jailed – SPLOST Suit Dismissed

***************************************************************

1. Action Alert: Attend Douglas County School Board Meeting 7pm Tonight

FOX5 I-Team reporter Randy Travis will be revisiting Douglas County tonight (Monday) at the school board meeting at 7:00pm. His investigative report showed how the school board may be grossly overpaying for legal services.

Several citizen has signed up to speak about the issue tonight and need you support and attendance.

Read more about this story: http://douglascountysentinel.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Big+crowd+expected+for+Monday+school+board+meeting%20&id=5015939-Big+crowd+expected+for+Monday+school+board+meeting&instance=DShome_news_top

Here is more information from www.Douglasvillenow.com

Friends and Neighbors,
You are receiving this email because you are a leader in the Douglas County community.  Officials in our school system have betrayed our trust and your attention is desperately needed.

WATCH this Fox 5 I-team investigation!

Part 1: http://bit.ly/696ucz
Part 2: http://bit.ly/4Q0SxX
_______________
PERSPECTIVE

* Forsyth County, 2007, $130 million bond:   $115,000 fees
* Douglas County, 2007, $150 million bond:  $1.2 MILLION fees
_________________
ACTION

Watch Watch the Fox 5 Investigation.  It will shock and disgust you.

Send Send this to your friends, family and most importantly, teachers! DC School System is the largest employer in the county.  If the teachers get involved, there are too many of them for school officials to retaliate. Enough is enough!

Attend Attend the School Board meeting on Monday, Dec. 7 @ 7 p.m., Central Office (next to Hunter Park).  Those who have perpetrated this waste believe you don’t care, won’t show up and will forget about this in a few weeks.  Show them they are wrong and have gone too far this time.
_________________
DETAILS

* Sherrod & Bernard received excessive fees for bonds ($1.2 million).
* School Board Members (Jimmy Bartlett & Sam Haskell) voted to pay Sherrod & Bernard 2-3x other comparable school attorneys ($295,000).
* Ken Bernard’s contract requires the school board to pay a 6-figure severance if they ever don’t renew his contract (an unenforceable provision, written by the the board’s attorney himself).
* Sherrod & Bernard’s only accountability to the board is $25,000 per month invoices stating, “For professional services rendered.”
* Attorney Ken Bernard and CFO Kay Turner failed to tell the school board prior to October, that refunding (refinancing) a bond could have saved $500,000, until School Board Member Larry Barnes found out and challenged them.
* Contracts have not been bid out, costing tax payers $100′s K’s.
* Officials allegedly attempted to pad contracts for CFO Kay Turner and COO Dudley Spruill with 3 year terms tied to incremental increases in Superintendent Remillard’s salary.
* There has been no outside independent audit of the $150 million spent on school construction even though Ra-Lin was found by the Savannah Public School Board to have included such things as $1400 in Sunset Hills country club green’s fees in their invoices.

CHILDREN AND TEACHERS IN DOUGLAS COUNTY NEED OUR HELP, NOW!

72% of our tax money goes to the public school system.  In my humble opinion if we can’t get parents to show up at this school board meeting after this alleged misuse of funds, to support education and children in Douglas County, we’re in a heap of trouble as a community!

*******************************************************************

2. SPLOST Lawsuit Dismissed – Quarterman arrested on Contempt Charges

A lawsuit challenging the November SPLOST vote for a $150 million prison was dismissed last week when the judge ruled James Quarterman violated a previous judge’s order not to file suits without prior permission. Quarterman was ordered to serve 20 days in jail and thousands of dollars in fines.

Read more on this story at: http://douglascountysentinel.com/pages/full_story/push?article-SPLOST+suit+dismissed-+plaintiff++found+in-contempt+of+court-%20&id=4996274-SPLOST+suit+dismissed-+plaintiff++found+in-contempt+of+court-

View the report here: >>>

They call it a “Retreat”. That’s where public officials run off to some distant location far removed from the citizens and media. Or more appropriately, Webster defines ‘retreat’ as “an act or process of withdrawing especially from what is difficult, dangerous, or disagreeable”.

This week the Douglas County Board of Commissioners, department heads and staff headed out to Pine Mountain, Georgia to determine the budget for 2010.

According to the Carl Vinson Institute of Georgia a retreat is “an opportunity for the governing body to come together in a relaxed setting away from daily pressures and distractions in order to regroup, refocus, and plan to better meet community needs. Unlike most regular meetings, a retreat allows for plenty of time to discuss issues and concerns.”

I have a suggestion for Douglas County officials, how about retreating to the $45 million courthouse and “Citizen’s Hall” built by taxpayers to serve the needs of our government. How about putting budget discussions on cable access TV where the public can view their actions.

Retreats are a waste of tax dollars. We pay for transportation, lodging, food and venue at a cost of thousands of dollars to taxpayers.

Carl Vinson Institute says retreat participants are “able to focus their attention on broader issues and concerns when they are away from the day-to-day distractions and interruptions that occur “back home.” They also are more attuned to their relationships with each other. The simple fact that participants take the time and trouble required to travel to a different site demonstrates a commitment to invest themselves in the retreat process.”

Now, doesn’t that just make you warm and fuzzy?

It’s interesting that our public officials may be more productive outside of the county.

Perhaps we should ship them all off to some remote island where productivity can prevail!

James Bell is a community activist and Founder of Douglas County Taxpayers Coalition

From Staff Reports November 16, 2009 Douglas County Journal

A Political Action Committee called Keep Douglas Safe was organized to push the passage of the recent $150 million Douglas County Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) and $120 million Bond referendum on November 3^rd.

Campaign disclosure records from the State Ethics Commission show that GreyStone Power Company President and C.E.O Gary A. Miller and William T. “Terry” Baggett both from Douglasville, Ga. formed the political action committee to solicited cash contribution in support of the passage of the SPLOST/Bond.

The documents revealed the cash contributions came from several corporations from outside Douglas County. No contributions came from within county. Neither Miller nor Baggett contributed money to their own campaign. Included in the list are various jail construction and engineering firms and one individual from Florida.

The reported contributors includes: New South Construction ($500) – Ashford Engineers of Atlanta ($500) – Rosser International ($300) – KSGW Architects, LLC ($500) – SteelCell North America ($500) – J. Tom Chandler of Lakewood Fl. ($500).

According to the expenditure documents Landmark Communications received $1000 for services and Chapel Hill News and Views received $329.

Keep Douglas Safe Campaign surfaced when citizens received two mailings from the PAC prior to the November 3 vote and automated phone calls feathering the voice of Douglas County Sheriff Phil Miller advocating the passage of the SPLOST.

Last week Douglas County resident James Quarterman filed a law suit in the Douglas County Superior Court accusing public officials of law violations and claiming they threaten and intimidated voters to vote for the SPLOST or have their property taxes increased.

The SPLOST/Bond referendum passed by only 32 votes. The vote count was 3,918 yes votes and 3,886 no votes.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

_________________________________________

JAMES QUARTERMAN, et al, qualified  §

registered voters under Georgia law§

§

Contestant,                         §     CIVIL ACTION FILE

§ NO._______________

vs.                                             §

§

LAURIE FULTON in her individual     §     ELECTION CONTEST

and official      capacity as Election    § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Supervisor for Douglas County;      §   O.C.G.A. 21-2-526

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION § O.C.G.A. 15-6-82

MEMBERS (ROCHELLE ROBINSON, JOHN §

LAWRENCE, SPENCER HARDY, ARRON §

WALKER, SLYVANUS BURNEY) in their  §

official capacity as agents for     §

Douglas County; TOM WORTHAN, in     §

his official capacity as County     §

Chairman of Douglas County; PHIL §

MILLER in his official capacity as  §

Sheriff for Douglas County;         §

Douglas County Board of §

Commissioners §

§

Defendants                                §

__________________________________________

Petition Contesting Nov. 3^rd, 2009 SPLOST / Bond Referendum Election, Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Motion For Change of Venue

I.  STATUTORY COMPLIANCE

The Contestant, James Quarterman, pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 21-2-521 files this election contest petition seeking a change of venue now moves ex parte for a preliminary injunction, a Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Georgia Uniform Superior Court Rules 6.7 and O.C.G.A.§ 9-11-65(b) to enjoin and restrain the Defendants Tom Worthan as Chairman and the Board of Commissioners from the issuance of a 120 million dollar General Obligation Bond until a hearing can be had to determine if the SPLOST referendum vote was legal as outlined in Contestant Affidavit.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-524(a) (1), Contestant resides at 4066 Hickory Hollow Drive in Douglasville, Georgia, 30135 and per O.C.G.A. §21-2-521 is an “aggrieved elector” who was entitled to vote for the SPLOST Referendum on the November 3, 2009 ballot.

The affidavit and verification of the Contestant is filed and incorporated by reference herein and pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2-524(c).

The Contestant seeks and asks for a trial by jury under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-526 for violations of the Georgia Election Laws O.C.G.A 15-16-10 O.C.G.A. § 21-2-567, O.C.G.A. § 21-2-603 and Georgia SPLOST Law O.C.G.A. § 48-8-110 which call for removal by O.G.C.A. 15-6-82.

Contestant asks the Court to grant a Change of Venue and / or appoint a Special Prosecutor because Douglas County District Attorney David McDade is a First Commerce Board Member with Defendant Miller. They are also friends, neighbors and have worked closely together for many years. Therefore, this special business and personal relationship creates a “Conflict of Interest.”

Defendant Sheriff Phil Miller is alleged to have committed Felony violations of O.C.G.A. 21-2-567 through a violation of O.C.G.A. 48-8-110 eg. seq., along with Defendant Tom Worthan which constitutes a violation of O.C.G.A. 21-2-603 whereby he thus commits a violation of O.C.G.A. 15-16-10 (a)(8) which calls for his removal from office under O.C.G.A. 15-16-10 (b), an action which calls for a trial by jury according to O.C.G.A. 15-6-82.

Defendant Tom Worthan, as County Chairman, is alleged to have participated in a Felony conspiracy, a violation of O.C.G.A 21-2-603 and he is subject to removal from office upon conviction and has further: (1) committed an act or acts of malfeasance while in office; (2) violated his or her oath of office; (3) committed an act of misconduct in office; (4) Is guilty of a failure to perform duties prescribed by law; and (5) willfully misused, converted, or misappropriated, without authority, public property or public funds entrusted to or associated with the elective office to which the official has been elected.

Pursuant to Georgia Election Law O.C.G.A. § 21-2-524(a) (2), the Contestant contest the results of the SPLOST Referendum Question on the November 3^rd, 2009 ballot which passed by a margin of only 32 votes. The vote count was 3,918 yes votes and 3,886 no votes.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 524 (a) (3) the name of the Defendants are: Tom Worthan, Phil Miller, Laurie Fulton, Rochelle Robinson, John Lawrence, Spencer Hardy, Arron Walker and Silvanus Burney and the Douglas County Board of Commissioners.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 524 (a) (4), this contested on statutory compliance of a SPLOST vote question rather than elections for public office.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 524 (a) (5) grounds for contest are on statutory compliance where fraud, conspiracy, threats and intimidation infected the outcome:

1. O.C.G.A. 21-2-522 (1) – Misconduct, fraud and irregularity sufficient to change or place in doubt the election results.
2. O.C.G.A. 21-2-522 (2) – That the SPLOST question referendum was rendered void for violation of O.C.G.A. 48-8-110 eg. seq., and violation of O.C.G.A. 21-2-567 and O.C.G.A. 21-2-603.
3. O.C.G.A. 21-2-522 (3) – The SPLOST question referendum being void, votes received were illegally recorded.
4. O.C.G.A. 21-2-522 (4) – If the SPLOST referendum is rendered void pursuant to O.C.G.A. 21-2- 524 (c), then counting errors occurred in all precincts as well as mail absentee ballots.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 21-2-32 and O.C.G.A. § 21-2- 524(b) a copy of this petition will be sent by certified mailed to the Chairman of the State Election Board once stamped as “received” by the Douglas County Superior Court.

Jurisdiction is proper in Douglas County Superior Court for contesting per O.C.G.A. § 21-2-524(a).

The election certification was November 6, 2009.

II. QUESTION PRESENTED

1. If Defendant Miller and Worthan assertions in published materials and public statements they made since at least 2005 that the jail is overcrowded, dangerous and unsafe for inmates, sheriff department personnel and the general public; and it is a high cost to taxpayers to board inmates in other counties because of overcrowding at the jail; and if they are “fearful” of federal intervention to force the county to build a new jail, then why did the county, as a responsible government entity, fail to call for a SPLOST vote for a new jail in 2008, as it did previously in 2006 and 2007?

Answer: Contestant states unequivocally that the defendants put their own self-interests ahead of what they have asserted since at least 2005 as a necessary and essential public safety need, namely a new county jail.  Contestant states that if it were such a pressing public safety need, responsible public officials would have placed it on the ballot in 2008, but in this case, Defendants Miller and Worthan were both seeking re-election. They knew the expected massive turnout for the presidential election of 2008 would harm their chances for re-election if a twice defeated jail SPLOST were placed on the same ballot.

1. How did the county and defendants determine the cost of the jail?

Answer: The only document ever presented calling for a new jail was a “Needs Assessment for the Douglas County Jail” in April 2002, which was done at Defendant Miller’s request and revised by him to suit “his philosophy concerning incarceration” (page 5). This assessment was done by the Georgia Sheriff’s Association (GSA). The GSA is a not-for-profit 501(c) (3) corporation that has no official affiliation or legal authority within the State of Georgia regarding jail needs. In a letter dated March 24, 2006, from Chief Deputy Stan Copeland, in item six (6), he states: “A copy of the GSA is enclosed which was requested by Sheriff Miller and was done at no cost. This is the only study since 2000 and a new update has been requested for 2006.” Contestant is unaware of any study done in 2006 or more recently by GSA or anyone else. Defendant Worthan publicly stated in 2009 that it was unnecessary to spend any tax money to do a jail study.  Contestant believes that the cost of the proposed 2009 jail SPLOST/Bond was determined solely by the county’s estimate of how much money the SPLOST would bring in over its 6 year period, which the county projected would be 150 million dollars and that the cost of the jail is not based upon the realistic needs of Douglas County. If built by the contested SPLOST/Bond referendum, Douglas County would have the fourth largest county jail in Georgia. Obviously, this is not a realistic need for public safety in Douglas County. The proposed 2006 jail cost was 87 million dollars and the 2007 proposed jail cost was 120 million dollars.

A recount of votes was not sought because the Secretary of State’s Office states a referendum question is not eligible for a recount.

III. SUMMARY OF CONTEST

The hearing of this contest petition cannot be so narrowly focused on individual trees (ballots) that the forest cannot be seen (the SPLOST election process). This Court must have a broad view of the scope of election irregularities which can justify setting aside an election, giving weight to findings of misconduct by elected officials sworn to uphold the law and charged with protecting the integrity of the election process.

The contest petition is not based on the notion that Contestant is seeking to overturn election results pointing to specific voters whose ballots should be disallowed, as in a contest challenging a person seeking office in which specific voters or votes can objectively be identifiable. McCranie v. Mullis, 267 Ga. 416 (478 SE2d 377) (1996); Taggart v. Phillips, 242 Ga. 454 (249 SE2d 245) (1978).

In this contest, what justifies the overturning of this election, is the holding in Stiles v. Earnest, 252 Ga. 260 (312 SE2d 337) (1984), where the conduct here is so egregious that it tainted and cast doubt on the fairness of the entire referendum. Stiles is the case most on point to the problem presented by this case — a systematic debasement of the election process by those with an interest in it (the defendants) — and is itself precedent for the proposition which should govern this case, egregious and persistent violations of the election laws which constitute an irregularity sufficient to place the entire election result in doubt. Johnson v. Rheney, 245 Ga. 316 (264 SE2d 872) (1980). The Contestant’s burden in this election contest is “to affirmatively show that the facially valid results were invalid due to an irregularity sufficient to place the entire election result in doubt.”

The fatal flaw of this Court would be to narrowly focus on only specific ballots while ignoring situations such as the present case in which the debasement of our most honored democratic institution has been effectively accomplished. This case involves the Defendants, a county sheriff and a county chairman, conspiring in an illegal and fraudulent manner.  Specifically, these activities include: threatening and intimidating voters; lying to voters; and by violating Georgia SPLOST law by advocating how voters should vote. Exploiting this unfair and discriminatory opportunity, Defendants systematically and illegally altered the election outcome by: utilizing a taxpayer-provided resource, a county election, to advance the private interests of their own agendas; by misusing their elected positions and accompanying influence over voters; by blatantly ignoring and violating laws they have sworn to uphold. All this has been done with such efficiency as to render it virtually impossible to identify defective ballots or intimidated voters individually, which now requires this Court to put on blinders and protect the rights of the citizenry.

This case paints a picture of organized and persistent violations of the election laws. The sheriff, a sworn official of the county, made “Robo-Call” telephone calls to county voters telling them to vote for the SPLOST “and we won’t have to raise property taxes to do it”(build a jail). The county chairman threatened voters stating that if they did not vote for the SPLOST, a federal judge would force the county to build a new jail and county property taxes would be raised.

The unmistakable effect of the sheriff’s and chairman’s illegal activities and abuse of power constitute, “a grave threat to the integrity of the electoral process.” The threat was not to the validity of a clearly determined number of votes, but to the validity of every vote in the county, openly defying the law in order to garner votes for a SPLOST/Bond   they supported.  Two previous SPLOST attempts in 2006 and 2007 to build a new jail were rejected by county   voters. This Court must find that the flagrant abuses of authority, the threatening and intimidating of   voters must stand as sufficient specificity in determining how the election was influenced and voters intimidated.

This Court must consider Walls v. Garrett, 247 Ga. 640 (277 SE2d 903) (1981) where the trial court found the entire election system in [the county] in disarray. Contestant states this Court must now conclude that the “system” in effect on the date of the election at issue here was irregular enough so as to place in doubt the validity of every vote cast, and that the threats and intimidation by Defendants Worthan and Miller foster the compromise of the election laws which clearly characterized the balloting cast in this election.

“The will of the electorate must be protected, so must the sanctity of the ballot and the integrity of the election.” Bolden v. Potter, 452 So.2d 564, 567 (Fla. 1984).

The Defendants conduct violated not one but two Georgia criminal statutes, see OCGA 21-2-567 (declaring it a felony to threaten and intimidate voters); OCGA 21-2-603 (declaring it a felony where two people conspire to violate the Georgia Election Code), and more than justifies the relief sought by the Contestant.

Courts must presume that the results of an election contest are valid. Streeter v. Paschal, 267 Ga. 207, 208 (476 SE2d 759) (1996). Thus, an election will not be invalidated unless the party contesting the election demonstrates an irregularity or illegality sufficient to change or place in doubt the result. Id.; Bailey v.   Colwell, 263 Ga. 111 (428 SE2d 570)(1993). To carry that burden, the challenger must show a specific number of illegal or irregular ballots — and that number must be sufficient to cast doubt on the result of the election. McCranie v. Mullis, 267 Ga. 416 (478 SE2d 377) (1996). Accord Hunt v. Crawford, 270 Ga. 7 (507 SE2d 723) (1998); Taggart v. Phillips, 242 Ga. 454 (249 SE2d 245) (1978).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATION

According to the Douglas County SPLOST Funds Forensic Audit Report by The Investigative Accounting Group, LLC, dated February 7, 2006 which was ordered by the Board by the Commissioners and paid for by the taxpayers of Douglas County and according to the “Minutes” of the Board of Commissioners, August 2006 meeting, the county never completed several advertised SPLOST projects from the 2002 SPLOST, even though the board was aware of this failure. This is a major contributing factor why Contestant and other voters rejected the last two SPLOSTs in 2006 and 2007 and why they are suspicious of the trustworthiness and competence of the board. Contestant claims that this is also a major reason why Defendants Worthan and Miller resorted to threats and intimidation of voters (a felony charge as stated in O.C.G.A. 21-2-567), misinformation and other blatant violations of SPLOST laws to intimidate voters to approve the 2009 SPLOST. In the Minutes of the August 2006 meeting, Defendant   Worthan states: “By law we are suppose to complete the projects that were promised by the past administration and we will do our best to complete all of those projects.” Here, Defendant Worthan admits that he is aware of uncompleted, legally advertised SPLOST projects and that by law these projects must be completed. See Dickey v. Storey, 262 Ga. 452 (1992) wherein the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled projects can be scaled back but not abandoned.

Contestant and other voters are alarmed that the county may use 2009 SPLOST proceeds to pay for the completion of the above mentioned projects. Also, since no reliable documentation exist that states the county needs a 150 million dollar jail, the actual cost of constructing and equipping a new county jail may be more or less than the stated amount. Voters have no way of knowing this amount can be justified.

In addition, and in direct violation of SPLOST law, county officials have published in the “2009 SPLOST Resolution” that part of the 2009 SPLOST will be used to repay the county itself for property it previously purchased and expenses associated with that property. This amounts to millions of dollars. Also, as required in O.C.G.A. 48-8-11, the county did not publish or give proper notice in the newspaper approved for county legal notices (Douglas County Sentinel) that funds from the 2009 SPLOST would be used in this way. This is illegal, deceptive, fraudulent, malfeasance, misconduct and is entirely unethical on the part of the elected public officials involved.

This case involves the question of whether an electoral choice for a SPLOST/Bond referendum was made freely, by the people of this county, or were voters intimidated, mislead and/or threatened and if that choice was clearly made freely without the county or  its agents expressing an opinion or advocating how a person should vote.

This Court must determine if there was improper and illegal intervention by any or all Defendants and if so, did the intervention impinge upon the outcome of the election which resulted in either an absurdity or the conclusion that the encroachment by a governmental official or officials altered the outcome of the vote and rendered the SPLOST/Bond referendum to be void.

The various other allegations and violations of voters’ rights that must be simultaneously considered by the Court are as follows:

The undisputed facts in this case show that there is an election contest petition of the November 2008 general election pending in the Georgia Supreme Court naming same Defendants Miller and Worthan as in this case and alleging ballot fraud and etc. The undisputed   facts in this case show also that the State Election Board has referred 5 of 7 violations of Georgia’s election laws to the Georgia Attorney General for fines and sanctions.

The undisputed facts in this case show that Defendants Miller and Worthan are holding office illegally because from an Investigation conducted by the Georgia Office of the Inspector General for the Secretary of State, it was determined that the 2008 election results for which the Defendants Miller and Worthan hold office were never certified by the county pursuant to O.C.G.A. 21-2-70.

The undisputed facts in this case show that on or about October 30^th, 2009, Defendants Worthan and Miller used county funds and property to produce a video and broadcasted that video over county public television (DCTV 23) to thousands of potential county voters who have Comcast Cable Television or access to same. In this video, defendants advocated passage of the jail SPLOST, which is a direct promotion of the SPLOST, thereby violating O.C.G.A. 21-5-30.2 (b) and O.C.G.A. 48-8-110 eg. Seq., advocating how voters shall vote and O.C.G.A 21-2-567, threatening and intimidating voters that if they do not vote for the SPLOST, federal intervention may occur. Appearing together in this video constitutes a conspiracy by Defendants Worthan and Miller, which is a violation of O.C.G.A. 21-2-603.

It is an undisputed fact that on November 2^nd, 2009, “Robo-Calls” (a Robo-call is a term for an automated telemarketing phone call that uses both a computerized auto dialer and a computer-delivered recorded message) were made to potential Douglas County voters. The recorded message was:

“Hello, this is Sheriff Phil Miller calling about the public safety SPLOST. I’ll be blunt, we need you to vote ‘yes’ on this SPLOST, and I wouldn’t ask you if it wasn’t important. Our jail is overcrowded and unsafe, period. It’s dangerous for the deputies who guard the inmates and it’s expensive on taxpayers to send prisoners we don’t have space for to other counties. You can approve this SPLOST, get a new jail built and keep Douglas County safe and we won’t have to raise property taxes to do it. Please vote ‘yes’ on the public safety SPLOST November the 3^rd. Thank you.”

Is this being informative and “blunt” or is it, instead, intimidation and threatening of potential voters by the sheriff? Either way, it is a violation of Georgia SPLOST Law (O.C.G.A. 48-8-110 eg. seq.,) simply because the calls were made by the Sheriff. The Georgia SPLOST law strictly prohibits any governmental officials or agencies to “express an opinion regarding the SPLOST proposal or advocate which way a person should vote” for a SPLOST, as stated in the booklet  “Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax – A guide for County Officials”, page 2, under section titled, “Promoting the Approval of a SPLOST.

Sheriff Miller violated the law because in this recorded message, he expressed his opinion and desire regarding the SPLOST proposal and the vote and he   advocated that a person should vote “yes”. At the end of his recorded message, Sheriff Miller said “and we won’t have to raise property taxes to do it.” Is this not a threat that property taxes will increase if we vote “no” for the SPLOST?

Defendants Worthan and Miller in public meetings, newspaper and magazine articles, etc., have repeatedly      intimidated and threatened voters (more specifically property owners – a suspect class) that if they did not vote for the SPLOST their property taxes would increase because a federal judge or the federal courts would force Douglas County to build a new jail and this jail would have to be paid for by property taxes. This is an attempt to improperly influence voters (more specifically property owners – a suspect class) to vote in favor of the SPLOST or pay higher property taxes.

Defendants Tom Worthan and Phil Miller as elected officials committed unlawful acts violating sections I, II, IV, IX, and X of O.C.G.A. § 45-10-1 (Code of Ethics for Government Service,) by committing a felony act as defined in O.C.G.A. § 21-2-567 by threatening and intimidating voters for the passage of a SPLOST[1] and O.C.G.A. § 48-8-110 eg. seq., advocating how a person should vote for the SPLOST constitutes acts of malfeasance and misconduct in office.

The U.S. Constitution grants the legislatures of each State plenary power to vote for specific questions “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct.” See U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 2. The U.S. Supreme Court “leaves it to the state legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting or voting on a specific question.” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892). “The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws… for the welfare of the state.” Ga. Const. art. III, § 6, ¶ 1. The powers are plenary, and are “absolutely unrestricted…” Bryan v. Ga. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 238 Ga. 572, 573 (1977) quoting Sears v. State, 232 Ga. 547, 554 (1954)).[2] The General Assembly in 1998 amended Georgia’s Election Code requiring all elections (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-15) to be conducted by provisions of O.C.G.A. § 21.2 et seq., which makes the code applicable to all elections in this state.  This makes O.C.G.A. 21-2-567 applicable in this case.[3]

As elected officials, Defendants Worthan’s and Miller’s duties expressly prescribed by O.C.G.A.45-10-3 (1) (8) are that members of such offices created by general statue shall “uphold the laws” and “never engage in other conduct… which constitutes a breach of public trust.”  The commissions of felony acts and violations of state statues are breaches of public trust. The Chairman and the Sheriff cannot threaten voters by claiming they know what actions a federal judge or court may take in the future, if any.  Defendants have stated that county voters must vote for this SPLOST or a federal judge will force the county to build a new jail and property taxes will have to be raised to pay for it.

Defendants Worthan and Miller have also committed Fraud based on misrepresentation on the total number of beds available for inmates in all categories at the Douglas County jail. Defendants Worthan and Miller reported through Chief Deputy Stan Copeland, an employee of Defendant Miller, in a letter dated March 24, 2006, addressed to Joanne Bushman on sheriff departmental stationary that the county jail had 811 available beds for inmates. This is verified through the internet website for the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA)[4] which states jail capacity for available beds as 810, as of January 2005 through July 2008. In August 2008, the sheriff reduced the jail bed availability count from 810 to 485 with 722 inmates.

In August, 2008, Defendant Miller, through his agent Chief Deputy Stan Copeland, reported a mold problem in the jail that displaced 40 female inmates. Rather than fixing the problem, county officials chose to spend $305,000.00 for a three (3) year lease for a temporary housing unit that was erected at the current jail. This housing is for up to 25 inmates. However, according to the inspection report conducted by the firm Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) on January 15, 2009, at least six months after the leak was detected, the inspectors observed a small leak from a drain pipe and a small puddle of standing water on the concrete floor of the dormitory. CRA’s recommendations, which cost taxpayers $3,600, were to repair the pipe leak, replace sheet rock and clean affected areas of the dormitory with mild detergent, 10% bleach solution and a scrub brush. Yet instead, the county chose to spend $305.000.00 for a 3 year lease for a temporary housing unit. According to Commissioner Mulcare, the commissioners never toured the jail to inspect the alleged mold problem.

The Defendants actions indicate a deliberate, systematic and premeditated conspiracy to deceive the public into believing conditions at the county jail were worse than they actually were so that voters would be tricked into approving a new jail. As an example, Defendant Worthan stated in the October 2009 Chapel Hill News and Views article on page 65 that the current inmate count was 840 whereas DCA states 722.

Clearly, Defendants Worthan and Miller are, in effect, arguing the necessity of a new 150 million dollar jail when no need for such a massive jail has been proven or justified by the county. This is the whole root of the Conspiracy and Fraud – manipulating the inmate jail numbers and falsifying the real conditions of the current jail, then threatening actions by a federal judge and court to correct non-existent conditions so as to panic voters to vote “yes” for SPLOST, so as to avoid a threatened property tax increase.

As stated in Defendant Miller’s Letter to the Editor in the October 22, 2009 Douglas County Sentinel: “Douglas County faces the very real prospect of eventual federal intervention at the jail. It was a federal court order that forced Douglas County to build our current jail in 1980 at increased tax expense to every homeowner in Douglas. If that happens, county officials have no say in the design, capacity or expense of a new jail-they could order us to build a “Taj Mahal” and we would be forced to comply. Federal mandates on jail procedures and added expenses would come with these mandates.”

The misrepresentations about federal intervention, going back to at least 2005 and continuing until the November 3, 2009 vote, were made although the Defendants possess no factual knowledge that the alleged future event(s) will occur. The acts of Fraud are consummated by published statements and public comments, such as the above by the Defendants that threatened federal intervention. These are dishonest tactics used to cheat voters of their votes.  Marshall v. York, 165 Ga. App. 795 (302 SE2d 711) (1983).

Contestant proves Fraud according to the ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court in Martin Burks Chevrolet v. McMichen, 136 Ga. App. 845, 847 (222 SE2d 633) (1975) and Eckerd’s Columbia v. Moore, 155 Ga. App. 4, 5 (270 SE2d 249) where the five essential elements are: (1) Defendants made the representations to either vote for the SPLOST or property taxes would be raised, which constitutes a threat; (2) Defendants knew that their assertions were false, which is intimidation because no federal court or judge had made any threat that the county must build a new jail; (3) Defendants made misrepresentations with the intention and purpose of deceiving the contestant and voters in an attempt to win this SPLOST because voters had previously rejected the last two SPLOST in 2006 and 2007 to build a new jail; (4) voters relied on the misrepresentations of the Defendants that a federal judge had made them build the current jail when no federal court had ordered the construction of the current jail, which was a consent decree, but there was no court order; (5) that the contestant and voters have already sustained a $305,000.00 loss for unnecessary temporary housing at the county jail and if the election is not set aside will suffer loss and damage as a result of voting for the SPLOST with the present state of the economy if SPLOST revenue does not cover the general obligation bond, property taxes will have to be raised to cover the shortfall.

The Defendants Worthan and Miller further have committed an act of conspiracy to commit election fraud where O.C.G.A. 21-2-603 states a person commits the offense of conspiracy to commit election fraud where he or she conspires or agrees with another to commit a violation of the Georgia Election Code. The Defendants together did threaten and intimidate voters, a violation of O.C.G.A. 21-2-567 of the Georgia Election Code. Georgia courts have ruled, “A conspiracy is the combining of two or more persons for the purpose of doing something unlawful, oppressive, or immoral, as a means or an end." Woodruff v. Hughes, 2 Ga. App. 361 (2) (58 SE 551).

The Defendants Worthan and Miller, as elected officials, have denied voters their right to Substantive Due Process and the principles of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment and Georgia Constitution Article I, Section I, Paragraph I and II.[5] The government or anyone using government powers may not take away life, liberty, or property without due process of law; therefore this court must apply the “strict scrutiny” test instead of the normal “rational basis” test recognizing that voting is a fundamental right and improperly applying such test would not give full weight to elected officials invading into and preventing voters from freely voting their own will without threats and intimidation.[6]

To deny any person due process and equal protection constitutes “irreparable harm”. Because of the preferred place it occupies in our constitutional scheme, “any illegal impediment to the right to vote freely, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or statutes, would by its nature be an irreparable injury.” Harris v. Graddick, 593 F. Supp. 128, 135 (M.D. Ala. 1984). Accord, Dillard v. Crenshaw County, 640 F. Supp. 1347, 1363 (M.D. Ala. 1986) (“denial of the right to vote freely” constitutes irreparable injury); Foster v. Kusper, 587 F. Supp. 1191, 1193 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (denial of the right to vote for candidate or question of choice freely constitutes “irreparable harm”). See also Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373 (the loss of constitutionally protected freedoms, the right to vote freely “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury”).  The Georgia Supreme Court Georgia ruled to withstand a void for vagueness attack under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; a law must give sufficient warning that men may conduct themselves so as to avoid that which is forbidden. S. J. T., Inc. v. Richmond County, 263 Ga. 267, 269-270 (430 SE2d 726) (1993).

“The right to vote freely for the candidate (or question, as in this case) of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.” Chief Justice Earl Warren, Reynolds vs. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). “

“Voting is of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992);[7] Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554 (1964); Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 537 (1965); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). The right to vote is entitled to special constitutional protection because:

The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. . . .

[T]he right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil rights.

Reynolds, 377 U.S. at 555, 562 and Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964).

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 states in Section 11(b) that “No person … shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce … any person for voting or attempting to vote.”

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibits persons from intimidating or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce another person for the purpose of interfering with their right to vote freely in all elections.

Under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in 2002, specifically relegates the definitions of votes and the counting and recounting of those votes to the several States. In section (6), 42 USC 15481 of the Help America Vote Act, Congress recognized State Authority regarding vote counting standard, stating “Uniform definition of what constitutes a vote. Each State shall adopt uniform and nondiscriminatory standards that define what constitutes a vote and what will be counted as a vote for each category of voting system used in the State.” (42 USCS § 15481 (6).) The threatening and intimidation of voters by Defendants Miller and Worthan, more specifically property owners, to vote for a SPLOST passage or pay higher property taxes, cannot be viewed as anything but a discriminatory act because it defeats this “suspect class” right to vote freely.

It is a cardinal rule in Georgia that statutes are presumed to be constitutional and that all doubts must be resolved in favor of their validity. Albany Surgical, P.C. v. Ga. Dep’t of Cmty. Health, 278 Ga. 366, 368 (2004).[8] O.C.G.A. 21-2-567 declares it a felony to threaten or intimidate voters to force them to vote for or against any particular question submitted to electors during an election.

Tom Worthan as County Chairman and Phil Miller as County Sheriff made a concerted effort and practice to intimidate county property owners (a particular class or demographic of voters)[9] by using economic  intimidation by threatening this particular class of voters (property owners) with higher property taxes if they did not vote for the Defendants Worthan and Miller particular interests, particularly the passage of a SPLOST to build a new county jail, because two prior attempts for a SPLOST in 2006 and 2007 to build a new jail were rejected. There does now clearly exist a suspect class whose fundamental right to vote free of intimidation and threats is being infringed upon. SPLOST affects everybody while raising property taxes affects only property owners (a particular class).

Contestant states no election is ever run perfectly, but the actions of the Defendants equate to Electoral fraud, which is the illegal interference with the process of an election. The Defendants actions were unlawful behaviors which were calculated to increase the “yes” vote and decrease the “no” vote for the SPLOST and by threatening and intimidating voters, bring about an election result the Defendants desired.

The actions of the Defendants also amount to voter fraud by an act of conspiracy[10] which O.C.G.A. 21-2-603 defines as an offense committed when he or she conspires or agrees with another to commit a violation of the Georgia Election Code. In this contest, the mechanisms involved the violation of general laws known as the SPLOST LAW which forbid promoting and advocating how voters must vote in a SPLOST referendum.

The Georgia Constitution states in Article I, Section I, Paragraph II.  Under Protection to person and property; equal protection. Protection to person and property is the paramount duty of government and shall be impartial and complete. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Contestant states this Court must assert Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433-434 (D. Hawaii, 1992):

A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the … Fourteenth Amendment [] that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.  Under this standard, the rigorousness of our inquiry into the propriety of a state election law depends upon the extent to which a challenged regulation burdens … Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, as we have recognized when those rights are subjected to severe restrictions, the regulation must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.

Contestant states in this contest that this is a serious matter involving the Defendants who are sworn to uphold the law.

Douglas County has a history of lying and threatening voters in attempts to pass SPLOSTs and of   abusing the Georgia Election Code. Contestant believes the first SPLOST of the county contained only one project, which was to build the current courthouse and that SPLOST was to be for five (5) years or to end (stop) when enough taxes were collected to build the courthouse. However, the county never stopped collecting the SPLOST after the courthouse was built and used SPLOST proceeds for other means.

In 2000, when the county wanted to issue another SPLOST, they promised to freeze property taxes if voters would approve a SPLOST. In September 2000 the county commissioners unanimously approved a resolution to have the General Assembly create a Bill to freeze county property taxes. The Bill was created and a referendum for the property tax freeze was supposed to be on the same ballot as the 2001 SPLOST vote, but the county claimed it “forgot” to put it on the ballot, so as a result, voters rejected the 2001 SPLOST.

In 2002 Douglas County State Representative Bill Hembee and State Senator Bill Hamrick sued the county to put the property tax freeze referendum on the ballot with the SPLOST.  Voters approved the March 2002 SPLOST because of the included property tax freeze by 8.7% of the voters and a margin of 58/42. A list of some of the projects to be built from that SPLOST included youth ballparks, tennis complex, Aquatic Center (swimming pool) and etc.

On May 23, 2002, the county violated the Georgia Revenue Bond Law OCGA § 36-82-60 et seq by using the Development Authority to issue a Revenue Bond to build the projects listed above in violation of Georgia Supreme Court ruling in the case of Haney v. Development Authority of Bremen, 271 Ga. 403 (1999); where the Supreme Court ruled a county cannot issue revenue bonds to provide recreational opportunities for local residents and taxpayers.

From the Douglas County SPLOST Funds Forensic Audit Report dated February 7, 2006, of the 2002 SPLOST, and performed by the Investigative Accounting Group, LLC, its findings revealed overspending by 14 million dollars on the Aquatic Center and several other projects including two senior centers, nine bridge replacements, a tennis center and several other projects and fire equipment which were never completed or purchased. County Attorney Ken Bernard was interviewed about the projects not being completed. He said the law is clear, the BOC is bound to complete the projects – but the board never has.

In 2006 voters rejected a SPLOST to build a new 87 million dollar jail.

In 2007 voters rejected a SPLOST to build a new 120 million dollar jail.

Now, in 2009 we have a SPLOST to build a 150 million dollar jail which involves the question of whether voters were threatened and intimidated to vote for the SPLOST in fear of having property taxes raised if the SPLOST did not pass.

This contest is brought under violations of the Georgia Constitution Article II, Section I, Paragraph I. and Section II, Paragraph I and the Georgia Election Code O.C.G.A 21-2 eg. seq., where some of the votes cast for the November 3^rd, 2009 SPLOST referendum were obtained from irregular votes using the means of threats, intimidation and fraud, thereby tainting them. These votes violate mandatory and directive election statutes and as such are unconstitutional and void for failure to comply with statutory prerequisites. Furthermore, the actions of the Defendants Tom Worthan and Phil Miller causing these irregular votes were violent, oppressive, fraudulent, grossly reckless and malicious willful acts.

The explicit statutory language of O.C.G.A. 48-8-110 eg. seq., is mandatory and a “clear and flagrant” violation of that language has occurred that prevents the true will of the electorate from being known. Invalid votes were illegally recorded that violate mandatory election code provisions and cannot be counted because of threats and intimidation by Defendants Miller and Worthan to raise property taxes and of threats of federal court intervention if voters did not vote for the SPLOST. The Georgia SPLOST Law strictly prohibits any governmental agencies from promoting or advocating the passage of the SPLOST or how voters should vote. Harrison v. Rainey, 227 Ga. 240 (1971); McKinney v. Brown, 242 Ga. 456 (1978).

Explicit statutory language specifies the election is voided because of O.C.G.A 21-2- 567 where Fraudulent votes were cast that are not only illegal but represent a deliberate attempt to thwart the electorate’s will. Fraudulent votes in this contest are votes that were the byproduct of intimidation and threats. Fraudulent votes are invalid and cannot decide the outcome of an election and should always be invalidated.

This contest alleges violations in this and the previous SPLOST that obstructed voter’s ability to cast a vote free of intimidation and threats. Defendants Miller and Worthan held meetings, published newspaper and magazine articles where they threatened that if voters did not vote for the SPLOST a Federal Judge (Judge Marvin Shoob) and Federal Courts would make the county build a new jail and raise their property taxes.

When Defendants Worthan and Miller threatened and intimated voters, they imposed a violation that affected an essential electoral component, the right of suffrage or right to vote freely and of one’s own choice, a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized. Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691 (5^th Cir. 1981).

Under a “totality of the circumstances”  Defendants Miller and Worthan actions disenfranchised voters and changed the election’s outcome by holding public meetings, by publishing newspaper and magazine articles and by denying voters their right to vote freely of their own choice by threatening federal intervention and threatening to  raise  property taxes if voters did not  vote “yes” for the SPLOST. Voters are entitled to a do-over free of intimidation and coercion.

Defendant Miller is a stock holder in First Commerce Bank which in December 2008 was issued a cease and desist order by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for unsafe and/or unsound banking practices and violations of law and/or regulations.  It is believed by Contestant that SPLOST/Bond proceeds will be put in this bank, in whatever way, to keep it from failing. Contestant states a person who is the Sheriff with more than 30 years of law enforcement experience would have to be driven by some external factor to jeopardize his career and standing to illegally get a SPLOST vote passed. Contestant believes the potential failure of First Commerce Bank, where many county and city elected officials are heavily invested, is such a driving factor and this factor places them in desperate need for cash to keep their bank from failing and thereby losing at least part of their investments.

Contestant also states that several other stock holders in First Commerce Bank have been named to a “SPLOST Jail Authority Board” to oversee the SPLOST for building a jail.

Laurie Fulton as Elections Supervisor and the County Board of Elections failed to perform their duty to inform voters that because this was a city and county election at the same time, city voters and mail absentee voters would have to request and vote two separate ballots (one ballot for city issues and one ballot for county issues) and also that some voters would have to go to two precincts because not all city and county precincts are aligned. This could have caused some voters, especially city voters and mail absentee voters to not vote in the SPLOST election at all, even though they might have wanted to. After going to the Board of Elections Office to get a sample ballot, Tony Cain, a Douglas County property owner, saw there were two sample ballots – one for the city and one for the county. He then phoned Laurie Fulton who stated to him, after early voting had begun and after many mail absentee ballots had been mailed, that she would not inform city residents and city mail absentee voters they needed an additional county SPLOST ballot, nor would any signs be posted stating the need for two ballots for some voters. Immediately after that conversation Tony Cain called Contestant who called Wes Trailor of the Secretary of State Office to have Laurie Fulton, Elections Supervisor, place signs and inform voters, but this was after early voting had started and absentee ballots had been sent out.

After the election was held, but before certification, Tony Cain spoke with Laurie Marquez of the elections office who told Cain there were 107 counted mail absentee ballots with one challenged mail absentee ballot and that there could be more. Contestant asserts these 107 counted ballots could be enough to change the outcome of the SPLOST referendum election, which won by only 32 votes, if only 32 of the 107 mail absentee voters were city residents who did not receive and did not know to request the county SPLOST ballot. Contestant also asserts that if unknowing and uninformed city residents (Douglasville and Villa Rica) did not request a county SPLOST ballot, this also could have changed the outcome of the vote.

In an attempt to advocate the SPLOST and influence voters, Defendant Worthan, Douglas County Chairman, in the October 2009 Chapel Hill News and Views Magazine, on page 65, in his article “Chairman’s Corner”, makes two statements as facts for which he offers no proof: (1) a federal court ordered the county to build the current jail and (2) that a federal court order is soon forthcoming to build a new county jail. He states in the magazine:

“Please know that this is not a personal crusade. I don’t want to have to build a jail, but I don’t feel like we have much time left on the clock to build one before a Federal Court orders its construction. Older residents of our County may remember that is how and why we built the current jail. It was ordered by a Federal Court, we had to build it, and its cost was placed on the property owners of our County.”

In the next paragraph, Chairman Worthan expresses his opinion and advocates for the SPLOST passage based on non-county residents paying more than half the cost of the jail in sales taxes.

“That is why I like the SPLOST option. We have thousands of people travel to and through Douglas County every day, and they stop for gas, for a burger, for a shirt at the mall, or a tool from Home Depot or Lowe’s. Car counts at Arbor Place mall show that 13 out of 20 cars are from outside of Douglas County. These people can help us pay for the jail with these sales taxes on their purchases.”

The above statement was made purely and simply to deceive Douglas County voters into thinking shoppers from outside the county would pay more than half of the jail cost through sales taxes. This would, of course, influence them to vote yes for the SPLOST in lieu of higher property taxes.

An Open Records request was sent to Rebecca Hébert, Records Administrator for Douglas County Board of Commissioners, for Defendant Worthan to provide documentation to substantiate his claim that 13 out of 20 cars at Arbor Place Mall are from outside the county. A reply from the Defendant through Hebert states no official poll was ever taken and no records or documentation exist.

To further deceive Douglas County voters and in an attempt to influence them to vote ‘yes’ for the construction of a jail, in this same article Defendant Worthan fails to inform voters of the 120 million dollar general obligation bond to be issued immediately upon passage of a SPLOST, and of the interest that will have to be paid on this bond, all of which is ultimately backed by the county’s power of taxation on properties within the county. Throughout the article he writes only of the sales tax. Defendant Worthan’s opening sentence is: “The Douglas County Board of Commissioners is calling for a one-cent sales tax (SPLOST) referendum for Tuesday, November 3^rd. We are asking the citizens of Douglas County to vote to construct a jail/law enforcement center to serve the complete County, including the City of Douglasville. The anticipated amount of the SPLOST is $140 million, all of which is needed for this project.” In paragraph seven (7) he states: “The Board of Commissioners has schedule a vote for Tuesday, November 3^rd for you to consider adding one cent to the sales tax to build a new jail and law enforcement center. The SPLOST, if approved, will be for 6 years of $140 million, whichever comes first, so the sales tax can be removed early if the economy supports it.”  In paragraph twelve (12), Defendant Worthan states:”That is why I like the SPLOST option.” In paragraph thirteen (13), Defendant Worthan states: “sales taxes are also the fairest taxes, since those who spend less pay less, and vice versa.” In paragraph fourteen (14), Defendant states: “the SPLOST referendum is on the November 3^rd ballot.”

Defendants Worthan and Fulton allowed this magazine in the courthouse during early in person absentee voting. This magazine was placed in at least three public areas of the courthouse where voters could see, read and pick up a copy free of charge.

One area the magazine was available was at the first floor reception area of the office of the Douglas County Election Supervisor, Laurie Fulton, where voters could obtain city and county sample ballots in person. This is within 150 of a polling place.

Copies were also available at the main entrance and exit to the courthouse on the second floor by the doors.

Copies were also available on the third floor reception area of the Board of Commissioners office. More copies may have been available in other areas of the courthouse.

V.PLEADINGS

1. 63.

Under the “but for” pleading Contestant states “but for” Defendants Worthan and Miller threatening and intimidating voters to vote for the SPLOST passage by saying a federal judge would make the county build a new jail if voters did not vote for the SPLOST, which claims of federal intervention would necessitate raising property taxes to build a new jail, the election would have probably resulted in the SPLOST not passing as was the case in two previous attempts in 2006 and 2007 for a SPLOST to build a new jail.

Under the “uncertain outcome” pleading, the Contestant states that the impact of electoral fraud and conspiracy in the form of threatening and intimidating the voters caused the SPLOST passage by votes recorded that were fraudulently obtained and that “no reasonable certainty” exists that can show the passage of the SPLOST was not by anything but threats and intimidation that did taint and cloud the outcome, leaving the true outcome of the election uncertain.

VI. Conclusion

Georgia statutory law in O.C.G.A. 21-2 eg. seq., enumerates several specific grounds by which the results of an election can be contested so that, under certain circumstances, the election can be set aside and a new election held.

This Court should apply strict scrutiny in its function to seek the truth of this election. In Benson v Superior Court of Napa County, it was held that when an election contest is presented by an elector to a Court whose duty it is to investigate its merits, the statement should not be received in spirit of captiousness or put aside on mere technical objections designed to defeat the very search after truth that statutes intended to invite; public interests imperatively require that ultimate determination of election contest should, where possible, reach right of case. (Benson v Superior Court of Napa County (1963, 1st Dist) 214 Cal App 2d 551.) Thus, the Court should apply strict scrutiny in the search for the truth in order to make sure that the applicable requirements of Georgia election law are complied with before ratifying any election result as being the will of the voters.

Georgia SPLOST Law is very clear in reference to promoting the approval of a SPLOST. No organization has registered with the State Ethics Commission to engage in promoting the approval of the SPLOST. Two separate flyers / postcards were mailed to Douglas County voters and paid for by the committee to “Keep Douglas Safe” which included a letter of persuasion by Defendant Miller, using his title of Sheriff, to solicit “yes” votes for the SPLOST.  This is the same letter sent to the Sentinel Newspaper Editor from Defendant Miller telling voters a federal judge may force the county to build a new jail and implies the raising of property taxes to do so.

Here is some of what the flyer / letter said:

“Douglas County faces the very real prospect of eventual federal intervention at the jail.  It was a federal court order that forced Douglas County to build our current jail, in 1980, at increased tax expense to every homeowner in Douglas.  If that happens, County officials have no say in the design, capacity or expense of a new jail–they could order us to build a “Taj Mahal” and we would be forced to comply.  Federal mandates on jail procedures, and added expenses would come with these mandates.

I hope we do what is right for our community and our public safety employees by giving Douglas County the jail it is so desperately needs.

Phil Miller, Sheriff, Douglas County”

These are clear violations of O.C.G.A. 21-5-30 (b) which clearly states Georgia Law strictly prohibits governmental agencies from paying for advertisement, flyers, mailings or any other direct promotion in support of passage of the SPLOST. Harrission v. Rainey, 227 Ga. 240 (1971).

VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

This case arises out of significant and repeated violations of Georgia’s election laws by Defendant Phil Miller, as Sheriff and Tom Worthan as county Chairman. Those practices go to the heart of the integrity of the electoral process. The Court’s order must invalidate the November 3^rd, 2009 SPLOST/Bond Referendum election in the public interest and defend the accuracy of elections; without which, similar practices and acts by the Defendants will be repeated again in future elections as they have been in past elections.

The Relief Requested by the Contestants includes:

1.  A fair and impartial trial,

2.  This SPLOST/Bond election voided or annulled,

3.  A new election called for,

4.  Laurie Fulton removed as Election Supervisor,

5.  The Board of Elections ordered replaced, and

6.  Defendants Tom Worthan and Phil Miller removed from office and charged with Felony violations under applicable Georgia Law.

DATED: November ___, 2009

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

James Quarterman – Contestant Pro Se            4066 Hickory Hollow Drive                         Douglasville, Georgia 30135                     678) 715-1047

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

_________________________________________

JAMES QUARTERMAN, a qualified       §

registered voter under Georgia law  §

§

Contestant,                         §     CIVIL ACTION FILE

§ NO._______________

vs.                                             §

§

LAURIE FULTON in her individual     §     ELECTION CONTEST

and official      capacity as Election    § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Supervisor for Douglas County;      §   O.C.G.A. 21-2-526

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION §

MEMBERS (ROCHELLE ROBINSON, JOHN §

LAWRENCE, SPENCER HARDY, ARRON §

WALKER, SLYVANUS BURNEY) in their  §

official capacity as agents for     §

Douglas County; TOM WORTHAN, in     §

his official capacity as County     §

Chairman of Douglas County; PHIL §

MILLER in his official capacity as  §

Sheriff for Douglas County;         §

Douglas County Board of §

Commissioners §

§

Defendants                                §

__________________________________________

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

COMES NOW, Contestant James Quarterman ask this Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rules 6.7,  and O.C.G.A. 9-11-65(b) pending a hearing of the election contest petition because votes for the November 3^rd, 2009 SPLOST referendum were obtained by threat and intimidation of the voters by Defendants Sheriff Phil Miller and County Chairman Tom Worthan telling voters that if they did not vote for the SPLOST a federal judge would make the county build a new jail by raising property taxes. This is a felony violation under O.C.G.A. 21-2-567 and a direct violation of Georgia SPLOST Law (O.C.G.A. 48-8-110 eg. Seq.,) whereby county officials are strictly prohibited from promoting a SPLOST, and/or advocating how a person should vote.

Contestant further ask this Court because Laurie Fulton as Elections Supervisor and the Douglas County Board of Elections failed to do their duty in providing and giving voters the necessary ballots to vote in this election.

The Douglas County Board of Elections agreed for a fee to conduct the Municipal Elections for the City of Douglasville and City of Villa Rica in conjunction with a Special Election for the County SPLOST. Holding all these elections at the same time and where county and municipal precincts were not aligned, Contestant believes this required as many as seven (7) different ballots or more. Some voters were required to vote at multiple precincts. Contestant asserts these factors could easily have caused confusion in this election, causing some voters to not cast a vote for the SPLOST.

Laurie Fulton stated to Tony Cain, days into the election that she would not tell or inform voters of the need for multiple ballots unless requested to do so by the voter. She also stated to Cain that she did not send county SPLOST ballots to city mail absentee voters unless they requested a ballot. This automatically means that some city mail absentee voters were not given the opportunity to vote for the county SPLOST which is a violation of due process and equal protection under the Georgia Constitution. This is a serious infraction of Georgia Election Law since the SPLOST passed by only 32 votes.

It was only after Cain called Contestant and informed him of the confusion that Contestant called Wes Trailor, Georgia Election Director. Only after Trailor’s call did Mrs. Fulton post proper signage and only after Cain called Sentinel reporter Winston Jones that the Sentinel ran a newspaper article, days later, informing voters of all the different ballots and that some voters would have to go to two precincts to vote. However, Absentee Ballots had been mailed and In Person Absentee voting had already begun.

Contestant states the Board of Elections and Mrs. Fulton knew of these problems because according to O.C.G.A. 21-2-327 the election superintendent shall cause the proper ballot label to be placed on the voting machines at the time they are logic and accuracy tested and assigned to a precinct.

Therefore, it is apparent that all voters especially mail absentee voters did not receive the proper ballots and did not vote in some elections they were entitled to vote in. The county cannot disenfranchise voters and not give them all the proper ballots they are entitled to vote upon and voters cannot be expected to know of the mix up in precincts and ballots. Laurie Fulton stated city voters had to request a second county ballot, but the SPLOST was a county wide election to which city voters are automatically eligible to vote in and therefore they should have been given a ballot without having to ask – voters did not hold the election, the county did.

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. 9-6-24 the Contestant is interested in having the laws executed and the duty in question enforced; Contestant hereby moves this Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order immediately because under Georgia Law votes for the SPLOST passage were invalid and fraudulently obtained thereby making the SPLOST referendum passage void.

WHEREFORE, Contestant moves for a preliminary injunction asking this Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the county, the Defendants, their officers, agents and attorneys from taking, engaging or enforcing any action or activities that relates to issuing, calling for or participating in any event that will lead or cause the issuance of any Bond or Debt form the November 3^rd, 2009 SPLOST referendum vote until the election contest hearing can be held.

Preliminary injunctive relief should be granted because the Contestant has demonstrated: (1) a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of at least one of his claims; (2) that the contestant and other county voters will suffer irreparable harm to their rights as voters unless injunctive relief is granted; (3) that the threatened injury to the rights of the contestant and other county voters outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party (which is none); and (4) the grant of an injunction would not adversely affect the public interest. Warren Publ’g, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509, 1516 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983).

This motion is supported by the allegations listed in the Election Contest Petition filed with this motion.

Accordingly, the Contestant has averted to his state citizenship and residency in Douglas County in the affidavit filed in this complaint.

Respectfully Submitted, this ____ day of November, 2009.

______________________________________

James Quarterman – Contestant Pro Se            4066 Hickory Hollow Drive                         Douglasville, Georgia 30135                           (678) 715-1047

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

_________________________________________

JAMES QUARTERMAN, a qualified       §

registered voter under Georgia law  §

§

Contestant,                         §     CIVIL ACTION FILE

§ NO._______________

vs.                                             §

§

LAURIE FULTON in her individual     §     ELECTION CONTEST

and official      capacity as Election    § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Supervisor for Douglas County;      §   O.C.G.A. 21-2-526

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION §

MEMBERS (ROCHELLE ROBINSON, JOHN §

LAWRENCE, SPENCER HARDY, ARRON §

WALKER, SLYVANUS BURNEY) in their  §

official capacity as agents for     §

Douglas County; TOM WORTHAN, in     §

his official capacity as County     §

Chairman of Douglas County; PHIL §

MILLER in his official capacity as  §

Sheriff for Douglas County;         §

Douglas County Board of §

Commissioners §

§

Defendants                                §

__________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT and VERIFICATION

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF DOUGLAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day, personally appeared James Quarterman who first being duly sworn, deposed and states under oath that he is an aggrieved elector filing a Pro Se election contest petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order stating that November 3^rd, 2009 SPLOST referendum passage was obtain in violation of O.C.G.A 21-2-567 (threats and intimidation of voter to either vote for the SPLOST or the county would raise voter property taxes to build a new jail) and O.C.G.A. 48-8-110 (promoting and advocating which way a person should vote on a SPLOST).

These acts constitute a conspiracy pursuant to O.C.G.A. 21-2-603 where the Defendants Tom Worthan and Phil Miller conspired to commit a violation of Georgia Election Code, O.C.G.A. 21-2-567 by threatening and intimidating voters to vote for a SPLOST. Also, that a federal judge would make the county build a new jail and property taxes would be raised. County voters previously voted down the two previous SPLOST in 2006 and 2007 to build a new jail.

Immediate irreparable harm and injury will occur that will affect every resident of this county if the temporary restraining order is not granted because the county plans to issue a 120 million dollar general obligation bond so as to keep from waiting for SPLOST proceeds to come in, and if it is determined that the Defendants have violated the law, it will be too late to rescind the bond once it has been issued and the bond would have been issued against an illegally obtain SPLOST.

Contestant states that he is more than twenty-one (21) years of age and a U.S. Citizen residing at 4066 Hickory Hollow Drive, Douglasville Georgia, 30134, which is located in the County of Douglas, Georgia and he voted in the November 3, 2009 Douglas County election.

I, James Quarterman state and the facts alleged therein are true, that according to the best of my knowledge and belief the contest results of the November 3^rd, 2009 Douglas SPLOST Referendum election are illegal and the return thereof incorrect, and that the petition to contest the election is made in good faith.

Signature:

_______________________________________

James Quarterman

Sworn to and subscribed this _______ day of November, 2009.

(Notary Public)

My  Commission expires _______________________________

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

_________________________________________

JAMES QUARTERMAN, a qualified       §

registered voter under Georgia law  §

§

Contestant,                         §     CIVIL ACTION FILE

§ NO._______________

vs.                                             §

§

LAURIE FULTON in her individual     §     ELECTION CONTEST

and official      capacity as Election    § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Supervisor for Douglas County;      §   O.C.G.A. 21-2-526

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION §

MEMBERS (ROCHELLE ROBINSON, JOHN §

LAWRENCE, SPENCER HARDY, ARRON §

WALKER, SLYVANUS BURNEY) in their  §

official capacity as agents for     §

Douglas County; TOM WORTHAN, in     §

his official capacity as County     §

Chairman of Douglas County; PHIL §

MILLER in his official capacity as  §

Sheriff for Douglas County;         §

Douglas County Board of §

Commissioners §

§

Defendants                                §

__________________________________________

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

After considering the moving papers filed in this action, the court finds this is a proper cause for issuance of an ORDER to Show Cause.

IT IS SO ORDER THAT:

1. The Defendants appear before this Court at the date and time shown on the Rule Nisi t show cause why a preliminary injunction (namely a Temporary Restraining Order) should not be issued ENJOINING Defendants from engaging in or performing any events that will or could lead to the issuance of a 120 million dollar General Obligation Bond from the passage of a SPLOST Tax Imposition vote on November 3^rd, 2009.

1. Pending the hearing on the Order to Show Cause, Defendants, their agents, officers, employees, representatives, and all other person acting in concert or participating with them, be ENJOINED from engaging in activity that relates to issuing, calling for or participating in any event that will or could lead to a SPLOST General Obligation Bond issuance.

1. A copy of this complaint, declaration (s), and memorandum of points and authority, together with a copy of this Order to Show Cause, be served on Defendants at 8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, Georgia 30134, prior to hearing or no later than _______ days before hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED, that all service of writ, process, citations, orders or other instruments be served under O.C.G.A. 21-2-524 (f) service of process along with the election contest petition.

SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ____________, 2009, AT ___O’ CLOCK __.M.

_________________________________

Judge ________________________

_________________ County

Superior Court   

Prepared and Present By:

_________________________

James Quarterman – Contestant Pro Se

4066 Hickory Hollow Drive

Douglasville, Georgia 30135

(678) 715-1047

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

_________________________________________

JAMES QUARTERMAN, a qualified       §

registered voter under Georgia law  §

§

Contestant,                        §     CIVIL ACTION FILE

§ NO._______________

vs.                                             §

§

LAURIE FULTON in her individual     §     ELECTION CONTEST

and official      capacity as Election    § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Supervisor for Douglas County;      §   O.C.G.A. 21-2-526

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION §

MEMBERS (ROCHELLE ROBINSON, JOHN §

LAWRENCE, SPENCER HARDY, ARRON §

WALKER, SLYVANUS BURNEY) in their  §

official capacity as agents for     §

Douglas County; TOM WORTHAN, in     §

his official capacity as County     §

Chairman of Douglas County; PHIL §

MILLER in his official capacity as  §

Sheriff for Douglas County;         §

Douglas County Board of §

Commissioners §

§

Defendants                                §

__________________________________________

RULE NISI

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Contestant having filed his Election Contest Petition and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, it is hereby ORDERED and Contestant Motion will come before the Court for a hearing on the ______ day of ________________, 2009 at ______ o’clock ___.m. in the Superior Court of Douglas County, Douglas County Courthouse, Douglasville, Georgia.

So ordered this ___________ day of ___________, 2009.

______________________________________

Election Contest Presiding Judge

Superior Court Judge ______________________

Of ______________________ County

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

_________________________________________

JAMES QUARTERMAN, a qualified       §

registered voter under Georgia law  §

§

Contestant,                         §     CIVIL ACTION FILE

§ NO._______________

vs.                                             §

§

LAURIE FULTON in her individual     §     ELECTION CONTEST

and official      capacity as Election    § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Supervisor for Douglas County;      §   O.C.G.A. 21-2-526

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION §

MEMBERS (ROCHELLE ROBINSON, JOHN §

LAWRENCE, SPENCER HARDY, ARRON §

WALKER, SLYVANUS BURNEY) in their  §

official capacity as agents for     §

Douglas County; TOM WORTHAN, in     §

his official capacity as County     §

Chairman of Douglas County; PHIL §

MILLER in his official capacity as  §

Sheriff for Douglas County;         §

Douglas County Board of §

Commissioners §

§

Defendants                                §

__________________________________________

CONTESTANT’S MOTION FOR CHANE OF VENUE

COMES NOW, Contestant files this Motion for Change of Venue pursuant the Uniform Rules of the Superior Court, Rule 19.3.

This motion and the petition contesting the election are filed simultaneously alleging felony offenses against the County Sheriff and County Chairman threatening and intimidated voters (O.C.G.A 21-2-567) and conspiracy to commit election fraud (O.C.G.A. 21-2-603) and where funds from a general obligation bond from a SPLOST referendum may be deposited in First Commerce, where the Sheriff and several other elected officials are known stock holders, including Superior Court Judges, the Contestant will not be afforded meaningful access and a fair and impartial tribunal.

REASON FOR VENUE CHANGE

Contestant as a candidate for County Chairman on the November 2008 ballot has an election contest appeal pending in the Georgia Supreme Court (case # S09A1446). Oral Arguments were granted and heard on September 15, 2009.

The Contestant also filed a complaint in November 2008 with the State Election Board for election fraud and the State Election Board in August 2009 referred five of seven counts of election fraud against Douglas County to the Georgia Attorney General for fines and sanctions.

Contestant also has a case against the county pending in Federal Bankruptcy Court number 09-65818-MGD where from the 2006 SPLOST referendum contestant sued the county because the ballot called for the issuance of an 18 million dollar general obligation bond for the city where 80% of the voters in reside in the county and county voter cannot impose a debt on city voters. The SPLOST was voted down and later the Superior Court awarded the county some $70,000 in legal fees. Contestant and his wife filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy discharging all debt in June 2008.  The county was notified of the Bankruptcy proceeding by Attorney Karmel Davis but did not contest the Bankruptcy. When the county discovered the Supreme Court did not dismiss the election contest appeal as “moot”, they filed in Bankruptcy Court to have the case re-opened. According to County Commissioner Kelly Robinson, the county did this so Contestant could not hold office if the Supreme Court set aside the 2008 election and another election is held.

With the above circumstances, tied together with felony allegations against the county sheriff and chairman and bringing their bank which the FDIC has issued a cease and desist (possible failure) where judges and other elected official have deposits and investments, Contestant cannot and most probably will never be able to have a fair hearing on this matter in Douglas County and the Contestant has continually been denied due process of law within the Douglas County Judicial Circuit.

CONCLUSION

Contestant prays that the judge appointed to hear this contest will allow and grant his Motion for Change of Venue and have the case transferred so that both he and the voters of Douglas County can have availed justice. The Sheriff and Chairman have no right to threaten voters or coerce them in any way to vote for a SPLOST and threaten that a federal judge and federal courts will force the county build a jail and that our property taxes will be raised to do so. No federal court or judge has ever threatened such an action.

Submitted this ____ day of November, 2009.

______________________________________

James Quarterman – Contestant Pro Se            4066 Hickory Hollow Drive                         Douglasville, Georgia 30135                     (678) 715-1047

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

_________________________________________

JAMES QUARTERMAN, a qualified       §

registered voter under Georgia law  §

§

Contestant,                         §     CIVIL ACTION FILE

§ NO._______________

vs.                                             §

§

LAURIE FULTON in her individual     §     ELECTION CONTEST

and official      capacity as Election    § JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Supervisor for Douglas County;      §   O.C.G.A. 21-2-526

DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION §

MEMBERS (ROCHELLE ROBINSON, JOHN §

LAWRENCE, SPENCER HARDY, ARRON §

WALKER, SLYVANUS BURNEY) in their  §

official capacity as agents for     §

Douglas County; TOM WORTHAN, in     §

his official capacity as County     §

Chairman of Douglas County; PHIL §

MILLER in his official capacity as  §

Sheriff for Douglas County;         §

Douglas County Board of §

Commissioners §

§

Defendants                                §

__________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that an exact copy of this Election Contest Petition, Order to Show Cause and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order has been mailed to the Attorneys for the Defendants Ken Bernard, 8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, Georgia 30134 by First Class Mail with proper postage thereon. Respectfully Submitted, this 9^th day of November, 2009.

_______________________________________

James Quarterman – Contestant Pro Se

[2] It is also clear that states are entitled to broad leeway in enacting reasonable, even-handed legislation to ensure that elections are carried out in a fair and orderly manner. Weber v. Shelley, 347 F3d 1101, 1105 (II) (B) (9th Cir. 2003).

[3] Any person who uses or threatens to use force and violence, or in any other manner intimidates any other person, to (1) Vote or refrain from voting at any primary or election, or to vote or refrain from voting for or against any particular candidate or question submitted to electors at such primary or election; or shall be guilty of a felony…

[4] http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/research/programs/downloads/jailReports/JR200910.pdf

[5] “Because the protection provided in the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution is coextensive with that provided in Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II of the Georgia Constitution of 1983, we apply them as one. [Cits.]” Nodvin v. State Bar of Ga., 273 Ga. 559-560 (2) (544 SE2d 142) (2001). See also Grissom v. Gleason, 262 Ga. 374, 376 (2) (418 SE2d 27) (1992).

[6] When governmental action such as Defendant Miller and Worthan advocating to vote “yes” (for the SPLOST) infringes upon a fundamental right of the contestant and a suspect class (property owners) to vote freely or the threat that property taxes will be raised if they do not vote the way the Defendants want them to; is a violation of substantive due process or equal protection exist and the “strict scrutiny” test is applied instead of the “rational basis” test. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources v. Sweat, 276 Ga. 627, 628 (2), 630 (3) (580 SE2d 206) (2003).

[7] The United States Supreme Court has adopted a balancing test under the case of    Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).

A court considering a challenge to a state election law must weigh the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, taking into consideration the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiffs’ rights.

[8] Not only are acts of the General Assembly presumed constitutional, but “the authority of the Courts to declare them void, will never be resorted to . . . .” Brugman v. State, 255 Ga. 407, 414 (1986) (quoting Bartow County Bank v. Bartow Co. Bd. of Tax Assessors, 251 Ga. 831, 833 (1984))

[9] Contestant, as the parties “challenging the classification, [have] the responsibility of convincing the court that the classification has no rational basis. State of Ga. v. Heretic, 277 Ga. 275, 276 (1) (588 SE2d 224) (2003).

[10] A conspiracy is the combining of two or more persons for the purpose of doing something unlawful, oppressive, or immoral, as a means or an end.” Woodruff v. Hughes, 2 Ga. App. 361 (2) (58 SE 551

Last week Douglas County Tax Commissioner Todd Cowan expressed his concerns that tax collection was down due to bad economics times.

If taxes are not paid by midnight, 1 percent interest will be added each month the balance is not paid and a 10 percent penalty for 90 days past due.

Avoid long line by paying online at:

https://www.paybill.com/DouglasCounty/

Douglasville GA – November 13, 2009: A lawsuit was filed Thursday in the Douglas County Superior Court by Douglasville resident James Quarterman challenging the SPLOST/Bond referendum on the November 3^rd, 2009 ballot which passed by a margin of only 32 votes. The vote count was 3,918 yes votes and 3,886 no votes.

In the petition to the court, Quarterman alleges felony violations of Georgia Codes OCGA 21-2-567 (threatening and intimidating voters) and OCGA 21-2-603 (Conspiracy to commit election fraud) and OCGA 48-8-110 (advocating and expressing an opinion of how voters should vote for SPLOST). Among the accused are Douglas County Sheriff Phil Miller and County Commissioner Tom Worthan.

The petition asks for a jury trial to have Miller and Worthan tried on felony violations of laws and removed from office and a new SPLOST election held. Quarterman is also seeking to move the case outside the county due to alleged conflicts of interest by Douglas County judges.

James Quarterman is well known to the Douglas County court system after filing several recent lawsuits on the public’s behalf. In 2008, Quarterman, who ran for commission chairman and sheriff candidate Derrick T. Broughton filed a suit challenging the results of the election that resulted in a state Inspector General’s that alleges violation of state election laws by the Douglas County Board of Elections and Elections Superintendent/Chief Register Laurie D. Fulton and a pending state Supreme Court decision is expected by January.

The petition concludes, “All of the votes counted in the SPLOST referendum are illegal because they were obtained by threat and intimidation, a violation of O.C.G.A 21-2-567. Phil Miller as Sheriff and Tom Worthan as the County Chairman threaten and intimidated the voters to get a SPLOST passed because voters had voted down two previous SPLOST attempts to build a new jail.”

“The evidence will show Douglas County officials threatened and intimidated voters with higher property tax and federal court intervention if voters did not pass the referendum”, said Quarterman. “Douglas County officials stepped over the line by advocating the passage of the referendum.”

The suit also alleges city voters were disenfranchised by having to drive to 2 different voting locations to vote on both city and county ballots and that some absentee city voters never received the county SPLOST ballot.

The SPLOST/Bond question was for a one percent, six year sales tax to raise $150 million and a $120 million general obligation bond to finance the construction of a new prison along Interstate 20 and Highway 92 Fairburn Rd in downtown Douglasville.

Two previous SPLOST failed in 2006 and 2007.

Here is what the Sentinel had to say:

Suit filed against SPLOST vote

by Winston Jones/Sentinel

James Quarterman has filed a lawsuit in Douglas County Superior Court challenging the legality of the Nov. 3 special purpose local option sales tax (SPLOST) referendum to build a new jail, claiming voters were “intimidated” into voting “yes” by speeches, writings and phone calls from the sheriff and county commission chairman.

Quarterman’s civil action, filed Thursday, lists the defendants as Laurie Fulton, election supervisor; Rochell Robinson, John Lawrence, Spencer Hardy, Aaron Walker and Slyvanus Burney, members of the Board of Election; Tom Worthan, commission chairman; Phil Miller, sheriff; and Douglas County Board of Commissioners.

The suit requests a jury trial and asks for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to prevent the issuance of $120 million in general obligation bonds until a hearing can determine if the special purpose local option sales tax (SPLOST) referendum vote was legal.

A hearing date has not been set.

“We have yet to be served and we have no comment on threatened or pending litigation,” Wes Tallon, county communications and community relations director, said in a written statement released Friday afternoon. “We’ll review the suit, if and when properly served, and will take appropriate action in the courts on behalf of the citizens of Douglas County at the appropriate time.”

Quarterman’s suit alleges, “Under a ‘totality of the circumstances,’ Defendants Miller and Worthan actions disenfranchised voters and changed the election’s outcome by holding public meetings, by publishing newspaper and magazine articles and by denying voters their right to vote freely of their own choice by threatening federal intervention and threatening to raise property taxes if voters did not vote ‘yes’ for the SPLOST. Voters are entitled to a do-over free of intimidation and coercion.”

He also charges that Fulton, in her job as election supervisor, failed to inform voters that because it was a city and county election at the same time, that they had to request and vote on two separate ballots.

Quarterman further claims that Miller and Worthan “manipulated” inmate jail figures and threatened possible action by federal judges “to panic voters to vote ‘yes’ for SPLOST, so as to avoid a threatened property tax increase.”

Quarterman also filed for a change of venue in the case, claiming the sheriff and several other elected county officials, including Superior Court judges, have stock in the bank where bond funds will be deposited. He maintains that, because of this, he will not be “afforded meaningful access and a fair and impartial tribunal.”

This Blog will provide local news, views,  information and opinion that you may find interesting and unavailable from other sources.

From government issues to community affairs The Douglas County Journal mission is to provide you with a alternative source of information.

The Douglas County Journal is a project of James Bell, 50, a life long resident of Douglas County and a community activists.

We welcome your contribution of news, opinion and photos of events and happenings around Douglas County.

Email us at:  jb@douglastaxes.com

Warning: This is a free speech zone. We welcome your thoughts. The editors reserves the right to remove or edit any post they feel is inappropriate.