Catoosa Superior SUCV2022000346 Complaint

CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
CATOOSA COUNTY, GEORGIA

SUCV2022000346
MAY 09, 2022 03:31 PM
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CATOOSA COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
GEORGE BATTERSBY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Civil Action File No.
)
) __________________
STEVEN M. HENRY )
In his individual and official capacity as )
Chairman of Catoosa County Board of )
Commissioners, )
JEFF LONG )
In his individual and official capacity as )
Commissioner of District 1 of Catoosa )
County Board of Commissioners, )
And THOMAS HARRIS, )
in his individual and official )
Capacity as a law enforcement officer, )
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, George Battersby (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and files
this Complaint, showing the Court as follows:
1.
Defendant STEVEN M. HENRY (“Defendant Henry”) is one of the persons
who is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and individually harmed
Plaintiff in this manner, and was the Chairman of the Catoosa County Board of
Page 1 of 14
Commissioners during the acts alleged herein, and he may be served at 42 Kifaru
Lane, Ringgold, GA 30736.
2.
Defendant JEFF LONG (“Defendant Long”) is one of the persons who is
subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and individually harmed Plaintiff in
this manner, and was the Commissioner of District 1 of the Catoosa County Board of
Commissioners during the acts alleged herein, and he may be served at 202 Shelby
Street, Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30742.
3.
Defendant THOMAS HARRIS (“Defendant Harris”) is the government
employee, believed to be a sheriff’s deputy or law enforcement officer, who is
subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court and individually harmed Plaintiff in
this manner by following Steven Henry’s unlawful orders to have Plaintiff removed
and acting under color of law. He may be served at the Catoosa County Sheriff’s
Department at 5842 US-41 Ringgold, Georgia, 30736.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND FOR CLAIMS
4.
Plaintiff is a resident of Catoosa County and was present at a Catoosa County
Board of Commissioners meeting (“Board meeting”) on May 4, 2021.
Page 2 of 14
5.
A transcript of the audio recording of the Board Meeting is attached and
hereby incorporated as Exhibit A.
6.
Defendants have not provided the video recording of the meeting, despite it
existing and having been requested through an Open Records Act request.
7.
Defendant Steven Henry was present and serving as the Chairman of the
Catoosa County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”) at the Board meeting on
May 4, 2021.
8.
Defendant Jeff Long was present and serving as the Commissioner for District
1 of the Board at the Board meeting on May 4, 2021.
9.
Also present and serving on the Board at the May 4, 2021 Board meeting were
the other county commissioners.
10.
Plaintiff stood up to speak to the Board at the time delegated for public
participation where members of the public are permitted to address the Board.
Page 3 of 14
11.
Plaintiff began detailing a factual background of past participations and
discourse between the Board and the public at prior meetings and on prior issues.
12.
Plaintiff began speaking regarding Defendant Steven Henry’s campaign
donations, “friend and business partner” and campaign donor when he was
interrupted by Defendant Henry.
13.
Defendant Henry stated that he was “going to go ahead and stop [Plaintiff]”
from speaking (due to the content of his speech) and alleged that Plaintiff was lying
about the facts stated while addressing the Board.
14.
Defendant Henry stated that the public building in which the Board meeting
was held belonged to him, by stating that the public room was “my room,” meaning
Defendant Steven Henry’s.
15.
Defendant Henry then proceeded to call Plaintiff a “liar” and threatened to
have him escorted out of the meeting.
16.
Page 4 of 14
Defendant Henry then directed Defendant Harris to “take [Plaintiff] out” of the
meeting, to which Defendant Harris complied.
17.
Plaintiff was then unlawfully seized and forced to leave a public hearing
without the opportunity to address the Board fully with his grievances.
18.
The Board then concluded the meeting immediately upon Plaintiff’s removal.
19.
Approximately one week after the meeting, Defendant Henry appeared on a
local cable show called “Night Talk” on UCTV.
20.
On this show, Defendant Henry proudly stated that the Board would “do the
same thing again” if Plaintiff spoke again at a meeting and stated facts with which
Defendant Henry disagreed.
21.
Co-host of Night Talk, Linda O’Neal (“O’Neal”), stated that two women
frequently attend and speak out at Board meetings and are not escorted out like
Plaintiff.
22.
Page 5 of 14
Defendant Henry stated on the show that he feels that he “owe[s] an apology
for not putting a stop to [Plaintiff speaking] five years ago.”
23.
A gentleman who is presently unknown called into Night Talk and alleged
Defendant Long asked the County attorneys to figure out a way to prevent Plaintiff
from coming to meetings in the future.
24.
A gentleman by the name of Greg Bentley then called into Night Talk and
stated that Defendant Long indeed inquired of the County attorney whether the Board
could keep Plaintiff from attending meetings.
25.
Defendant Long called into Night Talk and admitted to asking the County
attorney whether Plaintiff could be barred from future meetings.
26.
During his call, Defendant Long named Plaintiff by name when admitting to
inquiring of the attorneys whether the Board could stop Plaintiff from coming to
meetings.
27.
When O’Neal asked whether the Board could stop Plaintiff coming from
Page 6 of 14
meetings, Defendant Henry responded with the statement: “If you got three votes,
you can do anything.”
28.
Before hanging up with the show, Defendant Long alleged that Plaintiff was
only looking for “five minutes of fame” and to “[put] on a show for Facebook world
and TV world.”
42. U.S. CODE § 1983 CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS
29.
Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.
30.
Plaintiff’s civil rights protected under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 were violated by
Defendants, wherefore Plaintiff is entitled to bring this cause of action against
Defendants.
42. U.S. CODE § 1983 : FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND
CHILLING CLAIM
31.
32.
Pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Plaintiff is
Page 7 of 14
entitled to exercise freedom of expression, peaceable assembly, and to address the
government for a redress of grievances.
33.
Plaintiff was unlawfully seized and removed from the Catoosa County Board
meeting by Defendant Harris and at the direction of Defendant Henry, in direct
retaliation for Plaintiff’s expression of protected speech under the First Amendment.
34.
Plaintiff was not provided a citation of any rule or law he had broken during
his time addressing the Board.
35.
Plaintiff committed no expression of unprotected speech, such as fighting
words or other types of unlawful threats.
36.
Defendants failed to state that Plaintiff violated any reasonable policies in
place during her expression of protected speech at the May 4, 2021 Board meeting.
37.
Defendants’ Henry and Long’s practice, arising to the level of a policy or
procedure of Catoosa County, directly caused Plaintiff’s rights to be violated.
38.
Page 8 of 14
Defendants retailed against Plaintiff, and attempted to chill speech, by
arbitrarily deeming Plaintiff’s protected speech as “lies” and repeatedly called him a
“liar”, then using his power, under color of law, to unlawfully order Plaintiff
removed from a public meeting for engaging in protected speech.
39.
Defendant Long colluded and conspired with Defendant Henry in retaliating
against Plaintiff, and attempted to chill speech, by inquiring of the County attorney to
look for ways to prevent Plaintiff from attending and/or speaking at future meetings.
Furthermore, as policy makers for Catoosa County, Georgia, Defendants Long and
Henry abused their constitutional authority by attempting to deprive Plaintiff of his
rights now and in the future.
40.
Defendant Henry, in addition to retaliating against Plaintiff for speech
Defendant Henry did not like, used his position to insinuate to others in the
community that people should not speak or address the Board with criticisms of
government. Overall, Defendant Henry prevented Plaintiff from exercising free
speech, retaliated against Plaintiff by using government power to remove him from a
public meeting, and chilled Plaintiff’s current and future speech by making it clear
that those speaking against Defendant Henry or other government officials would be
Page 9 of 14
detained and removed by force, using law enforcement.
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAIM
41.
42.
By removing Plaintiff from the meeting without citing to any rule, policy or
law in which he allegedly violated, as well as inquiring of ways to prevent Plaintiff
from attending future meetings, Defendants engaged in an unlawful deprivation of
Plaintiff’s due process rights by enforcing a non-existent and non-promulgated law
on Plaintiff.
STATE LAW CLAIMS: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

SPEECH UNDER THE GEORGIA CONSTITUTION, ART. I, SEC. I, PARA.
V; BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
43.
Plaintiff incorporates all proceeding paragraphs.
44.
Defendants’ removal of Plaintiff at the Board meeting unjustifiably violates
his rights of freedom of expression and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances under the Georgia Constitution.
45.
Page 10 of 14
Defendants’ physical contact with Plaintiff without his consent in order to
remove him from the meeting constitutes battery.
46.
Defendants’ restricting Plaintiff’s freedom of movement and intention to
confine him for the purposes of redirecting him to a separate location from the Board
meeting constitutes false imprisonment.
47.
Defendants’ intentional and malicious actions caused Plaintiff harm, and
entitles Plaintiff to damages, including but not limited to punitive damages.
DEFAMATION
48.
Defendant Henry calling Plaintiff a “liar” or “ball-faced liar” and accusing him
of lying on the record in a public meeting publicly defamed Plaintiff’s character.
49.
Defendant Henry republished that mischaracterization of Plaintiff
approximately one week later when he accused Plaintiff of lying on Night Talk.
50.
Defendant Long insinuating on a local cable show that Plaintiff only sought
“five minutes of fame” over his engagement in protected speech, rather than
Page 11 of 14
exercising his rights as a concerned citizen, publicly defamed Plaintiff’s character.
51.
Defendants’ intentional and malicious actions caused Plaintiff harm, and
entitles Plaintiff to damages, including but not limited to punitive damages.
NEGLIGENCE
52.
Defendants’ conduct breached their legal duties under numerous laws,
including the open records act, the Georgia constitution, and public policies of
Catoosa County, which damaged Plaintiff.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
53.
All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein.
54.
The actions of Defendants, as set forth above, show intentional and willful
misconduct, wantonness, and that entire want of care which raises the presumption of
a conscious indifference to the consequences of their actions. Accordingly, Plaintiff
seeks punitive damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1 and Federal law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
(a) That Summons issue requiring Defendants to be and appear in this
Page 12 of 14
Court within the time provided by law to answer this Complaint;
(b) That Plaintiff receive a Jury Trial;
(c) That Plaintiff receive favorable Judgment against Defendants for
Compensatory Damages, General Damages, and Pain and Suffering as
provided by law;
(d) That Plaintiff be awarded Punitive Damages and Attorney’s Fees as
provided by law including but not limited to pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988;
(e) That Plaintiff be awarded an declaratory and injunctive relief, declaring
that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and enjoining
them from preventing public comment criticizing government officials
in the future; and,
(h) That Plaintiff have such other additional relief as the Court may
consider equitable and/or appropriate, given the circumstances of this
case.
Respectfully Submitted, this 9th day of May, 2022.
/s/ Jordan Johnson

Jordan Johnson
Georgia State Bar No. 673643
Page 13 of 14
Jessica Burton
Georgia State Bar No. 916253
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Bernard & Johnson, LLC
5 Dunwoody Park
Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30338
404.477.4755
404.592.9089 (Fax)
Alex@Justice.Law
Jessica@Justice.Law
Page 14 of 14
EXHIBIT A
This transcript was exported on Apr 26, 2022 - view latest version here.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Father Lord, we thank you for this opportunity to be here tonight. Lord, please put your hand on our
county, Lord, and be with us. And I pray you keep the blessings coming Lord. And I pray you'll just take
care of our people and keep us all safe. And the souls, may hear you Lord. And I pray that you'll help us
and guide us. I pray, Lord. Amen.
Group (00:26):
Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it
stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Thank you.
Steven Henry (00:43):

All right. Call the roll, please.
Secretary (00:44):
Mr. Stephens?
Charlie Stephens (00:44):

Here.
Secretary (00:44):
Mr. Hullander?
Vanita Hullander (00:44):

Here.
Secretary (00:44):
Chairman Henry?

Here.
Secretary (00:45):
Mr. Harris?
Chuck Harris (00:46):

Here.
Secretary (00:46):
Mr. Long?
5-4-2021 (Completed 04/25/22) Page 1 of 18

Transcript by Rev.com
Jeff Long (00:46):

Here.

Are there any items to add or remove from the agenda that you all know of? Have a motion to approve
as is.
Jeff Long (01:03):

Make a motion to approve.

Second.

All in favor of approving the agenda say aye.
Group (01:03):
Aye.

Is approved. Get a motion to approve the minutes from the April 20th and April 27th meeting, please.

Motion.

Second.

All in favor of approving say aye.
Group (01:20):
Aye.

Yep. At this time, we have a proclamation for the National Day of Prayer. Please come on that.

Yes sir. Mr. Chairman. A proclamation establishing National Day of Prayer in Catoosa County, whereas
the National Day of Prayer has a long history in the United States. As the Continental Congress directed
that a day of prayer be observed in 1775 as a time for prayer in forming a new nation. And whereas,
President John Adams declared May 9, 1789 as the day of prayer, as a day of solemn humiliation,

fasting, and prayer during the citizens of all faiths were asked to pray that our country may be protected
from all dangers, which threatened it.

And whereas, Harry Truman signed a bill on April 17th, 1953 for claiming National Day of Prayer into law
in the United States of America. And whereas, President Ronald Reagan in 1988, amended the law by
designating the first Tuesday in May of each year as the National Day of Prayer. And whereas, the law
requires that the President of the United States issue a proclamation each year designating the first
Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God
in prayer and mediation at churches, groups, and individually.

And whereas, the National Day of Prayer is a time for people of all faiths and beliefs to pray together in
their own way for deities guidance to the seven centers of power, government, military, media,
business, education, religious establishments, and family. And whereas, a National Day of Prayer's
mission is to communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer to
intercede for the United States of America. And whereas, a National Day of Prayer is not limited to any
particular region, religion, but is universal in its application to all religions practiced in the United States
of America.

And whereas, the Board of Commissioners of Catoosa County, Georgia, the governing authority of
Catoosa County, desires to establish A National Day of Prayer as a time when citizens of Catoosa County
of all faiths and beliefs may pray for the United States, the State of Georgia, Catoosa County, our men
and women in uniform who bravely defend it, our law enforcement officers, our firemen, and all those
who serve to protect the lives and property of the citizens that they may be protected from all dangers,
which threaten.

And whereas, in this perilous time of terrorist attacks, wars, national calamities, the United States of
America, the State of Georgia, and Catoosa County observe the National Day of Prayer as a fitting
acknowledgement of our nation's religious history and tolerance of all religions and beliefs. Now,
therefore, be it resolved and ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Catoosa County, that the
citizens of Catoosa County may observe the National Day of Prayer on the first Thursday of May 2021 as
a day of prayer and meditation.

Be it further resolved and ordained that the citizens of Catoosa County may on the National Day of
Prayer, set aside a time for prayer and mediation in solemn humiliation that the United States of
America, the great State of Georgia, and Catoosa County may be protected from all dangers which
threaten from within and without. Be it further resolved and ordained that on the National Day of
Prayer, the citizens of Catoosa County may give homage, and honor, and prayer, for protection of
residents of Catoosa County serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, serving as sheriffs,
deputies, police officers, firemen, and emergency medical profession, who serve to protect our lives and
property.


Be it further resolved and ordained that a copy of this resolution be spread upon the minutes of Catoosa
County that this written proclamation issue for publication whereby Catoosa County commemorates a
National Day of Prayer in the year of our Lord 2021. So, resolved and ordained this fourth day of May
2021, Catoosa County Board of Commissioners by Steven M. Henry, Chairman, attests Melissa N.
Hannah clerk.

Thank you. We will be observing that at 12 o'clock on Thursday at the courthouse. First item we have.
Steve Quinn, come on up.
Steve Quinn (07:02):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every five years, we are required to do a hazard mitigation plan update. We
have already applied for and been awarded that grant. This item tonight is for a contract with North
Georgia Consulting Group to facilitate that grant update.

Can I have a motion to approve?

So, moved.

Second.

You all have any questions for Steve that we didn't already answer in the work session? All in favor of
approving, say aye.
Group (07:29):
Aye.

Thank you, Steve.
Steve Quinn (07:39):

Thank you.

Anne Caine.
Anne Caine (07:40):

Chairman, commissioners. I'm here this evening to ask you all to approve the insurance renewal with
Cigna. I've attached a one page review. Then also, a more in-depth review of the changes. It's going to
have very little impact on any premiums that we have. So, just asking you to approve it.

Can I have a motion to approve?

Motion.

Second.

Have you all got any questions for Anne that we didn't already ask? All in favor of approving, say aye.
Group (08:07):
Aye.

Thank you, Anne.
Anne Caine (08:08):

Thank you.

Thank you for all your hard work on that as well. All of you. Come on up. Can't even wait for me to call
your name. It's okay.
Speaker 11 (08:21):
I knew it. So, this is for the proposed approval of a contractor agreement between Catoosa County Parks
and Recreation Department and GGLeagues. GGLeagues is an independent contractor that will provide
Catoosa County Parks and Recreation Department with services to run and manage a recreational
Esports league. The partner setup fee is 499. And that'll be paid through the recreational general fund.
So, I didn't answer a question of Charlie's during our first meeting. But to explain it, I realized I didn't
explain it well. This is a program that can be done from kids while they're at home. So, it won't be
facilitated at a Catoosa County facility. So, it's opportunity just to get kids involved easily.

And we'll get part of the proceeds?
Speaker 11 (09:09):
Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah. So, we get to reap the benefits without having to run the actual program.


Do we have a motion to approve?

So, moved.
Jeff Long (09:19):

I second.

Second.

You all have any questions?

Do we know what the cost is going to be to families to sign their kids up?
Speaker 11 (09:26):
$35.

Okay.
Speaker 11 (09:27):
And so, it's a $35 registration fee. And it's a five to six week program. And we don't know what day that
would actually fall, the competition. But that's something we'll work out, and get pushed out to schools
whenever we have it settled.

I meant to ask that earlier. That's yeah, the main thing is I was just concerned. I didn't want us to be part
of somebody-
Speaker 11 (09:50):
Right. So, the reason we picked to go with this group is their funds match the motto that we go by, is
affordable and quality. And so, I think that we'll get that with GGLeagues.

And you said this is occurring nationwide?
Speaker 11 (10:05):

Yes. So, it's actually, Esports is a GHSA sanctioned I guess sport now. It's starting to become a really large
sport. It's hard to imagine video games being a sport. But kids are actually getting college scholarships.
So, it's a-
Jeff Long (10:24):

Would homeschool children be available also?
Speaker 11 (10:26):
Oh, yeah. So, the requirements are if you have the required gaming system, and then if you have
Internet connection, then you're able to participate.
Jeff Long (10:38):

Thank you.
Speaker 11 (10:38):
Okay.

All in favor of approving, say aye.
Group (10:40):
Aye.
Speaker 11 (10:47):
Thank you.

Ron Brackett.
Ron Brackett (10:53):

Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I'm here to propose the animal control entrance gate. The animal control
facility, the new gate with operating openers. The amount's $24,362. We had one bid from River City
Fence Company. We put it out twice. Didn't get a bid the first time. And we only got one the second
time.

Okay. Can I get a motion to approve?

Motion.

Second.


You all have any questions that we haven't already asked? All in favor of approving, say aye.
Group (11:23):
Aye.
Ron Brackett (11:24):

Thank you.

Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown (11:33):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. This is Justice Building leak remediation, exterior wall project.
It was advertised twice on March the 17th and 31st. Pre-bid meeting was held on April the 6th. Bid
documents were received on the 15th. The county received three bids. The lowest responsible bidder
was Innovation Roofing Company for $317,300.

Okay. Do I have a motion to approve?

So, moved.

Second.

Do we have any questions that we haven't already asked?

And so, you said in work session that funds left over from the courthouse renovation funds that we're
going to use them?

Yes.

Okay. This needs to be done. I mean, I'm happy to see it getting fixed. I'm sure everybody in the
courthouse is too.

All in favor, say aye.

Group (12:32):
Aye.

Thank you, both. Chad.
Chad (12:43):
Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I'm presenting this proposed agreement on behalf of our State Court
Solicitor, Doug Woodruff, who prosecutes misdemeanors in state court. From time to time, especially
during the COVID backlog, cases have backup. And he needs the assistance of another attorney to help
him with his prosecution of misdemeanors. He doesn't have an assistance solicitor.
Chad (13:08):
So, instead of hiring additional personnel, he has contracts with local attorneys on an as needed basis to
assist him in court at the flat rate of $350 per day. The proposed contract before you now would be with
local attorney, Hannah Stokes. It would be within the Solicitor's budget that's already approved by the
board. And he would just utilize Ms. Stokes on an as needed basis to help more efficiently get the cases
through the court system.

Do I have a motion to approve?

I make a motion to approve.

Second.

Do we have any questions for Chad that we haven't already asked? All in favor of approving, say aye.
Group (13:49):
Aye.

Okay. Carol.
Carol (14:00):
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My first item is proposed approval of invoices for some
paving projects. According to Georgia State law, materials for road paving, when it's in-house paving,
aren't required to be bid out. But based on our purchasing policy, there are certain dollar limits that we
have certain thresholds.
Carol (14:23):

Therefore, we're bringing before you various invoices for asphalt that were related to our in-house
paving, as well as a little bit of paving that we did at some fuel pumps at the jail. And so, total amount,
around 444,000 for the capital projects fund for the in-house paving. Those were, like I said, individual
invoices that were over 15,000. And then around 53,000 for the paving. Or, I'm sorry, for the jail fuel
paving.

Yeah, project. Yeah. Can I have a motion to approve?

I make a motion we approve.

Second.

You all have any questions for Carol?
Jeff Long (15:05):

This is stuff we've already took care of. And then we got a second wave, am I right?
Carol (15:10):
Correct. These paving projects have been completed. And then they're working on, like you said,
another section of the county I believe.

All in favor of approving that?
Group (15:20):
Aye.

And Carol.
Carol (15:24):
Yes, sir. The second one is a budget amendment, stumbled over my words, budget amendment number
three for this fiscal year. This is a hodgepodge of some different things that have been going on.
Obviously, I'm sure you remember last time budget amendment number two was related to the call in
the pay classification plan. This is just a mixture of different things. Some things, for instance, going on
at the senior center, various government operations that have needed to change and adapt during the
fiscal year.
Carol (15:56):

The good news is it's a net effect of zero on the funds. So, the revenue increase and the expenditure
increase on the general fund side, $376,787. And then a small amount for the State Library fund, $2,202.
Again, it's a net zero. And the capital fund, of which we were just speaking, that's a net effect of zero as
well. It's just moving some money out of what we had in a contingency project into the various projects
that were actually done.

Okay. Do I have a motion to approve?

Motion.

I second.

Do you have any questions for Carol? All in favor of approving, say aye.
Group (16:37):
Aye.

Next, Carol. Op related.
Carol (16:42):
Yes. So, this third one, commissioners, is to approve an additional fee of $850 related to the audit. At
the time that the audit engagement was approved, the auditors based, because the federal government
had not released all of the requirements for the Cares Act audit, they could not gauge at the time how
much extra work they might need to do related to the Cares Act. But it turns out, it's only $850. So, since
it was an original contract with the auditors, we knew we needed to bring it before the board like a
change order. So, we're just asking your approval.

Do I have a motion to approve?
Jeff Long (17:21):

I make a motion we approve.

Second.

Questions? All in favor of approving, say aye.

Group (17:27):
Aye.

Carol, thank you so much for the audit. I know that's a lot of work.
Carol (17:33):
Well, the staff works very hard.

Well, you all do. Thank you. You've got one more item, I believe.
Carol (17:40):
Yes, sir. The revenue report. So, another good month, the month of April. Lost receipts, $864,116. That's
more than prior year by about 28%. And more than prior month by about 26%. So far, for the first seven
months of fiscal year '21, $5,386,019. And that's $226,000 over budget. SPLOST receipts. We're now in
the 21st month of collections.
Carol (18:09):
The receipts countywide, $1,233,395. And that's more than prior year by about 28%. More than prior
month by about 26%. And to date, we've received $22,604,493. I think it's nice to note that our
collections have been over, other than, I'm not sure which month it was, other than one month since
last June. Our collections every month and SPLOST collections have been over a million dollars. So, we're
above projections.

Thanks. Good. Any commissioner comments? All right. No appearance?
Secretary (18:58):
I don't think so.

Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. I just went out of order. Mr. Battersby. Apologies.
George Battersby (19:10):

Thank you.

Start your timer.
Speaker 17 (19:12):
[inaudible 00:19:12] hang on a second.


All right. Been quiet for the last month. So, I guess I need to wind it up again. In the last month, I've seen
the Board of Commissioners ignore the will of the people of the Wooten Road area. 30 people from that
area attended a meeting with over 100 names on a petition because of the traffic safety concern they
had. One commissioner said he was always going to rule with the property owners selling the property,
which is the same thing as saying he's always going to vote for the developers. I gave my opinion on
commissioners' lack of mask wearing during the pandemic, and some questionable photo ops.

This was my opinion. My opinion. And got lambasted by the county clerk by name. Not sure if she was
speaking under commissioner comments or public appearances. If so, the rules were broken. She never
signed the form. And then Mr. Long suggested they need to talk to legal to try and get me barred from
speaking, which was an amazing statement in itself. Only Jeff Long would make a statement like that.
Next meeting when a friend and business partner of Mr. Henry, and also his biggest donor to his political
campaign, came before the commission to get a variance change in the vineyard subdivision-

Actually, I'm going ahead and stop you because I don't want you to sit up there and lie. So, if you want
to, if you got [crosstalk 00:20:45]-

I was at the meeting.

Sir. No, you stop.

No, I'm not. This is my [crosstalk 00:20:48] five minutes.

This is my room. And you cannot get up here [crosstalk 00:20:52] blast other people.

Is this my five minutes?

He is not my biggest donor.

You hate to hear the truth.

No, you're a liar. I mean, you're a bold-faced liar. Everybody [crosstalk 00:21:00]-


What is a lie about this?

... knows it.

What is a lie about this?

Oh, my campaign [crosstalk 00:21:03]-

You're involved with the vineyards. The gentleman here-

You said he was my-

... is your biggest-

... biggest donor.

Is your biggest campaign contributor.

Stick to topics that do with the county.

This is my topic. This is-

Or, I'm going to have you escorted out.

Well, you may have me escorted out. But this-

I may have you escorted out.

You are afraid because this is the truth-

Stay, I'm not afraid of nothing [crosstalk 00:21:20]-

It is corruption. And that's what I'm after.

If you want to talk about county business, please [crosstalk 00:21:26]-

This is county business.

... continue on. If you want to [crosstalk 00:21:27]-

Corruption that's part of the-

... make allegations-

... county. It's county business.

... and lies, you're going to leave. Pick. You choose.

No. You're not going to lay down what I speak about. This is my First Amendment right. And-

And we have rules that you can't pick [crosstalk 00:21:41]-

I have the rules in my back pocket.

Learn the rules.

Tell me, tell me, tell me. Tell me what rule I broke.


You either [crosstalk 00:21:47]-

Tell me what rule I broke. The rules are very simple.

You're not going to sit up there and lie, sir.

I'm not lying.

You are.

I am not lying. But they-

If you want to talk-

... don't want to believe it.

... about county business-

Don't have to believe it.

You're more than welcome to, sir. Otherwise, you're going to stop because frankly-

Yeah.

... everybody's tired of it.

No. You may be tired of it.

Oh, I'm not the only one.

In regards to the recent abrupt and bizarre exit of the county manager and the circumstances in which
he left, I would expect-

He's [crosstalk 00:22:19]-

... internal forensic audit be performed by a totally independent entity with Rachel Clark making the
decision. Along with the audit, would like to see an industrial engineering company perform a work
study. And see how heavy we are with employees in the admin building. Looking at salaries, and see
how fair our pay rates are in this area. And make sure we are not overpaying.

Lastly, last, I would like to thank Jeff Mullis for providing the new county manager to us. Providing once
again, how much he enjoys meddling in local government. And thank you commissioners for letting this
happen. And I am very sorry that the truth bothers you.

[crosstalk 00:23:02]-

And what I read was the truth.

... truth is.

You have involvement in the vineyards. And-

Sir, take him out.

Yeah.

Either, he's not wanting to sit up there. Do you want to talk about county business-

Let me get my coffee.


... you're welcome to.

Yeah.

County business is what we're here for.

Yeah. Yeah.

You all have any commissioner comments now? I don't know what to say. So, I just thank everybody for
coming. And-
Secretary (23:37):
We got more appearances.

Yeah. If you all don't have any commissioner comments, I'll make a motion to adjourn.

I'll move them.
Jeff Long (23:48):

Motion to adjourn.

I'll second it.

All in favor of adjourn, say aye.
Group (23:50):
Aye.


Catoosa Superior SUCV2022000346 Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Catoosa Superior SUCV2022000346 Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT

CATOOSA COUNTY, GEORGIA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CATOOSA COUNTY

NOW COMES Plaintiff, George Battersby (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and files

this Complaint, showing the Court as follows:

Defendant STEVEN M. HENRY (“Defendant Henry”) is one of the persons

Lane, Ringgold, GA 30736.

Defendant JEFF LONG (“Defendant Long”) is one of the persons who is

Street, Fort Oglethorpe, GA 30742.

Defendant THOMAS HARRIS (“Defendant Harris”) is the government

employee, believed to be a sheriff’s deputy or law enforcement officer, who is

Department at 5842 US-41 Ringgold, Georgia, 30736.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND FOR CLAIMS

Plaintiff is a resident of Catoosa County and was present at a Catoosa County

Board of Commissioners meeting (“Board meeting”) on May 4, 2021.

A transcript of the audio recording of the Board Meeting is attached and

hereby incorporated as Exhibit A.

Catoosa County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”) at the Board meeting on

1 of the Board at the Board meeting on May 4, 2021.

the other county commissioners.

Plaintiff began detailing a factual background of past participations and

Plaintiff began speaking regarding Defendant Steven Henry’s campaign

interrupted by Defendant Henry.

about the facts stated while addressing the Board.

Defendant Steven Henry’s.

Defendant Henry then proceeded to call Plaintiff a “liar” and threatened to

have him escorted out of the meeting.

meeting, to which Defendant Harris complied.

Approximately one week after the meeting, Defendant Henry appeared on a

local cable show called “Night Talk” on UCTV.

Defendant Henry disagreed.

for not putting a stop to [Plaintiff speaking] five years ago.”

from coming to meetings in the future.

could keep Plaintiff from attending meetings.

attorney whether Plaintiff could be barred from future meetings.

you can do anything.”

42. U.S. CODE § 1983 CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS

Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.

Plaintiff’s civil rights protected under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 were violated by

Defendants, wherefore Plaintiff is entitled to bring this cause of action against

42. U.S. CODE § 1983 : FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AND

Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.

Pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Plaintiff is

government for a redress of grievances.

meeting by Defendant Harris and at the direction of Defendant Henry, in direct

his time addressing the Board.

Plaintiff committed no expression of unprotected speech, such as fighting

words or other types of unlawful threats.

Defendants failed to state that Plaintiff violated any reasonable policies in

Defendants’ Henry and Long’s practice, arising to the level of a policy or

procedure of Catoosa County, directly caused Plaintiff’s rights to be violated.

removed from a public meeting for engaging in protected speech.

Defendant Long colluded and conspired with Defendant Henry in retaliating

Henry abused their constitutional authority by attempting to deprive Plaintiff of his

rights now and in the future.

Defendant Henry, in addition to retaliating against Plaintiff for speech

government. Overall, Defendant Henry prevented Plaintiff from exercising free

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS CLAIM

Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs.

law in which he allegedly violated, as well as inquiring of ways to prevent Plaintiff

from attending future meetings, Defendants engaged in an unlawful deprivation of

Plaintiff’s due process rights by enforcing a non-existent and non-promulgated law

STATE LAW CLAIMS: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF