A fair and just system of law

Is it possible to have a fair and just system of law in this country? Judging by the events of the past few years We’d have to say no. In this county we have a system of law enforcement that has been allowed to neglect their duties and allow crimes to go unpunished and fines to go uncollected. We have a system of law enforcement that has been allowed to “steal” taxpayer’s money by spending it on personal items while not receiving any criminal charges and are allowed to remain employed. We have a system of law enforcement that has been allowed to disregard the safety of inmates and not be held individually liable for this neglect. And now it seems that a Federal District Judge is considering allowing this system of law enforcement to neglect the rights and safety of inmates and not be held liable in their official capacity as well.

In the case of Scott Crow v. Marty Montgomery, U.S. District Judge Wm. R. Wilson wrote a response to a Writ of Mandamus before the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals where he says that he will likely reconsider and dismiss the case against the county in light of a statement made by the Court of Appeals in an earlier decision. Judge Wilson writes,

In the penultimate paragraph of its decision, the Court expressed its view on the merits of Crow’s official capacity claim, an issue that was not before the Court on Defendants’ interlocutory appeal:

Crow alleges, at most, institution-wide deficiencies which were known to these supervisory officials but over which they had only partial control. On these facts, we refuse to hold supervisory jail officials liable for acts that may or may not have contributed to Crow’s injury in June of 2001. In short, there is no record evidence of anything beyond the FCDC officials’ simple negligence. Thus, on the facts taken in the light most favorable to Crow, he has not made out a constitutional violation.

[. . .]

If the Court dismisses the Writ of Mandamus as inappropriate, as I think that it should, it is most likely that I will reconsider and dismiss the case against the county in light of the quoted paragraph.

It seems clear to me that this is not an earthquake type of case that would cause the Court to employ the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

Well it may not be an earthquake case to the Judges but I guarantee you that it was to Scott Crow. Now in the original ruling by the district court Judge Wilson denied a motion for summary judgment by the county stating there is a genuine issue of material fact in question. The County’s lawyer, Michael Rainwater, filed an appeal to the 8th District Court of Appeals asking for qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. §1983 from individual liability.

In a ruling that the Appeals Court itself calls as out of the ordinary they over turn the District Court’s denial for summary judgment and grant the appeal for qualified immunity. Now this in itself sets a disturbing standard that will make it harder for inmates to get justice for injuries sustained due to the neglect and/or abuse committed by jailers all across the U.S. But to now have the District Judge state his intention to dismiss based solely on an extraordinary ruling is pushing this standard to a dangerous level.

The precedence set in this case should it be dismissed is far reaching. It will allow jail administrators to neglect the needs of inmates without fear of any civil and maybe even criminal liability. Have we as a society really come to the point where our rights are only as good as our standing in the community?

As predicted the Appeals Court has denied the writ of mandamus and sent this case back to Judge Wilson for adjudication. It is now up to him to decide once again if a jury will hear the facts in this case or if he will set the system of justice back a few hundred years.

The facts of this case must be heard. If you feel as we do and want to help call Judge Wilson’s office at (501) 604-5140 and express your concerns about dismissing this case. And if your so inclined call or email the local media outlets and ask them to do a story about this case.

Well, well, well

Well, well, well is all that can be said about last night’s Quorum Court meeting. Marilyn Clifton was scheduled to address the court on the topic of lack of law enforcement but was unable to attend. In her place was an on again, off again, part time investigator for the sheriff’s office, Jim Hedrick, an investigator we are all too familiar with.

Hedrick got up and introduced himself and then proceeded to scold the members of the court for cutting the sheriff’s office budget by $250,000. This he says has led to his dismissal and has left the county unsafe.

“There are many times that we have only 2 deputies on duty for the entire county”, Hedrick adds, “when the 2 deputies were shot recently they were the only ones on duty, what if my wife needed a deputy to respond, what would we have done?”

While these are very good points, Jim, but you are however wrong about this being a budgetary problem. In a very polite way F&A committee members, JPs Wells, Blankenship, and Kellar, informed Mr. Hedrick that they have not cut the overall budget at the sheriff’s office but simply split its appropriations to quarterly rather that annually. In fact JP Wells told him the sheriff’s budget has increase dramatically in the past 4 years.

Treasurer Regina Oakley then tells Hedrick that the sheriff’s office has over $56,000 appropriated for part-time employees with $48,000 left in its budget at the time. She adds that last year Sheriff Marty Montgomery returned $112,000 from his budget. In what we believe to be a ploy to divert the public’s attention from the spending issues that has led to the quarterly appropriations.

One has to feel sorry for Jim’s plight, well almost. Ironically it was the actions and/or inactions of then investigator Hedrick that has led us in part to write our site and now to see him complaining about the lack of law enforcement is priceless.

This is just another shining example of Sheriff Montgomery’s wonderful administration. It appears that instead of admitting there is a problem with spending at his department and working to correct it he returns money back to the county while leaving us citizens ultimately unsafe.

I had a chance to discuss my feelings with Mr. Hedrick after the meeting that led to him getting very upset. It seems he’s rather disturbed about his name being published at this site and has threaten to sue us. I tried to tell him that we have only published the truth about our experiences with his performance as investigator but that didn’t go over well. He ultimately had to be calmed down by Candidate for Sheriff Karl Byrd who was in attendance.

Also in attendance at this meeting was candidate for County Judge and State Representative Preston Scroggin who was there undoubtedly to hear a report about the newest boom business that is about to hit this County, the drilling for natural gas.

County Administrator Mike Hutchens told the court about his and County Judge John Wayne Carter’s recent trip to Cleburne TX. This trip was to investigate what kind of impact this industry will have on the county economically and environmentally since this town had 41 wells. This biggest concern the court shown was for the growth that will likely occur from this.

Hutchens stated that the projected growth for this county already will put us at the third largest county in the state by the next census even before this industry’s plan hit the books. This raises concerns about traffic, infrastructure, and public safety that must be addressed in the real near future by the court.
Hutchens adds that from his visit to TX it is clear that these gas drilling companies are will to work with the county in alleviate any problems that will arise.

Further research is going to have to be done before the court will entertain any regulating ordinances for this win fall industry. In our opinion the research must include environmental impact studies that target the long term effects on the county’s water table from the deep well injections of waste water used in the drilling.

All in all it was a very productive and informative meeting…

Lack of enforcement

On Feb. 21st the Quorum Court will hear from Marilyn Clifton about the lack of law enforcement in her area. We wish to invite all of you that are concerned about this issue to attend this meeting. We started this site because of this very issue, the lack of and/or the incompetence of the sheriff’s office when it comes to enforcing the law. During this site’s run we have seen an astounding lack of accountability in nearly every aspect of the sheriff’s department ran by Sheriff Marty Montgomery.

Everything from not responding to calls, not listing an obvious suspect in the shooting of our dogs, losing evidence in that case, and not arresting a man who shot in the direction of his neighbor, to the admitted misuse of public funds for the sheriff’s tuition and egregious incidents of theft and fraud of the public’s money within the sheriff’s department. But that’s not the end of their incredible list of inactions.

We as a county still have millions in overdue fines that the sheriff is in charge of collecting but hasn’t. We know of one particular case adjudicated in Nov. 2004 where the offender was ordered to pay fines and cost of just over $900 and $150 in restitution for the crimes he had committed but has failed to pay any of it. This individual was recently given another 6 months to pay these fines by the sheriff’s and victims services’ offices because of his claims of poverty. We find this hard to believe since this man owns his own home, motor home, about 8 cars, a “welding” shop, and at least $20,000+ in auto repair tools that he’s not allowed to use for business purposes. Is it any wonder why the county is owed millions of dollars when the sheriff’s office takes such a sluggish approach to its collection?

Now it is still unclear at this point exactly what has transpired in Ms. Clifton’s area that has lead her to address the Quorum Court about this issue but it certainly needs to be addressed. We will be there to express our views and concerns; we hope to see you there as well…

Speaking of Lawsuits. . .

There is a case coming up this month in Federal Court involving a man who was beaten by as many as 4 inmates while being at the Faulkner County Detention Center for less than an hour. Scott A. Crow filed a lawsuit back in June 2002 alleging violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Crow's jaw was broken in 3 places that required surgery and metal plates to put it back together.

In an appeal from the United States District Court of Appeals for the Eastern District of Arkansas, No. 03-3859, the district court denied a summary judgment motion for qualified immunity made by defendants Marty Montgomery, Kyle Kelly, and Gene Stephens. The district court found genuine issues of material fact existed and said the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on their qualified immunity defense. The US District Court of Appeals reversed the decision and gave the defendants immunity from individual liability; however the lawsuit proceeds against the County. If we look back at the court’s ruling we see something interesting,

The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual
punishments." U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment requires prison officials to take "reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates [and] . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-33 (1994) (quotations omitted). In order to establish a constitutional violation, Crow must show: (1) that his incarceration in cell 305 posed a substantial risk of serious harm (objective component), and (2) the FCDC officials actually knew of but disregarded, or were deliberately indifferent to, Crow's health or safety (subjective component). Pagels v.
Morrison, 335 F.3d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. Everett, 140 F.3d 1149, 1151 (8th Cir. 1998).

For purposes of this appeal we assume that Crow's incarceration in cell 305
posed a substantial risk of serious harm to Crow and that the FCDC officials were aware of the risk. However, we reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity because, as a matter of law, the facts alleged by Crow do not establish that the FCDC officials disregarded any known risk alleged by Crow.

[Emphasis added]

The facts do not establish that the sheriff's office disregarded any know risk? Let's look a the facts for a moment. First Crow turned himself in for allegedly violating his parole, that had already ended, and was scheduled to see the judge the next morning. In the briefs for this appeal jailers admit to putting Crow in a cell with long term violent offenders when he should have been housed elsewhere. This in itself would constitutes a disregard to Crow's safety but that's not the end of the story. In this cell was a prisoner who had just come off a stay in isolation for breaking the jaw of another inmate just weeks before. This would seem to raise the level of possible harm that could befall not only Crow but all the other inmates that were in that cell. The simple fact that the jail administrators were aware of the dangers and did nothing to alleviate them shows their indifference. That leaves of was this indifference deliberate?

In other lawsuits the courts have acknowledge that fact that a new jail was planned and sided with the County but how does simply planning for a new jail protect the inmates currently incarcerated? The fact is that it doesn't and continuing to house prisoners in what they themselves call unsafe condition constitutes a deliberate act. Take a look at some of the comments made in the press in 1999 about jail overcrowding and the safety of inmates.

Sheriff Marty Montgomery said the stress of being incarcerated in the first place is intensified by the overcrowding.

"Anytime you have 23 people in a 12-man cell ... it just exacerbates an already bad situation," he said.

Kelly and Montgomery both said the increased number of fights also leads to increased medical costs for the jail.

"When you have fights, you often have injuries," Montgomery said. "Anything can happen ... people could get injured or, God forbid, there could be a death."

Prisoner's medical costs, which are paid by the county, are also increased because germs spread easily within large groups of people sharing one area.

The increased number of fights and the increased need for medical attention combine with many other factors to place a large amount of stress on the understaffed jail administrators, according to Montgomery.

"We have to be careful and watch for burnout closely because these individuals are under a great deal of stress ... controlling this many inmates," he said.

And let's not forget Sheriff Montgomery's infamous "...we are out of options. The only alternative we would have would be a reduction of services," statement to the press also in 1999. Could this reduction in services have been at the jail?

That's hard to say for sure but one thing that is a surety is this case is costing us taxpayers money for the Sheriff's and the County's defense and possible damages should Crow win his suit. Another black eye for our spectacular sheriff's department and another blemish on Sheriff Montgomery's illustrious career...